Heron Werner Júnior1. 1. PhD, Foreign Physician Assistant, University of Paris, Physician at Alta Excelência Diagnóstica, Clínica de Diagnóstico por Imagem (CDPI) and Clinisul, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil. E-mail: heronwerner@hotmail.com .
In the present issue of Radiologia Brasileira there is an interesting study
aimed at determining reference intervals for the fetal cisterna magna volume by means of
the two-dimensional (2D) method with the multiplanar mode of Three-dimensional
ultrasonography (3D US).
The recent development in medical imaging have allowed for an accurate assessment of the
fetal morphology. The study of the posterior fossa (PF) is included in all the routines for
evaluation of the fetal morphology. The normal echographic parameters in this area rule out
the main abnormalities of the cerebellum and vermis. However, in cases where any
abnormality of the PF is found, a further and more accurate echographic evaluation of the
central nervous system (CNS) should be undertaken.US is ever the main method of choice in the fetal evaluation. However, in some cases, it
may present some restrictions for a good evaluation of the CNS. Reverberation artifacts
from the cranial bones and the low sensitivity in the detection of cortical malformations
as well as those destructive of the cerebral parenchyma and cerebellum constitute some of
the examples. Other limiting factors for a good echographic study include maternal obesity,
oligohydramnios, inappropriate cephalic position, low qualification of the investigator and
small field of view on the echographic image.The routine prenatal evaluation of the CNS by 2D US includes three main imaging planes:
transthalamic, transventricular and transcerebellar. A baseline evaluation of the PF is
based on the axial plane with special attention to the transducer angulation so that the
cavum of the septum pellucidum, cerebral peduncles and cerebellar hemispheres can be
visualized. It is important to note that if the transducer is angulated in the semicoronal
plane, the anteroposterior measurement of the PF may be artificially
increased. With such an evaluation, one can
say that the PF is normal as the three following criteria are met: measurement of the
cisterna magna ≤ 10 mm; cross-sectional diameter of the cerebellum compatible with the
gestational age; and normal cerebellar anatomy, defined by a vermis surrounded by two
symmetrical hemispheres separating the fourth ventricle anteriorly and the cisterna magna
posteriorly.Provided no abnormality is found on such planes, the fetal brain normality can be presumed.
If any abnormality is found, additional sections should be evaluated, besides the
possibility of utilizing a transvaginal probe and 3D technology. In cases where all these resources do not allow for a complete
evaluation, magnetic resonance imaging should be recommended.Although the standard axial planes can demonstrate most PF anomalies, it may be difficult
to make an accurate diagnosis. Subtle changes in the vermis, for example, may be occult.
Malinger et al. have proposed the utilization of the sagittal plane with transvaginal
approach for a better evaluation. The development of 3D US has brought advantages in the
evaluation of the PF.
New tools, such as surface mode and multiplanar imaging have been incorporated into the
evaluation both at transabdominal and transvaginal approaches. With multiplanar mode, the
visualization of the axial, coronal and sagittal planes has become much easier. Thus, on a
single image acquisition, it is possible to make an evaluation of all those imaging planes
in addition to a volumetric evaluation.Therefore, the imaging evaluation of the PF can be facilitated by the 3D technology.
However, such advance in echographic imaging is still limited by the inappropriate
positioning of the fetal cephalic pole or by the decreased volume of amniotic fluid, among
others. Thus, in cases where US is not conclusive, the utilization of magnetic resonance
imaging should ever be considered.
Authors: G Gandolfi Colleoni; E Contro; A Carletti; T Ghi; G Campobasso; G Rembouskos; G Volpe; G Pilu; P Volpe Journal: Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol Date: 2012-05-14 Impact factor: 7.299
Authors: Sara C Chen; Erin M Simon; John C Haselgrove; Larissa T Bilaniuk; Leslie N Sutton; Mark P Johnson; David M Shera; Robert A Zimmerman Journal: Radiology Date: 2006-03 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: H Werner; J R L dos Santos; R Fontes; P Daltro; E Gasparetto; E Marchiori; S Campbell Journal: Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol Date: 2010-09 Impact factor: 7.299
Authors: G Malinger; H Werner; J C Rodriguez Leonel; M Rebolledo; M Duque; S Mizyrycki; T Lerman-Sagie; M Herrera Journal: Prenat Diagn Date: 2011-06-27 Impact factor: 3.050
Authors: D Egle; I Strobl; V Weiskopf-Schwendinger; E Grubinger; F Kraxner; I S Mutz-Dehbalaie; A Strasak; M Scheier Journal: Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol Date: 2011-11-11 Impact factor: 7.299
Authors: Fernanda Silveira Bello de Barros; Luiz Cláudio de Silva Bussamra; Edward Araujo Júnior; Leonardo da Silva Valladão de Freitas; Luciano Marcondes Machado Nardozza; Antonio Fernandes Moron; José Mendes Aldrighi Journal: ISRN Obstet Gynecol Date: 2012-11-14