Three-dimensional reconstruction of defects in congenital diaphragmatic hernia: a fetal MRI study.
CDH
CDH classification
CDH typology
MRI
MRI-based segmentation
congenital diaphragmatic hernia
fetal MRI
fetal diaphragm
Journal
Ultrasound in obstetrics & gynecology : the official journal of the International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology
ISSN: 1469-0705
Titre abrégé: Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol
Pays: England
ID NLM: 9108340
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Jun 2019
Jun 2019
Historique:
received:
23
01
2019
revised:
30
03
2019
accepted:
10
04
2019
pubmed:
16
4
2019
medline:
7
1
2020
entrez:
16
4
2019
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
To assess the clinical feasibility and validity of fetal magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-based three-dimensional (3D) reconstruction to locate, classify and quantify diaphragmatic defects in congenital diaphragmatic hernia (CDH). This retrospective study included 46 cases of CDH which underwent a total of 69 fetal MRI scans (65 in-vivo and four postmortem) at the Medical University of Vienna during the period 1 January 2002 to 1 January 2017. Scans were performed between 16 and 38 gestational weeks using steady-state free precession, T2-weighted and T1-weighted sequences. MRI data were retrieved from the hospital database and manual segmentation of the diaphragm was performed with the open-source software, ITK-SNAP. The resulting 3D models of the fetal diaphragm and its defect(s) were validated by postmortem MRI segmentation and/or comparison of 3D model-based classification of the defect with a reference classification based on autopsy and/or surgery reports. Surface areas of the intact diaphragm and of the defect were measured and used to calculate defect-diaphragmatic ratios (DDR). The need for prosthetic patch repair and, in cases with repeated in-vivo fetal MRI scans, diaphragm growth dynamics, were analyzed based on DDR. Fetal MRI-based manual segmentation of the diaphragm in CDH was feasible for all 65 (100%) of the in-vivo fetal MRI scans. Based on the 3D diaphragmatic models, one bilateral and 45 unilateral defects (n = 47) were further classified as posterolateral (23/47, 48.9%), lateral (7/47, 14.9%) or hemidiaphragmatic (17/47, 36.2%) defects, and none (0%) was classified as anterolateral. This classification of defect location was correct in all 37 (100%) of the cases in which this information could be verified. Nineteen cases had a follow-up fetal MRI scan; in five (26.3%) of these, the initial CDH classification was altered by the results of the second scan. Thirty-three fetuses underwent postnatal diaphragmatic surgical repair; 20 fetuses (all of those with DDR ≥ 54 and 88% of those with DDR > 30) received a diaphragmatic patch, while the other 13 underwent primary surgical repair. Individual DDRs at initial and at follow-up in-vivo fetal MRI correlated significantly (P < 0.001). MRI-based 3D reconstruction of the fetal diaphragm in CDH has been validated to visualize, locate, classify and quantify the defect. Planning of postnatal surgery may be optimized by MRI-based prediction of the necessity for patch placement and the ability to personalize patch design based on 3D-printable templates. Copyright © 2019 ISUOG. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Identifiants
pubmed: 30985045
doi: 10.1002/uog.20296
pmc: PMC6619026
doi:
Types de publication
Evaluation Study
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
816-826Subventions
Organisme : Austrian Research Promotion Agency (FFG)
Organisme : M3dRES project
Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2019 ISUOG. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Références
Br Med J. 1963 Jan 26;1(5325):230-3
pubmed: 14013675
Neuroimage. 2006 Jul 1;31(3):1116-28
pubmed: 16545965
Am J Med Genet C Semin Med Genet. 2007 May 15;145C(2):109-16
pubmed: 17436296
Am J Med Genet C Semin Med Genet. 2007 May 15;145C(2):105-8
pubmed: 17436306
Pediatrics. 2007 Sep;120(3):e651-7
pubmed: 17766505
Fetal Diagn Ther. 2008;23(4):258-62
pubmed: 18417990
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2009 Jan;33(1):64-9
pubmed: 18844275
Klin Padiatr. 2009 Sep;221(5):295-301
pubmed: 19707992
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2012 Jan;39(1):20-7
pubmed: 22170862
Pediatr Dev Pathol. 2012 Jul-Aug;15(4):265-74
pubmed: 22257294
Pediatr Surg Int. 2012 Oct;28(10):971-6
pubmed: 22752200
Exp Mol Pathol. 2013 Feb;94(1):195-202
pubmed: 23018129
J Pediatr Surg. 2013 Jun;48(6):1177-82
pubmed: 23845604
J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2014 Sep;27(14):1438-44
pubmed: 24156638
J Pediatr Surg. 2013 Dec;48(12):2408-15
pubmed: 24314179
Eur J Pediatr Surg. 2014 Jun;24(3):270-7
pubmed: 24937193
Semin Pediatr Surg. 2014 Jun;23(3):135-40
pubmed: 24994527
Prenat Diagn. 2015 Feb;35(2):160-6
pubmed: 25297802
Semin Fetal Neonatal Med. 2014 Dec;19(6):370-5
pubmed: 25306471
Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed. 2015 Mar;100(2):F137-44
pubmed: 25411443
Semin Fetal Neonatal Med. 2014 Dec;19(6):357-63
pubmed: 25456753
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2015 Aug;46(2):155-61
pubmed: 25487417
Pediatrics. 2015 Nov;136(5):e1382-5
pubmed: 26438708
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2017 Jun;49(6):704-713
pubmed: 27312047
Pediatrics. 2016 Nov;138(5):
pubmed: 27940787
Semin Pediatr Surg. 2017 Jun;26(3):171-177
pubmed: 28641756
Dis Model Mech. 2017 Aug 1;10(8):955-970
pubmed: 28768736
Gynecol Surg. 2018;15(1):9
pubmed: 29770109
Pediatr Radiol. 2018 Oct;48(11):1550-1555
pubmed: 29978294
Eur J Radiol. 2018 Aug;105:148-152
pubmed: 30017271
Curr Opin Cardiol. 2019 Jan;34(1):35-40
pubmed: 30444761
Br J Surg. 1971 May;58(5):342-6
pubmed: 5574718
Clin Perinatol. 1996 Dec;23(4):671-88
pubmed: 8982563