Magnetic Resonance Imaging for Evaluation of the Fetus and the Placenta

 

 Buy Article Permissions and Reprints

ABSTRACT

Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) has become an important complementary imaging modality for evaluation of fetal and placental abnormalities over the past decade. MRI can function as a problem solver and help in patient counseling by confirming a suspected diagnosis, offering alternative diagnoses, and identifying additional abnormalities. This article addresses the use of MRI in the evaluation of the fetus and the placenta.

REFERENCES

• 1 Smith F W, Adam A H, Philips W DP. NMR imaging in pregnancy.  Lancet. 1983;  1 61-62
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 2 Frates M J, Kumar A J, Benson C B et al.. Fetal anomalies: comparison of MR imaging and US for diagnosis.  Radiology. 2004;  232 398-404
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 3 Griffiths P D, Widjaja E, Paley M N et al.. Imaging the fetal spine using in utero MR: diagnostic accuracy and impact on management.  Pediatr Radiol. 2006;  36 927-933
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 4 Coakley F V, Hricak H, Filly R A et al.. Complex fetal disorders: effect of MR imaging on management: preliminary clinical experience.  Radiology. 1999;  213 691-696
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 5 Levine D, Barnes P D, Madsen J R et al.. Central nervous system abnormalities assessed with prenatal magnetic resonance imaging.  Obstet Gynecol. 1999;  94 1011-1019
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 6 Whitby E H, Paley M NJ, Sprigg A et al.. Comparison of ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging in 100 singleton pregnancies with suspected brain abnormalities.  BJOG. 2004;  111 784-792
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 7 Kok R D, de Vries M M, Heerschap A, van den Berg P P. Absence of harmful effects of magnetic resonance exposure at 1.5T in utero during the third trimester of pregnancy: a follow-up study.  Magn Reson Imaging. 2004;  22 851-854
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 8 Baker P N, Johnson I R, Harvey P R, Gowland P A, Mansfield P. A three-year follow-up of children imaged in utero with echo-planar magnetic resonance.  Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1994;  170 32-33
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 9 Myers C, Duncan K R, Gowland P A, Johnson I R, Baker P N. Failure to detect intrauterine growth restriction following in utero exposure to MRI.  Br J Radiol. 1998;  71 549-551
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 10 Garel C. New advances in fetal MR neuroimaging.  Pediatr Radiol. 2006;  36 621-625
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 11 Agid R, Lieberman S, Nadjari M et al.. Prenatal MR diffusion-weighted imaging in a fetus with hemimegalencephaly.  Pediatr Radiol. 2006;  36 138-140
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 12 Wolfberg A J, Robinson J N, Mulkern R, Rybicki F, Du Plessis A J. Identification of fetal cerebral lactate using magnetic resonance spectroscopy.  Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2007;  196 9-11
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 13 Gowland P. Placental MRI.  Semin Fetal Neonatal Med. 2005;  10 485-490
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 14 Lax A, Prince M R, Mennitt K W, Schwebach J R, Budorick N E. The value of specific MRI features in the evaluation of suspected placental invasion.  Magn Reson Imaging. 2007;  25 87-93
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 15 Maldijan C, Adam R, Pelosi M, Pelosi M I, Rudell R D, Maldijan J. MRI appearance of placenta percreta and placenta accreta.  Magn Reson Imaging. 1999;  17 965-971
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 16 Tanaka Y O, Sohda S, Shigemitsu S, Niitsu M, Itai Y. High temporal resolution dynamic contrast MRI in a high risk group for placenta accreta.  Magn Reson Imaging. 2001;  19 635-642
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 17 Taillieu F, Salomon L J, Siauve N et al.. Placenta perfusion and permeability: simultaneous assessment with dual-echo contrast enhanced MR imaging in mice.  Radiology. 2006;  241 737-745
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 18 Anderson N, Malpas T, Davidson M. Prenatal diagnosis of unilateral hydrocephalus.  Pediatr Radiol. 1993;  23 69-70
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 19 Zimmerman R A, Bilaniuk L. Magnetic resonance evaluation of fetal ventriculomegaly-associated congenital malformations and lesions.  Semin Fetal Neonatal Med. 2005;  10 429-443
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 20 Barkovich A J. Congenital anomalies of the spine. In: Barkovich AJ Pediatric Neuroimaging. Philadelphia, PA; Lippincott Williams & Wilkins 2005: 711
  Google Scholar
• 21 Glenn O A, Goldstein R B, Li K C et al.. Fetal magnetic resonance imaging in the evaluation of fetuses referred for sonographically suspected abnormalities of the corpus callosum.  J Ultrasound Med. 2005;  24 791-804
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 22 Ickowitz V, Eurin D, Rypens F et al.. Prenatal diagnosis and postnatal follow-up of pericallosal lipoma: report of seven new cases.  AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2001;  22 767-772
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 23 Baldoli C, Righini A, Parazzini C, Scotti G, Triuzi F. Demonstration of acute ischemic lesions in the fetal brain by diffusion weighted MRI.  Ann Neurol. 2002;  52 243-246
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 24 Poutamo J, Vanninen R, Partanen K, Kirkinen P. Diagnosing fetal urinary tract abnormalities: benefits of MRI compared to ultrasonography.  Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2000;  79 65-71
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 25 Cassart M, Massez A, Metens T, Rypens F, Lambot M A, Hall M, Avni F E. Complementary role of MRI after sonography in assessing bilateral urinary tract anomalies in the fetus.  Am J Roentgenol. 2004;  182 689-695
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 26 Bloom D A. Dilatation of the neonatal urinary tract. In: Kuhn JP, Slovis TA, Haller JO Caffey's Pediatric Diagnostic Imaging. 10th ed. St, Louis, MO; Mosby/Elsevier Science 2004: 204-216
  Google Scholar
• 27 Kasprian G, Balassy C, Brugger P C, Prayer D. MRI of normal and pathological fetal lung development.  Eur J Radiol. 2006;  57 261-270
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Aytekin OtoM.D. 

Department of Radiology, University of Chicago Medical Center

5841 S. Maryland Avenue, MC 2026, Chicago, IL

Email: aoto@radiology.bsd.uchicago.edu