Cited by 3Fetal and Pediatric Neurological DisordersPrenatal Screening and DiagnosticsCongenital Anomalies and Fetal Surgery

First-trimester 3D fetal neurosonography: Five standardised views

Open access
Ushakov, Fred, Sacco, Adalina, Pandya, Pranav·2024·Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology

Abstract

BACKGROUND: There are several international guidelines for foetal anomalies scanning at 11-14 weeks' gestation. The aim of this study is to present our first-trimester specialist neurosonography protocol with examples of pathology in order to develop a systematic approach to evaluating the first-trimester foetal brain. METHODS: Women undergoing a first-trimester foetal medicine ultrasound scan between 2010 and 2020 for multiple indications underwent neurosonography according to a set protocol. 3D transvaginal brain examination was performed in all cases (2000 pregnancies scanned). We retrospectively reviewed all imaging to develop this protocol. RESULTS: We propose that the following five axial-plane parallel views should be obtained when performing neurosonography in the first trimester, moving from cranial to caudal: 1. Lateral ventricles; 2. Third ventricle; 3. Thalamus and mesencephalon; 4. Cerebellum; 5. Fourth ventricle. Examples of these images and abnormalities that can be seen in each plane are given. CONCLUSIONS: We have presented a specialist protocol for systematically assessing the foetal brain in the first trimester and given examples of pathology which may be seen in each plane. Further work is needed to prospectively assess detection rates of major abnormalities using this protocol and assess the reproducibility and learning curve of this technique.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/01443615.2024.2361848

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • When using a standardized protocol, the detection of central nervous system anomalies presented with a specificity of 72.7% and a sensitivity of 100%.

    “This is also highlighted by a study that showed that when using a standardized protocol, the detection of central nervous system anomalies presented with a specificity of 72.7% and a sensitivity of 100% [36], with several anatomic protocols proposed accordingly [37].”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Ushakov, F., Sacco, A., & Pandya, P.
Affiliations
University College Hospital (GB)
Corresponding author
Sacco, Adalina
Venue
Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology
Published
2024-06-07
Volume
44
Issue
1
Pages
2361848-2361848
ISSN
  • 0144-3615 (ISSN-L)
  • 1364-6893
OpenAlex
W4399441198
Cited by
3
References
2
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 2
FWCI
2.03
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health › Fetal and Pediatric Neurological Disorders
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health › Prenatal Screening and Diagnostics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Congenital Anomalies and Fetal Surgery
Keywords
3D fetal ultrasound, transvaginal ultrasound, lateral ventricle, third ventricle, thalamus, midbrain, cerebellum, fourth ventricle, fetal brain anomalies, prenatal diagnosis
MeSH terms
Adult, Brain, Female, Fetus, Humans, Pregnancy, Pregnancy Trimester, First, Retrospective Studies, Ultrasonography, Prenatal, Imaging, Three-Dimensional

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review