OBJECTIVES: To determine the additional information and clinical impact provided by three-dimensional ultrasound (3D US) imaging of fetal anomalies compared to conventional 2-dimensional ultrasound (2D US). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Sixty-three patients with 103 anomalies were scanned prospectively with both 2D and 3D US. Each anomaly was reviewed by one or more fetal imaging specialists to determine whether the 3D US data were advantageous, equivalent, or disadvantageous when compared with 2D US images. Clinical impact and pathologic or clinical outcome were determined in all cases. RESULTS: The 3D US images provided additional information in 53 anomalies (51%), were equivalent to 2D US images in 46 anomalies (45%), and were disadvantageous in four anomalies (4%). The 3D US was most helpful in evaluating fetuses with facial anomalies, hand and foot abnormalities and axial spine and neural tube defects. Planar images derived from 3D US volume data sets generally were more helpful for diagnostic purposes, whereas rendered 3D US images were more useful as a point of reference and were better appreciated by patients in understanding fetal abnormalities. Additional information provided by 3D US images impacted clinical management in 5% of patients. The 3D US images were disadvantageous in two fetuses with multiple anomalies and two with cardiac anomalies. CONCLUSION: The 3D US offered diagnostic advantages in about one-half of the selected cases studied and had effect on patient management in 5% of cases. This modality can be a powerful adjunctive tool to 2D US in providing a more comprehensible, 3D US impression of congenital anomalies. Thus, 3D US is currently most helpful as a targeted study complementing 2D US.
OBJECTIVES: To determine the additional information and clinical impact provided by three-dimensional ultrasound (3D US) imaging of fetal anomalies compared to conventional 2-dimensional ultrasound (2D US). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Sixty-three patients with 103 anomalies were scanned prospectively with both 2D and 3D US. Each anomaly was reviewed by one or more fetal imaging specialists to determine whether the 3D US data were advantageous, equivalent, or disadvantageous when compared with 2D US images. Clinical impact and pathologic or clinical outcome were determined in all cases. RESULTS: The 3D US images provided additional information in 53 anomalies (51%), were equivalent to 2D US images in 46 anomalies (45%), and were disadvantageous in four anomalies (4%). The 3D US was most helpful in evaluating fetuses with facial anomalies, hand and foot abnormalities and axial spine and neural tube defects. Planar images derived from 3D US volume data sets generally were more helpful for diagnostic purposes, whereas rendered 3D US images were more useful as a point of reference and were better appreciated by patients in understanding fetal abnormalities. Additional information provided by 3D US images impacted clinical management in 5% of patients. The 3D US images were disadvantageous in two fetuses with multiple anomalies and two with cardiac anomalies. CONCLUSION: The 3D US offered diagnostic advantages in about one-half of the selected cases studied and had effect on patient management in 5% of cases. This modality can be a powerful adjunctive tool to 2D US in providing a more comprehensible, 3D US impression of congenital anomalies. Thus, 3D US is currently most helpful as a targeted study complementing 2D US.