Published date: Dec 03 2017

Journal Title: KnE Life Sciences

Issue title: The Veterinary Medicine International Conference (VMIC)

Pages: 125-138

DOI: 10.18502/kls.v3i6.1122

Djamil SuhermanMedicine Faculty of Airlangga University

Hermanto Tri JoewonoMedicine Faculty of Airlangga University

I Komang Wiarsa SardjanaVeterinary Medicine Faculty of Airlangga University

Research to determine changes in intrauterine sound pressure in pregnant sheep after administration acoustic stimulation outside of the abdominal wall at some frequency sounds.
The study was conducted at the Animal Hospital of Veterinary Faculty of Airlangga University. Pre test experimental design with pre- and post-test one group to assess intra-uterine sound pressure changes. The study was conducted at two lambs pregnant aterm after acoustic stimulation at a distance of 10 cm from the surface of the abdominal wall to the sound pressure 80,85,90,95 and 100 decibels and sound frequency of 31.5, 63, 125, 250, 500, 1000, 2000, 4000, 6000 and 8000 hertz. The results showed that the difference between the sound pressure outside of the abdominal wall with intrauterine sound pressure on both the pregnant sheep by an average of 16.7570 ± 8.0797 decibels. This shows their weakening sound after passing through the abdominal wall and the uterine wall. By using a paired t-test, this weakening statistically significant. At frequencies from 31.5 to 1000 hertz weakening values from 5.2 to 17.1 decibels while in 2000-8000 hertz frequency weakening value of 20.2 to 30.8 decibels. The conclusion that the stimulation of noise from outside the walls of the abdomen weakening sound after penetrating the abdominal wall and the uterine wall. Weakening occur at every level of sound pressure and at every level of a given frequency. Weakening value becomes greater at frequencies above 1000 hertz.

[1] Richards DS, Frentzen B, Gerhardt KJ, McCann ME, and Abrams RM. 1992. Sound levels in the human uterus. Obstet gynecol, 80:186-90.
[2] Abrams RM, Gerhardt KJ, Rosa C, and Peters AJM. 1995. Fetal acoustic stimulation test : stimulus feature of three artificial larynges recorded in sheep. Am J Obstet Gynecol, 173: 1372-6.
[3] Gagnon R, Benzaquen S, and Hunse C. 1992. The fetal sound environment during vibroacoustic stimulationb in labor: effect on fetal heart rate response. Obstet Gynecol, 79: 950-5.
[4] Peters AJM and Abrams RM. 1993. Fetal vibroacoustic stimulation test: Vibrator response characteristics in pregnant sheep post mortem. Obstet Gynecol , 81: 181-4.
[5] Kisilevsky BS, Kilpatrick KL, and Low JA. 1993. Vibroacoustic-induced fetal movement: two stimuli and two methods of scoring. Obstet Gynecol, 81: 174-7.
[6] Eller DP, Scardo JA, Dillon AE, Stramm SL, and Newman RB. 1995. Distance from an intrauteri hydrophone as a factor affecting intrauteri sound pressure levels produced by the vibrouacoustic stimulation test. Am J Obstet Gynecol, 173:523-7.
[7] Bauer R, Schwab M, Abrams RM, Stein J, and Gerhardt KJ. 1997. Electrocortial and heart rate response during vibroacoustic stimulation in fetal sheep. Am J Obstet Gynecol, 177:66-71.
[8] Eller DP, Robinson LJ, and Newman RB. 1992. Position of the vibroacoustic stimulator does not affect fetal response. Am J Obstet Gynecol, 167:1137-9.
[9] Joewono HT. 2001. The Communication System of the mother fetus. Section of Medical Fetomaternal, Faculty of Medicine of Airlangga University Surabaya Dr. Soetomo Hospital.