Fluid area measurements in the posterior fossa at 11–13 weeks in normal fetuses and fetuses with open spina bifida
Abstract
Objectives: To measure the area of the intracranial translucency (IT) (syn: 4th ventricle) and the future cisterna magna (CM) in normal fetuses and to compare with fetuses with open spina bifida. Patients: In the midsagittal plane of the face of 220 fetuses between 11 and 13 weeks' gestation, the areas of the IT and CM were measured and the sum, defined as the posterior fossa fluid (PFF) area was calculated. Reference ranges were constructed in relation to the crown-rump length. The study group consisted of 21 fetuses with open spina bifida and showed in all cases a single pocket of fluid in the posterior fossa. Fetuses with no fluid in the fossa were excluded. This PFF-area was measured and compared with the reference range of the IT-area and the PFF-area of normal fetuses and Z-scores were calculated. Results: In normal fetuses, a significant increase of the IT-, the CM- and the PFF-area was found as a sign of the expanding posterior fossa. The mean PFF-area increased from 8.55 to 29.72 mm 2 in the observation period. Fetuses with open spina bifida had reduced fluid in the posterior fossa with values ranging between 2.39 and 5.08 mm 2 and significantly lower Z-scores. Conclusions: Fetuses with open spina bifida have an abnormally small posterior fossa at 11-13 weeks' and in cases where the cerebrospinal fluid is still present, the fluid area in the midsagittal plane is reduced when compared to normal fetuses. Area fluid assessment can be an additional useful measurement in suspicious cases for open spina bifida in early gestation.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
The spine should be carefully evaluated in cases where spina bifida is suspected from the presence of anomalies in the posterior fossa.
“Notably, the spine should be carefully evaluated in cases where spina bifida is suspected from the presence of anomalies in the posterior fossa [55,56].”
From First-Trimester Ultrasound: A Comparative Review of Guidelines (2026) · cites this paper as [56]
Cited by
Sorted by citations
First-Trimester Ultrasound: A Comparative Review of Guidelines
Boureka, E., Tsakiridis, I., Michos, G., Liberis, A., Giouleka, S., Mamopoulos, A., Kalogiannidis, I., & Dagklis, T. (2026) · Diagnostics · doi:10.3390/diagnostics16111695
- Authors
- Karl, K., Heling, K. S., & Chaoui, R.
- Venue
- Fetal Diagnosis and Therapy
- Publisher
- S. Karger AG
- Published
- 2015
- Volume
- 37
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 289-293
- ISSN
- 1015-3837 (ISSN-L)
- 1421-9964
- OpenAlex
- W1973959153
- Cited by
- 18
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2024: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 1 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 3
- FWCI
- 3.21
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Fetal Diagnosis and Therapy (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Spinal Dysraphism and Malformations
- 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
- Keywords
- open spina bifida, fourth ventricle, cisterna magna, fetal brain development, early pregnancy, second trimester, cerebrospinal fluid, reference values, prenatal diagnosis
- MeSH terms
- Cisterna Magna, Cranial Fossa, Posterior, Female, Gestational Age, Humans, Pregnancy, Pregnancy Trimester, First, Reference Values, Spina Bifida Cystica, Ultrasonography, Prenatal, Crown-Rump Length, Nuchal Translucency Measurement
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