Journals / Turkish Journal of Medical Sciences / 2021 / Cilt: 51 - Sayı: 3

Fetal US and MRI in detection of craniospinal anomalies with postnatal correlation: single-center experience

Pages
1211–1219
Publication Date
2022-11-03
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

This contribution especially is significant in neural tube defects, cortical malformations, and ischemic-hemorrhagic lesions.Key words: Fetal MRI, fetal ultrasound, craniospinal malformations, prenatal diagnosis

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Background/aim: To reveal the contribution of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) to ultrasound (US) in prenatal diagnosis of fetal craniospinal anomalies by retrospectively comparing the prenatal and postnatal findings.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Materials and methods: After institutional review board approval, between January 2010 and May 2020, 301 pregnant women, which had a gestational age between 19–37 weeks (mean 26.5 ± 6.1 weeks), diagnosed with cranial and spinal anomalies on fetal US and later on imaged with MRI were evaluated, and in 179 of those cases prenatal imaging findings were compared with postnatal findings.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:This contribution especially is significant in neural tube defects, cortical malformations, and ischemic-hemorrhagic lesions.Key words: Fetal MRI, fetal ultrasound, craniospinal malformations, prenatal diagnosis
🔬Design:Review & Systematic Survey
📍Scope:2010 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

Background/aim: To reveal the contribution of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) to ultrasound (US) in prenatal diagnosis of fetal craniospinal anomalies by retrospectively comparing the prenatal and postnatal findings. Materials and methods: After institutional review board approval, between January 2010 and May 2020, 301 pregnant women, which had a gestational age between 19–37 weeks (mean 26.5 ± 6.1 weeks), diagnosed with cranial and spinal anomalies on fetal US and later on imaged with MRI were evaluated, and in 179 of those cases prenatal imaging findings were compared with postnatal findings. Results: A total of 191 fetal craniospinal anomalies were detected in 179 pregnant women. MRI and US diagnosis were completely correct in 145 (75.9%) and 112 (58.6%), respectively. Diagnostic performance of MRI was significantly higher than that of the US (p < 0.05). Both prenatal MRI and US findings were concordant with postnatal diagnosis in 53% of the cases. In 28.7% cases, prenatal MRI contributed to US by either changing the wrong US diagnosis (8.9%), demonstration of additional findings (14%), or confirming the suspicious US diagnosis (5.8%). Conclusion: Due to its high resolution and multiplanar imaging capability, fetal MRI contributes significantly to US in the correct prenatal diagnosis of craniospinal anomalies. This contribution especially is significant in neural tube defects, cortical malformations, and ischemic-hemorrhagic lesions.Key words: Fetal MRI, fetal ultrasound, craniospinal malformations, prenatal diagnosis

🔖

Cite This Article

EYÜBOĞLU, İ., DİNÇ, G. (2022). Fetal US and MRI in detection of craniospinal anomalies with postnatal correlation: single-center experience. Turkish Journal of Medical Sciences, Cilt: 51 - Sayı: 3, 1211–1219. https://ajindex.com/articles/609796

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (11)

  1. Goldberg JD. Routine screening for fetal anomalies: expectations. Obstetrics and Gynecology Clinics of North America 2004
  2. 31 (1): 35-50. doi: 10.1016/S0889 8545(03)00118-9 2. Kul S, Korkmaz HA, Cansu A, Dinc H, Ahmetoglu A et al. Contribution of MRI to ultrasound in the diagnosis of fetal anomalies. Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging 2012
  3. 35 (4): 882-890. doi: 10.1002/jmri.23502 3. Salomon LJ, Alfirevic Z, Berghella V, Bilardo C, HernandezAndrade C et al. ISUOG Clinical Standards Committee. Practice guidelines for performance of the routine midtrimester fetal ultrasound scan. The Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology 2011
  4. 37 (1): 116-126. doi: 10.1002/uog.8831 4. Manganaro L, Bernardo S, Antonelli A, Vinci V, Saldari M et al. Fetal MRI of the central nervous system: state-of-theart. European Journal of Radiology 2017
  5. doi: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2017.06.004 5. Blaicher W, Prayer D, Bernaschek G. Magnetic resonance imaging and ultrasound in the assessment of the fetal central nervous system. Journal of Perinatal Medicine 2003
  6. 31 (6): 459-468. doi: 10.1515/JPM.2003.071 6. Hibbeln JF, Shors SM, Byrd SE. MRI: is there a role in obstetrics? Clinical Obstetrics and Gynecology 2012
  7. 55 (1): 352-366. doi: 10.1097/GRF.0b013e3182487d04 7. Gat I, Hoffmann C, Shashar D, Yosef O. B, Konen E et al. Fetal Brain MRI: Novel Classification and Contribution to Sonography. Ultraschall in der Medizin 2016
  8. 37 (2): 176-184. doi: 10.1055/s-0034-1384935 8. Duczkowska A, Bekiesinska-Figatowska M, HermanSucharska I, Duczkowski M, Romaniuk-Doroszewska A et al. Magnetic resonance imaging in the evaluation of the fetal spinal canal contents. Brain and Development 2011
  9. 33 (1): 10- 20. doi: 10.1016/j.braindev.2010.01.003 9. International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology Education Committee. Sonographic examination of the fetal central nervous system: guidelines for performing the ‘basic examination’ and the ‘fetal neurosonogram’. The Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology 2007
  10. 29 (1): 109-116. doi: 10.1002/ uog.3909 10. Sandrasegaran K, Lall CG, Aisen AA. Fetal magnetic resonance imaging. Current Opinion in Obstetrics and Gynecology 2006
  11. 18 (6): 605-612. doi: 10.1097/01.gco.0000247394.94592.a5 11. Van Doorn M, Oude Rengerink K, Newsum EA, Reneman L, Majoie CB et al. Added value of fetal MRI in fetuses with suspected brain abnormalities on neurosonography: a systematic review and meta-analysis. The Journal of MaternalFetal and Neonatal Medicine 2016