4.7 Article

MR imaging appearance of fetal cerebral ventricular morphology

期刊

RADIOLOGY
卷 223, 期 3, 页码 652-660

出版社

RADIOLOGICAL SOC NORTH AMERICA
DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2233011336

关键词

fetus, abnormalities; fetus, central nervous system

资金

  1. NINDS NIH HHS [NS37942] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

PURPOSE: To elucidate further the magnetic resonance (MR) imaging appearance of fetal cerebral ventricles by comparing ultrasonographic (US) and MR images. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective review of MR and US images was performed for 110 normal fetuses and 94 fetuses with central nervous system abnormalities to assess lateral ventricular morphology as having (a) a normal appearance, (b) mild, disproportionate dilatation of the occipital horns with overall preservation of ventricular morphology, (c) colpocephaly with or without normal orientation of the frontal horns, (d) abnormal orientation of the frontal horns without colpocephaly, (e) an angular appearance, (f) fused frontal horns, (g) global dilation, or (h) a distorted appearance. Ventricular morphology on US and MR images was compared and correlated with reference standard diagnoses. RESULTS: US and MR imaging classifications were concordant in 145 of 188 (77%) examinations. Mild disproportion of occipital horns with respect to frontal horns was seen only on MR images. This ventricular configuration was present in eight of 110 normal fetuses and in 10 of 16 fetuses with isolated mild ventriculomegaly (P <.001). An angular configuration of the lateral ventricles, which is seen in fetuses with neural tube defects (NTDs), was present on review of MR images in 11 fetuses and on US images in one fetus. The ventricles of fetuses with NTDs and angular ventricles (3-12 mm) were significantly smaller than those of fetuses with NTDs and global dilatation of the ventricles (13-25 mm; P <.05). CONCLUSION: Ventricular contours differ with differing diagnoses of central nervous system abnormalities. (C) 2002 RSNA.

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

4.7
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