A Dabadie1, E Quarello2, N Degardin3, R Desbriere4, H Heckenroth5, S Sigaudy5, G Gorincour6. 1. Service d'imagerie pédiatrique et prénatale, hôpital de La Timone-Enfants, AP-HM, 264, rue Saint-Pierre, 13385 Marseille, France. Electronic address: alexia.dabadie@gmail.com. 2. Institut méditerranéen de la reproduction, 6, rue Rocca, 13008 Marseille, France; Unité d'échographies obstétricales, fondation hôpital Saint-Joseph, 29, boulevard de Louvain, 13008 Marseille, France. 3. Service de chirurgie plastique pédiatrique, hôpital de La Timone-Enfants, AP-HM, 264, rue Saint-Pierre, 13385 Marseille, France. 4. Unité d'échographies obstétricales, fondation hôpital Saint-Joseph, 29, boulevard de Louvain, 13008 Marseille, France. 5. Centre pluridisciplinaire de diagnostic prénatal, hôpital de La Timone-Enfants, AP-HM, 264, rue Saint-Pierre, 13385 Marseille, France. 6. Service d'imagerie pédiatrique et prénatale, hôpital de La Timone-Enfants, AP-HM, 264, rue Saint-Pierre, 13385 Marseille, France; Centre pluridisciplinaire de diagnostic prénatal, hôpital de La Timone-Enfants, AP-HM, 264, rue Saint-Pierre, 13385 Marseille, France.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the added value of fetal magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in diagnosing and assessing isolated orofacial clefts and compare MRI with second-line diagnostic ultrasound. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In a two-year prospective bicenter study, fetuses with isolated orofacial clefts were reassessed using second-line diagnostic ultrasound and MRI. The results of second line ultrasound and those MRI were compared to each other. The gestational age at the time of ultrasound and MRI, and the final diagnosis for each of the imaging modalities were recorded. Finally, the results of second line ultrasound and those of MRI were compared to the results of neonatal clinical examination after delivery that served as standard of reference. RESULTS: Twenty-two women were included after informed consent was obtained. On average, diagnostic ultrasound was performed at 25.5weeks of gestation (range: 24-34weeks) and MRI at 29.5weeks of gestation (range: 27-34weeks). The results of ultrasound and those of MRI findings were strictly consistent in 20 women (20/22; 91%) but differed in 2 women (2/22; 9%). For all fetuses, the final radiological diagnosis was confirmed by clinical examination after delivery. CONCLUSION: If ultrasound examination proves technically challenging, fetal MRI can be used to obtain the same diagnostic information in 91% of cases and can help surgeons and interdisciplinary teams provide appropriate antenatal counseling.
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the added value of fetal magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in diagnosing and assessing isolated orofacial clefts and compare MRI with second-line diagnostic ultrasound. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In a two-year prospective bicenter study, fetuses with isolated orofacial clefts were reassessed using second-line diagnostic ultrasound and MRI. The results of second line ultrasound and those MRI were compared to each other. The gestational age at the time of ultrasound and MRI, and the final diagnosis for each of the imaging modalities were recorded. Finally, the results of second line ultrasound and those of MRI were compared to the results of neonatal clinical examination after delivery that served as standard of reference. RESULTS: Twenty-two women were included after informed consent was obtained. On average, diagnostic ultrasound was performed at 25.5weeks of gestation (range: 24-34weeks) and MRI at 29.5weeks of gestation (range: 27-34weeks). The results of ultrasound and those of MRI findings were strictly consistent in 20 women (20/22; 91%) but differed in 2 women (2/22; 9%). For all fetuses, the final radiological diagnosis was confirmed by clinical examination after delivery. CONCLUSION: If ultrasound examination proves technically challenging, fetal MRI can be used to obtain the same diagnostic information in 91% of cases and can help surgeons and interdisciplinary teams provide appropriate antenatal counseling.
Authors: Hanneke E M van der Hoek-Snieders; Antonius J M L van den Heuvel; Harmieke van Os-Medendorp; Digna M A Kamalski Journal: Eur J Pediatr Date: 2019-12-03 Impact factor: 3.183