Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research, ISSN - 0973 - 709X

Users Online : 62287

AbstractMaterial and MethodsResultsDiscussionConclusionReferencesDOI and Others
Article in PDF How to Cite Citation Manager Readers' Comments (0) Audio Visual Article Statistics Link to PUBMED Print this Article Send to a Friend
Advertisers Access Statistics Resources

Dr Mohan Z Mani

"Thank you very much for having published my article in record time.I would like to compliment you and your entire staff for your promptness, courtesy, and willingness to be customer friendly, which is quite unusual.I was given your reference by a colleague in pathology,and was able to directly phone your editorial office for clarifications.I would particularly like to thank the publication managers and the Assistant Editor who were following up my article. I would also like to thank you for adjusting the money I paid initially into payment for my modified article,and refunding the balance.
I wish all success to your journal and look forward to sending you any suitable similar article in future"



Dr Mohan Z Mani,
Professor & Head,
Department of Dermatolgy,
Believers Church Medical College,
Thiruvalla, Kerala
On Sep 2018




Prof. Somashekhar Nimbalkar

"Over the last few years, we have published our research regularly in Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research. Having published in more than 20 high impact journals over the last five years including several high impact ones and reviewing articles for even more journals across my fields of interest, we value our published work in JCDR for their high standards in publishing scientific articles. The ease of submission, the rapid reviews in under a month, the high quality of their reviewers and keen attention to the final process of proofs and publication, ensure that there are no mistakes in the final article. We have been asked clarifications on several occasions and have been happy to provide them and it exemplifies the commitment to quality of the team at JCDR."



Prof. Somashekhar Nimbalkar
Head, Department of Pediatrics, Pramukhswami Medical College, Karamsad
Chairman, Research Group, Charutar Arogya Mandal, Karamsad
National Joint Coordinator - Advanced IAP NNF NRP Program
Ex-Member, Governing Body, National Neonatology Forum, New Delhi
Ex-President - National Neonatology Forum Gujarat State Chapter
Department of Pediatrics, Pramukhswami Medical College, Karamsad, Anand, Gujarat.
On Sep 2018




Dr. Kalyani R

"Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research is at present a well-known Indian originated scientific journal which started with a humble beginning. I have been associated with this journal since many years. I appreciate the Editor, Dr. Hemant Jain, for his constant effort in bringing up this journal to the present status right from the scratch. The journal is multidisciplinary. It encourages in publishing the scientific articles from postgraduates and also the beginners who start their career. At the same time the journal also caters for the high quality articles from specialty and super-specialty researchers. Hence it provides a platform for the scientist and researchers to publish. The other aspect of it is, the readers get the information regarding the most recent developments in science which can be used for teaching, research, treating patients and to some extent take preventive measures against certain diseases. The journal is contributing immensely to the society at national and international level."



Dr Kalyani R
Professor and Head
Department of Pathology
Sri Devaraj Urs Medical College
Sri Devaraj Urs Academy of Higher Education and Research , Kolar, Karnataka
On Sep 2018




Dr. Saumya Navit

"As a peer-reviewed journal, the Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research provides an opportunity to researchers, scientists and budding professionals to explore the developments in the field of medicine and dentistry and their varied specialities, thus extending our view on biological diversities of living species in relation to medicine.
‘Knowledge is treasure of a wise man.’ The free access of this journal provides an immense scope of learning for the both the old and the young in field of medicine and dentistry as well. The multidisciplinary nature of the journal makes it a better platform to absorb all that is being researched and developed. The publication process is systematic and professional. Online submission, publication and peer reviewing makes it a user-friendly journal.
As an experienced dentist and an academician, I proudly recommend this journal to the dental fraternity as a good quality open access platform for rapid communication of their cutting-edge research progress and discovery.
I wish JCDR a great success and I hope that journal will soar higher with the passing time."



Dr Saumya Navit
Professor and Head
Department of Pediatric Dentistry
Saraswati Dental College
Lucknow
On Sep 2018




Dr. Arunava Biswas

"My sincere attachment with JCDR as an author as well as reviewer is a learning experience . Their systematic approach in publication of article in various categories is really praiseworthy.
Their prompt and timely response to review's query and the manner in which they have set the reviewing process helps in extracting the best possible scientific writings for publication.
It's a honour and pride to be a part of the JCDR team. My very best wishes to JCDR and hope it will sparkle up above the sky as a high indexed journal in near future."



Dr. Arunava Biswas
MD, DM (Clinical Pharmacology)
Assistant Professor
Department of Pharmacology
Calcutta National Medical College & Hospital , Kolkata




Dr. C.S. Ramesh Babu
" Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research (JCDR) is a multi-specialty medical and dental journal publishing high quality research articles in almost all branches of medicine. The quality of printing of figures and tables is excellent and comparable to any International journal. An added advantage is nominal publication charges and monthly issue of the journal and more chances of an article being accepted for publication. Moreover being a multi-specialty journal an article concerning a particular specialty has a wider reach of readers of other related specialties also. As an author and reviewer for several years I find this Journal most suitable and highly recommend this Journal."
Best regards,
C.S. Ramesh Babu,
Associate Professor of Anatomy,
Muzaffarnagar Medical College,
Muzaffarnagar.
On Aug 2018




Dr. Arundhathi. S
"Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research (JCDR) is a reputed peer reviewed journal and is constantly involved in publishing high quality research articles related to medicine. Its been a great pleasure to be associated with this esteemed journal as a reviewer and as an author for a couple of years. The editorial board consists of many dedicated and reputed experts as its members and they are doing an appreciable work in guiding budding researchers. JCDR is doing a commendable job in scientific research by promoting excellent quality research & review articles and case reports & series. The reviewers provide appropriate suggestions that improve the quality of articles. I strongly recommend my fraternity to encourage JCDR by contributing their valuable research work in this widely accepted, user friendly journal. I hope my collaboration with JCDR will continue for a long time".



Dr. Arundhathi. S
MBBS, MD (Pathology),
Sanjay Gandhi institute of trauma and orthopedics,
Bengaluru.
On Aug 2018




Dr. Mamta Gupta,
"It gives me great pleasure to be associated with JCDR, since last 2-3 years. Since then I have authored, co-authored and reviewed about 25 articles in JCDR. I thank JCDR for giving me an opportunity to improve my own skills as an author and a reviewer.
It 's a multispecialty journal, publishing high quality articles. It gives a platform to the authors to publish their research work which can be available for everyone across the globe to read. The best thing about JCDR is that the full articles of all medical specialties are available as pdf/html for reading free of cost or without institutional subscription, which is not there for other journals. For those who have problem in writing manuscript or do statistical work, JCDR comes for their rescue.
The journal has a monthly publication and the articles are published quite fast. In time compared to other journals. The on-line first publication is also a great advantage and facility to review one's own articles before going to print. The response to any query and permission if required, is quite fast; this is quite commendable. I have a very good experience about seeking quick permission for quoting a photograph (Fig.) from a JCDR article for my chapter authored in an E book. I never thought it would be so easy. No hassles.
Reviewing articles is no less a pain staking process and requires in depth perception, knowledge about the topic for review. It requires time and concentration, yet I enjoy doing it. The JCDR website especially for the reviewers is quite user friendly. My suggestions for improving the journal is, more strict review process, so that only high quality articles are published. I find a a good number of articles in Obst. Gynae, hence, a new journal for this specialty titled JCDR-OG can be started. May be a bimonthly or quarterly publication to begin with. Only selected articles should find a place in it.
An yearly reward for the best article authored can also incentivize the authors. Though the process of finding the best article will be not be very easy. I do not know how reviewing process can be improved. If an article is being reviewed by two reviewers, then opinion of one can be communicated to the other or the final opinion of the editor can be communicated to the reviewer if requested for. This will help one’s reviewing skills.
My best wishes to Dr. Hemant Jain and all the editorial staff of JCDR for their untiring efforts to bring out this journal. I strongly recommend medical fraternity to publish their valuable research work in this esteemed journal, JCDR".



Dr. Mamta Gupta
Consultant
(Ex HOD Obs &Gynae, Hindu Rao Hospital and associated NDMC Medical College, Delhi)
Aug 2018




Dr. Rajendra Kumar Ghritlaharey

"I wish to thank Dr. Hemant Jain, Editor-in-Chief Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research (JCDR), for asking me to write up few words.
Writing is the representation of language in a textual medium i e; into the words and sentences on paper. Quality medical manuscript writing in particular, demands not only a high-quality research, but also requires accurate and concise communication of findings and conclusions, with adherence to particular journal guidelines. In medical field whether working in teaching, private, or in corporate institution, everyone wants to excel in his / her own field and get recognised by making manuscripts publication.


Authors are the souls of any journal, and deserve much respect. To publish a journal manuscripts are needed from authors. Authors have a great responsibility for producing facts of their work in terms of number and results truthfully and an individual honesty is expected from authors in this regards. Both ways its true "No authors-No manuscripts-No journals" and "No journals–No manuscripts–No authors". Reviewing a manuscript is also a very responsible and important task of any peer-reviewed journal and to be taken seriously. It needs knowledge on the subject, sincerity, honesty and determination. Although the process of reviewing a manuscript is a time consuming task butit is expected to give one's best remarks within the time frame of the journal.
Salient features of the JCDR: It is a biomedical, multidisciplinary (including all medical and dental specialities), e-journal, with wide scope and extensive author support. At the same time, a free text of manuscript is available in HTML and PDF format. There is fast growing authorship and readership with JCDR as this can be judged by the number of articles published in it i e; in Feb 2007 of its first issue, it contained 5 articles only, and now in its recent volume published in April 2011, it contained 67 manuscripts. This e-journal is fulfilling the commitments and objectives sincerely, (as stated by Editor-in-chief in his preface to first edition) i e; to encourage physicians through the internet, especially from the developing countries who witness a spectrum of disease and acquire a wealth of knowledge to publish their experiences to benefit the medical community in patients care. I also feel that many of us have work of substance, newer ideas, adequate clinical materials but poor in medical writing and hesitation to submit the work and need help. JCDR provides authors help in this regards.
Timely publication of journal: Publication of manuscripts and bringing out the issue in time is one of the positive aspects of JCDR and is possible with strong support team in terms of peer reviewers, proof reading, language check, computer operators, etc. This is one of the great reasons for authors to submit their work with JCDR. Another best part of JCDR is "Online first Publications" facilities available for the authors. This facility not only provides the prompt publications of the manuscripts but at the same time also early availability of the manuscripts for the readers.
Indexation and online availability: Indexation transforms the journal in some sense from its local ownership to the worldwide professional community and to the public.JCDR is indexed with Embase & EMbiology, Google Scholar, Index Copernicus, Chemical Abstracts Service, Journal seek Database, Indian Science Abstracts, to name few of them. Manuscriptspublished in JCDR are available on major search engines ie; google, yahoo, msn.
In the era of fast growing newer technologies, and in computer and internet friendly environment the manuscripts preparation, submission, review, revision, etc and all can be done and checked with a click from all corer of the world, at any time. Of course there is always a scope for improvement in every field and none is perfect. To progress, one needs to identify the areas of one's weakness and to strengthen them.
It is well said that "happy beginning is half done" and it fits perfectly with JCDR. It has grown considerably and I feel it has already grown up from its infancy to adolescence, achieving the status of standard online e-journal form Indian continent since its inception in Feb 2007. This had been made possible due to the efforts and the hard work put in it. The way the JCDR is improving with every new volume, with good quality original manuscripts, makes it a quality journal for readers. I must thank and congratulate Dr Hemant Jain, Editor-in-Chief JCDR and his team for their sincere efforts, dedication, and determination for making JCDR a fast growing journal.
Every one of us: authors, reviewers, editors, and publisher are responsible for enhancing the stature of the journal. I wish for a great success for JCDR."



Thanking you
With sincere regards
Dr. Rajendra Kumar Ghritlaharey, M.S., M. Ch., FAIS
Associate Professor,
Department of Paediatric Surgery, Gandhi Medical College & Associated
Kamla Nehru & Hamidia Hospitals Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh 462 001 (India)
E-mail: drrajendrak1@rediffmail.com
On May 11,2011




Dr. Shankar P.R.

"On looking back through my Gmail archives after being requested by the journal to write a short editorial about my experiences of publishing with the Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research (JCDR), I came across an e-mail from Dr. Hemant Jain, Editor, in March 2007, which introduced the new electronic journal. The main features of the journal which were outlined in the e-mail were extensive author support, cash rewards, the peer review process, and other salient features of the journal.
Over a span of over four years, we (I and my colleagues) have published around 25 articles in the journal. In this editorial, I plan to briefly discuss my experiences of publishing with JCDR and the strengths of the journal and to finally address the areas for improvement.
My experiences of publishing with JCDR: Overall, my experiences of publishing withJCDR have been positive. The best point about the journal is that it responds to queries from the author. This may seem to be simple and not too much to ask for, but unfortunately, many journals in the subcontinent and from many developing countries do not respond or they respond with a long delay to the queries from the authors 1. The reasons could be many, including lack of optimal secretarial and other support. Another problem with many journals is the slowness of the review process. Editorial processing and peer review can take anywhere between a year to two years with some journals. Also, some journals do not keep the contributors informed about the progress of the review process. Due to the long review process, the articles can lose their relevance and topicality. A major benefit with JCDR is the timeliness and promptness of its response. In Dr Jain's e-mail which was sent to me in 2007, before the introduction of the Pre-publishing system, he had stated that he had received my submission and that he would get back to me within seven days and he did!
Most of the manuscripts are published within 3 to 4 months of their submission if they are found to be suitable after the review process. JCDR is published bimonthly and the accepted articles were usually published in the next issue. Recently, due to the increased volume of the submissions, the review process has become slower and it ?? Section can take from 4 to 6 months for the articles to be reviewed. The journal has an extensive author support system and it has recently introduced a paid expedited review process. The journal also mentions the average time for processing the manuscript under different submission systems - regular submission and expedited review.
Strengths of the journal: The journal has an online first facility in which the accepted manuscripts may be published on the website before being included in a regular issue of the journal. This cuts down the time between their acceptance and the publication. The journal is indexed in many databases, though not in PubMed. The editorial board should now take steps to index the journal in PubMed. The journal has a system of notifying readers through e-mail when a new issue is released. Also, the articles are available in both the HTML and the PDF formats. I especially like the new and colorful page format of the journal. Also, the access statistics of the articles are available. The prepublication and the manuscript tracking system are also helpful for the authors.
Areas for improvement: In certain cases, I felt that the peer review process of the manuscripts was not up to international standards and that it should be strengthened. Also, the number of manuscripts in an issue is high and it may be difficult for readers to go through all of them. The journal can consider tightening of the peer review process and increasing the quality standards for the acceptance of the manuscripts. I faced occasional problems with the online manuscript submission (Pre-publishing) system, which have to be addressed.
Overall, the publishing process with JCDR has been smooth, quick and relatively hassle free and I can recommend other authors to consider the journal as an outlet for their work."



Dr. P. Ravi Shankar
KIST Medical College, P.O. Box 14142, Kathmandu, Nepal.
E-mail: ravi.dr.shankar@gmail.com
On April 2011
Anuradha

Dear team JCDR, I would like to thank you for the very professional and polite service provided by everyone at JCDR. While i have been in the field of writing and editing for sometime, this has been my first attempt in publishing a scientific paper.Thank you for hand-holding me through the process.


Dr. Anuradha
E-mail: anuradha2nittur@gmail.com
On Jan 2020

Important Notice

Original article / research
Year : 2021 | Month : July | Volume : 15 | Issue : 7 | Page : TC13 - TC18 Full Version

Accuracy of Two-dimensional Ultrasound and Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Diagnosis of Foetal Congenital Anomalies in a Tertiary Care Hospital- A Cross-sectional Study


Published: July 1, 2021 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.7860/JCDR/2021/49166.15146
Jaybrata Ray, Jaharlal Baidya, Tanusri Debbarma, Jobin Joy

1. Assistant Professor, Department of Radiodiagnosis, AGMC and gbp Hospital, Agartala, Tripura, India. 2. Professor, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, AGMC and gbp Hospital, Agartala, Tripura, India. 3. Senior Resident, Department of Radiodiagnosis, AGMC and gbp Hospital, Agartala, Tripura, India. 4. Postgraduate Trainee, Department of Radiodiagnosis, AGMC and gbp Hospital, Agartala, Tripura, India.

Correspondence Address :
Dr. Tanusri Debbarma,
Shyamali Bazar, Priti Devi Kami, Kunjavan, Agartala-799006, Tripura, India.
E-mail: drtanusri9@gmail.com

Abstract

Introduction: Ultrasound screening for foetus congenital malformations is the mainstay in diagnosis and is commonly performed at 19-22 weeks gestation. Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) is known as a problem solving tool which is used for answering a specific question. Both ultrasound and foetus MRI are highly sensitive and specific in diagnosis of congenital anomalies of the foetus with high agreement between both modalities.

Aim: To determine the accuracy of Ultrasound Sonography (USG) and High Field 3 tesla MRI in diagnosis of different types of foetal Central Nervous System (CNS) and non CNS congenital abnormalities.

Materials and Methods: A cross-sectional study was conducted in the Department of Radiodiagnosis at Agartala Government Medical College and GB Pant Hospital from June 2017 to May 2019. A total of 65 cases with ultrasound diagnosis of foetus abnormalities were examined by 3 Tesla MRI. MRI were performed within 15 days after USG detected anomalies. Statistical analysis was done using Chi-square test.

Results: In cases with foetus anomalies high field MRI provided detailed findings leading to a more refined diagnosis. CNS anomalies were more as compared to other anomalies. Some of the antenatal findings were confirmed in some cases following termination of pregnancy and some were by postnatal examination. Among them chest anomalies was least common i.e., 1.5%. sensitivity of MRI was 88.13%, specificity was 66.66%, Positive Pressure Ventilation (PPV) was 96.29%, Negative Predictive Value (NPV) was 36.36% and USG sensitivity was 82.43%, specificity and 77.77%, PPV was 95.83%and NPV was 41.17%.

Conclusion: High field MRI should be used as a second line of investigation in patients with foetus abnormalities diagnosed by ultrasound for confirmation of diagnosis and selecting the treatment protocol. In cases of fatal abnormalities, a confirmed diagnosis made before 20 weeks of pregnancy may help by terminating the pregnancy.

Keywords

Cardiovascular system malformation, Central nervous system malformation, Gestational age, Postnatal, Prenatal

As per the WHO fact-sheet of October 2012, congenital anomalies can be defined as structural or functional anomalies, including metabolic disorders, which are present at the time of birth (1).

An approximately 303,000 neonatal deaths occur globally each year due to congenital malformations (2). The prevalence rate of congenital anomalies in India is 6-7%, CVS anomalies followed by CNS anomalies. According to March of Dimes global report congenital foetus malformations are encountered in about 6% of all births (3).

Ultrasound is the most important modality to evaluate the foetus. The excellence of ultrasound however, is unfavourably exaggerated by factors such as maternal obesity, unfavourable foetus position, decreased amniotic fluid or the near-field reverberation artifact (4).

Foetus MRI can corroborate doubtful ultrasound findings and thus add assurance in a meticulous prenatal diagnosis before performing interventional measures (5). In vivo foetus MRI is the accurate adjunct tool to ultrasound, to characterise brain malformation, to identify different causes responsible for brain damage, and to document mechanisms responsible for brain injury and their consequences on the developing brain (6). In about 60% of cases the aetiology of cerebral malformation remains unknown. MRI adds important additional information, particularly in foetuses in whom additional findings other than an enlarged ventricle are seen sonographically (7).

The American College of Radiology (ACR) has stated that foetus MRI can be performed at any stage of pregnancy (8). However, it is better to perform the MRI after 17-18 weeks of gestation, as there is a possible risk to the developing foetus as well as the extreme motion of younger foetus does not let us to carry out an MRI examination (9),(10). The present study was carried out with aim to determine the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value and negative predictive value of ultrasonography and Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) in foetus congenital anomalies in tertiary care teaching hospital.

Material and Methods

A cross-sectional study was conducted in the Department of Radiodiagnosis at Agartala Government Medical College and GB Pant Hospital, Tripura, India from June 2017 to May 2019. This study was approved by the local scientific review board Committee as per Ref No. F.4 (5-244)/AGMC/Academic/IEC certificate/21/7057. An informed written consent was obtained from each participant.

All the pregnant women attending the USG at Radiodiagnosis Department of AGMC and GBP Hospital and were diagnosed to have foetus structural anomalies were included and all these cases were examined by 2D ultrasound and underwent MR imaging within one week were the target population.

Inclusion criteria: All the clinically suspected patients diagnosed to have congenital anomaly from 14-33 weeks Gestational Age (GA) by ultrasound were included in the study.

Exclusion criteria: Patients contraindicated for MRI examination; patients not willing to do the study. Late trimester anomalies which were more tough on USG, also twins, polyhydramnios. Pateints in the late trimester of pregnency were excluded.

Study Procedure

Detailed medical and obstetrical history was taken followed by clinical examination. Ultrasound were performed by Medison Sonoace X8 or Siemens Accuson 2000 machine using convex abdominal probes and/or volume probe using transverse, coronal and sagittal planes and additional views as needed with use of colour Doppler sonography. MRI was done by Siemens Magnetom Skyra 3T system. Mothers fasted four hours before the examination to reduce bowel peristalsis and to reduce postprandial foetus motion. Patient were asked to empty the urinary bladder prior to the examination and made to lie supine during the examination. Foetus MRI was done using single slice fast spin echo (HASTE) and gradient echo sequence (TRUFI) in various planes. Contrast was not used in MRI and MRI protocol was given (Table/Fig 1).

The diagnoses obtained by sonography and MRI were collected and compared. Both of them were compared with the final diagnosis when available by termination or postnatal evaluation. Postnatal imaging tests were performed only when clinically indicated. Postnatal examination, autopsy and postnatal MR imaging results were the gold standard for the evaluation of the accuracy of either modality.

Statistical Analysis

The data was entered in master chart and proportion, mean, standard deviation and other statistical tests was applied as per necessity and analysed using appropriate statistical software e.g., Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) version 16.0 statistical package and Chi-square test was used to compare the sensitivity of Thermo-Acoustic Ultrasound (TAUS) and MRI scan with level of significance of <0.05.

Results

In this study mean±SD Gestation Age (GA) was 22.50±4.9 weeks, mean maternal age was 28 years±7.1, among them <30 years (57%) was the most common and most common gravida was 2nd gravida (43%) followed by primigravida (32%). Around 45% risk factor were seen among elderly primigravida, multiple gestation, history of down syndrome and unexpected pregnancy loss (Table/Fig 2).

A total of 65 cases were examined. Out of the total cases 21 cases were seen to have only CNS anomalies, two cases with both CNS and other anomalies, (Table/Fig 3), (Table/Fig 4). Mean MR imaging time was 11±1.19 minutes in our study compared to 27±1.74 minutes for USG study.

For most of the cases diagnosed both by USG and MRI, a complex set of different abnormalities were detected. For example in corpus callosal agenesis comprises at least 8-10 different findings. Similarly a case of hypolastic left heart syndrome may have 4-5 different findings. True strength of imaging modalities depends upon the ability to detect the number of abnormalities present in the foetus. Although the diagnosis of an anomaly can be made after detection of a few findings, a large number of findings may remain undetected by the imaging modality. Hence, calculation of the number of abnormalties detected by the imaging modality is more important than the number of foetus with congenital anomaly. This study is designed to calculate the number of anomalies rather than number of foetuses.

Evaluation of CNS Anomalies

Among CNS anomalies Complete (number 1) and partial (number 1) agenesis of corpus callosum were diagnosed by ultrasound but MRI provided additional information which were not visualised by USG (Table/Fig 5). Encephalocele was seen in two cases which on USG showed large part of the brain protruding through the calvarial defect and on MRI vividly depicts the frontal and occipital encephalocele. MRI provided the exact localisation of the defect and extent of the disease (Table/Fig 6).

One case of vein of galen malformation was diagnosed by USG. Right ventricular dilatation, and CCF was not visualised properly by MRI but were visualised well by USG. Measurement of cardiac output was possible only by USG [Table /Fig-7].

Hydranencephaly was seen in one case which on USG showed grossly dilated lateral ventricles, unfused thalami, midline falx, cerebellum, two vessel umbilical cord, on MRI normal cerebral aqeuduct, fourth ventricle, midline falx and unfused thalami was clearly seen. Hence, both USG and MRI provided similar information of Hydranencephaly (Table/Fig 8).

Dandy walker malformation was seen in one case which seen as posterior fossa cystic mass, gross hydrocephalus and hypoplastic cerebellum on USG. On MRI, showed cystic dilatation of fourth ventricle, tentorial elevation, vermian aplasia and severe obstructive hydrocephalus. MRI was able to detect most of the brain abnormalities compared to USG. Dandy Waker variant was diagnosed in these are two different case where MRI confirmed the diagnosis (Table/Fig 9). Ventriculomegaly was diagnosed by USG in one case, which were further confirmed my postnatal USG/MRI.

Holoprosencephaly was seen in two cases by both USG and MRI (one alobar and one lobar) which were confirmed by postnatal MRI. Neural tube defect was seen in two cases and was diagnosed both by USG and MRI (Table/Fig 10). On MRI and USG, partial agenesis was seen as reveals colpocephaly, parallel ventricles, interdigitated falx. MRI reveals classic Viking horn appearance. Corpus callosum is seen in anterior region, genu and body. Splenium and posterior body of corpus callosum is not visualised (Table/Fig 11). Mega cisterna magna was seen in one case by both USG and MRI. Postnatal USG confirmed the diagnosis.

Evaluation of Cardiovascular Anomalies

Cardiovascular anomalies, the second commonest group were seen in 12 cases. Septal defects were visualised by both MRI and USG, but USG was superior. Moreover, functional assessment was possible only by USG. One case of giant right atrium was diagnosed by USG, but the internal structures of the developing heart was not properly visualised by MRI.

Evaluation of Genitourinary Anomalies

Among 10 cases of genitourinary abnormalities, one case was diagnosed to have posterior urethral valve by USG and MRI revealed bilateral hydronephrosis and duodenal atresia. Autosomal Dominant Polycystic Kidney Disease (ADPKD) was seen in one case by USG. MRI revealed the enlarged echogenic kidneys well but few small cysts measuring 3 mm were not visualised by MRI. Multicystic Dysplastic Kidney (MCDK) was diagnosed in one case and the small were well visualised by both the modalities. Foetus hydronephrosis was seen in 2 cases due to Pelvic Ureteric Junction (PUJ) obstruction. Dilated Pelvic Congestion Syndrome (PCS) was visualised by both USG and MRI. Vesicoureteral Reflux (VUR) was seen in one case. Foetus pyelectasis was seen in two cases. On postnatal imaging dilated PCS resolved after three months.

Evaluation of Chest Anomalies

Thoracic abnormalities were seen in five cases. Two cases of diaphragmatic hernia were diagnosed by USG. Stomach position, cardiac compression was seen well by both USG and MRI. Congenital Cystic Adenomatoid Malformation (CCAM) was seen in one case by USG. The small cysts were seen well in both USG and MRI. Congenital lobar emphysema was seen in one case and was seen by both USG and MRI. One case of hypoplastic thorax was seen with decreased thoracic diameter (Table/Fig 12).

Evaluation of GIT and Musculoskeletal Abnormalities

Gastrointestinal abnormalities were seen in 10 cases. No additional findings were detected by MRI. Musculoskeletal abnormalities were seen in five cases. Details of long bones, hands and feet were exquisitely visualised by MRI. Spine was seen well by MRI compared to USG. But no additional information was detected by MRI.

Out of 65 cases, total 52 foetal anomalies were correctly diagnosed on MRI so, sensitivity of MRI was 88.13%, it means 88.13% of the foetus anomalies were correctly diagnosed on MRI and remaining 12% showed a false negative result, while sensitivity of USG was 82.43% it means 82.43% of the foetus anomalies were correctly diagnosed on USG and remaining 18% showed a false negative result.

Specifity of MRI was 66.6% means that those 66.6% who don’t have foetus anomaly showed true negative results, however, specifity of USG was 77.7 % means that those 77.77% who don’t have foetus anomaly showed true negative result. USG and MRI yielded comparably high sensitivity for detecting anomalies (Table/Fig 13). In this study, total 14 out of 65 cases were additionally diagnosed by mri and changed the diagnosis of USG (21.53%) (Table/Fig 14).

Discussion

Ultrasonography is the primary imaging modality for foetus evaluation, and its availability and low cost make it the ideal screening method for low-risk populations. Foetus MRI is also a safe and robust technique in cases of equivocal sonographic findings (11).

According to Hussamy DJ in a population-based cohort study, calculated risk was at least 1:270 in 93% of Down syndrome pregnancies and more pregnancies had multiple risk factors than had a single risk factor (12). In our study, also around 45% were present with the history of risk factor.

In this study CNS anomalies were better detected by MRI compared to USG. This study coincided with Yong Seak S et al., that foetus MRI has an advantage over ultrasound in evaluation and detection of posterior fossa abnormalities, causes of ventriculomegaly, intracranial abnormalities and brain atrophy, this was also confirmed by Blaicher W et al., (13),(14).

In this study, foetus MRI was helpful in evaluating abnormalities of the posterior fossa which includes dandy walker and giant cisterna magna which are difficult to be diagnosed by ultrasound alone and this was in agreement with other studies (6). In this study, the foetuses with callosal anomalies were diagnosed on ultrasound but with MR imaging, callosal anomalies were seen clearly along with the many associated subtle features. Partial agenesis was better visualised with MRI. These findings coincide with Kier E and Truwit C (15).

Kwong Y et al., found that the visualised anatomy obtained by MRI was far superior than on sonography and allowed categorisation of vein of galen malformation sub-type. Genetic analysis on the mother and both foetuses showed variant RASA1 gene mutation (16).

In this study, vein of galen malformation was seen as anechoic key hole lesion with high flow and on MRI, reveals signal void lesion, dilated pericallosal artery and of thorax reveals cardiomegaly. Wagner MW concludes that secondary complications of the VGAM, hemodynamic alterations such as cardiac failure, foetus hydrops, and brain injury. Heart failure results from increased cardiac preload secondary to arteriovenous shunts leads to cardiomegaly and hydrops foetusis. Injury to the cerebral gray and white matter is called “melting brain” (17).

Foetus cardiac abnormalities are not well visualised by MRI. This is due to high foetus heart causing motion artifacts. Moreover, the heart can be assessed in realtime by USG compared to MRI and all the necessary measurement can be performed to evaluate the function of the heart. In this study two cardiac anomalies out of three were missed by MRI and were visualised by USG.

Hamisa M et al., in 2013 conducted a study on 23 pregnant women. In their study, they found that MRI and ultrasound showed similar findings in six cases. MRI changed the diagnosis in 14 cases and provided additional information in two cases. Ultrasound was superior to MRI in one case at the second trimester due to foetus motion. This study results were contradictory to the study conducted by Hamisa M et al., since in our study MRI was superior than USG (18).

Zialhaq P et al., provided additional information on MRI than US in 2/23 cases (8.69%), 23.8% performed by Whitby E et al., which can be explained by more number of patients having spinal involvement in their study (19),(20). MRI changed the diagnosis in 11/23 cases (47.8%) and in this study we found 14/65 case (21.53%). Hosny IA and Elghawabi HS, reported 16% cases additional information which is nearer to this study and according to Bhosle PR provided more information on MRI than did US in 5/31 cases (16.1%) (21),(22).

Limitation(s)

Small sample size. Foetus cardiac abnormalities are not well visualised by MRI due to high foetus heart rate causing motion artifacts. Foetus MRI has inherent limitations of high cost, less widely available and motion artefacts and also reverberation artifacts and poor penetration through the ossified foetus skull result in a reduced visualisation of the brain.

Conclusion

Both ultrasound and foetus MRI are highly sensitive and specific in diagnosis of congenital anomalies of the foetus. Real time dynamic nature of ultrasound, capabilities and doppler provides a useful upper hand in evaluation of structural and vascular anomalies. Foetus MRI provides high confidence in ultrasound aided diagnosis. It has better sensitivity in detection of CNS abnormalities and subtle small lesions with high confidence. Foetus MRI had a higher sensitivity for diagnosing CNS anomalies than USG. The additional information provided by foetus MRI would have led to a change in counseling and/or management.

References

1.
World Health Organization. Section on congenital anomalies. [Cited on 2012 Oct]. Available from: http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs370/en.
2.
World Health Organization. Section on congenital anomalies. Available from: http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs370/en/ Accessed October 2019.
3.
National health Portal of India. Section on congenital anomalies (birth defects). Available at https://www.nhp.gov.in/disease/gynaecology-and-obstertrics/congenital-anomalies-birth-defects.
4.
Ganesh Rao B, Ramamurthy BS. MRI of the fetus brain. Indian J Radiol Imaging. 2009;19(1):69-74. [crossref] [PubMed]
5.
Denise P. Fetus MRI the sonographers view. Top Magn Reson Imaging. 2011;22(3):91-99. [crossref] [PubMed]
6.
Nadine J, Girard MD. Magnetic resonance imaging of fetus developmental anomalies. Top Magn Reson Imaging. 2011;22(1):11-23. [crossref] [PubMed]
7.
Benacerraf BR, Shipp TD, Bromley B, Levine D. What does magnetic resonance imaging add to the prenatal sonographic diagnosis of ventriculomegaly? J Ultrasound Med. 2007;26:1513-22. [crossref] [PubMed]
8.
Kanal E, Borgstede JP, Barkovich AJ, Bell C, Bradley WG, Felmlee JP, et al. American College of Radiology White Paper on MR Safety. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2002;178:1335-47. [crossref] [PubMed]
9.
Glenn OA, Barkovich AJ. Magnetic resonance imaging of the fetus brain and spine: An increasingly important tool in prenatal diagnosis. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2006;27:1604-11.
10.
Gonçalves LF, Lee W, Mody S, Shetty A, H Sangi-Haghpeykar AH, Romero R. Diagnostic accuracy of ultrasonography and magnetic resonance imaging for the detection of fetus anomalies: A blinded case-control study. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2016;48(2):185-92. [crossref] [PubMed]
11.
Gupta P, Kumar S, Sharma R, Gadodia A, Roy KK, Sharma JB. Role of magnetic resonance imaging in fetus renal anomalies. International Journal of Gynecology and Obstetrics. 2010;111:209. [crossref] [PubMed]
12.
Hussamy DJ, Herrera LC, Twickler DM, Mcintire DD, Dashe JS. Number of risk factors in down syndrome pregnancies. Am J Perinatol. 2019;36(1):79-85. [crossref] [PubMed]
13.
Yong Seak S, Myung Joon K, Ja young K, Young-han K, Yong-won P. The Usefulness of Fetal MRI for Prenatal Diagnosis. Yonsei Med J. 2007;31;48(4):671-77. [crossref] [PubMed]
14.
Blaicher W, Prayer D, Bernaschek G. magnetic resonance imaging and ultrasound in the assessment of the fetal central nervous system. J Perinat Med. 2003. 2003;31(6): 459-68. [crossref] [PubMed]
15.
Kier E, Truwit C. The normal and abnormal genu of the corpus callosum: An evolutionary, embryological, anatomic and MR analysis. AJNR. 1996;17:1631-41.
16.
Kwong Y. Cartmill M, Jaspan T, Suri M. Fetus MRI demonstrating vein of Galen malformations in two successive pregnancies-a previously unreported occurrence. Childs Nerv Syst. 2015;31(7):1033-35. [crossref] [PubMed]
17.
Wagner MW, Vaught AJ, Poretti A, Blakemore KJ, Huisman TAJM. Vein of galen aneurysmal malformation: Prognostic markers depicted on fetus MRI. Neuroradiol J. 2015;28(1):72-75. [crossref] [PubMed]
18.
Hamisa M, Dabees N, Ataalla WM, Ziada DH. Magnetic resonance imaging versus Ultrasound examination in detection of prenatal fetus brain anomalies. Egypt J Radiol Nucl Med. 2013;44:665 72. [crossref]
19.
Ziaulhaq P, Khan NA, Banday S. The comparative study of antenatal magnetic resonance imaging and ultrasound in the evaluation of fetus central nervous system abnormalities. CHRISMED Journal of Health and Research. 2020;7(3):188-92. [crossref]
20.
Whitby E, Paley MN, Davies N, Sprigg A, Griffiths PD. Ultrafast magnetic resonance imaging of central nervous system abnormalities in utero in the second and third trimester of pregnancy: Comparison with ultrasound. BJOG. 2001;108:519 26. [crossref] [PubMed]
21.
Hosny IA, Elghawabi HS. Ultrafast MRI of the fetus: An increasingly important tool in prenatal diagnosis of congenital anomalies. Magn Reson Imaging. 2010;28(10):1431-39. [crossref] [PubMed]
22.
Bhosale PR. The role of fetus MRI in prental diagnosis: A comparative study with antenatal ultrasound. Annals of International Medical and Dental Research. 2017;3(3):06-10. [crossref]

DOI and Others

10.7860/JCDR/2021/49166.15146

Date of Submission: Mar 04, 2021
Date of Peer Review: Mar 26, 2021
Date of Acceptance: Jun 17, 2021
Date of Publishing: Jul 01, 2021

AUTHOR DECLARATION:
• Financial or Other Competing Interests: None
• Was Ethics Committee Approval obtained for this study? Yes
• Was informed consent obtained from the subjects involved in the study? Yes
• For any images presented appropriate consent has been obtained from the subjects. Yes

PLAGIARISM CHECKING METHODS:
• Plagiarism X-checker: Mar 05, 2021
• Manual Googling: Jun 16, 2021
• iThenticate Software: Jun 30, 2021 (19%)

ETYMOLOGY: Author Origin

JCDR is now Monthly and more widely Indexed .
  • Emerging Sources Citation Index (Web of Science, thomsonreuters)
  • Index Copernicus ICV 2017: 134.54
  • Academic Search Complete Database
  • Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ)
  • Embase
  • EBSCOhost
  • Google Scholar
  • HINARI Access to Research in Health Programme
  • Indian Science Abstracts (ISA)
  • Journal seek Database
  • Google
  • Popline (reproductive health literature)
  • www.omnimedicalsearch.com