Development of the Fetal Vermis: New Biometry Reference Data and Comparison of 3 Diagnostic Modalities–3D Ultrasound, 2D Ultrasound, and MR Imaging

REFERENCES

1. 1.↵
   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;29:109–16 doi:10.1002/uog.3909 pmid:17200992

   CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
2. 2.↵
   2. Guibaud L,
   3. des Portes V

   . Plea for an anatomical approach to abnormalities of the posterior fossa in prenatal diagnosis. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2006;27:477–81 doi:10.1002/uog.2777 pmid:16619384

   CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
3. 3.↵
   2. Barkovich AJ,
   3. Millen KJ,
   4. Dobyns WB

   . A developmental and genetic classification for midbrain-hindbrain malformations. Brain 2009;132:3199–230 doi:10.1093/brain/awp247 pmid:19933510

   Abstract/FREE Full Text
4. 4.↵
   2. Gandolfi Colleoni G,
   3. Contro E,
   4. Carletti A, et al

   . Prenatal diagnosis and outcome of fetal posterior fossa fluid collections. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2012;39:625–31 doi:10.1002/uog.11071 pmid:22173885

   CrossRefPubMed
5. 5.↵
   2. Limperopoulos C,
   3. Robertson RL,
   4. Estroff JA, et al

   . Diagnosis of inferior vermian hypoplasia by fetal magnetic resonance imaging: potential pitfalls and neurodevelopmental outcome. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2006;194:1070–76 doi:10.1016/j.ajog.2005.10.191 pmid:16580298

   CrossRefPubMed
6. 6.↵
   2. Zalel Y,
   3. Gilboa Y,
   4. Gabis L, et al

   . Rotation of the vermis as a cause of enlarged cisterna magna on prenatal imaging. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2006;27:490–93 doi:10.1002/uog.2768 pmid:16619381

   CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
7. 7.↵
   2. Tilea B,
   3. Delezoide AL,
   4. Khung-Savatovski S, et al

   . Comparison between magnetic resonance imaging and fetopathology in the evaluation of fetal posterior fossa non-cystic abnormalities. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2007;29:651–59 doi:10.1002/uog.4012 pmid:17476704

   CrossRefPubMed
8. 8.↵
   2. Carroll SG,
   3. Porter H,
   4. Abdel-Fattah S, et al

   . Correlation of prenatal ultrasound diagnosis and pathologic findings in fetal brain abnormalities. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2000;16:149–53 doi:10.1046/j.1469-0705.2000.00199.x pmid:11117085

   CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
9. 9.↵
   2. Bolduc ME,
   3. Limperopoulos C

   . Neurodevelopmental outcomes in children with cerebellar malformations: a systematic review. Dev Med Child Neurol 2009;51:256–67 doi:10.1111/j.1469-8749.2008.03224.x pmid:19191827

   CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
10. 10.↵
    2. Filly RA,
    3. Cardoza JD,
    4. Goldstein RB, et al

    . Detection of fetal central nervous system anomalies: a practical level of effort for a routine sonogram. Radiology 1989;172:403–08 doi:10.1148/radiology.172.2.2664864 pmid:2664864

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
11. 11.↵
    2. Paladini D,
    3. Volpe P

    . Posterior fossa and vermian morphometry in the characterization of fetal cerebellar abnormalities: a prospective three-dimensional ultrasound study. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2006;27:482–89 doi:10.1002/uog.2748 pmid:16619375

    CrossRefPubMed
12. 12.↵
    2. Pilu G,
    3. Segata M,
    4. Ghi T, et al

    . Diagnosis of midline anomalies of the fetal brain with the three-dimensional median view. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2006;27:522–29 doi:10.1002/uog.2751 pmid:16586477

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
13. 13.↵
    2. Achiron R,
    3. Kivilevitch Z,
    4. Lipitz S, et al

    . The development of the human fetal pons: in utero ultrasonographic study. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2004;24:506–10 doi:10.1002/uog.1731 pmid:15459939

    CrossRefPubMed
14. 14.↵
    2. Malinger G,
    3. Ginath S,
    4. Lerman-Sagie T, et al

    . The fetal cerebellar vermis: normal development as shown by transvaginal ultrasound. Prenat Diagn 2001;21:687–92 doi:10.1002/pd.137 pmid:11536272

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
15. 15.↵
    2. Vinals F,
    3. Muñoz M,
    4. Naveas R, et al

    . The fetal cerebellar vermis: anatomy and biometric assessment using volume contrast imaging in the C-plane (VCI-C). Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2005;26:622–27 pmid:16254881

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
16. 16.↵
    2. Bertucci E,
    3. Gindes L,
    4. Mazza V, et al

    . Vermian biometric parameters in the normal and abnormal fetal posterior fossa: three-dimensional sonographic study. J Ultrasound Med 2011;30:1403–10 pmid:21968492

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
17. 17.↵
    2. Ginath S,
    3. Lerman-Sagie T,
    4. Haratz Krajden K, et al

    . The fetal vermis, pons and brainstem: normal longitudinal development as shown by dedicated neurosonography. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 2013;26:757–62 doi:10.3109/14767058.2012.755508 pmid:23211125

    CrossRefPubMed
18. 18.↵
    2. Tilea B,
    3. Alberti C,
    4. Adamsbaum C, et al

    . Cerebral biometry in fetal magnetic resonance imaging: new reference data. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2009;33:173–81 doi:10.1002/uog.6276 pmid:19172662

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
19. 19.↵
    2. Parazzini C,
    3. Righini A,
    4. Rustico M, et al

    . Prenatal magnetic resonance imaging: brain normal linear biometric values below 24 gestational weeks. Neuroradiology 2008;50:877–83 doi:10.1007/s00234-008-0421-7 pmid:18563404

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
20. 20.↵
    2. Robinson JA,
    3. Blaser S,
    4. Toi A, et al

    . The fetal cerebellar vermis: assessment for abnormal development by ultrasonography and magnetic resonance imaging. Ultrasound Q 2007;23:211–23 doi:10.1097/RUQ.0b013e31814b162c pmid:17805192

    CrossRefPubMed
21. 21.↵
    2. Viñals F,
    3. Muñoz M,
    4. Naveas R, et al

    . Transfrontal three-dimensional visualization of midline cerebral structures. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2007;30:162–68 pmid:17605149

    CrossRefPubMed
22. 22.↵
    2. Garcia-Flores J,
    3. Recio M,
    4. Uriel M, et al

    . Fetal magnetic resonance imaging and neurosonography in congenital neurological anomalies: supplementary diagnostic and postnatal prognostic value. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 2013;26:1517–23 doi:10.3109/14767058.2013.791275 pmid:23544961

    CrossRefPubMed
23. 23.↵
    2. Chitty LS,
    3. Altman DG,
    4. Henderson A, et al

    . Charts of fetal size, 2: head measurements. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1994;101:35–43 doi:10.1111/j.1471-0528.1994.tb13007.x pmid:8297866

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
24. 24.↵
    2. Kurmanavicius J,
    3. Wright EM,
    4. Royston P, et al

    . Fetal ultrasound biometry: 1. Head reference values. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1999;106:126–35 doi:10.1111/j.1471-0528.1999.tb08212.x pmid:10426678

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
25. 25.↵
    2. Ber R,
    3. Bar-Yosef O,
    4. Hoffmann C, et al

    . Normal fetal posterior fossa in MR imaging: new biometric data and possible clinical significance. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2015;36:795–802 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A4258 pmid:25655869

    Abstract/FREE Full Text