4.2 Article

Postmortem MR in termination of pregnancy for central nervous system (CNS) anomalies

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/14767058.2023.2197098

关键词

Central nervous system; congenital abnormalities; prenatal diagnosis; magnetic resonance imaging; autopsy

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The concordance between conventional autopsy (CA) and postmortem magnetic resonance (MR) was evaluated in fetuses with prenatally detected central nervous system (CNS) anomalies after termination of pregnancy. The study found that in 97% of cases, a valuable postmortem evaluation for parental counseling can be provided by postmortem MR.
Objectives To evaluate the concordance of conventional autopsy (CA) and postmortem magnetic resonance (MR) after termination of pregnancy (TOP) in fetuses with prenatally detected central nervous system (CNS) anomalies. Second, to determine the most informative postmortem investigation in parental counseling. Methods All TOPs between 2006 and 2016 with prenatally detected CNS involvement and having a postmortem MR and CA as postmortem examinations were retrospectively analyzed and concordance levels were established. Results Of 764 TOPs, 255 cases had a CNS anomaly detected prenatally (33.4%). Fetal genetic anomalies (n = 40) and cases without both postmortem MR and CA were excluded, leaving 68 cases for analysis. Disagreement between postmortem MR and CA was observed in 22 cases (32.4%). In eight cases (11.8%), more information was obtained by CA compared with MR. However, only two cases with major additional findings were found when compared with prenatal diagnosis. In 14 cases (20.6%), MR was superior to CA either because of additional cerebral anomalies undetected by CA (n = 5) and/or because of severe autolysis hindering pathology of the CNS (n = 9). Conclusions Our data point out that an adequate postmortem evaluation, valuable in parental counseling, can be provided by a postmortem MR in 97% of the cases.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据