Advertisement

Spinal cord ultrasonography of the newborn

  • Iacopo Valente
  • Alessandro Pedicelli
  • Martina Piacentini
  • Marco Di Serafino
  • Gianfranco Vallone
  • Stefania Speca
  • Cesare Colosimo
Review Article
  • 4 Downloads

Abstract

Ultrasound represents the first-line survey for the assessment of spinal cord development abnormalities. In fact, within 6 months of life, the non-ossification of neuronal arcs provides an excellent acoustic window that allows a detailed depiction of the spinal canal, its content and of the surrounding soft tissues. Nevertheless, an accurate ultrasound examination requires a complete knowledge of the anatomy, the condition of normality, the frequent anatomical variants and the main pathologies involved. This review is intended to briefly summarize the US technique, the main clinical indication and the key notions that could help to properly perform this type of ultrasound examination.

Keywords

Innovative biotechnologies Ultrasound Spinal dysraphisms Tethered cord syndrome 

Sommario

L’ecografia rappresenta l’indagine di prima linea per la valutazione delle anomalie dello sviluppo del midollo spinale. Infatti, entro i sei mesi di vita, la mancata ossificazione degli archi neurali offre un’eccellente finestra acustica che permette una dettagliata valutazione del canale spinale, del suo contenuto e dei tessuti molli circostanti. Tuttavia, un’accurata valutazione ecografica non può prescindere da una completa conoscenza dell’anatomia, delle condizioni di normalità, delle frequenti varianti anatomiche e delle principali patologie. Questa review ha lo scopo di riassumere brevemente la tecnica ecografica, le principali indicazioni cliniche e le nozioni chiave che potrebbe aiutare per eseguire correttamente questo tipo di indagine.

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

According to our National and Institutional regulations, retrospective analysis of anonymized dataset does not require ethics committee review.

Informed consent

No informed consent was collected as only routine diagnostic examinations were performed. All images were appropriately anonymized.

References

  1. 1.
    Miller J, Reid B, Randall Kemberling C (1982) Utilization of ultrasound in the evaluation of spinal dysraphism in children. Radiology 143:737–740CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Chern JJ, Kirkman JL, Shannon CN, Tubbs RS, Stone JD, Royal SA, Oakes WJ, Rozzelle CJ, Wellons JC (2012) Use of lumbar ultrasonography to detect occult spinal dysraphism. J Neurosurg Pediatr 9:274–279.  https://doi.org/10.3171/2011.12.PEDS11351 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    McCann ME, Soriano SG (2009) Is anesthesia bad for the newborn brain? Anesthesiol Clin 27:269–284.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anclin.2009.05.007 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ausili E, Maresca G, Massimi L, Morgante L, Romagnoli C, Rendeli C (2018) Occult spinal dysraphisms in newborns with skin markers: role of ultrasonography and magnetic resonance imaging. Child’s Nerv Syst 34:285–291.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00381-017-3638-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Zywicke HA, Rozzelle CJ (2011) Sacral Dimples. Pediatr Rev 32:109–114.  https://doi.org/10.1542/pir.32-3-109 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kucera JN, Coley I, O’Hara S, Kosnik EJ, Coley BD (2014) The simple sacral dimple: diagnostic yield of ultrasound in neonates. Pediatr Radiol 45:211–216.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00247-014-3110-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kriss VM, Desai NS (1998) Occult spinal dysraphism in neonates: assessment of high-risk cutaneous stigmata on sonography. Am J Roentgenol 171:1687–1692.  https://doi.org/10.2214/ajr.171.6.9843314 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Herman TE, Oser RF, Shackelford GD (1993) Intergluteal dorsal dermal sinuses: the role of neonatal spinal sonography. Clin Pediatr (Phila) 32:627–628.  https://doi.org/10.1177/000992289303201012 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Sewell MJ, Chiu YE, Drolet BA (2015) Neural tube dysraphism: review of cutaneous markers and imaging. Pediatr Dermatol 32:161–170.  https://doi.org/10.1111/pde.12485 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Schenk JP, Herweh C, Günther P, Rohrschneider W, Zieger B, Tröger J (2006) Imaging of congenital anomalies and variations of the caudal spine and back in neonates and small infants. Eur J Radiol 58:3–14.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2005.12.004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Unsinn KM, Geley T, Freund MC, Gassner I (2000) US of the spinal cord in newborns: spectrum of normal findings, variants, congenital anomalies, and acquired diseases. Radiographics 20:923–938.  https://doi.org/10.1148/radiographics.20.4.g00jl06923 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Coleman LT, Zimmerman RA, Rorke LB (1995) Ventriculus terminalis of the conus medullaris: MR findings in children. Am J Neuroradiol 16:1421–1426Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Sigal R, Denys A, Halimi P, Shapeero L, Doyon D, Boudghène F (1991) Ventriculus terminalis of the conus medullaris: MR imaging in four patients with congenital dilatation. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 12:733–737Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Tortori-Donati P, Rossi A, Cama A (2000) Spinal dysraphism: a review of neuroradiological features with embryological correlations and proposal for a new classification. Neuroradiology 42:471–491CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Meyers AB, Chandra T, Epelman M (2017) Sonographic spinal imaging of normal anatomy, pathology and magnetic growing rods in children. Pediatr Radiol 47:1046–1057.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00247-017-3845-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Dick EA, Patel K, Owens CM, De Bruyn R (2002) Spinal ultrasound in infants. Br J Radiol 75:384–392.  https://doi.org/10.1259/bjr.75.892.750384 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Korsvik HE, Keller MS (1992) Sonography of occult dysraphism in neonates and infants with MR imaging correlation. Radiographics 12:297–298.  https://doi.org/10.1148/radiographics.12.2.1561418 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Ben-Sira L, Ponger P, Miller E, Beni-Adani L, Constantini S (2009) Low-risk lumbar skin stigmata in infants: the role of ultrasound screening. J Pediatr 155:864–869.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpeds.2009.06.003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Medina LS (2009) Spinal dysraphism: categorizing risk to optimize imaging. Pediatr Radiol 39:242–246.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00247-008-1115-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Schwartz ES, Rossi A (2015) Congenital spine anomalies: the closed spinal dysraphisms. Pediatr Radiol 45:413–419.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00247-015-3425-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Herman JM, McLone DG, Storrs BB, Dauser R (1993) Analysis of 153 patients with myelomeningocele or spinal lipoma reoperated upon for a tethered cord. Pediatr Neurosurg 19:243–249CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    McLone DG, Dias M (1991) Complications of myelomeningocele closure. Pediatr Neurosurg 92:267–273CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Società Italiana di Ultrasonologia in Medicina e Biologia (SIUMB) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.UOC Radiologia e Neuroradiologia, Dipartimento di diagnostica per immagini, Radioterapia Oncologica ed EmatologiaFondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli IRCCSRomeItaly
  2. 2.Istituto di RadiologiaUniversità Cattolica del Sacro CuoreRomeItaly
  3. 3.UOSC Radiologia Generale e PSAORN Antonio CardarelliNaplesItaly
  4. 4.Dipartimento di Radiologia PediatricaAOU Federico IINaplesItaly

Personalised recommendations