European Radiology

, Volume 22, Issue 9, pp 2020–2026 | Cite as

Magnetic resonance imaging of the active second stage of labour: Proof of principle

  • F. V. Güttler
  • A. Heinrich
  • J. Rump
  • M. de Bucourt
  • B. Schnackenburg
  • C. Bamberg
  • B. Hamm
  • U. K. Teichgräber
Magnetic Resonance

Abstract

Objective

To prove that magnetic resonance imaging of foetal anatomy during the active second stage of vaginal delivery is feasible.

Materials and methods

Initially, five pregnant volunteers around the 30th week of gestation were examined in an open MRI. Based on the findings, one vaginal delivery was acquired under real-time imaging. To monitor the birth status during image acquisition, an MR-compatible wireless cardiotocography (CTG) system was built. Single-shot sequence parameters were optimised to compensate motion artefacts during labour.

Results

Safety requirements to monitor the birth process under real-time MR imaging were met. High-resolution MR images were acquired immediately before and after delivery. In one patient, TSE single-shot cinematic sequences of the active second stage of labour were obtained. All sequences were adapted to tolerate movement of the mother and infant, as well as residual noise from the CTG. Furthermore, the MR imaging during labour showed only minor image artefacts.

Conclusion

CTG-monitored acquisition of MRI series during the active second stage of delivery is feasible. Image quality should allow various further studies to improve models for birth simulation as well as potential investigation of obstructed labour and obstetric complications.

Key Points

The active second stage of obstetric delivery can be followed by MRI.

Wireless cardiotocography allows monitoring of the foetus during MRI.

It has potential applications in evaluation of late obstetric problems.

Keywords

Parturition Magnetic resonance imaging Prenatal diagnosis Pregnancy Obstetrics 

Abbreviations

MRI

Magnetic resonance imaging

bSSFP

Balanced steady-state free precession

CTG

Cardiotocography

DAQ

Data acquisition

FFE

Fast field echo

FHR

Foetal heart rate

FM

Foetal monitor

GUI

Graphical user interface

GRE

Gradient echo

toco

Tocodynamometer

TSE

Turbo spin echo

US

Ultrasound

References

  1. 1.
    Gei A, Oto A, Pacheco L, Cassady C (2009) P232 Serial evaluation of maternal descent and fetal head dimensions using MRI during labor: Report of the first case. International Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics 107:S477–S478CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Li X, Kruger JA, Nash MP, Nielsen PMF (2010) Modeling childbirth: elucidating the mechanisms of labor. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Systems Biology and Medicine 2:460–470PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Lien KC, Mooney B, DeLancey JOL, Ashton-Miller JA (2004) Levator ani muscle stretch induced by simulated vaginal birth. Obstet Gynecol 103:31PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kölbl H (2001) Pregnancy, childbirth and the pelvic floor. Zentralbl Gynakol 123:666–671PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Preyer O, Hanzal E, Umek W, Laml T (2006) The impact of pregnancy and childbirth on the pelvic floor. Geburtsh Frauenheilk 66:450–454CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    MacArthur C, Bick DE, Keighley MRB (1997) Faecal incontinence after childbirth. BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology 104:46–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Sultan AH, Kamm MA, Hudson CN, Thomas JM, Bartram CI (1993) Anal-sphincter disruption during vaginal delivery. N Engl J Med 329:1905–1911PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Peschers UM, Sultan AH, Jundt K, Mayer A, Drinovac V, Dimpfl T (2003) Urinary and anal incontinence after vacuum delivery. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 110:39–42PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kok RD, de Vries MM, Heerschap A, van den Berg PP (2004) Absence of harmful effects of magnetic resonance exposure at 1.5 T in utero during the third trimester of pregnancy: a follow-up study. Magn Reson Imaging 22:851–854PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Myers C, Duncan KR, Gowland PA, Johnson IR, Baker PN (1998) Failure to detect intrauterine growth restriction following in utero exposure to MRI. Br J Radiol 71:549–551PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Poutamo J, Partanen K, Vanninen R, Vainio P, Kirkinen P (1998) MRI does not change fetal cardiotocographic parameters. Prenat Diagn 18:1149–1154PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Schiffer IB, Schreiber WG, Graf R et al (2003) No influence of magnetic fields on cell cycle progression using conditions relevant for patients during MRI. Bioelectromagnetics 24:241–250PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Rodegerdts EA, Grönewäller EF, Kehlbach R et al (2000) In vitro evaluation of teratogenic effects by time varying MR gradient fields on fetal human fibroblasts. J Magn Reson Imaging 12:150–156PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Schwenzer NF, Bantleon R, Maurer B et al (2007) In vitro evaluation of magnetic resonance imaging at 3.0 tesla on clonogenic ability, proliferation, and cell cycle in human embryonic lung fibroblasts. Investig Radiol 42:212CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Schneider KT, Butterwegge M, Daumer M et al (2006) Use of CTG during pregnancy and childbirth. Z Geburtshilfe Neonatol 210:38–49PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    (1994) Antepartum fetal surveillance. ACOG Technical Bulletin Number 188—January 1994. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 44:289–294Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Schaefers G, Melzer A (2006) Testing methods for MR safety and compatibility of medical devices. Minim Invasive Ther Allied Technol 15:71–75PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    ASTM Standard F2119–07 (2007) Standard test method for evaluation of MR image artifacts from passive implants. ASTM InternationalGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Guettler FV, Heinrich A, Teichgraeber U (2011) Open source MR-susceptibility artifact measurement (SAM). ESMRMB, LeipzigGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    ASTM Standard F2052-06E1 (2006) Standard Test Method for Measurement of Magnetically Induced Displacement Force on Medical Devices in the Magnetic Resonance Environment. ASTM InternationalGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    National Electrical Manufacturers Association (NEMA) (2008) NEMA Standards Publication MS 1–2008 Determination of Signal-to-Noise Ratio (SNR) in Diagnostic Magnetic Resonance Imaging. National Electrical Manufacturers AssociationGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    ASTM Standard F2503-08 (2008) Standard Practice for Marking Medical Devices and Other Items for Safety in the Magnetic Resonance Environment. ASTM InternationalGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Shellock FG, Woods TO, Crues JV (2009) MR labeling information for implants and devices: explanation of terminology. Radiology 253:26PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Rinck PA (2001) Magnetic resonance in medicine: the basic textbook of the European magnetic resonance forum. Wiley-Blackwell, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Bodner-Adler B, Bodner K, Joura E et al (2001) Influence of different maternal birth positions on perineal trauma and neonatal parameters during spontaneous vaginal delivery. Geburtshilfe und Frauenheilkunde 61:766–770CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Bodner-Adler B, Bodner K, Kimberger O, Lozanov P, Husslein P, Mayerhofer K (2003) Women's position during labour: influence on maternal and neonatal outcome. Wien Klin Wochenschr 115:720–723PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Levine D, Barnes PD, Sher S et al (1998) Fetal fast MR imaging: reproducibility, technical quality, and conspicuity of anatomy. Radiology 206:549–554PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Levine D, Hatabu H, Gaa J, Atkinson MW, Edelman RR (1996) Fetal anatomy revealed with fast MR sequences. AJR Am J Roentgenol 167:905–908PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© European Society of Radiology 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • F. V. Güttler
    • 1
  • A. Heinrich
    • 1
  • J. Rump
    • 1
  • M. de Bucourt
    • 1
  • B. Schnackenburg
    • 2
  • C. Bamberg
    • 3
  • B. Hamm
    • 1
  • U. K. Teichgräber
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of RadiologyCharité University HospitalBerlinGermany
  2. 2.Philips GmbH Unternehmensbereich HealthcareHamburgGermany
  3. 3.Department of ObstetricsCharité University HospitalBerlinGermany

Personalised recommendations