4.5 Article

Is Brain Maturation Comparable in Fetuses and Premature Neonates at Term Equivalent Age?

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF NEURORADIOLOGY
卷 32, 期 8, 页码 1451-1458

出版社

AMER SOC NEURORADIOLOGY
DOI: 10.3174/ajnr.A2555

关键词

-

资金

  1. Walter und Margarete Liechtenstein Stiftung
  2. Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Improved knowledge of brain maturation in fetuses and premature neonates is crucial for the early detection of pathologies and would help determine whether MR data from the premature brain might be used to evaluate fetal maturation. Using diffusion-weighted MR imaging and H-1-MR spectroscopy, we compared cerebral microstructure and metabolism in normal in utero fetuses imaged near term and premature neonates imaged at term equivalent. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty-eight subjects were investigated: 24 in utero fetuses (mean gestational age, 37 +/- 1 weeks) and 24 premature neonates (mean postconceptional age, 37 +/- 1 weeks). ADC values were measured in cerebellum, pons, white matter, brain stem, basal ganglia, and thalamus. MR spectroscopy was performed in deep white matter. RESULTS: Mean ADC values from fetuses and premature neonates were comparable except for the pons and the parietal white matter. ADC values were lower in the pons of premature neonates, whereas greater values were found in their parietal white matter compared with fetuses. Proton MR spectroscopy showed higher levels of NAA/H2O, Glx/H2O, tCr/H2O, and mIns/H2O in premature neonates compared with fetuses. CONCLUSIONS: Our study provides evidence of subtle anomalies in the parietal white matter of healthy premature neonates. In addition, the reduced ADC values in the pons together with the increased levels of NAA/H2O, tCr/H2O, and Glx/H2O in the centrum semiovale suggest a more advanced maturation in some white matter regions. Our results indicate that MR data from the premature brain are not appropriate for the assessment of the fetal brain maturation.

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

4.5
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