Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-mlc7c Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T13:01:28.612Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

IS PERINATAL POST-MORTEM MRI READY FOR ROUTINE CLINICAL PRACTICE?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 March 2013

ANDREW CG BREEZE
ANDREW CG BREEZE*
Affiliation:
Consultant Obstetrician and Subspecialist in Maternal and Fetal Medicine, Maternity Unit, Kingston Hospital NHS Trust, Kingston upon Thames, Surrey, UK.
*
Andrew CG Breeze, MA, MD, MRCOG, Consultant Obstetrician and Subspecialist in Maternal and Fetal Medicine, Maternity Unit, Kingston Hospital NHS Trust, Galsworthy Road, Kingston upon Thames, Surrey KT2 7QB, UK. Email: acgbreeze@doctors.org.uk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Opinion
Information
Fetal and Maternal Medicine Review , Volume 24 , Issue 1 , February 2013 , pp. 38 - 43
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2013

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

1Gordijn, SJ, Erwich, JJ, Khong, TY. Value of the perinatal autopsy: critique. Pediatr Dev Pathol 2002; 5 (5): 480–88.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
2Gordijn, SJ, Erwich, JJ, Khong, TY. The perinatal autopsy: pertinent issues in multicultural Western Europe. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2007; 132 (1): 3–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
3Wright, C, Lee, RE. Investigating perinatal death: a review of the options when autopsy consent is refused. Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed 2004; 89 (4): F285–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
4Ros, PR, Li, KC, Vo, P, Baer, H, Staab, EV. Preautopsy magnetic resonance imaging: initial experience. Magn Reson Imaging 1990; 8 (3): 303–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
5Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, Royal College of Pathologists. Joint Working Party Report on fetal and perinatal pathology. London: RCOG Press; 1988.Google Scholar
6Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, Royal College of Pathologists. Joint Working Party Report on fetal and perinatal pathology. London: RCOG Press; 2001.Google Scholar
7Bristol Royal Infirmary Inquiry, Department of Health. Learning from Bristol: the report of the public inquiry into children's heart surgery at the Bristol Royal Infirmary 1984–1995. London: Stationery Office; 2001.Google Scholar
8Redfern, M, Keeling, J, Powell, E. Royal Liverpool Children's Inquiry. Report. London: HMSO; 2001.Google Scholar
9Department of Health. The removal, retention and use of human organs and tissue from post-mortem examination: advice from the Chief Medical Officer. London: Stationery Office; 2001.Google Scholar
10Brookes, JA, Hall-Craggs, MA, Sams, VR, Lees, WR. Non-invasive perinatal necropsy by magnetic resonance imaging. Lancet 1996; 348 (9035): 1139–41.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
11Woodward, PJ, Sohaey, R, Harris, DP, Jackson, GM, Klatt, EC, Alexander, AL, et al.Postmortem fetal MR imaging: comparison with findings at autopsy. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1997; 168 (1): 41–6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
12Cohen, MC, Paley, MN, Griffiths, PD, Whitby, EH. Less invasive autopsy: benefits and limitations of the use of magnetic resonance imaging in the perinatal postmortem. Pediatr Dev Pathol 2008; 11 (1): 1–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
13Griffiths, PD, Variend, D, Evans, M, Jones, A, Wilkinson, ID, Paley, MN, et al.Postmortem MR imaging of the fetal and stillborn central nervous system. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2003; 24 (1): 22–7.Google ScholarPubMed
14Hagmann, CF, Robertson, NJ, Sams, VR, Brookes, JA. Postmortem magnetic resonance imaging as an adjunct to perinatal autopsy for renal-tract abnormalities. Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed 2007; 92 (3): F215–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
15Cannie, M, Votino, C, Moerman, P, Vanheste, R, Segers, V, Van Berkel, K, et al.Acceptance, reliability and confidence of reporting fetal and neonatal virtuopsy as compared to conventional necropsy: a prospective study. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2012; 39 (6): 659–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
16Breeze, AC, Jessop, FA, Set, PA, Whitehead, AL, Cross, JJ, Lomas, DJ, et al.Minimally-invasive fetal autopsy using magnetic resonance imaging and percutaneous organ biopsies: clinical value and comparison to conventional autopsy. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2011; 37: 317–23.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
17Thayyil, S, Chandrasekaran, M, Chitty, LS, Wade, A, Skordis-Worrall, J, Bennett-Britton, I, et al.Diagnostic accuracy of post-mortem magnetic resonance imaging in fetuses, children and adults: a systematic review. Eur J Radiol 2010; 75 (1): e142–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
18Huisman, TA, Wisser, J, Stallmach, T, Krestin, GP, Huch, R, Kubik-Huch, RA. MR autopsy in fetuses. Fetal Diagn Ther 2002; 17 (1): 58–64.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
19Breeze, AC, Cross, JJ, Hackett, GA, Jessop, FA, Joubert, I, Lomas, DJ, et al.Use of a confidence scale in reporting postmortem fetal magnetic resonance imaging. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2006; 28 (7): 918–24.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
20Thayyil, S, Cleary, JO, Sebire, NJ, Scott, RJ, Chong, K, Gunny, R, et al.Post-mortem examination of human fetuses: a comparison of whole-body high-field MRI at 9.4 T with conventional MRI and invasive autopsy. Lancet 2009; 374 (9688): 467–75.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
21Votino, C, Jani, J, Verhoye, M, Bessieres, B, Fierens, Y, Segers, V, et al.Postmortem examination of human fetal hearts at or below 20 weeks’ gestation: a comparison of high-field MRI at 9.4 T with lower-field MRI magnets and stereomicroscopic autopsy. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2012; 40 (4): 437–44.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
22Votino, C, Cannie, M, Segers, V, Dobrescu, O, Dessy, H, Gallo, V, et al.Virtual autopsy by computed tomographic angiography of the fetal heart: a feasibility study. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2012; 39 (6): 679–84.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
23Souka, AP, Von Kaisenberg, CS, Hyett, JA, Sonek, JD, Nicolaides, KH. Increased nuchal translucency with normal karyotype. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2005; 192 (4): 1005–21.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
24Garg, S, Punia, RP, Basu, S, Mohan, H, Bal, A. Comparison of needle autopsy with conventional autopsy in neonates. Fetal Pediatr Pathol 2009; 28 (3): 139–50.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
25Breeze, AC, Jessop, FA, Whitehead, AL, Set, PA, Berman, L, Hackett, GA, et al.Feasibility of percutaneous organ biopsy as part of a minimally invasive perinatal autopsy. Virchows Arch 2008; 452 (2): 201–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
26Brookes, JS, Hall-Craggs, MA. Postmortem perinatal examination: the role of magnetic resonance imaging. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 1997; 9 (3): 145–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
27Thayyil, SS. Post-mortem magnetic resonance imaging in fetuses, newborns and children. [PhD thesis]. London: University College London; 2010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
28Griffiths, PD, Paley, MN, Whitby, EH. Post-mortem MRI as an adjunct to fetal or neonatal autopsy. Lancet 2005; 365 (9466): 1271–3.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
29Sebire, NJ, Weber, MA, Thayyil, S, Mushtaq, I, Taylor, A, Chitty, LS. Minimally invasive perinatal autopsies using magnetic resonance imaging and endoscopic postmortem examination (“keyhole autopsy”): feasibility and initial experience. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2012; 25 (5): 513–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
30Addison, S, Sebire, NJ, Taylor, AM, Abrams, D, Peebles, D, Mein, C, et al.High quality genomic DNA extraction from postmortem fetal tissue. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 2012; 25 (11): 2467–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
31Tyreman, M, Abbott, KM, Willatt, LR, Nash, R, Lees, C, Whittaker, J, et al.High resolution array analysis: diagnosing pregnancies with abnormal ultrasound findings. J Med Genet 2009; 46 (8): 531–41.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
32Keeling, JW. The perinatal autopsy. In: Keeling, JW, Khong, TY (eds.) Fetal and Neonatal Pathology, 4th edn.London: Springer; 2007; 20–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
33Laudy, JA, Wladimiroff, JW. The fetal lung. 2: Pulmonary hypoplasia. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2000; 16 (5): 482–94.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
34Breeze, AC, Gallagher, FA, Lomas, DJ, Smith, GC, Lees, CC. Postmortem fetal organ volumetry using magnetic resonance imaging and comparison to organ weights at conventional autopsy. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2008; 31 (2): 187–93.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
35Thayyil, S, Schievano, S, Robertson, NJ, Jones, R, Chitty, LS, Sebire, NJ, et al.A semi-automated method for non-invasive internal organ weight estimation by post-mortem magnetic resonance imaging in fetuses, newborns and children. Eur J Radiol 2009; 72 (2): 321–6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
36Sebire, NJ. Towards the minimally invasive autopsy? Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2006; 28: 865–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
37Whitby, E. Minimally invasive autopsy. Lancet 2009; 374 (9688): 432–3.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
38Thayyil, S, Sebire, NJ, Chitty, LS, Wade, A, Olsen, O, Gunny, RS, et al.Post mortem magnetic resonance imaging in the fetus, infant and child: a comparative study with conventional autopsy (MaRIAS Protocol). BMC Pediatr 2011; 11: 120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
39O'Donoghue, K, O'Regan, KN, Sheridan, CP, O'Connor, OJ, Benson, J, McWilliams, S, et al.Investigation of the role of computed tomography as an adjunct to autopsy in the evaluation of stillbirth. Eur J Radiol 2012; 81 (7): 667–75.Google ScholarPubMed
40Thayyil, S, Chitty, LS, Robertson, NJ, Taylor, AM, Sebire, NJ. Minimally invasive fetal postmortem examination using magnetic resonance imaging and computerised tomography: current evidence and practical issues. Prenat Diagn 2010; 30 (8): 713–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
41Rankin, J, Wright, C, Lind, T. Cross sectional survey of parents’ experience and views of the postmortem examination. BMJ 2002; 324 (7341): 816–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
42Breeze, AC, Statham, H, Hackett, GA, Jessop, FA, Lees, CC. Perinatal postmortems: what is important to parents and how do they decide? Birth 2012; 39 (1): 57–64.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
43Alderliesten, ME, Peringa, J, van der Hulst, VP, Blaauwgeers, HL, van Lith, JM. Perinatal mortality: clinical value of postmortem magnetic resonance imaging compared with autopsy in routine obstetric practice. BJOG 2003; 110 (4): 378–82.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
44Breeze, AC, Statham, H, Hackett, GA, Jessop, FA, Lees, CC. Attitudes to perinatal postmortem: parental views about research participation. J Med Ethics 2011; 37: 364–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
45Korteweg, FJ, Bouman, K, Erwich, JHM, Timmer, A, Veeger, NJGM, Ravise, JM, et al.Cytogenetic analysis after evaluation of 750 fetal deaths: proposal for diagnostic workup. Obstet Gynecol 2008; 111 (4): 865–74.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
46Korteweg, FJ, Erwich, JJHM, Holm, JP, Ravisé, JM, van der Meer, J, Veeger, NJGM, et al.Diverse placental pathologies as the main causes of fetal death. Obstet Gynecol 2009; 114 (4): 809–17.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
47Korteweg, FJ, Erwich, JJ, Timmer, A, van der Meer, J, Ravise, JM, Veeger, NJ, et al.Evaluation of 1025 fetal deaths: proposed diagnostic workup. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2012; 206 (1): 53 e1–e12.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
48Sebire, NJ, Taylor, AM. Less invasive perinatal autopsies and the future of postmortem science. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2012; 39 (6): 609–11.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed