First trimester physiological development of the fetal foot position using three-dimensional ultrasound in virtual reality.
clubfoot
pregnancy
prenatal diagnosis
ultrasonography
virtual reality
Journal
The journal of obstetrics and gynaecology research
ISSN: 1447-0756
Titre abrégé: J Obstet Gynaecol Res
Pays: Australia
ID NLM: 9612761
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Feb 2019
Feb 2019
Historique:
received:
22
06
2018
accepted:
17
10
2018
pubmed:
20
11
2018
medline:
28
5
2019
entrez:
20
11
2018
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
In anatomic studies of the embryo, it has been established that during the development of the lower limb, several changes in foot position can be observed defined as a temporary 'physiological clubfoot'. The aim of this study was to develop and test a measurement tool for objective documentation of the first trimester foot position in vivo and made an attempt to create a chart for first trimester foot position. We developed a virtual orthopedic protractor for measuring foot positioning using three-dimensional virtual reality visualization. Three-dimensional ultrasound volumes of 112 pregnancies of women examined during the first trimester were studied in a BARCO I-Space. The frontal angle (plantar flexion) and the lateral angle (adduction) between the leg and foot were measured from 8 until 13 weeks gestational age. We observed that the frontal angle steadily decreases, whereas the lateral angle first increases, resulting in transient physiological clubfeet position at 10- to 11-week gestation, followed by a decrease to a normal foot position. A transient clubfoot position is present during the normal development of the lower limbs, and it has been measured in vivo for the first time. This study emphasizes that a diagnosis of congenital clubfoot should not be made in the first trimester of pregnancy.
Identifiants
pubmed: 30450690
doi: 10.1111/jog.13862
pmc: PMC6587499
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
280-288Informations de copyright
© 2018 The Authors. Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Research published by John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd on behalf of Japan Society of Obstetrics and Gynecology.
Références
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2002 Sep;20(3):226-9
pubmed: 12230442
J Anat. 2003 Jan;202(1):37-42
pubmed: 12587918
Prenat Diagn. 2006 Dec;26(13):1248-53
pubmed: 17099928
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2007 Nov;30(6):838-44
pubmed: 17787031
J Anat. 2010 Jan;216(1):108-20
pubmed: 19900178
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2010 Jun;35(6):708-14
pubmed: 20069547
J Pediatr Orthop. 2010 Sep;30(6):606-11
pubmed: 20733428
Prenat Diagn. 2011 Jan;31(1):90-102
pubmed: 21210483
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2012 Feb;39(2):157-63
pubmed: 21845742
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2011 Dec;38(6):609-12
pubmed: 22411445
J Pediatr Orthop. 1990 Mar-Apr;10(2):232-7
pubmed: 2312708
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2013 May;41(5):521-5
pubmed: 23225608
Am J Med Genet A. 2013 Jul;161A(7):1569-78
pubmed: 23686911
Hum Reprod. 2014 Feb;29(2):201-7
pubmed: 24287820
Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2014 Jul;28(5):621-36
pubmed: 24841987
J Clin Ultrasound. 2015 Mar;43(3):164-70
pubmed: 25041997
Reprod Fertil Dev. 2015 May;27(4):712-5
pubmed: 25771352
Int J Epidemiol. 2016 Apr;45(2):374-81
pubmed: 26224071
Prenat Diagn. 2016 Feb;36(2):117-26
pubmed: 26573084
Fertil Steril. 2017 Mar;107(3):691-698.e1
pubmed: 28069173
J Pediatr Orthop B. 2017 Mar;26(2):143-151
pubmed: 28114267
Biomed Res Int. 2017;2017:1953076
pubmed: 28421190
Lancet. 1985 Feb 16;1(8425):388-90
pubmed: 2857433
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1984 May;(185):14-24
pubmed: 6705371