Applicability of a semiautomated volumetric approach (5D CNS+™) for detailed antenatal reconstruction of abnormal fetal CNS anatomy.
3D ultrasound
Anomalies
Brain
Central nervous system
Semiautomatic reconstruction
Journal
BMC medical imaging
ISSN: 1471-2342
Titre abrégé: BMC Med Imaging
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100968553
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
02 09 2022
02 09 2022
Historique:
received:
09
09
2021
accepted:
29
08
2022
entrez:
2
9
2022
pubmed:
3
9
2022
medline:
9
9
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The aim of this study was to evaluate the accuracy and reliability of a semiautomated volumetric approach (5D CNS+™) when examining fetuses with an apparent abnormal anatomy of the central nervous system (CNS). Stored 3D volumes extracted from a cohort of > 1.400 consecutive 2nd and 3rd trimester pregnancies (range 15-36 gestational weeks) were analyzed using the semiautomatic software tool 5D CNS+™, enabling detailed reconstruction of nine diagnostic planes of the fetal brain. All 3D data sets were examined and judged for plane accuracy, the need for manual adjustment, and fetal CNS anomalies affecting successful plane reconstruction. Based on our data of 91 fetuses with structural cerebral anomalies, we were able to reveal details of a wide range of CNS anomalies with application of the 5D CNS+™ technique. The corresponding anatomical features and consecutive changes of neighboring structures could be clearly demonstrated. Thus, a profound assessment of the entire altered CNS anatomy could be achieved in nearly all cases. The comparison with matched controls showed a significant difference in volume acquisition (p < 0.001) and in need for manual adjustment (p < 0.001) but not in the drop-out rates (p = 0.677) of both groups. 5D CNS+™ is applicable in the majority of cases with brain lesions and constitutes a reliable tool even if the integrity of the fetal CNS is compromised by structural anomalies. Using volume data that were acquired in identical cutting sections needed for conventional biometry allows for detailed anatomic surveys grossly independent of the examiner's experience.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
The aim of this study was to evaluate the accuracy and reliability of a semiautomated volumetric approach (5D CNS+™) when examining fetuses with an apparent abnormal anatomy of the central nervous system (CNS).
METHODS
Stored 3D volumes extracted from a cohort of > 1.400 consecutive 2nd and 3rd trimester pregnancies (range 15-36 gestational weeks) were analyzed using the semiautomatic software tool 5D CNS+™, enabling detailed reconstruction of nine diagnostic planes of the fetal brain. All 3D data sets were examined and judged for plane accuracy, the need for manual adjustment, and fetal CNS anomalies affecting successful plane reconstruction.
RESULTS
Based on our data of 91 fetuses with structural cerebral anomalies, we were able to reveal details of a wide range of CNS anomalies with application of the 5D CNS+™ technique. The corresponding anatomical features and consecutive changes of neighboring structures could be clearly demonstrated. Thus, a profound assessment of the entire altered CNS anatomy could be achieved in nearly all cases. The comparison with matched controls showed a significant difference in volume acquisition (p < 0.001) and in need for manual adjustment (p < 0.001) but not in the drop-out rates (p = 0.677) of both groups.
CONCLUSION
5D CNS+™ is applicable in the majority of cases with brain lesions and constitutes a reliable tool even if the integrity of the fetal CNS is compromised by structural anomalies. Using volume data that were acquired in identical cutting sections needed for conventional biometry allows for detailed anatomic surveys grossly independent of the examiner's experience.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36056307
doi: 10.1186/s12880-022-00888-1
pii: 10.1186/s12880-022-00888-1
pmc: PMC9438215
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
154Informations de copyright
© 2022. The Author(s).
Références
Prenat Diagn. 2016 Nov;36(11):1054-1060
pubmed: 27696469
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2000 Sep;16(4):302-6
pubmed: 11169304
Clin Radiol. 2020 Aug;75(8):640.e1-640.e11
pubmed: 32349872
Diagn Interv Imaging. 2018 Nov;99(11):709-716
pubmed: 30177447
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2006 Oct;28(5):742-3
pubmed: 16958152
Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2020 Jul;250:195-202
pubmed: 32460228
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2021 Dec;58(6):864-874
pubmed: 33942916
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2020 Sep;56(3):476-484
pubmed: 32870591
Fetal Diagn Ther. 2018;43(3):199-207
pubmed: 28728157
Prenat Diagn. 2015 Apr;35(4):319-24
pubmed: 25348577
J Ultrasound Med. 2016 Oct;35(10):2263-72
pubmed: 27582530
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2019 Mar;220(3):215-229
pubmed: 30447211
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2008 Jul;32(1):44-9
pubmed: 18570210
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2021 May;57(5):798-803
pubmed: 32770786
Arch Dis Child. 2019 Dec;104(12):1181-1187
pubmed: 31243007
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2006 May;27(5):522-9
pubmed: 16586477
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2019 Dec;54(6):740-745
pubmed: 30977215
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2021 Apr;57(4):661-671
pubmed: 33734522
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2014 Nov;44(5):575-80
pubmed: 24448830
J Ultrasound Med. 2005 Apr;24(4):397-401
pubmed: 15784757
Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2021 Jan;100(1):84-90
pubmed: 32970823
J Ultrasound Med. 2007 Mar;26(3):347-53
pubmed: 17324984
Brain. 2012 May;135(Pt 5):1370-86
pubmed: 22451504
AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2018 May;39(5):942-948
pubmed: 29519789
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2020 Sep;56(3):348-358
pubmed: 31828836
Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2011 Feb;283(2):149-58
pubmed: 20878170
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2011 Aug;38(2):165-9
pubmed: 21500297
Ultraschall Med. 2016 Dec;37(6):555-557
pubmed: 27978593
Childs Nerv Syst. 2020 Dec;36(12):2989-2995
pubmed: 32350601
Eur J Paediatr Neurol. 2010 Mar;14(2):150-5
pubmed: 19410489
Semin Pediatr Neurol. 2020 Apr;33:100801
pubmed: 32331616
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2021 May;57(5):846-848
pubmed: 32349173
J Clin Ultrasound. 2020 Feb;48(2):82-88
pubmed: 31318058
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2000 Sep;16(4):307-13
pubmed: 11169305
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2020 Sep;56(3):359-370
pubmed: 32048426
Obstet Gynecol. 2003 Feb;101(2):273-8
pubmed: 12576250
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2019 Aug;54(2):164-171
pubmed: 30549340
J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2016;29(14):2217-22
pubmed: 26364724
Prenat Diagn. 2020 Feb;40(3):365-372
pubmed: 31742707
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2022 Mar;59(3):317-324
pubmed: 34002885
Ultrasound Med Biol. 2018 Jan;44(1):278-291
pubmed: 29107355
J Ultrasound Med. 2021 Feb;40(2):237-247
pubmed: 32691861
Prenat Diagn. 2019 Aug;39(9):666-678
pubmed: 31353536
Prenat Diagn. 2000 Jun;20(6):518-20
pubmed: 10861721
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2002 Mar;19(3):290-2
pubmed: 11896954
Fetal Diagn Ther. 2019;46(4):223-230
pubmed: 30517923
Prenat Diagn. 2011 Sep;31(9):875-80
pubmed: 21706509
Prenat Diagn. 2018 Aug;38(9):664-672
pubmed: 29858521
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2013 Nov;42(5):596-602
pubmed: 23371522
Prenat Diagn. 2018 Apr;38(5):365-375
pubmed: 29458235
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2020 Nov;56(5):786-788
pubmed: 33136324
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2010 Jul;36(1):20-5
pubmed: 20069671
Prenat Diagn. 2021 Jul;41(8):942-948
pubmed: 33480068
J Ultrasound Med. 2011 Jul;30(7):1003-8
pubmed: 21705734
Fetal Diagn Ther. 2012;31(1):19-25
pubmed: 22248706
Prenat Diagn. 2014 Jan;34(1):75-83
pubmed: 24142501
J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2018 Aug;31(16):2188-2194
pubmed: 28585870
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2014 Aug;44(2):188-96
pubmed: 24186262
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2010 Dec;36(6):700-8
pubmed: 20521241
Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2021 Jan;100(1):7-16
pubmed: 32652537
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2021 Apr;57(4):614-623
pubmed: 32196791
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2021 Jul;58(1):42-47
pubmed: 33438307
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2014 Nov;44(5):581-7
pubmed: 24478245
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2019 Aug;54(2):199-206
pubmed: 30381845