4.4 Article

Cerebellar herniation demonstrated by the occipitum-dens line: Ultrasonography assessment of normal fetuses, fetuses with myelomeningocele, and fetuses that underwent antenatal myelomeningocele surgery

期刊

PRENATAL DIAGNOSIS
卷 38, 期 4, 页码 280-285

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/pd.5229

关键词

-

资金

  1. Coordenacao de Aperfeicoamento de Pessoal de Nivel Superior

向作者/读者索取更多资源

ObjectiveTo establish a method to quantify the position of the cerebellum by ultrasonography in normal fetuses, fetuses with myelomeningocele (MMC), and fetuses that underwent in utero MMC repair. MethodsReference points identifiable on ultrasound were established. The basilar portion of the occipital bone and upper portion of the odontoid process were considered as the external and internal limits, respectively, of the level zero of a line that was designated the occipitum-dens line (ODL). Eighty-three normal fetuses were assessed 1 occasion (cross-sectional study) in addition to 25 fetuses with MMC and 25 fetuses that underwent in utero MMC repair. The groups were compared using analysis of variance or the Kruskal-Wallis test. The intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) was used to determine intra- and interobserver reproducibility. ResultsThe analysis of ODL indicated that all normal fetuses had the cerebellar tonsil above level zero at a mean distance of 2.81.1mm (P=0.125). The fetuses with MMC had the cerebellar tonsil below level zero, except in 2 cases of myelocystocele. All the fetuses that underwent in utero MMC repair exhibited regression of the cerebellar herniation (0.5mm per week, P<0.005). Herniation increased gradually (1.0mm per week, P<0.005) in fetuses that did not undergo MMC repair. ICC indicated good intra- and interobserver reproducibility (0.996 and 0.983, respectively). ConclusionThe reference points for ODL may be used to assess cerebellar height. ODL allowed the demonstration of the regression of cerebellar herniation in fetuses that underwent in utero MMC repair.

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

4.4
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