Fetal Beyin Patolojisi: MR Görüntüleme ve Ultrason Taramasının Karşılaştırılması

However, in most of the cases, it seems that MR imaging does not provide additional information concerning fetal brain pathology than ultrasound scan alone.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯

Objective & Hypothesis:OBJECTIVES: To compare prenatal MR imaging and ultrasound screening for the diagnosis of fetal brain pathology.

📊

Key Findings & Data:STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective multicenter study of 62 fetuses diagnosed with brain pathology at 2nd trimester ultrasound scan during the period 2003-2008.

💡

Conclusion & Impact:However, in most of the cases, it seems that MR imaging does not provide additional information concerning fetal brain pathology than ultrasound scan alone.

🔬Design:Research Article

📍Scope:2003-2008 Verileri

⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To compare prenatal MR imaging and ultrasound screening for the diagnosis of fetal brain pathology. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective multicenter study of 62 fetuses diagnosed with brain pathology at 2nd trimester ultrasound scan during the period 2003-2008. In these fetuses prenatal MR imaging was performed. RESULTS: In 38 of 53 (71.7%) cases the ultrasound diagnosis was isolated ventriculomegaly (Group A), while in the rest 15 of 53 (28.3%) cases other brain abnormalities were diagnosed (Group B). Ultrasound scan and MR imaging findings were similar in 35 of 38 (97.2%) fetuses from Group A and in 11 of 15 (73.3%) from Group B. In a total 46 of 53 (86.8%) cases, no significant discrepancy between US and MR imaging findings was observed. CONCLUSION: MRI providing ascertainment or a differential diagnosis of an abnormal US finding in brain pathology. However, in most of the cases, it seems that MR imaging does not provide additional information concerning fetal brain pathology than ultrasound scan alone.

Özet

AMAÇ: Fetal beyin patolojisini teşhis etmek için prenatal MR görüntüleme ve ultrason taramasının karşılaştırılması amaç- lanmıştır. GEREÇ VE YÖNTEM: Bu çalışmada 2003-2008 tarihlerinde 2. trimesterde beyin patolojisi tanısı alan retrospektif çok merkezli 62 fetus ve bunların prenatal MR görüntüleri kullanılmıştır. BULGULAR: Çalışmanın sonucunda; 53 vakanın 38'inde (%71.7) ultrasonla tanı, ventrikülomegali (Grup A) olarak izole edilmiştir. Geriye kalan 15 (%28.3) vaka beyin anomalilerinden farklı olarak tanı almıştır ve Grup B'yi oluşturmuştur. Ultrason taraması ve MR görüntüleme bulguları; Grup A'dan 38 fetusun 35'inde (%97,2) ve Grup B'den 15 fetusun 11'inde(%73.3) benzerdi. Toplam 53 vakanın 46'sında (%86.8); ultrasonografi ve MR görüntüleme bulguları arasında anlamlı "discrepancy" bulunmadı. SONUÇ: MRI beyin patolojisinde anormal US bulgularından farklı tanı veya "ascertainment" sağlar. Ancak birçok vakada MR görüntüleme fetal beyin patolojisi gözöznüne alındığında tek başına ultrason taramasına ek bilgi sağlamaz gibi görünmektedir

🔖

Cite This Article

THANASIADIS, A. A., POLICHRONOU, P., ZAVLANOS, A., GEREDE, F., TZEVELEKIS, F., THEODORIDIS, T., ASIMAKOPOULOS, E., BONTIS, J. (2009). Fetal Beyin Patolojisi: MR Görüntüleme ve Ultrason Taramasının Karşılaştırılması. GORM:Gynecology Obstetrics & Reproductive Medicine, Cilt: 15 - Sayı: 2, 71–74. https://ajindex.com/articles/227552

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

Open in New Tab ↗

↗New Tab

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (1)

Pooh RK, Pooh KH. The assessment of fetal brain morphology and circulation by transvaginal 3D sonography and power Doppler. J Perinat Med. 2002;30(1):48-56 2. Pooh RK, Pooh K. Transvaginal 3D and Doppler ultrasonography of the fetal brain. Semin Perinatol. 2001 Feb;25(1):38-43 3. Smith F, Adam A, Phillips W. NMR-imaging in pregnancy. Lancet 1983; 1:61-62. 4. Weinreb JC, Lowe TW, Santos-Ramos R, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging in obstetric diagnosis. Radiology 1985; 154: 157-161. 5. Fjørtoft MI, Sevely A, Boetto S, Kessler S, Sarramon MF, Rolland M. Prenatal diagnosis of craniosynostosis: value of MR imaging. Neuroradiology. 2007 Jun;49(6):515-521 6. Siegel H, Seltzer S. Miller S. Prenatal computed tomography: are there indications? Comput Assist Tomogr 1984; 8:871-875. 7. Levine D. Ultrasound versus Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Fetal Evaluation. 2001; 12(1): 25-38 8. Reid A, Smith F, Hutchinson J. Nuclear magnetic resonance imaging and its safety implications: follow-up of 181 patients. Br I Radiol 1982; 55:784-786. 9. Baker P. Johnson I, Harvey P. Mansfield P. Three year follow-up of children imaged in utero using echo planar magnetic resonance. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1994;170:32- 33. 10. Wolff 5, Crooks L, Brown P. Howard R, Painter R Tests for DNA and chromosomal damage induced by nuclear magnetic resonance imaging. Radiology 1980; 136:707- 710. 11. Levine D, Barnes PD, Robertson RR, Wong G, Mehta TS. Fast MR Imaging of Fetal Central Nervous System Abnormalities1. Radiology 2003; 229:51-61 12. Glenn OA, Goldstein RB, Li KC, Young SJ, Norton ME, Busse RF et al. Fetal magnetic resonance imaging in the evaluation of fetuses referred for sonographically suspected abnormalities of the corpus callosum. J Ultrasound Med. 2005;24(6):791-804 13. Frates MC, Kumar AJ, Benson CB, Ward VL, Tempany CM. Fetal Anomalies: Comparison of MR Imaging and US for Diagnosis. Radiology 2004; 232:398-404