Yıl: 2011 Cilt: 12 Sayı: 1 Sayfa Aralığı: 39 - 46 Metin Dili: Türkçe İndeks Tarihi: 29-07-2022

Fetal magnetic resonance imaging in obstetric practice

Öz:
Ultrasonografi (USG) keşfedilmesinden günümüze kadar fetal anomalilerin prenatal tanısında primer görüntüleme yöntemidir. Fetal görüntülemede USG primer yöntem olmasına rağmen fetus hakkında yeterli bilgi veremediği obezite, oligohidramnioz, fetal başın angajmanı gibi durumlar vardır. Bu aşamada manyetik rezonans görüntüleme (MRG) daha fazla spesifik bilgi sağlayarak bize yardımcı olmaktadır. Günümüzde giderek yaygınlaşan intrauterin cerrahi, fetal MRG uygulamalarına olan ihtiyacı ve önemini daha da arttırmaktadır. MRG’nin doku kontrastını iyi verebilmesi, inceleme alanının büyük olması ve böylece lezyon ile olan komşulukların ilişkisinin gösterilebilmesi, operatörden bağımsız oluşu, maternal obezite ve ciddi oligohidramnioz durumundan etkilenmemesi USG’ye olan üstünlüklerindendir. Ancak fetal ekstremite değerlendirilmesi ve fetal kardiyak anomali tesbitinde MRG, USG’ye göre yetersiz kalmaktadır. MRG gebelikte rutin olarak kullanılmaz. Noniyonize görüntü yöntemleri yetersiz kaldığında veya iyonoze radyasyon gerektiren durumlarda gebe kadınlarda MRG kullanılır. İlk trimesterde önerilmemektedir. Kontrast madde (Gadolinium) kullanılmaz. MRG uygulamasının biyolojik riski bilinmemekle birlikte fetusa zararlı etkisi olmadığına inanılmaktadır. Kopus kallozum disgenezisi, üçüncü trimesterde posterior fossa malformasyonlarının değerlendirilmesi, bilateral renal agenezi, diyafram hernisi ve akciğer maturasyonu saptamada MRG tekniği USG’ye üstündür. Özellikle santral sinir sistemi (SSS) anormalliklerinin değerlendirilmesinde sıklıkla kullanılan bir yöntemdir. Fetal MRG, USG’yi tamamlayıcı bir rol üstlenmekte ve prenatal tanıda önemli bilgiler sağlayarak tanı doğrulunu, prenatal tedaviyi, prenatal girişimi ve doğum planını etkileyebilmektedir.
Anahtar Kelime:

Konular: Kadın Hastalıkları ve Doğum

Fetal manyetik rezonans görüntülemenin obstetri pratiğindeki yeri

Öz:
Ultrasonography (USG) is the primary imaging method for prenatal diagnosis of fetal abnormalities since its discovery. Although it is the primary method of fetal imaging, it cannot provide sufficient information about the fetus in some conditions such as maternal obesity, oligohydramnios and engagement of the fetal head. At this stage, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) facilitates examination by providing more specific information. The need and importance of fetal MRI applications further increased by the intrauterine surgery which is currently gaining popularity. Some advantages of fetal MRI over USG are the good texture of contrast, a greater study area and visualization of the lesion and neighbourhood relations, independence of the operators. Also it is not affected by maternal obesity and severe oligohydramnios. However, MRI is inadequate in detecting fetal limb and cardiac abnormalities when compared to USG. MRI is not used routinely in pregnancy. It is used in situations where nonionizing imaging methods are inadequate or ionizing radiation is required in pregnant women. It is not recommended during the first trimester. Contrast agent (Godalinium) is not used during pregnancy. It is believed that MRI is not harmful to the fetus, although the biological risk of MRI application is not known. MRI technique is superior to USG in the detection of corpus callosum dysgenesis, third-trimester evaluation of posterior fossa malformations, bilateral renal agenesis, diaphragmatic hernia and assessment of lung maturation. Especially, it is the method of choice for evaluation of central nervous system (CNS) abnormalities. Fetal MRI has a complementary role with USG. It provides important information for prenatal diagnosis, increases diagnostic accuracy, and in turn affects the prenatal treatment, prenatal interventions and birth plan.
Anahtar Kelime:

Konular: Kadın Hastalıkları ve Doğum
Belge Türü: Makale Makale Türü: Diğer Erişim Türü: Erişime Açık
  • 1. Pugash D, Brugger PC, Bettelheim D, Prayer D. Prenatal ultrasound and fetal MRI: The comparative value of each modality in prenatal diagnosis. Eur J Radiol 2008; 68: 214-26. [CrossRef]
  • 2. Kline-Fath B, Bitters C. Prenatal Imaging. Newborn Infant Nurs Rev 2007; 7: 197-204. [CrossRef]
  • 3. Smith FW, Adam AH, Phillips WDP. NMR imaging in pregnancy. Lancet 1983; 1: 61-2.
  • 4. McCarthy S. Magnetic resonance imaging in obstetrics and gynecology. Magn Reson Imaging 1986; 4: 59-66. [CrossRef]
  • 5. Levine, Deborah MD. Magnetic resonance imaging in prenatal diagnosis. Curr Opin Pediatr 2001; 13: 572-8. [CrossRef]
  • 6. Reiss I, Gortner L, Moller J, Gehl HB, Baschat AA, Gembruch U. Gembruch U. Fetal intracerebral hemorrhage in the second trimester: diagnosis by sonography and magnetic resonance imaging. Ultrasound in obstet gynecol 1996; 7: 49-51. [CrossRef]
  • 7. Chew S, Ahmadi A, Goh PS, Foong LC. The effects of 1.5T magnetic resonance imaging on early murine in-vitro embryo development. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2001; 13: 417-20. [CrossRef]
  • 8. O’Connor M. Intrauterine effects in animals exposed to radiofrequency and microwave fields. Teratology 1999; 59: 287-91. [CrossRef]
  • 9. Kanal E, Gillen J, Evans JA, Savitz DA, Shellock FG. Survey of reproductive health among female MR workers. Radiology 1993; 187: 395-9.
  • 10. Baker P, Johnson I, Harvey P, Gowland PA, Mansfield P et al. A three-year follow-up of children imaged in utero with echo-planar magnetic resonance. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1994; 170: 32-9.
  • 11. Shellock FG, Kanal E. Policies, guidelines, and recommendations for MR imaging safety and patient management. SMRI Safety Committee. J Magn Reson Imaging 1991; 1: 97-101. [CrossRef]
  • 12. Levine D. Ultrasound versus magnetic resonance imaging in fetal evaluation. Top Magn Reson Imaging 2001; 12: 25-38. [CrossRef]
  • 13. Hubbard AM. Magnetic resonance imaging of fetal thoracic abnormalities. Top Magn Reson Imaging 2001; 12: 18-24. [CrossRef]
  • 14. Levine D, Barnes PD, Madsen JR, Li W, Edelman RR. Fetal central nervous system anomalies: MR imaging augments sonographic diagnosis. Radiology 1997; 204: 635-42.
  • 15. Hubbard AM, Simon EM. Fetal imaging. Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am 2002; 10: 389-408. [CrossRef]
  • 16. Stazzone MM, Hubbard AM, Bilaniuk LT, Harty MP, Meyer JS, Zimmerman RA et al. Ultrafast MR imaging of the normal posterior fossa in fetuses. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2000; 175: 835-9.
  • 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: 707-10.
  • 18. Reid A, Smith FW, Hutchison JM. Nuclear magnetic resonance imaging and its safety implications: Follow-up of 181 patients. Br J Radiol 1982; 55: 784-6. [CrossRef]
  • 19. Schwartz JL, Crooks LE. NMR imaging produces no observable mutations or cytotoxicity in mammalian cells. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1982; 139: 583-5.
  • 20. Kanal E, Shellock FG, Talagala L. Safety considerations in MR imaging. Radiology 1990; 176: 593-606.
  • 21. Shellock FG, Kanal E. Guidelines and recommendations for MR imaging safety and patient management. III. Questionnaire for screening patients before MR procedures. The SMRI Safety Committee. J Magn Reson Imaging 1994; 4: 749-51. [CrossRef]
  • 22. Athey TW. FDA regulation of the safety of MR devices: Past, present, and future. Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am 1998; 6: 791-5.
  • 23. Myers C, Duncan KR, Gowland PA, Johnson IR, Baker PN. Failure to detect intrauterine growth restriction following in utero exposure to MRI. Br J Radiol 1998; 71: 549-51.
  • 24. Levine D, Zuo C, Faro CB, Chen Q. Potential heating effect in the gravid uterus during MR HASTE imaging. J Magn Reson Imaging 2001; 13: 856-61. [CrossRef]
  • 25. Okuda Y, Sagami F, Tirone P, Morisetti A, Bussi S, Masters RE. [Reproductive and developmental toxicity study of gadobenate dimeglumine formulation (E7155) (3)-Study of embryo-fetal toxicity in rabbits by intravenous administration]. J Toxicol Sci 1999; 24: 79-87.
  • 26. Novak Z, Thurmond AS, Ross PL, Jones MK, Thornburg KL, Katzberg RW et al. Gadolinium-DTPA transplacental transfer and distribution in fetal tissue in rabbits. Invest Radiol 1993; 28: 828-30. [CrossRef]
  • 27. D. Levine. MR imaging of fetal central nervous system abnormalities, Brain Cognition 2002; 50: 432-48. [CrossRef]
  • 28. Simon E, Goldstein R, Coakley F, Filly RA, Broderick KC, Musci TJ et al. Fast MR imaging of fetal CNS anomalies in utero. Am J Neuroradiol 2000; 21: 1688-98.
  • 29. Levine D, Barnes PD, Madsen JR, Abbott J, Mehta T, Edelman RR. Central nervous system abnormalities assessed with prenatal magnetic resonance imaging. Obstet Gynecol 1999; 94: 1011-9. [CrossRef]
  • 30. Lan LM, Yamashita Y, Tang Y, Sugahara T, Takahashi M, Ohba T et al. Normal Fetal Brain Development: MR Imaging with a Half-Fourier Rapid Acquisition with Relaxation Enhancement Sequence. Radiology 2000; 215: 205-10.
  • 31. Brisse H, Fallet C, Sebag G, Nessmann C,Blot P, Hassan M. Supratentorial parenchyma in the developing fetal brain: In vitro MR study with histologic comparison. Am J Neuroradiol 1997; 18: 1491-7.
  • 32. Barkovich A, Rowley H, Bollen A. Correlation of prenatal events with the development of polymicrogyria. Am J Neuroradiol 1995; 16: 822-7.
  • 33. Denis D, Maugey-Laulom B, Carles D, Pedespan JM, Brun M, Chateil JF. Prenatal diagnosis of schizencephaly by fetal magnetic resonance imaging. Fetal Diagn Ther 2001; 16: 354-9. [CrossRef]
  • 34. Sonigo P, Rypens F, Carteret M, Delezoide AL, Brunelle FO et al. MR imaging of fetal cerebral anomalies. Pediatri Radiol 1998; 28: 212-22. [CrossRef]
  • 35. Cardoza JD, Goldstein RB, Filly RA. Exclusion of fetal ventriculomegaly with a single measurement: the width of the lateral ventricular atrium. Radiology 1988; 169: 711-4.
  • 36. Chervenak FA, Duncan C, Ment LR, Hobbins JC, McClure M, Scott D et al. Outcome of fetal ventriculomegaly. Lancet 1984; 2: 179-81. [CrossRef]
  • 37. Wagenvoort AM, Bekker MN, Go AT, Vandenbussche FPHA, van Buchem MA, Valk J, van Vugt JMG. Ultrafast scan magnetic resonance in prenatal diagnosis. Fetal Diagn Ther 2000;15(6):364- 372. [CrossRef]
  • 38. de Laveaucoupet J, Audibert F, Guis F, Rambaud C, Suarez B, Boithias-Guerot C et al. Fetal magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of ischemic brain injury. Prenat Diagn 2001;21: 729-36. [CrossRef]
  • 39. Coakley FV, Hricak H, Filly RA, Barkovich AJ, Harrison MR. Complex fetal disorders: effect of MR imaging on management-preliminary clinical experience. Radiology 1999; 213: 691-6.
  • 40. Vintzileos AM, Campbell WA, Weinbaum PJ, Nochimson DJ. Perinatal Management and Outcome of Fetal Ventriculomegaly Obstet Gynecol 1987; 69: 5-11.
  • 41. Nyberg DA, Mack LA, Hirsch J, Pagon RO, Shepard TH. Fetal hydrocephalus: Sonographic detection and clinical significance of associated anomalies. Radiology 1987; 163: 187-91.
  • 42. Toma P, Lucigrai G, Ravegnani M, Carıatı M, Magnano G, Lıtuanıa M. Hydrocephalus and porencephaly: Prenatal diagnosis by ultrasonography and MR imaging. Comput Assist Tomograph 1990; 14: 843-5.
  • 43. Gupta JK, Lilford RJ. Assessment and managemen tof fetal agenesis of the corpus callosum. Prenat Diagn 1995; 15: 301-12 .
  • 44. Hubbard AM. Ultrafast Fetal MRI and Prenatal Diagnosis. Seminars in Pediatric Surgery 2003; 12: 143-53. [CrossRef]
  • 45. Toma P, Costa A, Magnano G, Cariati M, Lituania M. Holoprosencephaly: Prenatal diagnosis by sonography and magnetic resonance imaging. Prenat Diagn 1990; 10: 429-36. [CrossRef]
  • 46. Wang GB, Shan RQ, Ma YX, Shi H, Chen LG, Liu W et al. Fetal central nervous system anomalies: comparison of magnetic resonance imaging and ultrasonography for diagnosis. Chin Med J (Engl) 2006; 119: 1272-7.
  • 47. Kubik-Huch RA, Huisman TA, Wisser J, Gottstein-Aalame N, Debatin JF, Seifert B et al. Ultrafast MR imaging of the fetus. AJR 2000; 174: 1599-606.
  • 48. Dihn DH, Wright RM, Hanigan WC. The use of magnetic resonance imaging for the diagnosis of fetal intracranial anomalies. Child’s Nerv Syst1990; 6: 212-5. [CrossRef]
  • 49. Levine D, Barnes P, Korf B, Edelman R. Tuberous sclerosis in the fetus: Second-trimester diagnosis of subependymal tubers with ultrafast MR imaging. Am J Roentgenol 2000; 175: 1067-9.
  • 50. Avni FE, Guibaud L, Robert Y, Segers V, Ziereisen F, Delaet MH et al. MR imaging of fetal sacrococcygeal teratoma: Diagnosis and assessment. Am J Roentgenol 2002; 78: 179-83.
  • 51. Low JA, Simpson LL, Ramsey DA: The clinical diagnosis of asphyxia responsible for brain damage in the human fetus. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1992; 167: 11-5.
  • 52. Hubbard AM, Crombleholme T, Adzick NS. Prenatal MRI evaluation of giant neck masses in preparation for fetal exit procedure. Am J Perinatol 1998; 15: 253-7. [CrossRef]
  • 53. Coakley FV, Lopoo JB, Lu Y, Hricak H, Albanese CT, Harri- son MR et al. Volumetric assessment of normal and hypoplastic fetal lungs by prenatal single-shot RARE MR imaging. Radiology 2000; 216: 107-11.
  • 54. Hubbard AM, Adzick NS, Crombleholme TM, Coleman BG, Howell LJ, Haselgrove JC et al. Congenital chest lesions: Diagnosis and characterization with prenatal MR imaging. Radiology 1999; 212: 43-8.
  • 55. Duncan K, Gowland P, Freeman A, Issa B, Moore R, Baker PN et al. The changes in magnetic resonance properties of the fetal lungs: A first result and a potential tool for the non-invasive in utero demonstration of fetal lung maturation. Br J Obstet Gynecol 1999; 106: 122-5. [CrossRef]
  • 56. Pumberger W, Moroder W, Weisbauer P. Intraabdominal extralobar pulmonary sequestration exhibiting cystic adenomatoid malformation: Prenatal diagnosis and characterization of a left suprarenal mass in the newborn. Abdom Imaging 2001; 26: 28-31. [CrossRef]
  • 57. Harrison M, Adzick N, Estes J, Howell LJ. A prospective study of the outcome of fetuses with diaphragmatic hernia. J Am Med Assoc 1994; 271: 382-4. [CrossRef]
  • 58. Walsh DS, Hubbard AM, Olutoye OO, Howell LJ, Crombleholme TM, Flake AW et al. Assessment of feta lung volumes and liver herniation with magnetic resonance imaging in congenital diaphragmatic hernia. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2000; 183: 1067-9. [CrossRef]
  • 59. Semple SI, Wallis F, Haggarty P, Abramovich D, Ross JA, Redpath TW et al. The measurement of fetal liver T2* in utero before and after maternal oxygen breathing: Progress towards a non-invasive measurement of fetal oxygenation and placental function. Magn Reson Imaging 2001; 19: 921-8. [CrossRef]
  • 60. Benachi A, Sonigo P, Jouannic JM, Simon I, Révillon Y, Brunelle F et al. Determination of anatomical location of an antenatal intestinal occlusion by magnetic resonance imaging. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2001; 18: 163-5. [CrossRef]
  • 61. Malinger G, Brugger PC, Prayer D. Fetal MRI of the femur- preliminary results. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2006; 27: 593.
  • 62. Bajoria R, Wee LY, Anwar S, Ward S. Outcome of twin pregnancies complicated by single intrauterine death in relation to vascular anatomy of the monochorionic placenta. Hum Reprod 1999; 14: 2124-30. [CrossRef]
  • 63. Haverkamp F, Lex C, Hanisch C, Fahnenstich H, Zerres K. Neurodevelopmental risks in twin-to-twin transfusion syndrome: preliminary findings. Eur J Paediatr Neurol 2001; 5: 21-7. [CrossRef]
  • 64. Lax A, Prince MR, Mennitt KW, Schwebach JR, Budorick NE. The value of specific MRI features in the evaluation of suspected placental invasion. Magn Reson Imaging 2007; 25: 87-93. [CrossRef]
  • 65. Morita S, Ueno E, Fujimura M, Muraoka M, Takagi K, Fujibayashi M. Feasibility of Diffusion-Weighted MRI for Defining Placental Invasion. J Magn Reson Imaging 2009; 30: 666-71. [CrossRef]
  • 66. Baker PN, Johnson IR, Gowland PA, Hykin J, Adams V, Mansfield P et al. Measurement of fetal liver, brain, and placental volumes with echo-planar magnetic resonance imaging. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1995; 102: 35-9. [CrossRef].
APA KÖŞÜŞ A, KÖŞÜŞ N, USLUOĞULLARI B, uyanik m, Öztürk Turhan N, TEKŞAM M (2011). Fetal magnetic resonance imaging in obstetric practice. , 39 - 46.
Chicago KÖŞÜŞ Aydın,KÖŞÜŞ Nermin,USLUOĞULLARI Betül,uyanik muzeyyen,Öztürk Turhan Nilgün,TEKŞAM Mehmet Fetal magnetic resonance imaging in obstetric practice. (2011): 39 - 46.
MLA KÖŞÜŞ Aydın,KÖŞÜŞ Nermin,USLUOĞULLARI Betül,uyanik muzeyyen,Öztürk Turhan Nilgün,TEKŞAM Mehmet Fetal magnetic resonance imaging in obstetric practice. , 2011, ss.39 - 46.
AMA KÖŞÜŞ A,KÖŞÜŞ N,USLUOĞULLARI B,uyanik m,Öztürk Turhan N,TEKŞAM M Fetal magnetic resonance imaging in obstetric practice. . 2011; 39 - 46.
Vancouver KÖŞÜŞ A,KÖŞÜŞ N,USLUOĞULLARI B,uyanik m,Öztürk Turhan N,TEKŞAM M Fetal magnetic resonance imaging in obstetric practice. . 2011; 39 - 46.
IEEE KÖŞÜŞ A,KÖŞÜŞ N,USLUOĞULLARI B,uyanik m,Öztürk Turhan N,TEKŞAM M "Fetal magnetic resonance imaging in obstetric practice." , ss.39 - 46, 2011.
ISNAD KÖŞÜŞ, Aydın vd. "Fetal magnetic resonance imaging in obstetric practice". (2011), 39-46.
APA KÖŞÜŞ A, KÖŞÜŞ N, USLUOĞULLARI B, uyanik m, Öztürk Turhan N, TEKŞAM M (2011). Fetal magnetic resonance imaging in obstetric practice. Journal of the Turkish-German Gynecological Association, 12(1), 39 - 46.
Chicago KÖŞÜŞ Aydın,KÖŞÜŞ Nermin,USLUOĞULLARI Betül,uyanik muzeyyen,Öztürk Turhan Nilgün,TEKŞAM Mehmet Fetal magnetic resonance imaging in obstetric practice. Journal of the Turkish-German Gynecological Association 12, no.1 (2011): 39 - 46.
MLA KÖŞÜŞ Aydın,KÖŞÜŞ Nermin,USLUOĞULLARI Betül,uyanik muzeyyen,Öztürk Turhan Nilgün,TEKŞAM Mehmet Fetal magnetic resonance imaging in obstetric practice. Journal of the Turkish-German Gynecological Association, vol.12, no.1, 2011, ss.39 - 46.
AMA KÖŞÜŞ A,KÖŞÜŞ N,USLUOĞULLARI B,uyanik m,Öztürk Turhan N,TEKŞAM M Fetal magnetic resonance imaging in obstetric practice. Journal of the Turkish-German Gynecological Association. 2011; 12(1): 39 - 46.
Vancouver KÖŞÜŞ A,KÖŞÜŞ N,USLUOĞULLARI B,uyanik m,Öztürk Turhan N,TEKŞAM M Fetal magnetic resonance imaging in obstetric practice. Journal of the Turkish-German Gynecological Association. 2011; 12(1): 39 - 46.
IEEE KÖŞÜŞ A,KÖŞÜŞ N,USLUOĞULLARI B,uyanik m,Öztürk Turhan N,TEKŞAM M "Fetal magnetic resonance imaging in obstetric practice." Journal of the Turkish-German Gynecological Association, 12, ss.39 - 46, 2011.
ISNAD KÖŞÜŞ, Aydın vd. "Fetal magnetic resonance imaging in obstetric practice". Journal of the Turkish-German Gynecological Association 12/1 (2011), 39-46.