The Use of a Software-Assisted Method to Estimate Fetal Weight at and Near Term Using Magnetic Resonance Imaging

2017 ◽  
Vol 41 (4) ◽  
pp. 307-313 ◽  
Author(s):  
Caroline Kadji ◽  
Maxime De Groof ◽  
Margaux F. Camus ◽  
Riccardo De Angelis ◽  
Stéphanie Fellas ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Magnetic Resonance Imaging ◽  
Magnetic Resonance ◽  
Fetal Weight ◽  
Resonance Imaging ◽  
Near Term ◽  
Estimate Fetal Weight

scholarly journals Placental T2* estimated by magnetic resonance imaging and fetal weight estimated by ultrasound in the prediction of birthweight differences in dichorionic twin pairs

Placenta ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 78 ◽  
pp. 18-22 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sofie Sondrup Poulsen ◽  
Marianne Sinding ◽  
Ditte Nymark Hansen ◽  
David A. Peters ◽  
Jens B. Frøkjær ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Magnetic Resonance Imaging ◽  
Magnetic Resonance ◽  
Fetal Weight ◽  
Resonance Imaging

scholarly journals A comparison of ultrasound with magnetic resonance imaging in the assessment of fetal biometry and weight in the second trimester of pregnancy: An observer agreement and variability study

Ultrasound ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 26 (4) ◽  
pp. 229-244 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jacqueline Matthew ◽  
Christina Malamateniou ◽  
Caroline L Knight ◽  
Kelly P Baruteau ◽  
Tara Fletcher ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Magnetic Resonance Imaging ◽  
Magnetic Resonance ◽  
Random Error ◽  
Fetal Weight ◽  
Abdominal Circumference ◽  
Resonance Imaging ◽  
Intra Class Correlation ◽  
Femur Length ◽  
Biparietal Diameter ◽  
Estimated Fetal Weight

Objective To compare the intra and interobserver variability of ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging in the assessment of common fetal biometry and estimated fetal weight in the second trimester. Methods Retrospective measurements on preselected image planes were performed independently by two pairs of observers for contemporaneous ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging studies of the same fetus. Four common fetal measurements (biparietal diameter, head circumference, abdominal circumference and femur length) and an estimated fetal weight were analysed for 44 ‘low risk’ cases. Comparisons included, intra-class correlation coefficients, systematic error in the mean differences and the random error. Results The ultrasound inter- and intraobserver agreements for ultrasound were good, except intraobserver abdominal circumference (intra-class correlation coefficient = 0.880, poor), significant increases in error was seen with larger abdominal circumference sizes. Magnetic resonance imaging produced good/excellent intraobserver agreement with higher intra-class correlation coefficients than ultrasound. Good interobserver agreement was found for both modalities except for the biparietal diameter (magnetic resonance imaging intra-class correlation coefficient = 0.942, moderate). Systematic errors between modalities were seen for the biparietal diameter, femur length and estimated fetal weight (mean percentage error = +2.5%, −5.4% and −8.7%, respectively, p < 0.05). Random error was above 5% for ultrasound intraobserver abdominal circumference, femur length and estimated fetal weight and magnetic resonance imaging interobserver biparietal diameter, abdominal circumference, femur length and estimated fetal weight (magnetic resonance imaging estimated fetal weight error >10%). Conclusion Ultrasound remains the modality of choice when estimating fetal weight, however with increasing application of fetal magnetic resonance imaging a method of assessing fetal weight is desirable. Both methods are subject to random error and operator dependence. Assessment of calliper placement variations may be an objective method detecting larger than expected errors in fetal measurements.

Fetal weight estimation by echo-planar magnetic resonance imaging

The Lancet ◽  
1994 ◽  
Vol 343 (8898) ◽  
pp. 644-645 ◽  
Author(s):  
P.N Baker ◽  
I.R Johnson ◽  
P.A Gowland ◽  
J Hykin ◽  
P.R Harvey ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Magnetic Resonance Imaging ◽  
Magnetic Resonance ◽  
Fetal Weight ◽  
Weight Estimation ◽  
Resonance Imaging ◽  
Fetal Weight Estimation ◽  
Echo Planar

Medical Image Application in Fetal Weight Prediction Between Ultrasound and Magnetic Resonance Imaging: A Systematic Review

2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (5) ◽  
pp. 1144-1148
Author(s):  
Rongrong Xuan ◽  
Peimin Yu
Keyword(s):  
Magnetic Resonance Imaging ◽  
Magnetic Resonance ◽  
Congenital Malformation ◽  
Fetal Weight ◽  
Weight Estimation ◽  
Resonance Imaging ◽  
Research Article ◽  
Online Databases ◽  
Magnetic Resonance Technique ◽  
Weight Prediction

Fetal magnetic resonance imaging has raised up scholars’ interest since first incepted in 1983. It has been proved to be more accurate when estimating fetal weight comparing to ultrasound. The purpose of this review was to assess the efficiency of MRI on fetal body weight estimation as well as its ability of diagnosing congenital malformation. The papers were researched from three online databases, PubMed, ScienceDirect, Web of Science, by using terms “MRI,” “fetal weight,” and “ultrasound.” Inclusion criteria were demonstrated as follows: (i) MRI, (ii) ultrasound, (iii) fetal weight, (iv) research article. Up to now, with the improvement of magnetic resonance technique, the time to perform MRI is shorten, however, higher cost, lack of equipment and radiology expertise still exist, which limit its wide use in clinical. Nonetheless, MRI shows more great efficiency in fetal weight estimation and diagnosing congenital malformation compared to US.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document