Does Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) improve the accuracy of diagnosis of brain abnormalities in the unborn fetus?

2012 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paul Griffiths
2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nada Mufti ◽  
Adalina Sacco ◽  
Michael Aertsen ◽  
Fred Ushakov ◽  
Sebastian Ourselin ◽  
...  

Abstract Purpose Open spina bifida (OSB) encompasses a wide spectrum of intracranial abnormalities. With foetal surgery as a new treatment option, robust intracranial imaging is important for comprehensive preoperative evaluation and prognostication. We aimed to determine the incidence of infratentorial and supratentorial findings detected by magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) alone and MRI compared to ultrasound. Methods Two systematic reviews comparing MRI to ultrasound and MRI alone were conducted on MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases identifying studies of foetal OSB from 2000 to 2020. Intracranial imaging findings were analysed at ≤ 26 or > 26 weeks gestation and neonates (≤ 28 days). Data was independently extracted by two reviewers and meta-analysis was performed where possible. Results Thirty-six studies reported brain abnormalities detected by MRI alone in patients who previously had an ultrasound. Callosal dysgenesis was identified in 4/29 cases (2 foetuses ≤ 26 weeks, 1 foetus under any gestation, and 1 neonate ≤ 28 days) (15.1%, CI:5.7–34.3%). Heterotopia was identified in 7/40 foetuses ≤ 26 weeks (19.8%, CI:7.7–42.2%), 9/36 foetuses > 26 weeks (25.3%, CI:13.7–41.9%), and 64/250 neonates ≤ 28 days (26.9%, CI:15.3–42.8%). Additional abnormalities included aberrant cortical folding and other Chiari II malformation findings such as lower cervicomedullary kink level, tectal beaking, and hypoplastic tentorium. Eight studies compared MRI directly to ultrasound, but due to reporting inconsistencies, it was not possible to meta-analyse. Conclusion MRI is able to detect anomalies hitherto underestimated in foetal OSB which may be important for case selection. In view of increasing prenatal OSB surgery, further studies are required to assess developmental consequences of these findings.


2019 ◽  
Vol 23 (04) ◽  
pp. 405-418 ◽  
Author(s):  
James F. Griffith ◽  
Radhesh Krishna Lalam

AbstractWhen it comes to examining the brachial plexus, ultrasound (US) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) are complementary investigations. US is well placed for screening most extraforaminal pathologies, whereas MRI is more sensitive and accurate for specific clinical indications. For example, MRI is probably the preferred technique for assessment of trauma because it enables a thorough evaluation of both the intraspinal and extraspinal elements, although US can depict extraforaminal neural injury with a high level of accuracy. Conversely, US is probably the preferred technique for examination of neurologic amyotrophy because a more extensive involvement beyond the brachial plexus is the norm, although MRI is more sensitive than US for evaluating muscle denervation associated with this entity. With this synergy in mind, this review highlights the tips for examining the brachial plexus with US and MRI.


Endoscopy ◽  
2004 ◽  
Vol 36 (10) ◽  
Author(s):  
BP McMahon ◽  
JB Frøkjær ◽  
A Bergmann ◽  
DH Liao ◽  
E Steffensen ◽  
...  

2019 ◽  
pp. 10-23
Author(s):  
T. A. Akhadov ◽  
S. Yu. Guryakov ◽  
M. V. Ublinsky

For a long time, there was a need to apply magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) technique for lung visualization in clinical practice. The development of this method is stimulated by necessity of the emergence of an alternative to computed tomography, especially when radiation and injection of iodine-containing contrast agents are contraindicated or undesirable, for example, in pregnant women and children, people with intolerance to iodinated contrast. One of the reasons why lung MRI is still rarely used is lack of elaborated standardized protocols that would be adapted to clinical needs of medical society. This publication is a current literature review on the use of MRI in lung studies.


2007 ◽  
Vol 30 (4) ◽  
pp. 41
Author(s):  
A. Dechant

On the morning of October 10, 2003, the residents of New York awoke to find that an entire page of their beloved paper, The Times, had been usurped for the sole purpose of flagrant self-promotion and protestation. On his own behalf, Dr. Raymand Damadian had purchased a one page spread bemoaning his exclusion in the Nobel Prize for Medicine that year which had previously been awarded to Paul Laterbur and Peter Mansfield for their contributions to the development of Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI). Over the course of the next few months, the public was to witness a series of such articles proclaiming that a shameful wrong had been committed, and that the truth would eventually prove Dr. Damadian’s accusations. That truth lay in the early theoretical and technical foundations that led to the discovery of MRI. Described just after the Second World War, nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) was hailed as a breakthrough in physical chemistry for which Felix Bloch and Edward Purcell were awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1952. Two decades later, in 1971, Dr. Damadian discovered that differences between the NMR signals of cancerous and normal tissue might provide a rapid means of cancer detection. However, Laterbur and Mansfield were the first to actually demonstrate images of live tissue using the application of magnetic gradients – the key to modern MRI. Though speculation exists that Dr. Damadian may have been excluded from the prize due to his religious beliefs or political rivalry, only time will reveal the whole truth when the Nobel files are opened 50 years hence. Bradley W. The Nobel Prize: Three Investigators Allowed but Two Were Chosen. Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging 2004; 19:520. Laterbur P. Image formation by induced local interactions: examples of employing nuclear magnetic resonance. Nature 1973; 242:190-191. Mansfield P, Grannell P. “NMR diffraction in solids?” Journal of Physics C: Solid State Physics 1973; 63:L433-L426.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document