Ventricular size measurement methods in fetuses considered for prenatal closure of myelomeningocele

View More View Less
  • 1 Department of Neurological Surgery, University of Kansas, Kansas City, Kansas;
  • | 2 Departments of OB/Gyn–Maternal & Fetal Medicine,
  • | 3 Pediatric Radiology, and
  • | 4 Neurosurgery, Children’s Mercy Hospital, Kansas City, Missouri; and
  • | 5 University of Missouri at Kansas City, Missouri
Restricted access

Purchase Now

USD  $45.00

JNS + Pediatrics - 1 year subscription bundle (Individuals Only)

USD  $505.00

JNS + Pediatrics + Spine - 1 year subscription bundle (Individuals Only)

USD  $600.00
Print or Print + Online

OBJECTIVE

Prenatal closure of myelomeningocele is associated with a reduced rate of hydrocephalus treatment. This need for hydrocephalus treatment is positively correlated with fetal ventricular width. When ventricular width is 15 mm or greater, the benefits of prenatal closure, as a method to decrease hydrocephalus treatment, are reduced. Thus, fetal ventricular size is an important factor when counseling families who are considering intrauterine surgery with mitigation of hydrocephalus as the primary goal. This study sought to determine whether imaging modality (ultrasound [US] vs MRI) and interobserver variability were factors in any ventricular size disparity seen on imaging studies.

METHODS

The imaging studies of 15 consecutive fetuses who underwent prenatal myelomeningocele repair at Children’s Mercy Fetal Health Center, Kansas City, Missouri, were reviewed. All fetuses were imaged with US and fetal MRI; on average (range), procedures were performed 3.8 (0–20) days apart. Three comparisons were performed to analyze interobserver and intermodality variability in ventricular width measurements: 1) retrospective comparison of dictated ventricular widths measured with MRI and US by pediatric radiologists (PRs) and maternal-fetal medicine specialists (MFMs), respectively; 2) blinded measurements obtained with US by PRs versus initial US-based measurements by MFMs, and blinded measurements obtained with MRI by PRs versus initial MRI-based measurements by PRs; and 3) blinded measurements obtained with MRI by PRs versus those obtained with US.

RESULTS

Retrospective comparison showed that measurements with MRI by PRs were on average 2.06 mm (95% CI 1.43–2.69, p < 0.001) larger than measurements with US by MFMs. Blinded measurements with US by PRs were on average larger than dictated measurements obtained with US by MFMs, but by only 0.6 mm (95% CI 0.31–0.84, p < 0.001). When PRs measured ventricular size in a blinded fashion with both US and MRI, the mean width determined with MRI was significantly larger by 2.0 mm (95% CI 1.26–2.67, p < 0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

The ventricular width of these fetuses was larger when measured with MRI than US by an amount that could impact recommendations for fetal surgery. Every center involved in counseling families about the risks and benefits of fetal intervention for spina bifida needs to be aware of these possible imaging-based disparities.

ABBREVIATIONS

MFM = maternal-fetal medicine specialist; PR = pediatric radiologist; US = ultrasound; VPS = ventriculoperitoneal shunt.

JNS + Pediatrics - 1 year subscription bundle (Individuals Only)

USD  $505.00

JNS + Pediatrics + Spine - 1 year subscription bundle (Individuals Only)

USD  $600.00
  • 1

    Adzick NS, Thom EA, Spong CY, et al.. A randomized trial of prenatal versus postnatal repair of myelomeningocele. N Engl J Med. 2011;364(11):9931004.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 2

    Danzer E, Gerdes M, Bebbington MW, et al.. Fetal myelomeningocele surgery: preschool functional status using the Functional Independence Measure for children (WeeFIM). Childs Nerv Syst. 2011;27(7):10831088.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 3

    Hisaba WJ, Cavalheiro S, Almodim CG, et al.. Intrauterine myelomeningocele repair postnatal results and follow-up at 3.5 years of age—initial experience from a single reference service in Brazil. Childs Nerv Syst. 2012;28(3):461467.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 4

    Tulipan N, Wellons JC III, Thom EA, et al.. Prenatal surgery for myelomeningocele and the need for cerebrospinal fluid shunt placement. J Neurosurg Pediatr. 2015;16(6):613620.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 5

    Adzick NS. Fetal myelomeningocele: natural history, pathophysiology, and in-utero intervention. Semin Fetal Neonatal Med. 2010;15(1):914.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 6

    Adzick NS. Fetal surgery for spina bifida: past, present, future. Semin Pediatr Surg. 2013;22(1):1017.

  • 7

    Elbabaa SK, Gildehaus AM, Pierson MJ, et al.. First 60 fetal in-utero myelomeningocele repairs at Saint Louis Fetal Care Institute in the post-MOMS trial era: hydrocephalus treatment outcomes (endoscopic third ventriculostomy versus ventriculo-peritoneal shunt). Childs Nerv Syst. 2017;33(7):11571168.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 8

    Meuli M, Moehrlen U. Fetal surgery for myelomeningocele is effective: a critical look at the whys. Pediatr Surg Int. 2014;30(7):689697.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 9

    Moldenhauer JS, Soni S, Rintoul NE, et al.. Fetal myelomeningocele repair: the post-MOMS experience at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia. Fetal Diagn Ther. 2015;37(3):235240.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 10

    Mummareddy N, Dewan MC, Huang A, et al.. Intrauterine closure of myelomeningocele is associated with superior long-term quality of life than postnatal closure: a single-center study. J Neurosurg Pediatr. 2019;24(2):115119.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 11

    Lundy P, Vlastos E, Grabb PA. Prenatal closure of myelomeningocele reduces Chiari associated brainstem dysfunction. Poster presented at: 48th Annual AANS/CNS Section on Pediatric Neurological Surgery Meeting; December 7, 2019;Scottsdale, AZ.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 12

    Rintoul NE, Sutton LN, Hubbard AM, et al.. A new look at myelomeningoceles: functional level, vertebral level, shunting, and the implications for fetal intervention. Pediatrics. 2002;109(3):409413.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 13

    Silberberg A, Robetto J, Grillo M. Ethical issues in intrauterine myelomeningocele surgery. New Bioeth. 2018;24(3):249257.

  • 14

    da Costa MDS, Nicacio JM, Dastoli PA, et al.. Alterations in skull base anatomy in intrauterine and postnatal repaired myelomeningoceles. Childs Nerv Syst. 2020;36(11):27572763.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 15

    Werner EF, Han CS, Burd I, et al.. Evaluating the cost-effectiveness of prenatal surgery for myelomeningocele: a decision analysis. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2012;40(2):158164.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 16

    Bruner JP, Tulipan N, Reed G, et al.. Intrauterine repair of spina bifida: preoperative predictors of shunt-dependent hydrocephalus. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2004;190(5):13051312.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

Metrics

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 166 166 11
Full Text Views 30 30 5
PDF Downloads 45 45 7
EPUB Downloads 0 0 0