Velazquez-Torres B, Portugal-Cruz CE, García-Moreno CM, Gallardo-Gaona JM, Rodríguez-Sibaja MJ, Acevedo-Gallegos S

Language: Spanish
References: 11
Page: 148-155
PDF size: 176.17 Kb.

ABSTRACT

Objective: To describe and compare all cases with central nervous system defects evaluated prenatally with structural ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging.
Materials and Methods: Case series, retrolective, based on the records of the Structural Defects Clinic. Inclusion criteria: fetuses with central nervous system defects. Structural revisions were collected from the clinical record and reported MRI findings. Comparisons between the findings of the two methods were established, considering the final diagnoses established after birth.
Results: Fifty-eight cases were analyzed; in 34 cases the MRI and ultrasound findings were the same. In 12 cases the MRI provided additional information and in another 12 cases the diagnosis changed. Neural tube defects and midline malformations had the highest incidence (n = 13 of each). Ultrasound had the highest failure rate for cortical formation anomalies and destructive lesions (29 and 33, respectively).
Conclusions: Prenatal MRI is a complementary tool to ultrasound that is useful in the evaluation of central nervous system abnormalities, primarily cortical alterations. Ultrasound and MRI have strengths and limitations; each performs better in different aspects of the structural evaluation of the central nervous system. So far there is insufficient evidence to pinpoint the superiority of one over the other.

REFERENCES

1. Frick N, Fazelnia C, Kanzian K, et al. The reliability of fetal MRI in the assessment of brain malformations. Fetal Diagn Ther 2014; 37 (2). doi:10.1159/000363652

2. Navarrete-Hernández E, Canún-Serrano S, Valdés-Hernández J, Reyes-Pablo AE. Malformaciones congénitas al nacimiento: México, 2008-2013. Bol Med Hosp Infant Mex 2017; 74 (4). doi:10.1016/j.bmhimx.2017.02.003

3. Smith FW, Adam AH, Phillips WDP. NMR IMAGING IN PREGNANCY. The Lancet 1983; 321 (8314-8315). doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(83)91588-X

4. Birnbaum R, Ben-Sira L, Lerman-Sagie T, Malinger G. The use of fetal neurosonography and brain MRI in cases of cytomegalovirus infection during pregnancy: A retrospective analysis with outcome correlation. Prenatal Diagnosis 2017; 37 (13). doi:10.1002/pd.5180

5. van den Veyver IB. Prenatally diagnosed developmental abnormalities of the central nervous system and genetic syndromes: A practical review. Prenatal Diagnosis 2019; 39 (9). doi:10.1002/pd.5520

6. Noronha C. Validation of ultrasound diagnosis of fetal anomalies at a specialist center. Rev Assoc Med Bras 2009; 55 (5): 541-46.

7. Granados AM, Orejuela Z JF, Ospina C. Descripción de la experiencia en RM cerebral fetal en Cali, Colombia. Revista Chilena de Radiología 2017; 23 (4). doi:10.4067/s0717-93082017000400174

8. Rossi AC, Prefumo F. Additional value of fetal magnetic resonance imaging in the prenatal diagnosis of central nervous system anomalies: A systematic review of the literature. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2014; 44 (4). doi:10.1002/uog.13429

9. Whitby EH, Paley MNJ, Sprigg A, et al. Comparison of ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging in 100 singleton pregnancies with suspected brain abnormalities. BJOG 2004; 111 (8). doi:10.1111/j.1471-0528.2004.00149.x

10. Griffiths PD, Bradburn M, Campbell MJ, et al. Use of MRI in the diagnosis of fetal brain abnormalities in utero (MERIDIAN): a multicentre, prospective cohort study. Lancet 2017; 389 (10068). doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(16)31723-8

11. van Doorn M, Oude Rengerink K, Newsum EA, Reneman L, Majoie CB, Pajkrt E. Added value of fetal MRI in fetuses with suspected brain abnormalities on neurosonography: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 2016; 29 (18). doi:10.3109/14767058.2015.1109621