Pro & Con: do all ultrasound units need 3-D capabilities? (Opinion).

YES Three-dimensional capabilities should be on every ultrasound machine, but 3-D doesn't have to be used on every patient who gets an ultrasound. If I'm in a room that doesn't have 3-D, I will often move to a different room, because I'm using 3-D more and more every day. If it's not on the machine, then you don't have an opportunity to work with it.

There are some problems with resolution, but the technology is changing at an incredibly fast rate. I have no doubt that the resolution will improve very quickly.

The 3-D may be the only way to get a volume or to look at a view that you cannot otherwise get. If it's a question of seeing that view or not seeing it at all, even if it's lesser resolution, I think it is important to see it.

It is vital to learn to work with 3-D now We need to keep up as practitioners with the technology that's coming out. Volume scanning is going to come whether we're ready or not.

There are many, many studies that suggest that 3-D adds to demonstrating fetal defects. Among them, my colleague Dr. Harm-Gerd Blaas did a study on early diagnosis of abnormalities such as holoprosencephaly and found that the use of 3-D and volume reconstructions improved the imaging and understanding of the condition.

I have found it particularly useful in measuring first-trimester nuchal translucency When the fetus is in the wrong position for two-dimensional (2-D) imaging, you can get your third view, nuchal translucency orientation, a longitudinal view of the fetus with 3-D.

There are areas such as the fetal ears, fetal sutures, and uterine shape where our mind's eye reconstruction may not demonstrate the image as well as the actual display would. The display helps us discuss our findings with our colleagues and our patients, who are nor trained to imagine 2-D images in 3-D form.