BACKGROUND: In-utero MR imaging (iuMR) has entered the clinical arena during the last decade. It is used mainly for imaging fetal brain abnormalities. OBJECTIVE: To report our experience of imaging the fetal spine and spinal cord in fetuses with known or suspected abnormalities diagnosed on US imaging. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Prospective imaging and retrospective analysis of the possible impact on management of 50 consecutive fetuses with spinal abnormalities detected by antenatal US imaging. RESULTS: In 40 (80%) of 50 fetuses, iuMR and US imaging were in complete agreement. In the other 10 fetuses (20%), iuMR provided additional information or changed the diagnosis, including 8 fetuses where the iuMR could find no abnormality and was found to be correct by later follow-up. CONCLUSION: IuMR is useful in fetuses with a suspected spinal abnormality. The clinical impact of iuMR may be numerically less than with brain abnormalities, but is still sufficient to warrant its use, especially if there is any uncertainty about the US imaging, and particularly as a relatively high proportion of diagnoses on US imaging are false-positives.
BACKGROUND: In-utero MR imaging (iuMR) has entered the clinical arena during the last decade. It is used mainly for imaging fetal brain abnormalities. OBJECTIVE: To report our experience of imaging the fetal spine and spinal cord in fetuses with known or suspected abnormalities diagnosed on US imaging. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Prospective imaging and retrospective analysis of the possible impact on management of 50 consecutive fetuses with spinal abnormalities detected by antenatal US imaging. RESULTS: In 40 (80%) of 50 fetuses, iuMR and US imaging were in complete agreement. In the other 10 fetuses (20%), iuMR provided additional information or changed the diagnosis, including 8 fetuses where the iuMR could find no abnormality and was found to be correct by later follow-up. CONCLUSION: IuMR is useful in fetuses with a suspected spinal abnormality. The clinical impact of iuMR may be numerically less than with brain abnormalities, but is still sufficient to warrant its use, especially if there is any uncertainty about the US imaging, and particularly as a relatively high proportion of diagnoses on US imaging are false-positives.
Authors: Oran S Aaronson; Marta Hernanz-Schulman; Joseph P Bruner; George W Reed; Noel B Tulipan Journal: Radiology Date: 2003-04-24 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Fergus V Coakley; Orit A Glenn; Aliya Qayyum; Anthony J Barkovich; Ruth Goldstein; Roy A Filly Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2004-01 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Paul D Griffiths; Dick Variend; Margaret Evans; Angharad Jones; Iain D Wilkinson; Martyn N J Paley; Elspeth Whitby Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2003-01 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: L Breysem; H Bosmans; S Dymarkowski; D Van Schoubroeck; I Witters; J Deprest; P Demaerel; D Vanbeckevoort; C Vanhole; P Casaer; M Smet Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2003-04-15 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Sahar N Saleem; Ahmed-Hesham Said; Maged Abdel-Raouf; Eman A El-Kattan; Maha Saad Zaki; Noha Madkour; Mostafa Shokry Journal: Neuroradiology Date: 2009-06-25 Impact factor: 2.804