Myelomeningocele: Prenatal Evaluation—Comparison between Transabdominal US and MR Imaging
Abstract
PURPOSE: To compare transabdominal ultrasonography (US) with fetal magnetic resonance (MR) imaging in the prenatal evaluation of myelomeningocele lesion level.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Prenatal US images, pre- and postnatal MR images, and postnatal spinal radiographs obtained in the first 100 fetuses who underwent intrauterine myelomeningocele repair were the basis for this study. Each image was used to assign a lesion level. The assigned levels were compared by means of the κ statistic, as an index of agreement.
RESULTS: All fetuses underwent prenatal US. Sixty-one fetuses underwent prenatal MR imaging. Fifty fetuses underwent both postnatal spinal radiography and postnatal MR imaging, and an additional 34 fetuses underwent one postnatal study but not the other. When findings on prenatal US images were compared with those on postnatal radiographs, the findings agreed within one spinal level in 79% (55 of 70, κ = 0.60) of cases. When findings on prenatal MR images were compared with those on postnatal radiographs, the findings agreed in 82% (31 of 38, κ = 0.63) of cases. Findings on postnatal MR images and those on postnatal spinal radiographs agreed within one spinal level in 100% (50 of 50, κ = 1.0) of cases.
CONCLUSION: Findings at prenatal MR imaging and prenatal US are equally accurate for the assignment of a lesion level in a fetus with myelomeningocele. Given that findings with both modalities will lead to misdiagnosis of the spinal level by two or more segments in at least 20% of cases, care should be exercised when neurologic outcome is predicted on the basis of these studies alone.
© RSNA, 2003
References
- 1 Tulipan N, Bruner JP. Myelomeningocele repair in utero: a report of three cases. Pediatr Neurosurg 1998; 28:177-180.
- 2 Bruner JP, Tulipan NB, Paschall RL, et al. Fetal surgery for myelomeningocele and the incidence of shunt-dependent hydrocephalus. JAMA 1999; 282:1819-1825.
- 3 Tulipan NB, Hernanz-Schulman M, Lowe LH, Bruner JP. Intrauterine myelomeningocele repair reverses preexisting hindbrain herniation. Pediatr Neurosurg 1999; 31:137-142.
- 4 Mangels KJ, Tulipan NB, Tsao LY, Alacron J, Bruner JP. Fetal MRI in the evaluation of intrauterine myelomeningocele. Pediatr Neurosurg 2000; 32:124-131.
- 5 Tulipan NB, Bruner JP, Hernanz-Schulman M, et al. Effect of intrauterine myelomeningocele repair on central nervous system structure and function. Pediatr Neurosurg 1999; 31:183-188.
- 6 Rintoul N, Sutton LN, Hubbard AM, et al. A new look at myelomeningoceles: functional level, vertebral level, shunting and the implications for fetal intervention. Pediatrics 2002; 109:409-413.
- 7 Cochrane DD, Wilson RD, Steinbock P, Farquharson DF, Irwin B, Chambers K. Prenatal spinal evaluation and functional outcome of patients born with myelomeningocele: information for improved prenatal counseling and outcome prediction. Fetal Diagn Ther 1996; 11:159-168.
- 8 Altman D. Practical statistics for medical research London, England: Chapman & Hall, 1991; 402-409.
- 9 Rosner B. Fundamentals of biostatistics 4th ed. Belmont, Calif: Duxbury, 1995; 426.
- 10 Fleiss JL. Statistical methods for rates and proportions 2nd ed. New York, NY: Wiley, 1981.
- 11 Coniglio SJ, Anderson SM, Ferguson JE. Functional motor outcome in children with myelomeningocele: correlation with anatomic level on prenatal ultrasound. Dev Med Child Neurol 1996; 38:675-680.
- 12 Johnson DD, Pretorius DH, Riccabona M, Budorick NE, Nelson TR. Three-dimensional ultrasound of the fetal spine. Obstetr Gynecol 1997; 89:434-438.
- 13 Kollias SS, Goldstein PH, Cogen PH, Filly RA. Prenatally detected myelomeningoceles: sonographic accuracy in estimation of spinal level. Radiology 1993; 185:109-112.
- 14 Jaeschke R, Guyatt GH, Sackett DL. User’s guides to the medical literature. III. How to use an article about a diagnostic test. B. What are the results and will they help me in caring for my patients? The evidence-based medicine working group. JAMA 1994; 271:703-707.
- 15 Baker PN, Johnson IR, Harvey PR, Gowland PA, Mansfield P. A three-year follow-up of children imaged in utero using planar magnetic resonance. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1994; 170:32-33.
- 16 Myers C, Duncan K, Gowland P, Johnson IR, Baker PN. Failure to detect intrauterine growth restriction following in utero exposure to MRI. Br J Radiol 1998; 71:549-551.
- 17 Wolff S, Crooks LE, Brown P, Howard R, Painter RB. Tests for DNA and chromosomal damage induced by nuclear magnetic resonance imaging. Radiology 1980; 136:707-710.
- 18 Hubbard AM, Harty P. Prenatal magnetic resonance imaging of fetal anomalies. Semin Roentgenol 1999; 34:41-47.
- 19 Variend S, Emery JL. The pathology of the central lobes of the cerebellum in children with myelomeningocele. Dev Med Child Neurol 1974; 16:99-106.
- 20 Levine D, Barnes PD, Madsen JR, Abott J, Mehta T, Edelman RR. Central nervous system abnormalities assessed with prenatal magnetic resonance imaging. Obstetr Gynecol 1999; 94:1011-1019.
- 21 Dinh DH, Wright RM, Hanigan WC. The use of magnetic resonance imaging for the diagnosis of fetal intracranial anomalies. Childs Nerv Syst 1990; 6:212-215.
