Skip to main content

Emerging magnetic resonance imaging techniques in open spina bifida in utero

Abstract

Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) has become an essential diagnostic modality for congenital disorders of the central nervous system. Recent advancements have transformed foetal MRI into a clinically feasible tool, and in an effort to find predictors of clinical outcomes in spinal dysraphism, foetal MRI began to unveil its potential. The purpose of our review is to introduce MRI techniques to experts with diverse backgrounds, who are involved in the management of spina bifida. We introduce advanced foetal MRI postprocessing potentially improving the diagnostic work-up. Importantly, we discuss how postprocessing can lead to a more efficient utilisation of foetal or neonatal MRI data to depict relevant anatomical characteristics. We provide a critical perspective on how structural, diffusion and metabolic MRI are utilised in an endeavour to shed light on the correlates of impaired development. We found that the literature is consistent about the value of MRI in providing morphological cues about hydrocephalus development, hindbrain herniation or outcomes related to shunting and motor functioning. MRI techniques, such as foetal diffusion MRI or diffusion tractography, are still far from clinical use; however, postnatal studies using these methods revealed findings that may reflect early neural correlates of upstream neuronal damage in spinal dysraphism.

Key points

  • Magnetic resonance imaging provides morphological cues about hydrocephalus development, hindbrain herniation or outcomes related to shunting and motor functioning.

  • Advanced image processing, such as super-resolution reconstruction, enables a better depiction of anatomy in spina bifida.

  • Diffusion tensor imaging may provide early markers of upstream neuronal damage; however, the method is still in its infancy prenatally.

Background

Open spinal dysraphism, also termed spina bifida aperta, or myelomeningocele (cystic variant) or myeloschisis (noncystic variant), is one of the most complex and devastating nonlethal congenital malformations. Structurally, it is characterised by a posteriorly open spine, an open dura mater fused with the dermis of the surrounding skin, an open pia mater fused with the epidermis of the adjacent skin, and a non-neurulated spinal cord residing on top of the pia mater, directly facing the amniotic cavity and fluid [1].

Pathogenetically, the above anatomical configuration sets the stage for deleterious effects. According to the so called “two hit pathogenesis”, the process leading to the described abnormal architecture within the lesion is the first hit and, importantly, does not automatically cause functional problems. These arise mainly due to progressing damage to the unprotected and extremely fragile, openly exposed spinal cord tissue, particularly during the third trimester of pregnancy. Here, a combination of traumatic, mechanical, chemical, toxic, and degenerative factors finally destroys the cord tissue and cause massive functional loss [2,3,4,5,6]. Clinically, open spina bifida is typically associated with a core cluster of cerebral, visceral, and peripheral neural pathologies. Most patients suffer from hydrocephalus that requires an operative treatment (ventriculoperitoneal shunt or third ventriculostomy) [7, 8]. Almost all patients exhibit both severe neuropathic bladder and rectum with vexing incontinence for urine and stool, as well as, later in life, sexual dysfunction. Finally, most individuals demonstrating the classical lumbosacral lesion experience paraparesis or paraplegia with serious problems regarding independent ambulation, and many are confined to the wheelchair for life.

Therapeutically, there is a large and compelling body of experimental and clinical evidence for the efficiency of foetal surgery for open spina bifida [9]. After the Management Of Myelomeningocele Study (MOMS Trial, 2011) produced clear cut data that prenatal surgery produces significantly better outcomes than postnatal care [10]. Since this study, a report found that short-term outcomes after pre- and postnatal correction might be equivalent [11]. Nevertheless, in utero operative treatment became a novel standard of care for select foetuses with spina bifida [5, 12,13,14,15]. There is a certain evidence suggesting that open foetal surgery and foetoscopic spina bifida repair might result in similar short-term benefits for the newborn, while maternal obstetric outcomes appear to be better after the foetoscopic intervention [16].

While a preoperative maternal-foetal magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) investigation is considered an obligatory clinical standard before eventual foetal surgery, this technology harbours other attractive options to cast light on both structural and functional features of one of the most complex cerebrospinal malformations. Prenatal imaging has become a part of surgical planning for the depiction of the spine defect as well as associated brain abnormalities, such as Chiari-II or callosal malformations [17,18,19]. Findings in one of the earliest reports of its kind concluded that prenatal MRI is effective to confirm the lumbosacral skin defect in open spinal dysraphism [20]. Three decades later, technical advancements enabled a widespread use of MRI and made foetal MRI the second-line imaging modality for neural tube defects after ultrasonography [21,22,23,24]. An important step was the possibility to shorten imaging time by new sequences [25,26,27]. There is growing evidence for the efficiency and clinical benefit of foetal surgery in spina bifida [5, 6, 13, 14], subsequently leading to an increasing demand for prenatal imaging for pre-surgical assessment and postsurgical longitudinal follow-up.

The main purpose of our review was to make emerging and experimental MRI acquisition and processing techniques, which might not yet have been implemented in the widespread clinical practice, known to experts from diverse clinical subspecialties. We aimed to provide a critical perspective on how diagnostic and follow-up imaging in spinal dysraphism can be improved by emerging MRI acquisition, image reconstruction and quantification methods. Firstly, we reviewed studies that used morphological MRI biomarkers to characterise structural and functional neurodevelopment in spinal dysraphism and attempted to make predictions of how such insights could be utilised in prenatal diagnostic imaging. Secondly, we focused on advanced techniques to improve the anatomical resolution and utility of foetal MRI for image quantification. Third, we performed a search for articles that adapted MRI sequences to the in utero setting in order to quantify foetal physiology. One of the most promising and widely used MRI modality for this purpose is diffusion-weighted foetal MRI, which probes the structure of extracellular fluid spaces and depicts major neuronal bundles. In all parts of this review, case reports have been excluded from the literature search results.

Established structural MRI biomarkers in open spinal dysraphism

Prenatal ultrasonography (US) alone yields high diagnostic accuracy in all forms of spinal dysraphism [28], yet MRI has the advantage of delivering additional anatomical as well as physiological information, such as tissue microstructure or organ function, particularly for the brain.

Foetal MRI requires no maternal or foetal sedation and can be performed within the time limits of a typical clinical imaging session. The total scan time varies between 45 and 60 min [25, 29, 30]. In combination with anatomical measurements from US, standard care MRI (fast, single shot sequences) can deliver useful predictors of outcome in spina bifida.

In an ongoing effort to find hydrocephalus predictors after prenatal repair of spina bifida, quantitative measurements were identified which are simple to perform on US or MRI. In one of the earliest works, Bruner et al. found that in foetuses who underwent prenatal surgery, ventricular size at the time of surgery and high defects were predictors for the need for ventriculoperitoneal shunting (VPs) for hydrocephalus during the first year of life [31]. An important study analysing randomised groups from the MOMS trial found a clear relationship between ventricle size and VPs requirement in both the pre- and postnatally operated cases [7]. This study did not find a correlation between the lesion level and eventual need for shunting. There is consensus on the predictive power of ventricular width, size and morphology, measured by either US or MRI [8, 32, 33].

In 16 subjects undergoing prenatal repair, Zarutskie et al. [24] found that the most important predictor of the need for postnatal hydrocephalus treatment was persistent hindbrain herniation on postoperatively acquired MRI. Further significant MRI predictors included ventricular volume, ventricular volume growth and hindbrain herniation, all exceeding the predictive power of US-based measurements. In a more recent study, the reversibility of the hindbrain herniation was found to be an important predictor of a reduced chance of VPs requirement [34]. Morphological cues measured on MRI, such as hindbrain configuration and lateral ventricle size, were found to be different between myeloschisis and myelomeningocele [35]. MRI also depicts essential features of the lesion configuration, such as the presence and size of a sac in open spinal dysraphism, which is associated with a more common occurrence of talipes [36].

As MRI is readily applicable in the clinical practice to assess the presence and degree of the hindbrain herniation [37, 38], this modality has an emerging importance in finding novel markers of VPs requirement or in assessing neurological outcomes in spinal dysraphism. Nevertheless, 30-month neurodevelopmental outcomes including motor functioning were not significantly correlated with prenatal ventricle size or VPs placement, and the absence of a sac over the lesion was the only MRI-derived parameter that was associated with walking independently [39]. Interestingly, a study found that the degree of cerebellar herniation on foetal MRI was significantly associated in seizure activity and high-risk bladder dysfunction in children with spina bifida [40]. Finding reliable imaging-based correlates of infant mental and motor outcomes remains a timely endeavour.

Techniques improving the anatomical resolution and utility of foetal MRI

In the clinical practice, MRI is still limited to two-dimensional (2D) measurements. Movement artefacts often hinder the evaluation of foetal MRI, and it offers relatively poor contrast for skeletal structures. In this section, we reviewed methods that aimed to overcome these limitations. As pointed out by a study describing the inter-observer variability of essential MRI features of Chiari-II malformations, some measurements are unreliable and depend on the selection of a specific imaging plane, which is often challenging due to foetal movements [41]. More specifically, brainstem measurements were reported to be particularly unreliable in foetuses with open spina dysraphism [22]. 3D acquisition and consequent multi-plane reconstruction would theoretically solve this problem, if it was not for the foetal motion present, inducing imaging artefacts. The foetus is not sedated during the MRI; therefore, motion cannot be controlled. In order to combat motion artefacts, acquisition is done using fast MRI sequences such as the single shot fast spin-echo T2-weighted sequence, which acquires several 2D slices over a three-dimensional (3D) space. However, since foetal motion is present between the slice acquisitions, there is a distortion in the anatomy of the foetus within the image stack. In order to correct inter-slice motion and to obtain higher resolution images, super-resolution (SR) techniques are used. Many groups have been working on various SR techniques. In Slice to Volume Registration (SVR), multiple orthogonal low resolution (LR) image stacks are acquired, and motion is in part tackled by combining these multiple 2D stacks with overlapping information into a single high resolution (HR) 3D volume of the region of interest in the foetus. Various implementations of the SVR technique have been created using slice intersection motion correction [42], which directly co-aligns multiple slice stacks by matching the structures along all intersecting slice pairs in all orthogonal slices acquired [43], incorporating knowledge of the slice acquisition model based on a robust estimation [44]. Intensity matching and outlier removal have also been used [45,46,47]. The most common application of foetal imaging using SVR is the brain, as this method can most effectively be used for correcting motion of rigid structures, such as the brain. SR techniques allow fine structures within the brain to be imaged, and result in an overall increase in the signal to noise ratio [42]. In addition, while orthogonal planes need to be acquired, the imaging orientations do not need to be perfectly ‘in-plane’, thereby reducing the planning time during the acquisition. Preliminary use of these SR techniques has shown promise in quantifying various aspects of the foetal brain such as cortical folding patterns, volumetric and morphometric analyses for pathologies such as ventriculomegaly, and cortical plate and subplate volume growth analysis during foetal development [48,49,50]. We demonstrate the SR techniques in a normally developing foetus and a foetus with spinal dysraphism undergoing foetal surgery in Fig. 1.

Fig. 1
figure1

Super-resolution (SR) reconstruction of foetal MRI. For each case (normal development, pre-operative, and post-operative images of spina bifida foetus undergoing foetal surgery and myeloschisis), we demonstrate the super-resolution T2-weighted MRI (left images) and two surface reconstructions that were based on the segmentation of the reconstructed image (right images)

For reconstruction of the foetal spine, internal organs and placenta, the SVR methods mentioned above cannot resolve the issue of difficult registrations due to non-rigid motion, resulting in degradation of image quality within the reconstructed volume. Therefore, a method was developed that uses non-rigid image registration and SVR (deformable SVR) which shows great promise for reconstruction high resolution images of the spine and surrounding organs in spina bifida [51]. Patch-to-volume reconstruction is also able to reconstruct a large field of view of non-rigidly deforming structures, using a parallelised patchwork optimisation (patch to volume reconstruction is used instead of SVR), SR, and automatic outlier rejection. Robust statistics are used to identify mis-registered or heavily corrupted data [52]. These HR volumes can facilitate early diagnosis of various congenital diseases and also allow for quantitative investigation of foetal development in vivo in spinal dysraphism [53].

Improvements in both hardware and software methods are required to overcome the movement artefacts present while imaging an unpredictably moving foetus or newborn. Since foetal structural MRI data in the setting is typically acquired using 2D sequences with repetition time in a range of seconds, spurious foetal movement affects only those slices that were acquired at the time the foetus moves, and some of the data remains usable for image analysis. As presented previously in our review, many slice-to-volume methods are feasible for tackling subject motion while at the same time improving the off-plane spatial resolution. In spina bifida imaging, foetal MRI is greatly limited by the lower spatial resolution for the assessment of the level of the lesion and to depict the myelon. Recent works demonstrated that isotropic reconstructions of the entire foetal body including the spine are possible [51], which could be used to tackle this problem. Faster image acquisition would also improve the clinical utility of foetal MRI, for example, by using compressed sensing technique [54].

Higher field strength, such as 3.0 T, potentially improves spatial resolution and increases the signal-to-noise ratio with proper sequence adaptation. Therefore, it has clinical potential for prenatal imaging in spina bifida [55]. The detection of skeletal structures is also limited in T2-weighted foetal MRI. A possible way to overcome this is to use T2*-based and modified volumetric interpolated breath-hold examination (VIBE) sequences, which were reported to be a potential alternative to US or CT imaging in detecting foetal dysplasia [56, 57]. More recently, foetal “black bone” MRI by means of susceptibility-weighted imaging (SWI) has been demonstrated to be a viable technique for evaluation of foetal spinal pathologies. Unlike conventional MRI sequences, SWI depicts the developing skeletal tissues with sufficient contrast [58] and, as suggested by the Robinson et al., would be useful for the prenatal assessment of skeletal defects. Figure 1 illustrates how whole-body HR volumes could be used for reconstructing the foetal myelon as well as other organs.

Diffusion MRI

In the last three decades, diffusion magnetic resonance imaging (dMRI), an umbrella term for diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) and diffusion tensor imaging (DTI), has been successfully used to characterise tissue microstructure and white matter anatomy [59]. This method is based on the sensitisation of the image to microscopic-scale diffusion-driven molecular motion. dMRI is increasingly used prenatally [60,61,62,63,64]. Its clinical utility in spinal dysraphism remains less established since there are only a few studies using it prenatally.

A potential application of dMRI prenatally is to characterise white matter development and upstream neuronal damage in spinal dysraphism. The neurodevelopmental sequelae in spinal dysraphism may in part stem from in utero injury to the developing white matter, which would lead to measurable changes in the diffusion properties of the cerebral tissue. Shrot and Soares [65] used foetal cerebral dMRI to quantify the apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) in a cohort of open spina bifida cases. They found that the frontal and temporal lobes had lower ADC values in spina bifida cases than controls, indicating previously unknown microstructural changes in the supratentorial brain parenchyma. High spinal dysraphism (higher than L4 level) was associated with increased severity of ventriculomegaly, but no specific differences in diffusion properties were associated with the level of the spinal lesions [65]. The cerebellar ADC of foetuses with Chiari-II malformation was higher [66], indicating disrupted membrane integrity and altered neuronal tissue composition.

Fractional anisotropy, which is a DTI-derived measure of axonal density and myelin integrity, was found to be elevated in the midbrain of foetuses with Chiari II malformations and spina bifida, but not in foetuses with hydrocephalus and mild ventriculomegaly without Chiari II and no spina bifida [67]. It has been suggested that the accompanying Chiari-II malformation (present in almost all open spina bifida cases) leads to hydrodynamic changes, such as blockage of cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) drainage, which causes microstructural and tissue diffusivity changes. These hydrodynamic forces likely impact the water compartment in the cerebral white matter, leading to abnormalities in dMRI, which could potentially be used to monitor or predict hydrocephalus development [68, 69].

While foetal DTI revealed white matter diffusion abnormalities linked to spina bifida, it remains unclear whether these changes are persistent in later life and whether they are affected by surgical intervention or the anaesthesia. Studies in children and adults with spina bifida can help elucidate the consequences of the spinal abnormality on long-term neurodevelopment. Postnatal MRI revealed that patients undergoing foetal repair show white matter abnormalities when compared to controls [70]. Sanz Cortes et al. [71] investigated how tissue microstructure, measured using diffusion MRI, is affected by the prenatal operation technique. They found no significant differences in ADC values in any of the brain areas measured between the open-repair and foetoscopic-repair groups.

Postnatal findings in spina bifida point to the presence of additional white matter abnormalities that are not necessarily the consequence of altered hydrodynamic forces, but rather a result of upstream neuronal damage [72]. The supratentorial white matter is likely affected by the additive effect of CSF blockage and an upstream neuronal injury, leading to widespread microstructural abnormalities [73, 74]. dMRI studies indicate that deep grey matter structures and almost all major white matter pathways appear to be affected in spina bifida [75,76,77]. The abnormal findings in cerebral white matter and deep grey matter represent a possible microstructural basis for neuropsychological abnormalities in numerous studies, and open a window on using dMRI to predict later life cognitive development in spina bifida [76,77,78,79].

However, no robust data are available about the correlation of the prenatal diffusion anomalies and postnatal white matter alteration, and possible links to neurodevelopmental outcomes are yet to be investigated.

Tractography is an image processing technique that extends the application of dMRI by enabling the reconstruction of major white matter pathways [59] (Fig. 2a). It remains to be established if aberrant neuronal pathways can be detected in spinal dysraphism prenatally using tractography. A potential application of dMRI and tractography in spinal dysraphism is to characterise the microstructural properties of the spinal abnormality, including the spinal cord and its distal peripheral nerves, namely the pelvic nervous network (Fig. 2 (b–e)). The use of dMRI for the paediatric spine and pelvic nervous network is challenging and only a few studies have attempted to use dMRI in spinal dysraphism. Some of the reported paediatric cases are spina bifida patients with sacral nerve roots agenesis [80]. The authors report similar fractional anisotropy (FA) values in spina bifida patients as in controls, while mean, axial and radial diffusivity values at S1–S3 were significantly lower in patients with spinal dysraphism. Tractographic reconstruction of the sacral plexus was successful and revealed that the plexus in patients with spinal dysraphism is asymmetrical and disorganised compared to healthy controls.

Fig. 2
figure2

Diffusion tensor imaging in spinal dysraphism. a Diffusion tractography of a foetus with spinal dysraphism, 26th week of gestation. The fibre tracts (colour representing spatial orientation) have been overlaid on a coronal plane, T2-weighted MR image. b Sagittal T2-weighted MRI of a newborn with spina bifida, corrected prenatally, showing signs of tethered cord. c Sagittal fractional anisotropy image of the same myelon cross-section, demonstrating increased anisotropy in the region of the tethering. d Diffusion tensor principal vector orientations in the same region. e Diffusion tractography of the myelon

There is a scarcity of studies that have explored the feasibility of tractography of the pelvis nervous network. The sacral plexus from L4 to S4 has been explored in a group of children with spinal dysraphism and in a group of healthy adult volunteer by [81]. They reported no differences between left and right sides across the subjects in terms of FA and mean diffusivity (MD) values and failed to reliably track S4 roots. To our knowledge, there is no prenatal tractography study on foetuses presenting spinal dysraphism. Prenatal dMRI studies on the peripheral nervous system raise even more challenges related to imaging artefacts because of the small calibre of peripheral nerves showing low levels of FA [82].

Unfortunately, echo-planar sequences, such as those used during dMRI/DTI, are increasingly sensitive for patient motion. They are also more prone to susceptibility artefacts, which are common near the air pockets in the bowels or near pelvic skeletal structures. This makes the quantification of diffusion anisotropy values or tractography very challenging. Recent efforts aimed to tackle this problem and used advanced reconstruction methods for scattered DTI data [83,84,85] or higher order spherical harmonics-based modelling [86, 87], which led to higher anatomical precision for the visualisation of white matter pathways in the foetal brain.

1H-MRS

1H-MR spectroscopy (MRS) is a commonly used tool to study the metabolite concentrations of tissues in vivo. For spinal dysraphism, this method has an emerging potential as metabolic profiling of the amniotic fluid may reflect foetal maturation. During the pathogenesis of spinal dysraphism, ischemia, anaerobic metabolism, and disruption of the neuronal membrane lead to changes in the chemical composition of the CSF and the amniotic fluid. Experiments in animals already showed promise in this direction [88].

Degradation products or other compounds in the CSF and amniotic fluid in open forms of spina bifida could open up novel avenues in a search for potential markers of neurologic dysfunctions using MRS. MRS revealed higher succinic acid and glutamine concentrations in amniotic fluid in foetuses with spinal dysraphism compared with controls [89]. Both compounds are present in cerebrospinal fluid and the higher concentration of succinic acid may hint towards a disturbance in the citric acid cycle or in the oxidative phosphorylation. Compared to controls, higher levels of lactate, choline, glycerophosphocholine, acetate, and alanine were found in the CSF of adult patients with spinal dysraphism [90], which was partially confirmed by another study focusing on tethered cord syndrome [91].

In MRS, higher magnetic field strength results in better spectral separation and higher signal-to-noise ratio. Therefore, using 3.0-T MRI for MRS would potentially increase the number of detectable metabolites at high spatial specificity.

Conclusions

Diagnostic imaging by means of prenatal MRI is currently undergoing a notable paradigm shift from being a qualitative, second-line option to becoming a quantitative method in the realm of precision medicine. In the context of spinal dysraphism, the experimental and clinical works describing emerging techniques presented in our article represent the first steps towards this direction.

There is growing evidence that prenatal structural MRI can predict the need for VPs as well as when foetal surgery will reverse hindbrain herniation. It can also provide morphological cues for later adverse motor development, such as the presence of a sac over the spinal lesion. The greatest expectation for foetal MRI in the clinical setting is to have high spatial resolution without prolonged imaging time. However, prenatal structural MRI suffers from limitations arising as a result of unpredictable foetal movement. Despite having better soft tissue contrast, the spatial resolution of foetal MRI is lower than that of US. Resolution is improved with foetal MRI performed at 3.0-T field strength. Techniques that accelerate MRI, such as compressed sensing, would eventually be used to achieve higher resolution and higher signal-to-noise ratio. Movement artefacts could be mitigated by the post-processing software algorithms presented in our article. Super-resolution algorithms provide higher resolution reconstructions of the 3D cerebral anatomy, which, besides the possible visualisation of critical anatomical structures in open spina bifida, can be used to quantitatively search for new outcome predictors in spinal dysraphism. Further software developments, such as deep learning reconstruction as well as novel MR sequences with more specific tissue contrast, will allow for the 3D reconstruction of the spinal lesion and the surrounding soft tissues using structural foetal MRI.

MRI has the advantage over US in that sophisticated sequence design allows imaging beyond macromorphology. Most of these techniques have only found utility postnatally; however, scanner hardware advancements and postprocessing techniques covered in our review would facilitate the translation of these findings to foetal MRI. The current evidence from the postnatal literature appears to support the hypothesis that the abnormalities seen on dMRI are the consequence of the underlying hydrocephalus and not of foetal surgery. The use of dMRI would be justified for the characterisation of two distinct phenomena. First, supratentorial microstructural changes visible on dMRI can be related to hydrodynamic changes secondary to CSF flow obstruction at the level of the foramen. Second, the persisting hydrodynamic changes and the pathological stimuli to the ascending fibre pathways may alter the development of neuronal connectivity, which remains yet to be demonstrated in humans. There is emerging evidence that at least a part of the white matter damage in spina bifida would provide microstructural basis for neuropsychological abnormalities. Based on dMRI, the reconstruction of major cerebral and peripheric neuronal pathways are possible by tractography. Further methodological research may be necessary in order to improve the spatial resolution without further increasing the acquisition time and to match the tractography findings in spina bifida patients with their functional outcome.

MRS may detect metabolite concentrations that arise from leakage of cerebrospinal fluid through the skin defect present in spina bifida into the amniotic fluid. While MRS can be performed prenatally, these findings remain to be confirmed by MRS studies specifically focusing on spina bifida, and further research is needed to find out whether spina bifida is associated with different metabolite concentrations in the brain parenchyma.

Due to the expected benefits of early diagnostics and therapy in this highly sensitive patient population, spina bifida research has historically been on the forefront of advancing technology. The emerging MRI methods introduced in our review herald the beginning of an important endeavour of automated evaluation of foetal morphology and physiology free from observer bias. Ultimately, a priority would be to use MRI techniques that will increase the anatomical resolution and contrast without significantly prolonged imaging time and incorporate diagnostic information beyond morphology, which holds the key to develop novel imaging biomarkers in spina bifida.

Availability of data and materials

Imaging data that was used is available on request in a fully anonymised form.

Abbreviations

ADC:

Apparent diffusion coefficient

CSF:

Cerebro-spinal fluid

dMRI:

Diffusion magnetic resonance imaging

DTI:

Diffusion tensor imaging

FA:

Fractional anisotropy

HR:

High resolution

MOMS:

Management of myelomeningocele study

MRI:

Magnetic resonance imaging

MRS:

Magnetic resonance spectroscopy

SR:

Super-resolution

SVR:

Slice-to-volume reconstruction

VP:

Ventriculoperitoneal shunting

References

  1. 1.

    Lemire RJ (1988) Neural tube defects. JAMA 259:558–562 https://doi.org/10.1177/088307388800300101

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Meuli M, Meuli-Simmen C, Hutchins GM et al (1995) In utero surgery rescues neurological function at birth in sheep with spina bifida. Nat Med 1:342–347 https://doi.org/10.1038/nm0495-342

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Meuli M, Meuli-Simmen C, Hutchins GM, Seller MJ, Harrison MR, Adzick NS (1997) The spinal cord lesion in human fetuses with myelomeningocele: implications for fetal surgery. J Pediatr Surg 32:448–452 https://doi.org/10.1016/s0022-3468(97)90603-5

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Meuli M, Meuli-Simmen C, Yingling CD et al (1996) In utero repair of experimental myelomeningocele saves neurological function at birth. J Pediatr Surg 31:397–402 https://doi.org/10.1016/s0022-3468(96)90746-0

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Meuli M, Moehrlen U (2013) Fetal surgery for myelomeningocele: a critical appraisal. Eur J Pediatr Surg 23:103–109 https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0033-1343082

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Adzick NS (2013) Fetal surgery for spina bifida: past, present, future. Semin Pediatr Surg 22:10–17 https://doi.org/10.1053/j.sempedsurg.2012.10.003

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Tulipan N, Wellons JC 3rd, Thom EA et al (2015) Prenatal surgery for myelomeningocele and the need for cerebrospinal fluid shunt placement. J Neurosurg Pediatr 16:613–620 https://doi.org/10.3171/2015.7.peds15336

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Elbabaa SK, Gildehaus AM, Pierson MJ, Albers JA, Vlastos EJ (2017) 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 33:1157–1168 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00381-017-3428-8

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Moldenhauer JS (2014) In utero repair of spina bifida. Am J Perinatol 31:595–604 https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0034-1372429

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Adzick NS, Thom EA, Spong CY et al (2011) A randomized trial of prenatal versus postnatal repair of myelomeningocele. N Engl J Med 364:993–1004 https://doi.org/10.1056/nejmoa1014379

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Sileo FG, Pateisky P, Curado J, Evans K, Hettige S, Thilaganathan B (2019) Long-term neuroimaging and neurological outcome of fetal spina bifida aperta after postnatal surgical repair. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 53:309–313 https://doi.org/10.1002/uog.20215

    CAS  PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Horst M, Mazzone L, Schraner T et al (2017) Prenatal myelomeningocele repair: do bladders better? Neurourol Urodyn 36:1651–1658 https://doi.org/10.1002/nau.23174

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Mohrlen U, Ochsenbein-Kolble N, Mazzone L et al (2020) Benchmarking against the MOMS trial: Zurich results of open fetal surgery for Spina bifida. Fetal Diagn Ther 47:91–97 https://doi.org/10.1159/000500049

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Meuli M, Moehrlen U (2014) Fetal surgery for myelomeningocele is effective: a critical look at the whys. Pediatr Surg Int 30:689–697 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00383-014-3524-8

    PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Moldenhauer JS, Adzick NS (2017) Fetal surgery for myelomeningocele: after the Management of Myelomeningocele Study (MOMS). Semin Fetal Neonatal Med 22:360–366 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.siny.2017.08.004

    PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Miller JL, Groves ML, Baschat AA (2019) Fetoscopic spina bifida repair. Minerva Ginecol 71:163–170 https://doi.org/10.23736/s0026-4784.18.04355-1

    PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Barkovich AJ, Norman D (1988) Anomalies of the corpus callosum: correlation with further anomalies of the brain. AJR Am J Roentgenol 151:171–179 https://doi.org/10.2214/ajr.151.1.171

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Mangels KJ, Tulipan N, Tsao LY, Alarcon J, Bruner JP (2000) Fetal MRI in the evaluation of intrauterine myelomeningocele. Pediatr Neurosurg 32:124–131 https://doi.org/10.1159/000028916

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Trigubo D, Negri M, Salvatico RM, Leguizamon G (2017) The role of intrauterine magnetic resonance in the management of myelomenigocele. Childs Nerv Syst 33:1107–1111 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00381-017-3418-x

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Nakahara T, Uozumi T, Monden S et al (1993) Prenatal diagnosis of open spina bifida by MRI and ultrasonography. Brain Dev 15:75–78 https://doi.org/10.1016/0387-7604(93)90010-6

  21. 21.

    Prayer D, Malinger G, Brugger PC et al (2017) ISUOG practice guidelines: performance of fetal magnetic resonance imaging. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 49:671–680 https://doi.org/10.1002/uog.17412

    CAS  PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Aertsen M, Verduyckt J, De Keyzer F et al (2019) Reliability of MR imaging-based posterior fossa and brain stem measurements in open spinal dysraphism in the era of fetal surgery. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 40:191–198 https://doi.org/10.3174/ajnr.a5930

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Munoz JL, Bishop E, Reider M, Radeva M, Singh K (2019) Antenatal ultrasound compared to MRI evaluation of fetal myelomeningocele: a prenatal and postnatal evaluation. J Perinat Med 47:771–774 https://doi.org/10.1515/jpm-2019-0177

    PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    Zarutskie A, Guimaraes C, Yepez M et al (2019) Prenatal brain imaging for predicting need for postnatal hydrocephalus treatment in fetuses that had neural tube defect repair in utero. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 53:324–334 https://doi.org/10.1002/uog.20212

    CAS  PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    Yamashita Y, Namimoto T, Abe Y et al (1997) MR imaging of the fetus by a HASTE sequence. AJR Am J Roentgenol 168:513–519 https://doi.org/10.2214/ajr.168.2.9016238

    CAS  PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    Levine D, Barnes PD, Sher S et al (1998) Fetal fast MR imaging: reproducibility, technical quality, and conspicuity of anatomy. Radiology 206:549–554 https://doi.org/10.1148/radiology.206.2.9457211

    CAS  PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. 27.

    Chung HW, Chen CY, Zimmerman RA, Lee KW, Lee CC, Chin SC (2000) T2-weighted fast MR imaging with true FISP versus HASTE: comparative efficacy in the evaluation of normal fetal brain maturation. AJR Am J Roentgenol 175:1375–1380 https://doi.org/10.2214/ajr.175.5.1751375

    CAS  PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

    Coleman BG, Langer JE, Horii SC (2015) The diagnostic features of spina bifida: the role of ultrasound. Fetal Diagn Ther 37:179–196 https://doi.org/10.1159/000364806

    PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  29. 29.

    Levine D, Barnes PD, Madsen JR, Li W, Edelman RR (1997) Fetal central nervous system anomalies: MR imaging augments sonographic diagnosis. Radiology 204:635–642 https://doi.org/10.1148/radiology.204.3.9280237

    CAS  PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  30. 30.

    Coakley FV, Glenn OA, Qayyum A, Barkovich AJ, Goldstein R, Filly RA (2004) Fetal MRI: a developing technique for the developing patient. AJR Am J Roentgenol 182:243–252 https://doi.org/10.2214/ajr.182.1.1820243

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  31. 31.

    Bruner JP, Tulipan N, Reed G et al (2004) Intrauterine repair of spina bifida: preoperative predictors of shunt-dependent hydrocephalus. Am J Obstet Gynecol 190:1305–1312 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2003.10.702

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  32. 32.

    Khalil A, Caric V, Papageorghiou A, Bhide A, Akolekar R, Thilaganathan B (2014) Prenatal prediction of need for ventriculoperitoneal shunt in open spina bifida. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 43:159–164 https://doi.org/10.1002/uog.13202

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  33. 33.

    Vonzun L, Winder FM, Meuli M et al (2018) Prenatal sonographic head circumference and cerebral ventricle width measurements before and after open fetal myelomeningocele repair - prediction of shunting during the first year of life. Ultraschall Med 41:544–549 https://doi.org/10.1055/a-0756-8417

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. 34.

    Vonzun L, Winder FM, Meuli M et al (2020) Hindbrain herniation and banana and lemon sign after open fetal myelomeningocele repair - when do these signs disappear and is shunting predictable? Ultraschall Med Online https://doi.org/10.1055/a-1112-7096

  35. 35.

    Rethmann C, Scheer I, Meuli M, Mazzone L, Moehrlen U, Kellenberger CJ (2017) Evolution of posterior fossa and brain morphology after in utero repair of open neural tube defects assessed by MRI. Eur Radiol 27:4571–4580 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-017-4807-y

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  36. 36.

    Oliver ER, Heuer GG, Thom EA et al (2019) Myelomeningocele sac associated with worse lower extremity neurologic sequela: evidence for prenatal neural stretch injury? Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 55:740–746 https://doi.org/10.1002/uog.21891

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. 37.

    Righini A, Parazzini C, Doneda C, Arrigoni F, Rustico M, Re TJ, Triulzi F (2011) Fetal MRI features related to the Chiari malformations. Neurol Sci 32:S279–S281 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10072-011-0694-1

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  38. 38.

    Egloff A, Bulas D (2015) Magnetic resonance imaging evaluation of fetal neural tube defects. Semin Ultrasound CT MR 36:487–500 https://doi.org/10.1053/j.sult.2015.06.004

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  39. 39.

    Farmer DL, Thom EA, Brock JW 3rd et al (2018) The Management of Myelomeningocele Study: full cohort 30-month pediatric outcomes. Am J Obstet Gynecol 218:256.e1–256.e13 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2017.12.001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. 40.

    Chao TT, Dashe JS, Adams RC, Keefover-Hicks A, McIntire DD, Twickler DM (2010) Central nervous system findings on fetal magnetic resonance imaging and outcomes in children with spina bifida. Obstet Gynecol 116:323–329 https://doi.org/10.1097/aog.0b013e3181e666e8

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  41. 41.

    Geerdink N, van der Vliet T, Rotteveel JJ, Feuth T, Roeleveld N, Mullaart RA (2012) Essential features of Chiari II malformation in MR imaging: an interobserver reliability study--part 1. Childs Nerv Syst 28:977–985 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00381-012-1761-5

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  42. 42.

    Jiang S, Xue H, Glover A, Rutherford M, Rueckert D, Hajnal JV (2007) MRI of moving subjects using multislice snapshot images with volume reconstruction (SVR): application to fetal, neonatal, and adult brain studies. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 26:967–980 https://doi.org/10.1109/tmi.2007.895456

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  43. 43.

    Kim K, Habas PA, Rousseau F, Glenn OA, Barkovich AJ, Studholme C (2010) Intersection based motion correction of multislice MRI for 3-D in utero fetal brain image formation. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 29:146–158 https://doi.org/10.1109/tmi.2009.2030679

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  44. 44.

    Gholipour A, Estroff JA, Warfield SK (2010) Robust super-resolution volume reconstruction from slice acquisitions: application to fetal brain MRI. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 29:1739–1758 https://doi.org/10.1109/tmi.2010.2051680

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  45. 45.

    Kuklisova-Murgasova M, Quaghebeur G, Rutherford MA, Hajnal JV, Schnabel JA (2012) Reconstruction of fetal brain MRI with intensity matching and complete outlier removal. Med Image Anal 16:1550–1564 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.media.2012.07.004

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  46. 46.

    Kainz B, Steinberger M, Wein W et al (2015) Fast volume reconstruction from motion corrupted stacks of 2D slices. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 34:1901–1913 https://doi.org/10.1109/TMI.2015.2415453

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  47. 47.

    Ebner M, Wang G, Li W et al (2020) An automated framework for localization, segmentation and super-resolution reconstruction of fetal brain MRI. Neuroimage 206:116324 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2019.116324

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  48. 48.

    Gholipour A, Akhondi-Asl A, Estroff JA, Warfield SK (2012) Multi-atlas multi-shape segmentation of fetal brain MRI for volumetric and morphometric analysis of ventriculomegaly. Neuroimage 60:1819–1831 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2012.01.128

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  49. 49.

    Wright R, Kyriakopoulou V, Ledig C et al (2014) Automatic quantification of normal cortical folding patterns from fetal brain MRI. Neuroimage 91:21–32 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2014.01.034

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  50. 50.

    Vasung L, Rollins CK, Velasco-Annis C et al (2020) Spatiotemporal differences in the regional cortical plate and subplate volume growth during fetal development. Cereb Cortex 30:4438–4453 https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/bhaa033

    PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  51. 51.

    Uus A, Zhang T, Jackson LH, Roberts TA, Rutherford MA, Hajnal JV, Deprez M (2020) Deformable slice-to-volume registration for motion correction of fetal body and placenta MRI. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 39:2750–2759 https://doi.org/10.1109/tmi.2020.2974844

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  52. 52.

    Alansary A, Rajchl M, McDonagh SG et al (2017) PVR: patch-to-volume reconstruction for large area motion correction of fetal MRI. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 36:2031–2044 https://doi.org/10.1109/TMI.2017.2737081

    PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  53. 53.

    Payette K, Moehrlen U, Mazzone L et al (2019) Longitudinal analysis of fetal MRI in patients with prenatal spina bifida repair. In: Anonymous. Smart ultrasound imaging and perinatal, preterm and Paediatric image analysis. Springer International Publishing, pp 161–170 https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-32875-7_18

    Google Scholar 

  54. 54.

    Haris K, Hedstrom E, Kording F et al (2020) Free-breathing fetal cardiac MRI with doppler ultrasound gating, compressed sensing, and motion compensation. J Magn Reson Imaging 51:260–272 https://doi.org/10.1002/jmri.26842

    PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  55. 55.

    Weisstanner C, Gruber GM, Brugger PC et al (2017) Fetal MRI at 3T-ready for routine use? Br J Radiol 90:20160362 https://doi.org/10.1259/bjr.20160362

    PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  56. 56.

    Matsubara Y, Higaki T, Tani C et al (2019) Demonstration of human fetal bone morphology with MR imaging: a preliminary study. Magn Reson Med Sci 19:310–317 https://doi.org/10.2463/mrms.mp.2019-0105

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  57. 57.

    Nogueira RDA, Werner Junior H, Daltro P, Lima GM, Barbosa AD, Araujo Junior E (2018) The role of a novel magnetic resonance imaging sequence in the evaluation of the fetal skeleton: a pilot study. Radiol Bras 51:303–307 https://doi.org/10.1590/0100-3984.2017.0100

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  58. 58.

    Robinson AJ, Blaser S, Vladimirov A, Drossman D, Chitayat D, Ryan G (2015) Foetal “black bone” MRI: utility in assessment of the foetal spine. Br J Radiol 88:20140496 https://doi.org/10.1259/bjr.20140496

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  59. 59.

    Le Bihan D, Johansen-Berg H (2012) Diffusion MRI at 25: exploring brain tissue structure and function. Neuroimage 61:324–341 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2011.11.006

    PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  60. 60.

    Moore RJ, Strachan B, Tyler DJ, Baker PN, Gowland PA (2001) In vivo diffusion measurements as an indication of fetal lung maturation using echo planar imaging at 0.5T. Magn Reson Med 45:247–253 https://doi.org/10.1002/1522-2594(200102)45:2%3C247::aid-mrm1033%3E3.0.co;2-m

    CAS  PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  61. 61.

    Righini A, Bianchini E, Parazzini C (2003) Apparent diffusion coefficient determination in normal foetal brain: a prenatal MR imaging study. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 24:799–804

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  62. 62.

    Kasprian G, Balassy C, Brugger PC, Prayer D (2006) MRI of normal and pathological fetal lung development. Eur J Radiol 57:261–270 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2005.11.031

    PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  63. 63.

    Kasprian G, Brugger PC, Weber M et al (2008) In utero tractography of fetal white matter development. Neuroimage 43:213–224 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2008.07.026

    PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  64. 64.

    Jakab A, Tuura R, Kellenberger C, Scheer I (2017) In utero diffusion tensor imaging of the fetal brain: a reproducibility study. Neuroimage Clin 15:601–612 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nicl.2017.06.013

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  65. 65.

    Shrot S, Soares BP, Whitehead MT (2019) Cerebral diffusivity changes in fetuses with Chiari II malformation. Fetal Diagn Ther 45:268–274 https://doi.org/10.1159/000490102

    PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  66. 66.

    Mignone Philpott C, Shannon P, Chitayat D, Ryan G, Raybaud CA, Blaser SI (2013) Diffusion-weighted imaging of the cerebellum in the fetus with Chiari II malformation. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 34:1656–1660 https://doi.org/10.3174/ajnr.a3468

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  67. 67.

    Woitek R, Prayer D, Weber M et al (2016) Fetal diffusion tensor quantification of brainstem pathology in Chiari II malformation. Eur Radiol 26:1274–1283 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-015-3939-1

    PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  68. 68.

    Ulug AM, Truong TN, Filippi CG et al (2003) Diffusion imaging in obstructive hydrocephalus. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 24:1171–1176

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  69. 69.

    Leliefeld PH, Gooskens RH, Braun KP et al (2009) Longitudinal diffusion-weighted imaging in infants with hydrocephalus: decrease in tissue water diffusion after cerebrospinal fluid diversion. J Neurosurg Pediatr 4:56–63 https://doi.org/10.3171/2009.3.peds08337

    PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  70. 70.

    Mangano FT, Stevenson CB, Nagaraj U, Conley A, Yuan W (2019) Abnormal anisotropic diffusion properties in pediatric myelomeningocele patients treated with fetal surgery: an initial DTI study. Childs Nerv Syst 36:827–833 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00381-019-04339-1

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  71. 71.

    Sanz Cortes M, Torres P, Yepez M et al (2020) Comparison of brain microstructure after prenatal spina bifida repair by either laparotomy-assisted fetoscopic or open approach. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 55:87–95 https://doi.org/10.1002/uog.20373

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  72. 72.

    Herweh C, Akbar M, Wengenroth M, Heiland S, Bendszus M, Stippich C (2010) Reduced anisotropy in the middle cerebellar peduncle in Chiari-II malformation. Cerebellum 9:303–309 https://doi.org/10.1007/s12311-010-0162-0

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  73. 73.

    Hasan KM, Eluvathingal TJ, Kramer LA, Ewing-Cobbs L, Dennis M, Fletcher JM (2008) White matter microstructural abnormalities in children with spina bifida myelomeningocele and hydrocephalus: a diffusion tensor tractography study of the association pathways. J Magn Reson Imaging 27:700–709 https://doi.org/10.1002/jmri.21297

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  74. 74.

    Ou X, Glasier CM, Snow JH (2011) Diffusion tensor imaging evaluation of white matter in adolescents with myelomeningocele and Chiari II malformation. Pediatr Radiol 41:1407–1415 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00247-011-2180-6

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  75. 75.

    Kumar M, Gupta RK, Saksena S et al (2010) A diffusion tensor imaging study of deep gray and white matter brain maturation differences between patients with spina bifida cystica and healthy controls. J Clin Neurosci 17:879–885 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jocn.2009.09.041

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  76. 76.

    Ware AL, Kulesz PA, Williams VJ, Juranek J, Cirino PT, Fletcher JM (2016) Gray matter integrity within regions of the dorsolateral prefrontal cortical-subcortical network predicts executive function and fine motor dexterity in spina bifida. Neuropsychology 30:492–501 https://doi.org/10.1037/neu0000266

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  77. 77.

    Williams VJ, Juranek J, Stuebing K, Cirino PT, Dennis M, Fletcher JM (2013) Examination of frontal and parietal tectocortical attention pathways in spina bifida meningomyelocele using probabilistic diffusion tractography. Brain Connect 3:512–522 https://doi.org/10.1089/brain.2013.0171

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  78. 78.

    Vachha B, Adams RC, Rollins NK (2006) Limbic tract anomalies in pediatric myelomeningocele and Chiari II malformation: anatomic correlations with memory and learning--initial investigation. Radiology 240:194–202 https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2401050674

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  79. 79.

    Kulesz PA, Treble-Barna A, Williams VJ et al (2015) Attention in spina bifida myelomeningocele: relations with brain volume and integrity. Neuroimage Clin 8:72–78 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nicl.2015.03.022

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  80. 80.

    Haakma W, Dik P, ten Haken B et al (2014) Diffusion tensor magnetic resonance imaging and fiber tractography of the sacral plexus in children with spina bifida. J Urol 192:927–933 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2014.02.2581

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  81. 81.

    van der Jagt PK, Dik P, Froeling M et al (2012) Architectural configuration and microstructural properties of the sacral plexus: a diffusion tensor MRI and fiber tractography study. Neuroimage 62:1792–1799 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2012.06.001

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  82. 82.

    Naraghi AM, Awdeh H, Wadhwa V, Andreisek G, Chhabra A (2015) Diffusion tensor imaging of peripheral nerves. Semin Musculoskelet Radiol 19:191–200 https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0035-1546824

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  83. 83.

    Oubel E, Koob M, Studholme C, Dietemann JL, Rousseau F (2012) Reconstruction of scattered data in fetal diffusion MRI. Med Image Anal 16:28–37 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.media.2011.04.004

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  84. 84.

    Marami B, Mohseni Salehi SS, Afacan O et al (2017) Temporal slice registration and robust diffusion-tensor reconstruction for improved fetal brain structural connectivity analysis. Neuroimage 156:475–488 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2017.04.033

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  85. 85.

    Khan S, Vasung L, Marami B et al (2019) Fetal brain growth portrayed by a spatiotemporal diffusion tensor MRI atlas computed from in utero images. Neuroimage 185:593–608 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2018.08.030

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  86. 86.

    Deprez M, Price A, Christiaens D et al (2020) Higher Order Spherical Harmonics Reconstruction of Fetal Diffusion MRI With Intensity Correction. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 39:1104–1113 https://doi.org/10.1109/TMI.2019.2943565

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  87. 87.

    Hunt D, Dighe M, Gatenby C et al (2018) Comparing diffusion tensor and spherical harmonic tractography for in utero studies of fetal brain connectivity. Proc SPIE 10578:1057809 https://doi.org/10.1117/12.2294476

    Google Scholar 

  88. 88.

    Danzer E, Zhang L, Radu A et al (2011) Amniotic fluid levels of glial fibrillary acidic protein in fetal rats with retinoic acid induced myelomeningocele: a potential marker for spinal cord injury. Am J Obstet Gynecol 204:178.e1–178.11 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2010.09.032

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  89. 89.

    Groenen PM, Engelke UF, Wevers RA et al (2004) High-resolution 1H NMR spectroscopy of amniotic fluids from spina bifida fetuses and controls. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 112:16–23 https://doi.org/10.1016/s0301-2115(03)00279-3

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  90. 90.

    Pal K, Sharma U, Gupta DK, Pratap A, Jagannathan NR (2005) Metabolite profile of cerebrospinal fluid in patients with spina bifida: a proton magnetic resonance spectroscopy study. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 30:E68–E72 https://doi.org/10.1097/01.brs.0000152161.08313.04

    Article  Google Scholar 

  91. 91.

    Sharma U, Pal K, Pratap A, Gupta DK, Jagannathan NR (2006) Potential of proton magnetic resonance spectroscopy in the evaluation of patients with tethered cord syndrome following surgery. J Neurosurg 105:396–402 https://doi.org/10.3171/ped.2006.105.5.396

    PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

AJ was supported by the Prof. Dr. Max Cloetta Foundation, Uniscientia Foundation, OPO Foundation, the Forschungszentrum für das Kind (FZK) Grant, the Foundation for Research in Science and the Humanities at the University of Zurich, the Anna Müller Grocholski Foundation and the EMDO Foundation. RT was supported by the EMDO Foundation.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

Conceptualisation of study/review: AJ, PK, LM, UM, MM. Literature review: AJ, PK, LM, SS, COM, RK, NOK, RT, UM, MM. Data visualisation: AJ, PK. Manuscript writing and editing: AJ, PK, LM, SS, COM, RK, NOK, RT, UM, MM. The authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Andras Jakab.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

The visualisations in Figs. 1 and 2 are based on an ongoing research study. The corresponding author has received ethical approval from the Ethics Committee of Zurich canton and the participants gave informed consent.

Consent for publication

The visualisations in Figs. 1 and 2 are based on an ongoing research study. The corresponding author has received ethical approval from the Ethics Committee of Zurich canton and the participants gave informed consent.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Jakab, A., Payette, K., Mazzone, L. et al. Emerging magnetic resonance imaging techniques in open spina bifida in utero. Eur Radiol Exp 5, 23 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1186/s41747-021-00219-z

Download citation

Keywords

  • Magnetic resonance imaging
  • Diffusion tensor imaging
  • Foetus
  • Infant (newborn)
  • Spinal dysraphism