Background: Accurate fetal imaging is essential to the practice of maternal-fetal medicine. While ultrasonography has been the traditional mainstay of fetal imaging, its ability to resolve critical features of central nervous system (CNS) anatomy remains limited. As interest in intrauterine therapy for myelomeningocele has increased, so has the need for more accurate, noninvasive imaging of the CNS. Fetal magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) promises to fill the gap left by ultrasound. Methods: Thirty-seven MRI scans of fetuses previously diagnosed with myelomeningocele were reviewed by 2 neuroradiologists. The ability of fetal MRI to resolve the commonest CNS stigmata of spina bifida, and the incidence and extent of interobserver error, was assessed. In 4 cases, postnatal MRIs were also available. These were compared to the corresponding fetal studies. Results: The imaging quality with the technique used in this study was excellent, even without the use of maternal or fetal sedation. There were no complications, and the imaging times were minimal. Interobserver error was minimal with respect to the evaluation of ventricular dilatation and hindbrain herniation, but moderate in the description and location of the spinal lesion. As had previously been documented with ultrasonography, a reduction was seen in hindbrain herniation when comparing pre- and postnatal MRIs. Conclusion: It is concluded that fetal MRI is an effective, noninvasive means of assessing fetal CNS anatomy. Its ability to resolve posterior fossa anatomy is superior to ultrasonography while, with respect to the evaluation of hydrocephalus and the level and nature of the spinal lesion, it may be equivalent to inferior. Inclusion of the fetal MRI into the standard diagnostic armamentarium will probably await the next major advance in speed and resolution. It is conceivable that, with further advances, MRI might supplant ultrasonography as the diagnostic tool of choice for evaluation of fetal anomalies including myelomeningocele.

Keywords:
Intrauterine myelomeningocele, Magnetic resonance imaging, Fetus, Spina bifida, Fetal MRI
1.
Garden AS, Griffiths RD, Weindling AM, Martin PA: Fast-scan magnetic resonance imaging in fetal visualization. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1991;164:1190–1196.
2.
Smith FW: The potential use of nuclear magnetic resonance imaging in pregnancy. J Perinat Med 1985;13:265–276.
3.
Smith FW, Kent C, Abramovich DR, Sutherland HW: Nuclear magnetic resonance imaging – A new look at the fetus. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1985;92:1024–1033.
4.
Tulipan N, Bruner JP: Myelomeningocele repair intrauterine: A report of 3 cases. Pediatr Neurosurg 1998;28:177–180.
5.
Shellock FG, Kanal E: Policies, guidelines, and recommendations for MR imaging safety and patient management. J Magn Reson Imaging 1991;1:97–100.
6.
Cooke P, Morris PG: The effects of NMR exposure on living organisms. II. A genetic study of human lymphocytes. Br J Radiol 1981;54:622–625.
7.
Geard CR, Osmak RS, Hall EJ, Simon HE, Maudsley AA, Hilal SK: Magnetic resonance and ionizing radiation: A comparative evaluation in vitro of oncogenic and genotoxic potential. Radiology 1984;152:199–202.
8.
Heinrichs WL, Fong P, Flannery M, Heinrichs SC, Crooks LE, Spindle A, Pedersen RA: Midgestational exposure of pregnant balb/c mice to magnetic resonance imaging. Magn Reson Imaging 1988;6:305–313.
9.
Kay HH, Herfkens RJ, Kay BK: Effect of magnetic resonance imaging on Xenopus laevis embryogenesis. Magn Reson Imaging 1988;6:501–506.
10.
McRobbie D, Foster MA: Pulsed magnetic field exposure during pregnancy and implications for NMR foetal imaging: A study with mice. Magn Reson Imaging 1985;3:231–234.
11.
Osbakken M, Griffith J, Taczanowsky P: A gross morphologic, histologic, hematologic, and blood chemistry study of adult and neonatal mice chronically exposed to high magnetic fields. Magn Reson Med 1986;3:502–517.
12.
Prasad N, Bushong SC, Thornby JI, Bryan RN, Hazelwood CF, Harrell JE: Effect of nuclear magnetic resonance on chromosomes of mouse bone marrow cells. Magn Reson Imaging 1984;2:37–39.
13.
Prasad N, Wright DA, Forster JD: Effect of nuclear magnetic resonance on early stages of amphibian development. Magn Reson Imaging 1982;1:35–38.
14.
Prasad N, Wright DA, Ford JJ, Thornby JI: Safety of 4-T MR imaging: Study of effects on developing frog embryos. Radiology 1990;174:251–253.
15.
Schwartz JL, Crooks LE: NMR imaging produces no observable mutations or cytotoxicity in mammalian cells. Am J Radiol 1982;139:583–585.
16.
Wolf 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.
17.
Adey WR: Tissue interactions with nonionizing electromagnetic fields. Physiol Rev 1981;61:435–514.
18.
Barnothy M: Biological Effects of Magnetic Fields. New York, Plenum, 1969.
19.
Gordon CJ: Biological effects of radiofrequency radiation. EPA-600/8-83-026A. Washington, Environmental Protection Agency, 1984, 4-1-4-28.
20.
Michaelson SM, Lin JV: Biological Effects and Health Implications of Radiofrequency Radiation. New York, Plenum, 1987.
21.
Biological effects and exposure criteria for radiofrequency electromagnetic fields: Recommendations of the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements. NCRP report, No 86. National Council for Radiation Protection and Measurements, 1986.
22.
O’Conner ME: Mammalian teratogenesis and radio-frequency fields. Proc IEEE 1980;68:56–60.
23.
Sheppard AR, Eisenbud M: Biological effects of electric and magnetic fields of extremely low frequency. New York, New York University Press, 1977.
24.
Tofani S, Agnesod G, Ossola P: Effects of low-level exposure to radiofrequency radiation on intrauterine development in rats. Health Phys 1986;51:489–499.
25.
Hubbard AM, Harty P: Prenatal magnetic resonance imaging of fetal anomalies. Semin Roentgenol 1999;34:41–47.
26.
Levine D, Barnes PD, Abbott J, Wong GP, Edelman RR: Fetal CNS anomalies revealed with ultrafast MR imaging. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1999;180:174.
27.
Sonigo PC, Rypens FF, Carteret M, Delezoide A, Brunelle FO: MR imaging of fetal cerebral anomalies. Pediatr Radiol 1998;28:212–222.
28.
Oi S, Honda Y, Hidaka M, Sato O, Matsumoto S: Intrauterine high-resolution magnetic resonance imaging in fetal hydrocephalus and prenatal estimation of postnatal outcomes with ‘perspective classification’. J Neurosurg 1998;88:685–694.
29.
Tsuchiya K, Katase S, Seki T, Mizutani Y, Hachiya J: MR imaging of fetal brain abnormalities using a HASTE sequence. Br J Radiol 1996;69:668–670.
30.
Mansfield P, Stehling MK, Ordidge RJ, Coxon R, Chapman B, Blamire A, Gibbs P, Johnson IR, Symonds EM, Worthington BS, Coupland RE: Echo planar imaging of the human fetus intrauterine at 0.5 T. Br J Radiol 1990;63:833–841.
31.
Hata T, Makihara K, Aoki S, Hata K, Kitao M: Magnetic resonance imaging of the fetus: Initial experience. Gynecol Obstet Invest 1990;29:255–258.
32.
Garden AS, Weindling AM, Griffiths RD, Martin PA: Fast-scan magnetic resonance imaging of fetal anomalies. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1991;98:1217–1222.
33.
Colletti PM: Computer-assisted imaging of the fetus with magnetic resonance imaging. Comput Med Imaging Graphy 1996;20:491–496.
34.
Quinn TM, Hubbard AM, Adzick NS: Prenatal magnetic resonance imaging enhances fetal diagnosis. J Pediatr Surg 1998;33:553–558.
35.
Levine D, Barnes PD, Sher S, Semelka RC, Li W, McArdle CR, Worawattanakul S, Edelman RR: Fetal fast MR imaging: Reproducibility, technical quality, and conspicuity of anatomy. Radiology 1998;206:549–554.
36.
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.
37.
Baker PN, Johnson IR, Harvey PR, Gowland PA, Mansfield P: A three-year follow-up of children imaged intrauterine with echo-planar magnetic resonance. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1994;170:32–33.
38.
Tulipan N, Hernanz-Schulman M, Bruner JP: Reduced hindbrain herniation after intrauterine myelomeningocele repair: A report of four cases. Pediatr Neurosurg 1998;29:274–278.
39.
Garel C, Brisse H, Sebag G, Elmaleh M, Oury JF, Hassan M: Magnetic resonance imaging of the fetus. Pediatr Radiol 1998;28:201–211.
© 2000 S. Karger AG, Basel
2000
Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer
Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.
You do not currently have access to this content.