Incidence of Fetal Anomalies After Incomplete Anatomic Surveys Between 16 and 22 Weeks
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Midtrimester fetal anatomic surveys by ultrasound are a standard obstetrical practice. As technology has improved, anatomic surveys are increasingly performed at earlier gestational ages. Ultrasound's ability to detect anomalies may be limited before 20 weeks, thereby increasing the likelihood of an incomplete survey. We sought to determine factors contributing to incomplete sonograms and the likelihood of fetal anomalies identified on subsequent examinations. STUDY DESIGN: We conducted a retrospective case-control study by comparing incomplete anatomic surveys from 2004 to 2009 at the University of Washington to an identical number of examinations where the study was completed successfully. Patients with multiple gestations, anomalies, and surveys performed outside of the range of 16 to 22 weeks were excluded. RESULTS: One thousand thirty incomplete and complete surveys were identified. Maternal body mass index and early gestational age less than 18 weeks were associated with incomplete examinations. Incomplete visualization of the cardiac structures and spine were the most common reasons for an incomplete survey. Almost 40% of these incomplete examinations were completed on subsequent ultrasound (mean number of ultrasounds: 2). Five percent had a fetal anomaly or aneuploidy marker identified on subsequent ultrasound. CONCLUSION: Incomplete anatomic surveys were associated with gestational age less than 18 weeks and maternal habitus. Five percent of patients had anomalies or aneuploidy markers on subsequent scans, and the majority of these were cardiac defects were cardiac defects. No spine abnormality was detected in any fetus with incomplete visualization of the spine with normal intracranial anatomy. These data that indicate the optimal timing for anatomic survey is beyond 18 weeks and more than 20 weeks for patients with body mass index greater than 30 kg/m and highlight the importance of subsequent ultrasounds to complete anatomy surveys.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
When an examination cannot be performed completely in accordance with adopted guidelines, abnormalities are eventually detected in 0.5-5% of such cases.
“as abnormalities are eventually detected in 0.5-5% of such cases 11,12 .”
From <scp>ISUOG</scp> Practice Guidelines (updated): performance of the routine mid‐trimester fetal ultrasound scan (2022) · cites this paper as [12]
Cites
Effect of Prenatal Ultrasound Screening on Perinatal Outcome
Ewigman, B., Crane, J. P., Frigoletto, F. D., LeFevre, M. L., Bain, R. P., & McNellis, D. (1993) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejm199309163291201 · Cited by 595 · see citing works
Hendler, I., Blackwell, S. C., Bujold, E., Treadwell, M. C., Wolfe, H. M., Sokol, R. J., & Sorokin, Y. (2004) · International Journal of Obesity · doi:10.1038/sj.ijo.0802759 · Cited by 204 · see citing works
Levi, S. (2002) · Prenatal Diagnosis · doi:10.1002/pd.306 · Cited by 184 · see citing works
Efficacy of Routine Fetal Ultrasound Screening for Congenital Heart Disease in Normal Pregnancy
Buskens, E., Grobbee, D. E., Frohn-Mulder, I. M. E., Stewart, P. A., Juttmann, R. E., Wladimiroff, J. W., & Hess, J. (1996) · Circulation · doi:10.1161/01.cir.94.1.67 · Cited by 181 · see citing works
Maternal Obesity Limits the Ultrasound Evaluation of Fetal Anatomy
Dashe, J. S., McIntire, D. D., & Twickler, D. M. (2009) · Journal of Ultrasound in Medicine · doi:10.7863/jum.2009.28.8.1025 · Cited by 134 · see citing works
Fetal anatomic evaluation in the overweight and obese gravida
Thornburg, L. L., Miles, K., Ho, M., & Pressman, E. K. (2009) · Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology · doi:10.1002/uog.6401 · Cited by 132 · see citing works
Whitlow, B., & Economides, D. L. (1998) · Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology · doi:10.1046/j.1469-0705.1998.11040258.x · Cited by 91 · see citing works
Fetal anomaly detection by second-trimester ultrasonography in a tertiary center
VanDorsten, J. P., Hulsey, T. C., Newman, R., & Menard, M. K. (1998) · American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology · doi:10.1016/s0002-9378(98)70484-3 · Cited by 72 · see citing works
Schwärzler, P., Sénat, M., Holden, D. P., Bernard, J. P., Masroor, T., & Ville, Y. G. (1999) · Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology · doi:10.1046/j.1469-0705.1999.14020092.x · Cited by 70 · see citing works
The accuracy of prenatal ultrasonography in detecting congenital anomalies
Gonçalves, L. F., Jeanty, P., & Piper, J. M. (1994) · American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology · doi:10.1016/0002-9378(94)90411-1 · Cited by 67 · see citing works
Assessment of fetal anatomy in the first trimester using two- and three-dimensional ultrasound
Michailidis, G. D., Papageorgiou, P., & Economides, D. L. (2002) · British Journal of Radiology · doi:10.1259/bjr.75.891.750215 · Cited by 58 · see citing works
Imaging and Obesity: A Perspective During Pregnancy
Maxwell, C. V., & Glanc, P. (2011) · American Journal of Roentgenology · doi:10.2214/ajr.10.5849 · Cited by 45 · see citing works
Impact of maternal obesity on procedure of mid-trimester anomaly scan
Phatak, M., & Ramsay, J. E. (2010) · Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology · doi:10.3109/01443611003797679 · Cited by 42 · see citing works
Limitations of the fetal anatomic survey via ultrasound in the obese obstetrical population
Chung, J. M., Pelayo, R., Hatfield, T. J., Speir, V. J., Wu, J. Y., & Caughey, A. B. (2012) · The Journal of Maternal-Fetal & Neonatal Medicine · doi:10.3109/14767058.2012.670332 · Cited by 42 · see citing works
Sekhavat, S., Kishore, N., & Levine, J. C. (2010) · Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology · doi:10.1002/uog.7467 · Cited by 24 · see citing works
Sonographic Evaluation of the Ventricular Cardiac Outflow Tracts
Vettraino, I. M., Lee, W., Bronsteen, R. A., & Comstock, C. H. (2005) · Journal of Ultrasound in Medicine · doi:10.7863/jum.2005.24.4.566 · Cited by 18 · see citing works
Ultrasound screening for fetal structural anomalies
Gomez, K. J., & Copel, J. A. (1993) · Current Opinion in Obstetrics & Gynecology · doi:10.1097/00001703-199304000-00006 · Cited by 6 · see citing works
Sensitivity of Fetal Anomaly Detection as a Function of Timea
Dervaux, B., Leleu, H., Lebrun, T., LEVI, S., & Grandjean, H. (1998) · Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1111/j.1749-6632.1998.tb08933.x · Cited by 3 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Salomon, L. J., Alfirevic, Z., Berghella, V., Bilardo, C. M., Chalouhi, G. E., Da Silva Costa, F., Hernandez‐Andrade, E., Malinger, G., Munoz, H., Paladini, D., et al. (2022) · Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology · doi:10.1002/uog.24888 · Cited by 436 · see citing works
Imaging and Obesity: A Perspective During Pregnancy
Maxwell, C. V., & Glanc, P. (2011) · American Journal of Roentgenology · doi:10.2214/ajr.10.5849 · Cited by 45 · see citing works
Frequency and Importance of Incomplete Screening Fetal Anatomic Sonography in Pregnancy
Silvestri, M. T., Pettker, C. M., Raney, J. H., Xu, X., & Ross, J. S. (2016) · Journal of Ultrasound in Medicine · doi:10.7863/ultra.16.01084 · Cited by 18 · see citing works
Utility of follow-up standard sonography for fetal anomaly detection
Byrne, J. J., Morgan, J. L., Twickler, D. M., McIntire, D. D., & Dashe, J. S. (2020) · American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology · doi:10.1016/j.ajog.2020.01.001 · Cited by 15 · see citing works
What Is the Rate of Incomplete Fetal Anatomic Surveys During a Second‐Trimester Scan?
Padula, F., Gulino, F. A., Capriglione, S., Giorlandino, M., Cignini, P., Mastrandrea, M. L., D’Emidio, L., & Giorlandino, C. (2015) · Journal of Ultrasound in Medicine · doi:10.7863/ultra.15.01029 · Cited by 14 · see citing works
Detailed Fetal Anatomic Ultrasound Examination Duration and Association With Body Mass Index
Gupta, V., Adams, J. H., Heiser, T., Iruretagoyena, J. I., Hoppe, K. K., & Antony, K. M. (2019) · Obstetrics and Gynecology · doi:10.1097/aog.0000000000003489 · Cited by 12 · see citing works
Indeterminate Prenatal Ultrasounds and Maternal Anxiety: A Prospective Cohort Study
Gross, M. S., Ju, H., Osborne, L. M., Jelin, E. B., Sekar, P., & Jelin, A. C. (2021) · Maternal and Child Health Journal · doi:10.1007/s10995-020-03042-x · Cited by 10 · see citing works
The Utility of Repeat Midtrimester Anatomy Ultrasound for Anomaly Detection
Wood, S. L., Owen, J., Jenkins, S. M., & Harper, L. M. (2018) · American Journal of Perinatology · doi:10.1055/s-0038-1626715 · Cited by 10 · see citing works
Getchell, G., Horan, S., Sagaser, K. G., & Hercher, L. (2022) · Journal of Genetic Counseling · doi:10.1002/jgc4.1664 · Cited by 7 · see citing works
Neonatal echocardiogram in duodenal obstruction is unnecessary after normal fetal cardiac imaging
Stephens, C. Q., Dukhovny, S. E., Rowland, K. J., & Hamilton, N. A. (2018) · Journal of Pediatric Surgery · doi:10.1016/j.jpedsurg.2018.04.039 · Cited by 6 · see citing works
Detailed Fetal Anatomic Ultrasound Examination
Fratto, V. M., Chang, A., Anton, T., Sun, H. Y., Lamale‐Smith, L. M., & Pretorius, D. H. (2018) · Ultrasound Quarterly · doi:10.1097/ruq.0000000000000392 · Cited by 7 · see citing works
Lendrum, T. L., Shaffer, R. K., & Heyborne, K. (2022) · American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology MFM · doi:10.1016/j.ajogmf.2022.100567 · Cited by 5 · see citing works
Poehlmann, J. R., Timmel, A., Adams, J. H., Gupta, V., Rhoades, J. S., Iruretagoyena, J. I., Hoppe, K. K., & Antony, K. M. (2020) · Journal of Ultrasound in Medicine · doi:10.1002/jum.15554 · Cited by 2 · see citing works
3rd trimester ultrasound assessment
Villalaín, C., Galindo, A., Gómez‐Montes, E., & Herraı̀z, I. (2025) · Best Practice & Research Clinical Obstetrics & Gynaecology · doi:10.1016/j.bpobgyn.2025.102593 · Cited by 2 · see citing works
Adipositas und Schwangerschaftsrisiken
Weichert, J. (2022) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-662-61906-3_6
Combs, C. A., Balogun, O. A., Vanderhoeven, J., & Amara, S. (2025) · Journal of Clinical Medicine · doi:10.3390/jcm14103356
- Authors
- Waller, S. A., O’Connell, K., Carter, A., Gravett, M. G., Dighe, M., Richardson, M. L., & Dubinsky, T. J.
- Affiliations
- University of Washington (US)
- Corresponding author
- Waller, Sarah A.
- O’Connell, Kathleen
- Carter, Ashley
- Gravett, Michael G.
- Venue
- Ultrasound Quarterly
- Published
- 2013-12
- Volume
- 29
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 307-312
- ISSN
- 0894-8771 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2330636213
- Cited by
- 16
- References
- 18
- Citations by year
- 2025: 2 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 3 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 1
- FWCI
- 0.62
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Ultrasound Quarterly (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health › Prenatal Screening and Diagnostics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Congenital Anomalies and Fetal Surgery
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health › Fetal and Pediatric Neurological Disorders
- Keywords
- fetal malformations, gestational age, maternal body mass index, cardiac defects
- MeSH terms
- Congenital Abnormalities, Female, Gestational Age, Humans, Male, Pregnancy, Pregnancy Trimester, Second, Risk Factors, Sensitivity and Specificity, Washington, Reproducibility of Results, Body Mass Index, Incidence, Ultrasonography, Prenatal
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review