Perinatal management and outcome of fetal ventriculomegaly.

Obstetrics and Gynecology (Impact Factor: 4.37). 02/1987; 69(1):5-11.
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT In 20 consecutive cases of fetal ventriculomegaly, diagnosed by antenatal ultrasound examination, hydrocephalus was isolated in six patients (30%) and was associated with other anomalies in 14 (70%). There were no false positive diagnoses of fetal ventriculomegaly in this series. Fetal structural and/or chromosome abnormalities were diagnosed antenatally in 11 of the 14 patients (78.5%) with postnatally documented anomalies. In ten patients (50%), isolated fetal ventriculomegaly or ventriculomegaly associated with spina bifida was diagnosed antenatally, and the perinatal management consisted of frequent ultrasound examinations, weekly fetal biophysical profiles, and delivery by cesarean section after documenting fetal lung maturity. Ventriculo-amniotic shunt placement was not part of the management. The outcomes were induced abortion, four patients (20%); intrapartum death, two patients (10%); postnatal death, five patients (25%); and currently alive, nine patients (45%).

  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Ohne Zusammenfassung
    Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics 09/1991; 250(1):573-593. DOI:10.1007/BF02372887 · 1.28 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Congenital malformations detected in any fetal system using ultrasound may be further evaluated with magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) to improve counseling, to plan deliveries appropriately, and sometimes to enable fetal interventions. In this first half of a 2-part review, the history and safety factors regarding fetal MRI, as well as the practical aspects of image acquisition, are discussed. In addition, as central nervous system anomalies are most commonly and best evaluated using fetal MRI, challenging central nervous system anomalies, such as fetal ventriculomegaly, posterior anomalies, and neural tube defects, detected using prenatal ultrasound are also reviewed with a focus on the fundamental implications of these diagnoses.
    Current Problems in Diagnostic Radiology 11/2014; DOI:10.1067/j.cpradiol.2014.05.014
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: 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.
    03/2011; 12(1):39-46. DOI:10.5152/jtgga.2011.09