Advertisement

Pediatric Radiology

, Volume 41, Issue 3, pp 374–383 | Cite as

Prenatal US evaluation of the spinal cord using high-frequency linear transducers

  • Eléonore Blondiaux
  • Eldad Katorza
  • Jonathan Rosenblatt
  • Catherine Nahama-Allouche
  • Marion Lenoir
  • Hubert Ducou le Pointe
  • Catherine GarelEmail author
Pictorial Essay

Abstract

We illustrate the contribution of high-frequency linear abdominal transducers in the prenatal US examination of the spinal cord. After birth, such transducers are commonly used in US examination of the spinal cord. During the third trimester of gestation, the fetal spine is commonly facing anteriorly and US images of the spinal cord can be acquired using a high-frequency linear abdominal transducer. Images of the normal spinal cord, normal variants (ventriculus terminalis, cyst of filum terminale) and spinal cord abnormalities (myelomeningocele, meningocele, diastematomyelia, tethered spinal cord and caudal regression syndrome) are presented. In this pictorial essay, comparison between images acquired with low- and high-frequency transducers are provided as well as correlation with postnatal data. In the normal spine, anatomical details such as the conus medullaris, the filum terminale and the nerve root bundles are exquisitely depicted, making it possible to differentiate normal variants from abnormalities. In abnormal cases, the position of the conus medullaris, its shape and the nerve roots can be analyzed in detail. We describe the benefits of using high-frequency linear transducers in US examination of the spinal cord, which is common after birth but has not been hitherto reported in fetuses.

Keywords

Spinal cord Prenatal diagnosis US High-frequency transducer Fetus 

Supplementary material

Online resource

Normal spinal cord at 32 weeks’ gestation. Real-time US of the oscillations of the cauda equina roots are shown on an axial view (MPG 1127 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology Education Committee (2007) Sonographic examination of the fetal central nervous system: guidelines for performing the ‘basic examination’ and the ‘fetal neurosonogram’. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 29:109–116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Barkovich AJ (2005) Normal development of the neonatal and infant brain, skull and spine. In: Barkovich AJ (ed) Pediatric neuroimaging, 4th edn. Lippincott Williams § Wilkins, Philadelphia, pp 17–75Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    De Biasio P, Ginocchio G, Aicardi G et al (2003) Ossification timing of sacral vertebrae by ultrasound in the mid-second trimester of pregnancy. Prenat Diagn 23:1056–1059CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Barkovich AJ (2005) Congenital anomalies of the spine. In: Barkovich AJ (ed) Pediatric neuroimaging, 4th edn. Lippincott Williams § Wilkins, Philadelphia, pp 704–772Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Zalel Y, Lehavi O, Aizenstein O et al (2006) Development of the fetal spinal cord: time of ascendance of the normal conus medullaris as detected by sonography. J Ultrasound Med 25:1397–1401, quiz 1402–3PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Unsinn KM, Geley T, Freund MC et al (2000) US of the spinal cord in newborns: spectrum of normal findings, variants, congenital anomalies, and acquired diseases. Radiographics 20:923–938PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Lam WW, Ai V, Wong V et al (2004) Ultrasound measurement of lumbosacral spine in children. Pediatr Neurol 30:115–121CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Sohaey R, Oh KY, Kennedy AM et al (2009) Prenatal diagnosis of tethered spinal cord. Ultrasound Q 25:83–7, quiz 93–5CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kriss VM, Kriss TC, Coleman RC (2000) Sonographic appearance of the ventriculus terminalis cyst in the neonatal spinal cord. J Ultrasound Med 19:207–209PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Irani N, Goud AR, Lowe LH (2006) Isolated filar cyst on lumbar spine sonography in infants: a case-control study. Pediatr Radiol 36:1283–1288CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bulas D (2010) Fetal evaluation of spine dysraphism. Pediatr Radiol 40:1029–1037CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Cameron M, Moran P (2009) Prenatal screening and diagnosis of neural tube defects. Prenat Diagn 29:402–411CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Ghi T, Pilu G, Falco P et al (2006) Prenatal diagnosis of open and closed spina bifida. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 28:899–903CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Allen LM, Silverman RK (2000) Prenatal ultrasound evaluation of fetal diastematomyelia: two cases of type I split cord malformation. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 15:78–82CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Has R, Yuksel A, Buyukkurt S et al (2007) Prenatal diagnosis of diastematomyelia: presentation of eight cases and review of the literature. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 30:845–849CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Sonigo-Cohen P, Schmit P, Zerah M et al (2003) Prenatal diagnosis of diastematomyelia. Childs Nerv Syst 19:555–560CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Stroustrup Smith A, Grable I, Levine D (2004) Case 66: caudal regression syndrome in the fetus of a diabetic mother. Radiology 230:229–233CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Eléonore Blondiaux
    • 1
  • Eldad Katorza
    • 1
  • Jonathan Rosenblatt
    • 2
  • Catherine Nahama-Allouche
    • 1
    • 2
  • Marion Lenoir
    • 1
  • Hubert Ducou le Pointe
    • 1
  • Catherine Garel
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.Radiology Department, Hopital d’Enfants Armand-TrousseauUniversite Paris VI Pierre and Marie CurieParisFrance
  2. 2.Gynaecology, Obstetric and Prenatal Diagnosis DepartmentsHopital d’Enfants Armand-TrousseauParisFrance

Personalised recommendations