Content uploaded by Sanja Kupesic Plavsic
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Sanja Kupesic Plavsic on Nov 20, 2017
Content may be subject to copyright.
408 JAYPEE
Aparna Atluru et al
REVIEW ARTICLE
Maternal-Fetal Bonding: Ultrasound Imaging’s Role in
enhancing This Important Relationship
Aparna Atluru, Kallie Appleton, Sanja Kupesic Plavsic
10.5005/jp-journals-10009-1263
ABSTRACT
New technology in ultrasound imaging is allowing women to
view more visually precise images of their fetuses than ever
before. Maternal-fetal bonding describes the attachment
interaction that forms between a mother and her unborn child.
Ultrasound diagnosis modalities including two-dimensional (2D),
three-dimensional (3D) and four-dimensional (4D) may create
differences in the amount of maternal-fetal bonding, depending
on the modality used. When relevant literature was reviewed
on this topic, no significant difference between maternal-fetal
bonding was found when comparing 2D vs 3D vs 4D ultrasound.
However, certain measures such as a perceived feeling of
closeness to the baby were higher with 3D and 4D ultrasounds
as compared with 2D ultrasound. Further exploration is needed
to ascertain whether different ultrasound modalities have an
effect on maternal-fetal bonding in multigestational pregnancies,
pregnancies in which there is fetal demise, and to overall
examine the effects of using ultrasound for nonmedical
‘entertainment’ purposes by prospective mothers.
Keywords: Maternal-fetal bonding, Two-dimensional
ultrasound, Three-dimensional ultrasound, Four-dimensional
ultrasound, Attachment.
How to cite this article: Atluru A, Appleton K, Kupesic Plavsic
S. Maternal-Fetal Bonding: Ultrasound Imaging’s Role in
enhancing This Important Relationship. Donald School J
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2012;6(4):408-411.
Source of support: Nil
Conflict of interest: None declared
INTRODUCTION
Advances in ultrasound imaging technology are allowing
women visually-precise glimpses of their babies months
before delivery. The function of these imaging modalities
including two-dimensional (2D), three-dimensional (3D)
and four-dimensional (4D) ultrasound is three-fold. Not only
are such advances in ultrasound technology allowing
expectant mothers to see details of their baby’s physique,
but also such modalities allow a better visual understanding
of the fetal structures and growth. Ultrasound imaging is
also able to aid physicians in early diagnosis of birth defects
and abnormalities. Maternal-fetal bonding is a complex
interaction which begins prenatally and past studies been
shown to increase, when the expectant mother is able to see
ultrasound images of her fetus before birth.1 While
ultrasound has traditionally been used in evaluating
pregnancies, the question remains: does a 2D vs 3D or even
4D ultrasound affect this maternal-fetal bonding
relationship? Health care professionals need to understand
the important relationships between 2D, 3D and 4D
ultrasound imaging modalities, as these can be used to
potentially nurture the psychological relationship between
the expecting parents and the fetus.
MATERNAL-FETAL BONDING
The significance of the relationship between mother and
fetus is called ‘prenatal attachment’. Further defined by
Cranley in 1981, maternal fetal attachment (MFA) is ‘the
extent to which women engage in behaviors that represent
an affiliation and interaction with their unborn child’.2
Maternal-fetal attachment is positively influenced by
many factors including the mother’s state of mind,
surroundings and environment, social support system, as
well as negatively influenced by factors, such as substance
abuse and anxiety.2
Prenatal studies have been shown to be powerful tools
in nurturing the MFA between an expectant mother and her
unborn fetus. While there has been little difference on the
MFA in visual prenatal studies such as ultrasound vs
nonvisual studies, it is important to recognize the positive
effects a prenatal ultrasound can have on this important
relationship.1 Ultrasound has been shown to give parents a
confirmation of a new life, through two components:
ultrasound provides a visualization of the baby, and a
realization that the unit will soon become a family.
Ultrasound is also known to be a reassuring tool, showing
that the life-form carried inside the expectant mother is
indeed a baby.3 It has been shown that ultrasound decreases
maternal partaking in risky behaviors during pregnancy,
such as alcohol intake.4 Such positive attributes of
ultrasound in pregnancy should not be overlooked. The bond
that has been shown to start before birth of the baby is
enhanced when the mother can be aware of the growing
baby inside her.1
One expectant mother remarks that, ‘…there actually is
something so almost completely developed it just has to
grow. That such good technology exists—it’s
unbelievable…they can see so much’.3 Whatever, the draw
for a mother to desire to see her fetus, there is no denying
that ultrasound techniques in the obstetric field can be
powerful in enhancing and shaping the maternal-fetal
bonding and attachment that is underway.
Donald School Journal of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology, October-December 2012;6(4):408-411 409
DSJUOG
Maternal-Fetal Bonding: Ultrasound Imaging’s Role in enhancing This Important Relationship
OVERVIEW OF 2D, 3D AND 4D ULTRASOUND
MODALITIES ON MATERNAL-FETAL BONDING
Currently, 2D, 3D and 4D ultrasound modalities can be
offered to expectant mothers for imaging. Much research
has gone into the development of theories regarding which
ultrasound technique is most effective in nurturing and
enhancing MFA.
Despite the fact that the most basic ultrasound, 2D,
cannot show surface rendering and definite physique as 3D
imaging, as 3D allows multiplanar evaluation, and
assessment of spatial, and volumetric relationships,5 there
has been little difference shown between the relationship
or feelings expressed by the expectant mother after viewing
their baby on a 2D vs 3D ultrasound. Mothers and fathers
found both imaging modalities helpful in knowing that baby
was real and healthy.6 However, one study shows that 82%
of mothers would chose 3D ultrasound over 2D ultrasound
because of the sense of closeness they feel due to the
enhanced images.7
2D ultrasound can be difficult for the mother and father
to interpret and understand. However, 3D ultrasound
provides clear imaging of important anatomical landmarks
such as the skull and face.6 It has also been shown that
families can experience some disappointment with 3D
ultrasound, as the imaging’s capabilities may leave them
disappointed with the quality of 3D images they receive.7
One study gave women a 2D ultrasound followed by a 3D
ultrasound weeks later. There was found to be no difference
between the bonding. It has been suggested that this lack of
difference can be attributed to the ‘ceiling effect’ of a 2D
ultrasound. By the time the mother has experienced a 2D
ultrasound, she has already maximally felt bonding and
attachment.4
3D ultrasound has been shown to more positive effect
the parents’ enthusiasm over the pregnancy, especially in
social situations (showing off the 3D images to the family
and friends, etc.).7,8 3D ultrasound has been very popular
in the media, as the fetal face can be very closely identified.9
Leung et al8 assessed 124 women attending prenatal
ultrasound clinic.8 Maternal anxiety levels were compared
between two groups of patients (intervention group, in which
2D ultrasound was followed by 3D ultrasound, and control
group, in which 2D ultrasound alone was performed) at
patient’s first visit, 18 and 28 weeks’ gestation. This study
demonstrated a short-term reduction of the anxiety score
after the first visit, and no significant difference between
the groups. However, about 80% of women reported being
able to tell that the baby was more real in 3D ultrasound
over 2D ultrasound.8
In comparing 2D and 4D ultrasound fathers have
experienced more bonding with their future babies with 4D
ultrasound. Paternal attachment even decreased after
viewing a 2D ultrasound, whereas it inevitably increased
after viewing a 4D ultrasound. However, maternal
attachment was always shown to increase after 4D and 2D
ultrasound.10 It has been suggested that men are more
concerned with the technique.3 Perhaps men are more
visually stimulated by high-tech and detailed graphics.
Fathers have also been shown to be more excited about the
prospects of 3D ultrasound over 2D.11
Tables 1 and 2 demonstrate ultrasound characteristics
and comparison between 2D, 3D and 4D ultrasound in MFA.
Overall, ultrasound imaging was shown to be ‘less real’ for
women who had yet to feel quickening or movement of the
baby. Women in their second pregnancy were able to
appreciate ultrasound more as showing a ‘real’ baby, as they
have previously experienced all sensations associated with
Table 1: Ultrasound imaging characteristics in maternal-fetal attachment
Imaging modality Image quality, limitations and advantages Maternal preference Paternal preference
2D US JI et al6—difficult to understand image Sedgmen et al4 suggest Righetti et al10—attachment has
‘ceiling effect’ after 2D US actually decreased after 2D US
for mothers
3D US Timor-Tritsch and Platt5—multiplanar JI et al6—mothers had higher Jl et al6—overall more enthusiastic
evaluation, spatial and volumetric expectations that were not feelings toward fetus
relationships met; overall more enthusiastic
feelings
Jl et al6 allow physicians and patients
to see facial features
Goncalves et al10 popular due to the
ability to see facial features
4D US Righetti et al10—paternal
attachment has increased after
4D US
2D: Two-dimensional; 3D: Three-dimensional; 4D: Four-dimensional; US: Ultrasound
410 JAYPEE
Aparna Atluru et al
pregnancy. Fathers and mothers alike have remarked that
after ultrasound imaging they feel more like parents. One
woman even remarked that her partner acted more gentle
and kind toward her after ultrasound imaging.3
Many have been concerned over the morality of
ultrasound. Does entertaining the mother and father with
images of their baby outweigh the risks of finding fetal
abnormalities? Could ultrasound even cause more
abortions? Is ultrasound a ‘weapon of morality’?12 It is
important that parents be well-informed about the potential
implications of ultrasound in medical diagnosis. Educating
parents can help reduce possible shock associated with
identifying fetal abnormalities and/or other adverse
outcomes.13
CONCLUSION
Maternal-fetal bonding is a very complex concept that at
its simplest describes the emotional attachment between an
expectant mother and her growing fetus. There are many
components that contribute to parental bonding, which
include environmental factors, such as social support and
prenatal screening. It seems that 3D and 4D ultrasound may
change the parental attitude toward pregnancy and may
contribute to an increase in bonding to fetus. While studies
have not shown any explicit difference in the level of
bonding with the use of 2D vs 3D vs 4D ultrasound, after
reviewing the effects of various types of ultrasound on
maternal-fetal bonding, it is evident that there is a wide
range of associated topics that may prove fruitful if further
explored. These topics include examining the effects of
different ultrasound modalities in multiple pregnancies and
the effects of different ultrasound modalities in instances
of fetal demise. Some findings suggest that experiencing a
miscarriage in a previous pregnancy does not necessarily
affect a woman’s psychological mindset in a following
pregnancy.14 However, examining the role of various
ultrasound modalities in pregnancies in which fetal demise
occurs is warranted, as the type of ultrasound may impact
maternal perception to varying degrees during a subsequent
pregnancy. Examining the role of different ultrasound
modalities and the effect they may have on maternal-fetal
bonding in multiple pregnancies is also warranted. For
instance, one study suggested that mothers felt more
attachment to twin B in a twin pregnancy as twin B may be
easier to see or touch.16 By comparing 2D vs 3D vs 4D
ultrasound, we may be able to ascertain if these disparate
ultrasound types may favor equal MFA among fetuses in
multiple pregnancies, may favor increased MFA to one of
the fetuses, or may change the quality or characteristics of
MFA as a whole.
Additionally, previous research has found that higher
maternal education levels correlated with larger head
growth.15 More research is warranted in examining, if
maternal prenatal education (including the effect of
ultrasound different types of ultrasound) has any correlation
to both physical and psychological factors involving the
fetus. In some areas and in certain demographics, 3D and
4D ultrasounds have become largely employed for
nonmedical entertainment reasons, i.e. ‘boutique’
ultrasounds that parents desire as keepsakes.17 According
to one study, no significant harm has been found in children
who had multiple prenatal ultrasounds, as compared with
children who had minimal ultrasound imaging prior to
birth.18 However, the use of 3D and 4D ultrasounds for
Table 2: Two-dimensional vs three-dimensional vs four-dimensional ultrasound imaging comparisons in maternal-fetal attachments
2D vs 4D ultrasound
Lapaire et al7—82% of expectant mothers preferred 3D over 2D due to ‘closeness’; however, there was no difference between
relationship and expressed feelings
Sedgmen et al4—no difference between the two; perhaps 2D ultrasound has ‘ceiling effect.’
JI et al6—both are helpful in helping mothers feel close and experience the reality of their baby; parents were found to be more
excited to show off 3D US images.
Leung et al8—80% of women had better understanding that their baby was ‘normal’ with 3D over 2D US
2D vs 4D ultrasound
Righetti et al10—little difference between the two ultrasound modalities. Mothers had increased MFA with 2D and 4D. Father’s felt
decreased attachment after 2D but increased after 4D US
3D vs 4D ultrasound
Pretorius et al11—both 3D and 4D US have positive change in parent's feelings toward the fetus
2D vs 3D/4D ultrasound
Leung et al8—at risk pregnancies did not have decreased anxiety with 3D/4D ultrasound compared with 2D. A total of 80% of
women thought that following 3D/4D US, they had better understanding that their baby was normal
2D: Two-dimensional; 3D: Three-dimensional; 4D: Four-dimensional; MFA: Maternal-fetal attachment; US: Ultrasound
Donald School Journal of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology, October-December 2012;6(4):408-411 411
DSJUOG
Maternal-Fetal Bonding: Ultrasound Imaging’s Role in enhancing This Important Relationship
nonmedical purposes remains controversial. Further research
is warranted on whether mothers who have been screened
using different ultrasound modalities have different attitudes
toward their fetuses, their health and future pregnancies.
REFERENCES
1. Kleinveld J, Timmermans D, van den Berg M, van Eijk J, Ten
Kate LP. Does offering and performing prenatal screening
influence women’s attachment to their unborn child? A
longitudinal randomized controlled trial. Prenat Diagn 2007;
27:757-64.
2. Alhusen J. A literature update on maternal-fetal attachment.
JOGNN 2008; 37:315-28.
3. Ekelin M, Crang-Svalenius E, Dykes AK. A qualitative study
of mothers’ and fathers’ experiences of routine ultrasound
examination in Sweden. Midwifery 2004;30:335-44.
4. Sedgmen B, McMahon C, Cairns D, Benzie RJ, Woodfiled RL.
The impact of two-dimensional versus three-dimensional
ultrasound exposure on maternal-fetal attachment and maternal
health behavior in pregnancy. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2006;
27(3):245-51.
5. Timor-Tritsch I, Platt L. Three-dimensional ultrasound
experience in obstetrics. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol 2002;
14(6):569-75.
6. JI EK, Pretorius DH, Newton R, Uyan K, Hull AD, Hollenbach
K, et al. Effects of ultrasound on maternal-fetal bonding: A
comparison of two- and three-dimensional imaging. Ultrasound
Obstet Gynecol 2005 May;25(5):473-77.
7. Lapaire O, Alder J, Peukert R, Holzgreve W, Tercanli S. Two-
versus three-dimensional ultrasound in the second and third
trimester of pregnancy: Impact on recognition and maternal-
fetal bonding. A prospective pilot study. Arch Gynecol Obstet
2007 Nov; 276(5):475-79.
8. Leung KY, Ngai CSW, Lee A, Chan HY, Leung WC, Lee CP,
et al. The effects on maternal anxiety of two-dimensional versus
two- plus three-/four-dimensional ultrasound in pregnancies at
risk of fetal abnormalities: A randomized study. Ultrasound
Obstet Gynecol 2006;28:249-54.
9. Goncalves L, Lee W, Espinoza J, Romero R. Three- and
4-dimensional ultrasound in obstetric practice—does it help? J
Ultrasound Med 2005;24:1599-624.
10. Righetti PL, Dell’Avanzon M, Grigio M, Nicolini U. Maternal/
paternal antenatal attachment and fourth-dimensional ultrasound
technique: A preliminary report. Br J Psychol 2005;96:129-37.
11. Pretorius D, Gattu S, Ji EK, Hollenbach K, Newton R, Hull A,
et al. Preexamination and postexamination assessment of
parental-fetal bonding in patients undergoing 3-/4-dimensional
obstetric ultrasonography. J Ultrasound Med 2006;25:
1411-21.
12. Fletcher J, Evans M. Sounding boards: Maternal bonding in
early fetal ultrasound examinations. N Engl J Med 1983;
308(7):392-93.
13. Garcia J, Bricker L, Henderson J, Martin MA, Mugford M,
Nielson J, et al. Women’s views of pregnancy ultrasound: A
systematic review. Birth 2002;29(4):225-50.
14. Tsartsara E, Johnson MP. The impact of miscarriage on women’s
pregnancy—-specific anxiety and feelings of prenatal maternal
fetal attachment during the course of a subsequent pregnancy:
An exploratory follow-up study. Psychosom Obstet Gynaecol
2006;27(3):173-82.
15. Silva LM, Jansen PW, Steegers EA, Jaddoe VW, Arends LR,
Tiemeier H, et al. Mother’s educational level and fetal growth:
The genesis of health inequalities. Int J Epidemiol 2010
Oct;39(5):1250-61.
16. Damato EG. Maternal-fetal attachment in twin pregnancies. J
Obstet Gynecol Neonatal Nurs 2000 Nov-Dec;29(6):598-605.
17. Watts G. First Pictures One for the Album. BMJ 2007;
334(7587):232-33.
18. Newnham JP, Doherty DA, Kendall GE, Zubrick SR, Landau
LL, Stanley FJ. Effects of repeated prenatal ultrasound
examinations on childhood outcome up to 8 years of age: Follow-
up of a randomized controlled trial. Lancet 2004 Dec 4-10;
364(9450):2038-44.
ABOUT THE AUTHORS
Aparna Atluru
Student Physician, Department of Medical Education, Paul L Foster
School of Medicine, Texas Tech University, El Paso, Texas, USA
Kallie Appleton
Student Physician, Department of Medical Education, Paul L Foster
School of Medicine, Texas Tech University, El Paso, Texas, USA
Sanja Kupesic Plavsic (Corresponding Author)
Professor, Department of Obstetrics/Gynecology and Radiology, Paul
L Foster School of Medicine, Texas Tech University, El Paso, Texas
USA, Phone: +1 (915)783-1700, e-mail: sanja.kupesic@ttuhsc.edu