HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Figures Only Full Text Full Text (PDF) Submit a response Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when eLetters are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Frates, M. C. Articles by Tempany, C. M. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Frates, M. C. Articles by Tempany, C. M.

Fetal Anomalies: Comparison of MR Imaging and US for Diagnosis¹

¹ From the Department of Radiology, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Harvard Medical School, 75 Francis St, Boston, MA 02115 (M.C.F., A.J.K., C.B.B., C.M.T.); and Department of Radiology, Children’s Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Mass (V.L.W.). From the 1999 RSNA scientific assembly. Received April 3, 2003; revision requested June 20; revision received November 3; accepted December 9. Address correspondence to M.C.F. (e-mail: mfrates@partners.org).

PURPOSE: To compare prenatal ultrasonography (US) and magnetic resonance (MR) imaging for the diagnosis of fetal anomalies.

MATERIALS AND METHODS: Images of 27 fetuses (28 diagnostic cases) with anomalies diagnosed at US were evaluated; in these fetuses, prenatal MR imaging was performed within 15 days of US. Prenatal US and MR imaging findings were compared with postnatal diagnoses. Postnatal evaluation included US, MR imaging, autopsy, surgery, voiding cystourethrography, computed tomography, angiography, and physical examination.

RESULTS: In seven diagnostic cases, US and MR imaging findings were in complete agreement with postnatal diagnoses. MR imaging correctly provided additional information to the US-determined diagnosis in another seven and correctly changed the US diagnosis in three. The MR imaging–determined diagnosis was incorrect and the US diagnosis was correct in four cases. In seven cases, the diagnoses at both US and MR imaging were incorrect when correlated with the postnatal outcome. MR imaging was most valuable in the assessment of anomalies of the central nervous system.

CONCLUSION: MR imaging may have a place as an adjunct to US in evaluation of fetal anomalies, particularly those involving the central nervous system.

© RSNA, 2004

Index terms: Fetus, abnormalities, 856.87 • Fetus, MR, 856.121411 • Fetus, US, 856.1298

This article has been cited by other articles:

				A. S. Davis, Y. Blumenfeld, E. Rubesova, C. Abrajano, Y. Y. El-Sayed, S. Dutta, R. A. Barth, and S. R. Hintz Challenges of Giant Omphalocele: From Fetal Diagnosis to Follow-up NeoReviews, August 1, 2008; 9(8): e338 - e347. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				T. Inaoka, H. Sugimori, Y. Sasaki, K. Takahashi, K. Sengoku, N. Takada, and T. Aburano VIBE MRI for Evaluating the Normal and Abnormal Gastrointestinal Tract in Fetuses Am. J. Roentgenol., December 1, 2007; 189(6): W303 - W308. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				I. Adaletli, H. Ozer, S. Kurugoglu, H. Emir, and R. Madazli Congenital Imperforate Hymen with Hydrocolpos Diagnosed Using Prenatal MRI Am. J. Roentgenol., July 1, 2007; 189(1): W23 - W25. [Full Text] [PDF]

				V. L. Ward, M. Nishino, H. Hatabu, J. A. Estroff, C. E. Barnewolt, H. A. Feldman, and D. Levine Fetal Lung Volume Measurements: Determination with MR Imaging--Effect of Various Factors. Radiology, July 1, 2006; 240(1): 187 - 193. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]