Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-g7gxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-05T19:54:37.422Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

THE CURRENT ROLE OF FETAL MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING

Part of: Bespoke shallow archive Weizmann

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 February 2008

M J REEVES ,
E H WHITBY ,
M N J PALEY  and
P D GRIFFITHS
M J REEVES*
Affiliation:
Academic Unit of Radiology, Royal Hallamshire Hospital, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, United Kingdom.
E H WHITBY*
Affiliation:
Academic Unit of Radiology, Royal Hallamshire Hospital, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, United Kingdom.
M N J PALEY*
Affiliation:
Academic Unit of Radiology, Royal Hallamshire Hospital, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, United Kingdom.
P D GRIFFITHS*
Affiliation:
Academic Unit of Radiology, Royal Hallamshire Hospital, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, United Kingdom.
*
Academic Unit of Radiology, Royal Hallamshire Hospital, University of Sheffield, Glossop Road, Sheffield S10 2JF, United Kingdom.
Academic Unit of Radiology, Royal Hallamshire Hospital, University of Sheffield, Glossop Road, Sheffield S10 2JF, United Kingdom.
Academic Unit of Radiology, Royal Hallamshire Hospital, University of Sheffield, Glossop Road, Sheffield S10 2JF, United Kingdom.
Academic Unit of Radiology, Royal Hallamshire Hospital, University of Sheffield, Glossop Road, Sheffield S10 2JF, United Kingdom.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The techniques currently used by most specialist centres for magnetic resonance (MR) imaging of the fetus were developed in the 1990s, when fast imaging sequences capable of good soft tissue contrast were introduced. Earlier pioneering work on fetal MR imaging in the early 1980s revealed some promise for this application, but at the time it was not generally considered of diagnostic quality or clinical practicality because of the long acquisition times and inevitable image degradation resulting from fetal movement, problems which were overcome only by means of maternal sedation or neuromuscular blockade of the fetus. As with the early development of MR imaging in general, it is the ability to image central nervous system (CNS) tissues with a clarity and contrast far exceeding X-ray computed tomography and ultrasound that has shown the most benefit to date. Subsequent development of techniques for specific problem solving in other areas of the body will undoubtedly follow.

Type
Research Article
Information
Fetal and Maternal Medicine Review , Volume 19 , Issue 1 , February 2008 , pp. 33 - 60
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2008

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

1Stehling, MK, Mansfield, P, Ordidge, RJ, Coxon, R, Chapman, B, Blamire, A, et al. Echo-planar imaging of the human fetus in utero. Magn Reson Med 1990; 13: 314–18.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
2Mansfield, P, Stehling, MK, Ordidge, RJ, Coxon, R, Chapman, B, Blamire, A, et al. Echo planar imaging of the human fetus in utero at 0.5 T. Br J Radiol 1990; 63: 833–41.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
3Levine, D, Hatabu, H, Gaa, J, Atkinson, MW, Edelman, RR. Fetal anatomy revealed with fast MR sequences. Am J Roentgenol 1996; 167: 905–908.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
4Yamashita, Y, Namimoto, T, Abe, Y, Takahashi, M, Iwamasa, J, Miyazaki, K, et al. MR imaging of the fetus by a HASTE sequence. Am J Roentgenol 1997; 168: 513–19.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
5Levine, D, Barnes, PD, Sher, S, Semelka, RC, Li, W, McArdle, CR et al. Fetal fast MR imaging: reproducibility, technical quality, and conspicuity of anatomy. Radiology 1998; 206: 549–54.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
6Smith, FW, Adam, AH and Phillips, WD. NMR imaging in pregnancy. Lancet 1983; 1: 61–62.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
7McCarthy, SM, Filly, RA, Stark, DD, Callen, PW, Golbus, MS and Hricak, H. Magnetic resonance imaging of fetal anomalies in utero: early experience. Am J Roentgenol 1985; 145: 677–82.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
8McCarthy, SM, Filly, RA, Stark, DD, Hricak, H, Brant-Zawadzki, MN, Callen, PW et al. Obstetrical magnetic resonance imaging: fetal anatomy. Radiology 1985; 154: 427–32.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
9McCarthy, SM, Stark, DD, Filly, RA, Callen, PW, Hricak, H, Higgins, CB. Obstetrical magnetic resonance imaging: maternal anatomy. Radiology 1985; 154: 421–25.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
10Weinreb, JC, Lowe, T, Cohen, JM, Kutler, M. Human fetal anatomy: MR imaging. Radiology 1985; 157: 715–20.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
11Weinreb, JC, Lowe, TW, Santos-Ramos, R, Cunningham, FG, Parkey, R. Magnetic resonance imaging in obstetric diagnosis. Radiology 1985; 154: 157–61.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
12Stark, DD, McCarthy, SM, Filly, RA, Parer, JT, Hricak, H, Callen, PW. Pelvimetry by magnetic resonance imaging. Am J Roentgenol 1985. 144: 947–50.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
13van Loon, AJ, Mantingh, A, Serlier, EK, Kroon, G, Mooyaart, EL, Huisjes, HJ. Randomised controlled trial of magnetic-resonance pelvimetry in breech presentation at term. Lancet 1997; 350: 1799–804.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
14Shellock, FG, Kanal, E. Policies, guidelines, and recommendations for MR imaging safety and patient management. SMRI Safety Committee. J Magn Reson Imaging 1991; 1: 97–101.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
15Shellock, FG, Crues, JV. MR procedures: biologic effects, safety, and patient care. Radiology, 2004; 232: 635–52.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
16Kanal, E, Borgstede, JP, Barkovich, AJ, Bell, C, Bradley, WG, Felmlee, JP et al. American College of Radiology White Paper on MR Safety. Am J Roentgenol 2002; 178: 1335–347.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
17Yip, YP, Capriotti, C, Norbash, SG, Talagala, SL, Yip, JW. Effects of MR exposure on cell proliferation and migration of chick motoneurons. J Magn Reson Imaging 1994; 4: 799–804.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
18Yip, YP, Capriotti, C, Talagala, SL, Yip, JW. Effects of MR exposure at 1.5T on early embryonic development of the chick. J Magn Reson Imaging 1994; 4: 742–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
19Yip, YP, Capriotti, C, Yip, JW. Effects of MR exposure on axonal outgrowth in the sympathetic nervous system of the chick. J Magn Reson Imaging 1995; 5: 457–62.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
20Miyakoshi, J. Effects of static magnetic fields at the cellular level. Prog Biophys Mol Biol 2005; 87: 213–23.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
21Chew, S, Ahmadi, A, Goh, PS, Foong, LC. The effects of 1.5T magnetic resonance imaging on early murine in-vitro embryo development. J Magn Reson Imaging 2001; 13: 417–20.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
22De Wilde, JP, Rivers, AW, Price, DL. A review of the current use of magnetic resonance imaging in pregnancy and safety implications for the fetus. Prog Biophys Mol Biol 2005; 87: 335–53.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
23Guidelines for Magnetic Resonance Equipment in Clinical Use. Medical Devices Agency, London, 2002.Google Scholar
24Principles for the protection of patients and volunteers during clinical magnetic resonance diagnostic procedures. National Radiological Protection Board, United Kingdom, 1991. Documents of the NRPB 2(1).Google Scholar
25Price, DL, De Wilde, JP, Papadaki, AM, Curran, JS, Kitney, RI. Investigation of acoustic noise on 15 MRI scanners from 0.2 T to 3 T. J Magn Reson Imaging 2001; 13: 288–93.3.0.CO;2-P>CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
26Glover, P, Hykin, J, Gowland, P, Wright, J, Johnson, I, Mansfield, P. An assessment of the intrauterine sound intensity level during obstetric echo-planar magnetic resonance imaging. Br J Radiol 1995; 68: 1090–1094.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
27Baker, PN, Johnson, IR, Harvey, PR, Gowland, PA, Mansfield, P. A three-year follow-up of children imaged in utero with echo-planar magnetic resonance. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1994; 170: 32–33.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
28Myers, C, Duncan, KR, Gowland, PA, Johnson, IR, Baker, PN. Failure to detect intrauterine growth restriction following in utero exposure to MRI. Br J Radiol 1998; 71: 549–51.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
29Clements, H, Duncan, KR, Fielding, K, Gowland, PA, Johnson, IR, Baker, PN. Infants exposed to MRI in utero have a normal paediatric assessment at 9 months of age. Br J Radiol 2000; 73: 190–94.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
30Kok, RD, de Vries, MM, Heerschap, A, Van Den Berg, PP. Absence of harmful effects of magnetic resonance exposure at 1.5T in utero during the third trimester of pregnancy: a follow-up study. Magn Reson Imaging 2004; 22: 851–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
31Shellock, FG. Radiofrequency energy-induced heating during MR procedures: a review. J Magn Reson Imaging 2000; 12: 30–36.3.0.CO;2-S>CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
32IEC 60601-2-33. Medical electrical equipment - particular requirements for the safety of magnetic resonance equipment for medical diagnosis. International Electrotechnical Commission, Geneva, 2002.Google Scholar
33Protection of the patient undergoing a magnetic resonance examination. International Non-Ionizing Radiation Committee of the International Radiation Protection Association. Health Phys 1991; 61: 923–28.Google Scholar
34Guidelines on limits of exposure to static magnetic fields. International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection. Health Phys 1994; 66: 100–106.Google Scholar
35Guidelines for limiting exposure to time-varying electric, magnetic, and electromagnetic fields (up to 300 GHz). International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection. Health Phys 1998; 74: 494–522.Google Scholar
36Medical magnetic resonance (MR) procedures: protection of patients. Health Phys 2004; 87: 197–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
37Restrictions on human exposure to static and time-varying electromagnetic fields and radiation. National Radiological Protection Board, United Kingdom, 1993. Documents of the NRPB 4(5).Google Scholar
38Newnham, JP, Doherty, DA, Kendall, GE, Zubrick, SR, Landau, LL, Stanley, FJ. Effects of repeated prenatal ultrasound examinations on childhood outcome up to 8 years of age: follow-up of a randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2004; 364: 2038–44.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
39Garel, C, Chantrel, E, Brisse, H, Elmaleh, M, Luton, D, Oury, JF et al. Fetal cerebral cortex: normal gestational landmarks identified using prenatal MR imaging. Am J Neuroradiol, 2001; 22: 184–89.Google ScholarPubMed
40Garel, C, Chantrel, E, Elmaleh, M, Brisse, H, Sebag, G. Fetal MRI: normal gestational landmarks for cerebral biometry, gyration and myelination. Childs Nerv Syst 2003; 19: 422–25.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
41Girard, N, Raybaud, C, Poncet, M. In vivo MR study of brain maturation in normal fetuses. Am J Neuroradiol 1995; 16: 407–13.Google ScholarPubMed
42Brisse, H, Fallet, C, Sebag, G, Nessmann, C, Blot, P, Hassan, M. Supratentorial parenchyma in the developing fetal brain: in vitro MR study with histologic comparison. Am J Neuroradiol 1997; 18: 1491–97.Google ScholarPubMed
43Levine, D, Barnes, PD. Cortical maturation in normal and abnormal fetuses as assessed with prenatal MR imaging. Radiology 1999; 210: 751–58.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
44Kostovic, I, Judas, M, Rados, M, Hrabac, P. Laminar organization of the human fetal cerebrum revealed by histochemical markers and magnetic resonance imaging. Cereb Cortex 2002; 12: 536–44.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
45Stazzone, MM, Hubbard, AM, Bilaniuk, LT, Harty, MP, Meyer, JS, Zimmerman, RA et al. Ultrafast MR imaging of the normal posterior fossa in fetuses. Am J Roentgenol 2000; 175: 835–39.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
46Fogliarini, C, Chaumoitre, K, Chapon, F, Fernandez, C, Levrier, O, Figarella-Branger, D et al. Assessment of cortical maturation with prenatal MRI. Part I: Normal cortical maturation. Eur Radiol 2005; 15: 1671–685.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
47Kier, EL, Truwit, CL. The normal and abnormal genu of the corpus callosum: an evolutionary, embryologic, anatomic, and MR analysis. Am J Neuroradiol 1996; 17: 1631–641.Google ScholarPubMed
48Glenn, OA, Barkovich, AJ. Magnetic resonance imaging of the fetal brain and spine: an increasingly important tool in prenatal diagnosis, part 1. Am J Neuroradiol 2006; 27: 1604–611.Google ScholarPubMed
49Glenn, OA, Barkovich, J. Magnetic resonance imaging of the fetal brain and spine: an increasingly important tool in prenatal diagnosis: part 2. Am J Neuroradiol 2006; 27: 1807–814.Google ScholarPubMed
50Malinger, G, Lerman-Sagie, T, Watemberg, N, Rotmensch, S, Lev, D, Glezerman, M. A normal second-trimester ultrasound does not exclude intracranial structural pathology. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2002; 20: 51–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
51Levi, S. Mass screening for fetal malformations: the Eurofetus study. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2003; 22: 555–58.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
52Grandjean, H, Larroque, D, Levi, S. The performance of routine ultrasonographic screening of pregnancies in the Eurofetus Study. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1999; 181: 446–54.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
53Levine, D, Barnes, PD, Madsen, JR, Li, W, Edelman, RR. Fetal central nervous system anomalies: MR imaging augments sonographic diagnosis. Radiology 1997; 204: 635–42.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
54Levine, D, Barnes, PD, Madsen JR, Abbott, J, Mehta, T, Edelman, RR. Central nervous system abnormalities assessed with prenatal magnetic resonance imaging. Obstet Gynecol 1999; 94: 1011–19.Google ScholarPubMed
55Levine, D. Ultrasound versus magnetic resonance imaging in fetal evaluation. Top Magn Reson Imaging 2001; 12: 25–38.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
56Levine, D, Barnes, PD, Robertson, RR, Wong, G, Mehta, TS. Fast MR imaging of fetal central nervous system abnormalities. Radiology 2003; 229: 51–61.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
57Patel, TR, Bannister, CM, Thorne, J. A study of prenatal ultrasound and postnatal magnetic imaging in the diagnosis of central nervous system abnormalities. Eur J Pediatr Surg 2003; 13 Suppl 1: S18–22.Google ScholarPubMed
58Whitby, EH, Paley, MN, Sprigg, A, Rutter, S, Davies, NP, Wilkinson, ID et al. Comparison of ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging in 100 singleton pregnancies with suspected brain abnormalities. BJOG 2004; 111: 784–92.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
59Twickler, DM, Magee, KP, Caire, J, Zaretsky, M, Fleckenstein, JL, Ramus, RM. Second-opinion magnetic resonance imaging for suspected fetal central nervous system abnormalities. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2003; 188: 492–96.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
60Simon, EM, Goldstein, RB, Coakley, FV, Filly, RA, Broderick, KC, Musci, TJ et al. Fast MR imaging of fetal CNS anomalies in utero. Am J Neuroradiol 2000; 21: 1688–98.Google ScholarPubMed
61Coakley, FV, Hricak, H, Filly, RA, Barkovich, AJ, Harrison, MR. Complex fetal disorders: effect of MR imaging on management–preliminary clinical experience. Radiology 1999; 213: 691–96.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
62Sonigo, PC, Rypens, FF, Carteret, M, Delezoide, AL, Brunelle, FO. MR imaging of fetal cerebral anomalies. Pediatr Radiol 1998; 28: 212–22.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
63Alagappan, R, Browning, PD, Laorr, A, McGahan, JP. Distal lateral ventricular atrium: reevaluation of normal range. Radiology 1994; 193: 405–408.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
64Cardoza, JD, Goldstein, RB, Filly, RA. Exclusion of fetal ventriculomegaly with a single measurement: the width of the lateral ventricular atrium. Radiology 1988; 169: 711–44.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
65Farrell, TA, Hertzberg, BS, Kliewer, MA, Harris, L, Paine, SS. Fetal lateral ventricles: reassessment of normal values for atrial diameter at US. Radiology 1994; 193: 409–11.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
66Filly, RA, Cardoza, JD, Goldstein, RB, Barkovich, AJ. Detection of fetal central nervous system anomalies: a practical level of effort for a routine sonogram. Radiology 1989; 172: 403–408.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
67Nyberg, DA, Mack, LA, Hirsch, J, Pagon, RO, Shepard, TH. Fetal hydrocephalus: sonographic detection and clinical significance of associated anomalies. Radiology, 1987; 163: 187–91.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
68Nicolaides, KH, Berry, S, Snijders, RJ, Thorpe-Beeston, JG, Gosden, C. Fetal lateral cerebral ventriculomegaly: associated malformations and chromosomal defects. Fetal Diagn Ther 1990; 5: 5–14.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
69Twining, P, Jaspan, T and Zuccollo, J. The outcome of fetal ventriculomegaly. Br J Radiol 1994; 67: 26–31.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
70Goldstein, RB, La Pidus, AS, Filly, RA, Cardoza, J, Mild lateral cerebral ventricular dilatation in utero: clinical significance and prognosis. Radiology 1990; 176: 237–42.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
71Gupta, JK, Bryce, FC, Lilford, RJ. Management of apparently isolated fetal ventriculomegaly. Obstet Gynecol Surv 1994; 49: 716–21.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
72Hudgins, RJ, Edwards, MS, Goldstein, R, Callen, PW, Harrison, MR, Filly, RA et al. Natural history of fetal ventriculomegaly. Pediatrics 1988; 82: 692–97.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
73Bloom, SL, Bloom, DD, DellaNebbia, C, Martin, LB, Lucas, MJ, Twickler, DM. The developmental outcome of children with antenatal mild isolated ventriculomegaly. Obstet Gynecol 1997; 90: 93–97.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
74Filly, RA, Goldstein, RB, Callen, PW. Fetal ventricle: importance in routine obstetric sonography. Radiology 1991; 181: 1–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
75Patel, MD, Filly, AL, Hersh, DR, Goldstein, RB. Isolated mild fetal cerebral ventriculomegaly: clinical course and outcome. Radiology, 1994; 192: 759–64.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
76Pilu, G, Falco, P, Gabrielli, S, Perolo, A, Sandri, F, Bovicelli, L. The clinical significance of fetal isolated cerebral borderline ventriculomegaly: report of 31 cases and review of the literature. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 1999; 14: 320–26.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
77Leitner, Y, Goez, H, Gull, I, Mesterman, R, Weiner, E, Jaffa, A et al. Antenatal diagnosis of central nervous system anomalies: can we predict prognosis? J Child Neurol 2004; 19: 435–38.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
78Mahony, BS, Nyberg, DA, Hirsch, JH, Petty, CN, Hendricks, SK, Mack, LA. Mild idiopathic lateral cerebral ventricular dilatation in utero: sonographic evaluation. Radiology 1988; 169: 715–21.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
79Bromley, B, Frigoletto, FD Jr., Benacerraf, BR. Mild fetal lateral cerebral ventriculomegaly: clinical course and outcome. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1991; 164: 863–67.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
80Laskin, MD, Kingdom, J, Toi, A, Chitayat, D, Ohlsson, A. Perinatal and neurodevelopmental outcome with isolated fetal ventriculomegaly: a systematic review. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 2005; 18: 289–98.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
81Salomon, LJ, Ouahba, J, Delezoide, AL, Vuillard, E, Oury, JF, Sebag, G et al. Third-trimester fetal MRI in isolated 10- to 12-mm ventriculomegaly: is it worth it? BJOG 2006; 113: 942–47.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
82Benacerraf, BR, Shipp, TD, Bromley, B, Levine, D. What does magnetic resonance imaging add to the prenatal sonographic diagnosis of ventriculomegaly? J Ultrasound Med 2007; 26: 1513–522.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
83Falip, C, Blanc, N, Maes, E, Zaccaria, I, Oury, JF, Sebag, G et al. Postnatal clinical and imaging follow-up of infants with prenatal isolated mild ventriculomegaly: a series of 101 cases. Pediatr Radiol 2007; 37: 981–89.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
84Vergani, P, Locatelli, A, Strobelt, N, Cavallone, M, Ceruti, P, Paterlini, G et al. Clinical outcome of mild fetal ventriculomegaly. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1998; 178: 218–22.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
85Lipitz, S, Yagel, S, Malinger, G, Meizner, I, Zalel, Y, Achiron, R. Outcome of fetuses with isolated borderline unilateral ventriculomegaly diagnosed at mid-gestation. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 1998; 12: 23–26.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
86Senat, MV, Bernard, JP, Schwarzler, P, Britten, J, Ville, Y. Prenatal diagnosis and follow-up of 14 cases of unilateral ventriculomegaly. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 1999; 14: 327–32.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
87Ouahba, J, Luton, D, Vuillard, E, Garel, C, Gressens, P, Blanc, N et al. Prenatal isolated mild ventriculomegaly: outcome in 167 cases. BJOG 2006; 113: 1072–1079.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
88Breysem, L, Bosmans, H, Dymarkowski, S, Schoubroeck, DV, Witters, I, Deprest, J et al. The value of fast MR imaging as an adjunct to ultrasound in prenatal diagnosis. Eur Radiol 2003; 13: 1538–548.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
89d'Ercole, C, Girard, N, Cravello, L, Boubli, L, Potier, A, Raybaud, C et al. Prenatal diagnosis of fetal corpus callosum agenesis by ultrasonography and magnetic resonance imaging. Prenat Diagn 1998; 18: 247–53.3.0.CO;2-J>CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
90Gupta, JK, Lilford, RJ. Assessment and management of fetal agenesis of the corpus callosum. Prenat Diagn 1995; 15: 301–12.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
91Glenn, OA, Goldstein, RB, Li, KC, Young, SJ, Norton, ME, Busse, RF et al. Fetal magnetic resonance imaging in the evaluation of fetuses referred for sonographically suspected abnormalities of the corpus callosum. J Ultrasound Med 2005; 24: 791–804.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
92Poutamo, J, Vanninen, R, Partanen, K, Ryynanen Kirkinen, P. Magnetic resonance imaging supplements ultrasonographic imaging of the posterior fossa, pharynx and neck in malformed fetuses. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 1999; 13: 327–34.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
93Tilea, B, Delezoide, AL, Khung-Savatovski, S, Guimiot, F, Vuillard, E, Oury, JF et al. Comparison between magnetic resonance imaging and fetopathology in the evaluation of fetal posterior fossa non-cystic abnormalities. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2007; 29: 651–59.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
94Adamsbaum, C, Moutard, ML, Andre, C, Merzoug, V, Ferey, S, Quere, MP et al. MRI of the fetal posterior fossa. Pediatr Radiol 2005; 35: 124–40.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
95Klein, O, Pierre-Kahn, A, Boddaert, N, Parisot, D, Brunelle, F. Dandy-Walker malformation: prenatal diagnosis and prognosis. Childs Nerv Syst 2003; 19: 484–89.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
96Mangels, KJ, Tulipan, N, Tsao, LY, Alarcon, J, Bruner, JP. Fetal MRI in the evaluation of intrauterine myelomeningocele. Pediatr Neurosurg 2000; 32: 124–31.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
97Miller, E, Ben-Sira, L, Constantini, S, Beni-Adani, L. Impact of prenatal magnetic resonance imaging on postnatal neurosurgical treatment. J Neurosurg 2006; 105: 203–209.Google ScholarPubMed
98Papadias, A, Miller, C, Martin, WL, Kilby, MD, Sgouros, S. Comparison of prenatal and postnatal MRI findings in the evaluation of intrauterine CNS anomalies requiring postnatal neurosurgical treatment. Childs Nerv Syst 2008 (Feb); 24: 185–92. (Epub 2007 Aug).CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
99Sonigo-Cohen, P, Schmit, P, Zerah, M, Chat, L, Simon, I, Aubry, MC et al. Prenatal diagnosis of diastematomyelia. Childs Nerv Syst 2003; 19: 555–60.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
100von Koch, CS, Glenn, OA, Goldstein, RB, Barkovich, AJ. Fetal magnetic resonance imaging enhances detection of spinal cord anomalies in patients with sonographically detected bony anomalies of the spine. J Ultrasound Med 2005; 24: 781–89.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
101Griffiths, PD, Widjaja, E, Paley, MN, Whitby, EH, Imaging the fetal spine using in utero MR: diagnostic accuracy and impact on management. Pediatr Radiol 2006; 36: 927–33.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
102Lewis, DA, Reickert, C, Bowerman, R, Hirschl, RB. Prenatal ultrasonography frequently fails to diagnose congenital diaphragmatic hernia. J Pediatr Surg 1997; 32: 352–56.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
103Deprest, J, Jani, J, Gratacos, E, Vandecruys, H, Naulaers, G, Delgado, J et al. Fetal intervention for congenital diaphragmatic hernia: the European experience. Semin Perinatol 2005; 29: 94–103.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
104Deprest, J, Jani, J, Lewi, L, Ochsenbein-Kolble, N, Cannie, M, Done, E et al. Fetoscopic surgery: encouraged by clinical experience and boosted by instrument innovation. Semin Fetal Neonatal Med 2006; 11: 398–412.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
105Harrison, MR, Keller, RL, Hawgood, SB, Kitterman, JA, Sandberg, PL, Farmer, DL et al. A randomized trial of fetal endoscopic tracheal occlusion for severe fetal congenital diaphragmatic hernia. N Engl J Med 2003; 349: 1916–924.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
106Harrison, MR, Mychaliska, GB, Albanese, CT, Jennings, RW, Farrell, JA, Hawgood, S et al. Correction of congenital diaphragmatic hernia in utero IX: fetuses with poor prognosis (liver herniation and low lung-to-head ratio) can be saved by fetoscopic temporary tracheal occlusion. J Pediatr Surg 1998; 33: 1017–1022; discussion 1022–1023.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
107Jani, J, Keller, RL, Benachi, A, Nicolaides, KH, Favre, R, Gratacos, E et al. Prenatal prediction of survival in isolated left-sided diaphragmatic hernia. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2006; 27: 18–22.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
108Lipshutz, GS, Albanese, CT, Feldstein, VA, Jennings, RW, Housley, HT, Beech, R et al. Prospective analysis of lung-to-head ratio predicts survival for patients with prenatally diagnosed congenital diaphragmatic hernia. J Pediatr Surg 1997; 32: 1634–636.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
109Metkus, AP, Filly, RA, Stringer, MD, Harrison, MR, Adzick, NS. Sonographic predictors of survival in fetal diaphragmatic hernia. J Pediatr Surg 1996; 31: 148–51; discussion 151–52.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
110Jani, JC, Cannie, M, Peralta, CF, Deprest, JA, Nicolaides, KH and Dymarkowski, S. Lung volumes in fetuses with congenital diaphragmatic hernia: comparison of 3D US and MR imaging assessments. Radiology 2007; 244: 575–82.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
111Bonfils, M, Emeriaud, G, Durand, C, Brancato, S, Nugues, F, Jouk, PS et al. Fetal lung volume in congenital diaphragmatic hernia. Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed 2006; 91: F363–64.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
112Barnewolt, CE, Kunisaki, SM, Fauza, DO, Nemes, LP, Estroff, JA, Jennings, RW. Percent predicted lung volumes as measured on fetal magnetic resonance imaging: a useful biometric parameter for risk stratification in congenital diaphragmatic hernia. J Pediatr Surg 2007; 42: 193–97.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
113Cannie, M, Jani, JC, De Keyzer, F, Devlieger, R, Van Schoubroeck, D, Witters, I et al. Fetal body volume: use at MR imaging to quantify relative lung volume in fetuses suspected of having pulmonary hypoplasia. Radiology 2006; 241: 847–53.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
114Walsh, DS, Hubbard, AM, Olutoye, OO, Howell, LJ, Crombleholme, TM, Flake, AW et al. Assessment of fetal lung volumes and liver herniation with magnetic resonance imaging in congenital diaphragmatic hernia. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2000; 183: 1067–1069.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
115Arkovitz, MS, Russo, M, Devine, P, Budhorick, N, Stolar, CJ. Fetal lung-head ratio is not related to outcome for antenatal diagnosed congenital diaphragmatic hernia. J Pediatr Surg 2007; 42: 107–110; discussion 110–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
116Hill, BJ, Joe, BN, Qayyum, A, Yeh, BM, Goldstein, R and Coakley, FV. Supplemental value of MRI in fetal abdominal disease detected on prenatal sonography: preliminary experience. Am J Roentgenol 2005; 184: 993–98.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
117Benachi, A, Sonigo, P, Jouannic, JM, Simon, I, Revillon, Y, Brunelle, F et al. Determination of the anatomical location of an antenatal intestinal occlusion by magnetic resonance imaging. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2001; 18: 163–65.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
118Shinmoto, H, Kuribayashi, S. MRI of fetal abdominal abnormalities. Abdom Imaging 2003. 28: 877–86.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
119Simonovsky, V, Lisy, J. Meconium pseudocyst secondary to ileal atresia complicated by volvulus: antenatal MR demonstration. Pediatr Radiol 2007; 37: 305–309.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
120Shono, T, Taguchi, T, Suita, S, Nakanami, N, Nakano, HPrenatal ultrasonographic and magnetic resonance imaging findings of congenital cloacal anomalies associated with meconium peritonitis. J Pediatr Surg 2007; 42: 681–84.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
121Saguintaah, M, Couture, A, Veyrac, C, Baud, C, Quere, MP. MRI of the fetal gastrointestinal tract. Pediatr Radiol 2002; 32: 395–404.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
122Veyrac, C, Couture, A, Saguintaah, M, Baud, C. MRI of fetal GI tract abnormalities. Abdom Imaging 2004; 29: 411–20.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
123Zizka, J, Elias, P, Hodik, K, Tintera, J, Juttnerova, V, Belobradek, Z et al. Liver, meconium, haemorrhage: the value of T1-weighted images in fetal MRI. Pediatr Radiol 2006; 36: 792–801.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
124Abramowicz, JS, Sheiner, E. In utero imaging of the placenta: importance for diseases of pregnancy. Placenta 2007; 28 Suppl A: S14–22.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
125Marcos, HB, Semelka, RC, Worawattanakul, S. Normal placenta: gadolinium-enhanced dynamic MR imaging. Radiology 1997; 205: 493–96.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
126Malian, V, Lee, JH. MR imaging and MR angiography of an abdominal pregnancy with placental infarction. Am J Roentgenol 2001; 177: 1305–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
127Sonin, A. Nonoperative treatment of placenta percreta: value of MR imaging. Am J Roentgenol 2001; 177: 1301–303.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
128Ong, SS, Moore, RJ, Warren, AY, Crocker, IP, Fulford, J, Tyler, DJ et al. Myometrial and placental artery reactivity alone cannot explain reduced placental perfusion in pre-eclampsia and intrauterine growth restriction. BJOG 2003; 110: 909–15.Google ScholarPubMed
129Francis, ST, Duncan, KR, Moore, RJ, Baker, PN, Johnson, IR and Gowland, PA. Non-invasive mapping of placental perfusion. Lancet 1998; 351: 1397–399.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
130Gowland, PA, Francis, ST, Duncan, KR, Freeman, AJ, Issa, B, Moore, RJ et al. In vivo perfusion measurements in the human placenta using echo planar imaging at 0.5 T. Magn Reson Med 1998; 40: 467–73.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
131Gowland, PA, Freeman, A, Issa, B, Boulby, P, Duncan, KR, Moore, RJ et al. In vivo relaxation time measurements in the human placenta using echo planar imaging at 0.5 T. Magn Reson Imaging 1998; 16: 241–47.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
132Duncan, KR, Gowland, P, Francis, S, Moore, R, Baker, PN, Johnson, IR. The investigation of placental relaxation and estimation of placental perfusion using echo-planar magnetic resonance imaging. Placenta 1998; 19: 539–43.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
133Taillieu, F, Salomon, LJ, Siauve, N, Clement, O, Faye, N, Balvay, D et al. Placental perfusion and permeability: simultaneous assessment with dual-echo contrast-enhanced MR imaging in mice. Radiology 2006 241: 737–45.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
134Cohen, M, Paley, M, Griffiths, P, Whitby, E. Less invasive autopsy: benefits and limitations of the use of magnetic resonance imaging in the perinatal post-mortem. Pediatr Dev Pathol 2007: 1. (Epub ahead of print).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
135Whitby, EH, Variend, S, Rutter, S, Paley, MN, Wilkinson, ID, Davies, NP et al. Corroboration of in utero MRI using post-mortem MRI and autopsy in foetuses with CNS abnormalities. Clin Radiol 2004; 59: 1114–120.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
136Griffiths, PD, Variend, D, Evans, M, Jones, A, Wilkinson, ID, Paley, MN et al. Postmortem MR imaging of the fetal and stillborn central nervous system. Am J Neuroradiol 2003; 24: 22–27.Google ScholarPubMed
137Griffiths, PD, Wilkinson, ID, Variend, S, Jones, A, Paley, MN, Whitby, E. Differential growth rates of the cerebellum and posterior fossa assessed by post mortem magnetic resonance imaging of the fetus: implications for the pathogenesis of the chiari 2 deformity. Acta Radiol 2004; 45: 236–42.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
138Breeze, AC, Cross, JJ, Hackett, GA, Jessop, FA, Joubert, I, Lomas, DJ et al. Use of a confidence scale in reporting postmortem fetal magnetic resonance imaging. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol, 2006; 28: 918–24.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed