Download PDF
Journal of Pediatric Neurology 2021; 19(05): 312-320
DOI: 10.1055/s-0041-1722854
Original Article

Comparison between Two-Dimensional and Three-Dimensional Assessments of the Fetal Corpus Callosum: Reproducibility of Measurements and Acquisition Time

Léo Pomar   *
1   Department of “Woman-Mother-Child,” Ultrasound and Fetal Medicine Unit, Lausanne University Hospital, University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland
2   Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Centre Hospitalier de l'Ouest Guyanais Franck Joly, Saint-Laurent-du-Maroni, France
,
Jonathan Baert‡   *
1   Department of “Woman-Mother-Child,” Ultrasound and Fetal Medicine Unit, Lausanne University Hospital, University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland
,
Ali Mchirgui
2   Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Centre Hospitalier de l'Ouest Guyanais Franck Joly, Saint-Laurent-du-Maroni, France
,
Véronique Lambert
2   Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Centre Hospitalier de l'Ouest Guyanais Franck Joly, Saint-Laurent-du-Maroni, France
,
Gabriel Carles
2   Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Centre Hospitalier de l'Ouest Guyanais Franck Joly, Saint-Laurent-du-Maroni, France
,
Najeh Hcini
2   Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Centre Hospitalier de l'Ouest Guyanais Franck Joly, Saint-Laurent-du-Maroni, France
,
David Baud 
1   Department of “Woman-Mother-Child,” Ultrasound and Fetal Medicine Unit, Lausanne University Hospital, University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland
,
Yvan Vial
1   Department of “Woman-Mother-Child,” Ultrasound and Fetal Medicine Unit, Lausanne University Hospital, University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland
› Author Affiliations Funding None.
› Further Information
    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

The objective of this article was to study the reproducibility and reliability of the fetal corpus callosum measurements between two-dimensional (2D) and three-dimensional (3D) acquisitions. This prospective study enrolled 475 fetuses, monitored between 18 and 38 weeks of gestation by two operators. Starting from a transcerebellar axial plane, 3D and 2D mid-sagittal views of the corpus callosum were obtained. Measurements of length and thickness were performed and underwent quality control by independent reviewers. The acquisition time of the two methods was measured. Means, differences, and linear correlations were analyzed using t-test, regression and Pearson's correlation coefficients, and Bland–Altman's plots. This analysis was performed for each operator to test the interobserver reproducibility. Among the 432 cases measured using both methods, 380 (88%) were validated by quality control. The mean corpus callosum length and thickness were essentially the same using 2D and 3D measurements (2D: 33.8 ± 8.7 vs. 3D: 33.7 ± 8.7 mm, 2D: 2.2 ± 0.4 vs. 3D: 2.2 ± 0.4 mm, respectively; mean ± standard deviation [SD]). Linear regression coefficients and Pearson's coefficients were similar for length (2D: 0.8283 and 0.9191 vs. 3D: 0.8271 and 0.9095), but slightly different regarding thickness (2D: 0.6775 and 0.8231 vs. 3D: 0.5831 and 0.7636). Differences between 2D and 3D measurements, considering Bland–Altman's plots and correlated with gestational age, were acceptable (2D: 0.097 ± 0.559 mm, 3D: 0.004 ± 0.111 mm). The acquisition time required was significantly lower for 3D acquisitions (3D: 25.2 ± 14.5 seconds vs. 2D: 35.1 ± 19.4 seconds, p < 0.01). Linear regression and Pearson's coefficients for the measurements of corpus callosum length and thickness using 2D or 3D acquisitions did not differ between the operators. This study confirmed good reproducibility of corpus callosum assessment by transabdominal 3D acquisitions. The good feasibility in routine scans may lead to better screening for callosal dysgenesis.

Keywords

corpus callosum - 3D ultrasound - screening - neurosonography - callosal dysgenesis

* These are the first coauthors who contributed equally to this study.


Supplementary Material



Publication History

Received: 07 October 2020

Accepted: 15 December 2020

Article published online:
11 February 2021

© 2021. Thieme. All rights reserved.

Georg Thieme Verlag KG
Rüdigerstraße 14, 70469 Stuttgart, Germany

 

  • References

  • 1 Habas PA, Kim K, Rousseau F, Glenn OA, Barkovich AJ, Studholme C. Atlas-based segmentation of developing tissues in the human brain with quantitative validation in young fetuses. Hum Brain Mapp 2010; 31 (09) 1348-1358
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Monteagudo A, Reuss ML, Timor-Tritsch IE. Imaging the fetal brain in the second and third trimesters using transvaginal sonography. Obstet Gynecol 1991; 77 (01) 27-32
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Pashaj S, Merz E, Wellek S. Biometry of the fetal corpus callosum by three-dimensional ultrasound. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2013; 42 (06) 691-698
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Hanna RM, Marsh SE, Swistun D. et al. Distinguishing 3 classes of corpus callosal abnormalities in consanguineous families. Neurology 2011; 76 (04) 373-382
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Craven I, Bradburn MJ, Griffiths PD. Antenatal diagnosis of agenesis of the corpus callosum. Clin Radiol 2015; 70 (03) 248-253
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Paupe A, Bidat L, Sonigo P, Lenclen R, Molho M, Ville Y. Prenatal diagnosis of hypoplasia of the corpus callosum in association with non-ketotic hyperglycinemia. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2002; 20 (06) 616-619
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology Education Committee. Sonographic examination of the fetal central nervous system: guidelines for performing the ‘basic examination’ and the ‘fetal neurosonogram.’. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2007; 29 (01) 109-116
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Merz E, Abramowicz JS. 3D/4D ultrasound in prenatal diagnosis: is it time for routine use?. Clin Obstet Gynecol 2012; 55 (01) 336-351
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Bornstein E, Monteagudo A, Santos R. et al. A systematic technique using 3-dimensional ultrasound provides a simple and reproducible mode to evaluate the corpus callosum. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2010; 202 (02) 201.e1-201.e5
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Tonni G, Grisolia G, Sepulveda W. Second trimester fetal neurosonography: reconstructing cerebral midline anatomy and anomalies using a novel three-dimensional ultrasound technique. Prenat Diagn 2014; 34 (01) 75-83
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 French College of Fetal Ultrasound (CFEF). , guidelines for ultrasound screening during Zika epidemic (2016). Available at: https://www.cfef.org/archives/zika/16_02_Kit_d_aide_en_10_diapos_Vdef_2-shrunk.pdf
  • 12 Papageorghiou AT. Fetal assessment after Zika exposure. BJOG 2016; 123 (08) 1271
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Achiron R, Achiron A. Development of the human fetal corpus callosum: a high-resolution, cross-sectional sonographic study. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2001; 18 (04) 343-347
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Bland JM, Altman DG. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet 1986; 1 (8476): 307-310
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Muscatello A, Accurti V, Conte V. et al. Comparison between two- and three-dimensional ultrasound in visualization of corpus callosum during second trimester routine scan: our experience. Fetal Diagn Ther 2013; 33 (03) 201-202
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Miguelote RF, Vides B, Santos RF, Palha JA, Matias A, Sousa N. The role of three-dimensional imaging reconstruction to measure the corpus callosum: comparison with direct mid-sagittal views. Prenat Diagn 2011; 31 (09) 875-880
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Bland JM, Altman DG. Applying the right statistics: analyses of measurement studies. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2003; 22 (01) 85-93
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Plasencia W, Dagklis T, Borenstein M, Csapo B, Nicolaides KH. Assessment of the corpus callosum at 20-24 weeks' gestation by three-dimensional ultrasound examination. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2007; 30 (02) 169-172
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Cignini P, Padula F, Giorlandino M. et al. Reference charts for fetal corpus callosum length: a prospective cross-sectional study of 2950 fetuses. J Ultrasound Med 2014; 33 (06) 1065-1078
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Hofman J, Hutny M, Sztuba K, Paprocka J. Corpus callosum agenesis: an insight into the etiology and spectrum of symptoms. Brain Sci 2020; 10 (09) 10
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Lord J, McMullan DJ, Eberhardt RY. et al; Prenatal Assessment of Genomes and Exomes Consortium. Prenatal exome sequencing analysis in fetal structural anomalies detected by ultrasonography (PAGE): a cohort study. Lancet 2019; 393 (10173): 747-757
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Santo S, D'Antonio F, Homfray T. et al. Counseling in fetal medicine: agenesis of the corpus callosum. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2012; 40 (05) 513-521
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Schupper A, Konen O, Halevy A, Cohen R, Aharoni S, Shuper A. Thick corpus callosum in children. J Clin Neurol 2017; 13 (02) 170-174
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Folliot-Le Doussal L, Chadie A, Brasseur-Daudruy M, Verspyck E, Saugier-Veber P, Marret S. Perinatal Network of Haute-Normandie. Neurodevelopmental outcome in prenatally diagnosed isolated agenesis of the corpus callosum. Early Hum Dev 2018; 116: 9-16
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar