The Value of Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Pregnant Women in Iraq According to a Cross-Sectional Study of 148 Patients
Keywords:
MRI, BMI, Pregnant, Fetal, Accuracy, SensitivityAbstract
The data were collected from 148 Iraqi pregnant women who underwent MRI during pregnancy between August 2023 and August 2024. MRI is a member of a family of prenatal diagnostic techniques that are designed to obtain genetic, biochemical, physiological, and anatomical information with the aim of assessing the correct development of the fetus during pregnancy and preventing potential complications. This study aims to ascertain the value of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in pregnant women in Iraq. A cross-sectional study of 148 patients was conducted, with data analysed using IBM SPSS. The analysis considered demographic information to determine the existence of statistical relationships between MRI and pregnancy. Furthermore, the true value of the parameters of this study and the arithmetic mean were identified.
Fetal MRI plays an important role in clinical work and is an important supplement to ultrasound. It has a profound effect on the fetal central nervous system, especially in the diagnosis and differential diagnosis of central dysfunction, which is of great value. This article will discuss the safety, conditions of use and validity of each fetal MRI system.
This study will conclude that fetal MRI has developed rapidly in recent years and has become an important research tool for the diagnosis of fetal diseases. The advantages of fetal MRI are that it can clearly identify complex structural defects; however, its shortcomings remain. The question of how to obtain clear multi-directional images remains unanswered. Future research will focus on this matter, contributing to the further clinical application of fetal MRI.
References
Mervak B.M., Altun E., McGinty K.A., Hyslop W.B., Semelka R.C., Burke L.M. MRI in pregnancy: Indications and practical considerations. J. Magn. Reson. Imaging. 2019; 49:621–631. doi: 10.1002/jmri.26317. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Lum M., Tsiouris A.J. MRI safety considerations during pregnancy. Clin. Imaging. 2020; 62:69–75. doi 10.1016/j.clinimag.2020.02.007. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Lazarus E., Debenedectis C., North D., Spencer P.K., Mayo-Smith W.W. Utilization of imaging in pregnant patients: 10-year review of 5270 examinations in 3285 patients (1997–2006) Radiology. 2009; 251:517–524. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2512080736. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Coakley F.V., Cody D.D., Mahesh M. The Pregnant Patient: Alternatives to CT and Dose-Saving Modifications to CT Technique. Image Wisely Web Site. 2010. [(accessed on 18 July 2020)]. Available online:
https://www.imagewisely.org/Imaging-Modalities/ComputedTomography/Pregnant-Patient.
ACOG Guidelines for diagnostic imaging during pregnancy and lactation, Committee Opinion No. 723. Obstet. Gynecol. 2017; 130: e210–e216. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000002355. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Tirada N., Dreizin D., Khati N.J., Akin E.A., Zeman R.K. Imaging pregnant and lactating patients. RadioGraphics. 2015; 35:1751–1765. doi: 10.1148/rg.2015150031. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
McCarthy S.M., Stark D.D., Filly R.A., Callen P.W., Hricak H., Higgins C.B. Obstetrical magnetic resonance imaging: Maternal anatomy. Radiology. 1985; 154:421–425. doi: 10.1148/radiology.154.2.3966128. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Leitch CR, Walker JJ. The rise in the caesarean section rate: the same indications but a lower threshold. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1998; 105 (6):621–6.
Lale S, Chou D, Gemmill A, et al. Global causes of maternal death: a WHO systematic analysis. Lancet Glob Health. 2014; 2 (6): e323–33.
Kahrs BH, Usman S, Ghi T, et al. Sonographic prediction of the outcome of vacuum deliveries: a multicenter, prospective cohort study. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2017; 217 (69): e1–10.
Bamberg C, Scheuermann S, Fotopoulou C, et al. Angle of progression measurements of the fetal head at term: a systematic comparison between open magnetic resonance imaging and transperineal ultrasound. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2011; 206 (2): 161.E1–5.
Kadji C, Cannie MM, Kang X, et al. Fetal magnetic resonance imaging at 36 weeks predicts neonatal macrosomia: the PREMACRO study. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2021; S0002-9378 (21):00860–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2021.08.001.
Gleason RL Jr, Yigeremu M, Debebe T, et al. A safe, low-cost, easy-to-use 3D camera platform to assess the risk of obstructed labor due to cephalopelvic disproportion. PLoS One. 2018;13 (9): e0203865. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0203865.
Li YG, Chen C, Liao KD, et al. Study on the cephalopelvic relationship with cephalic presentation in nulliparous full-term Chinese pregnant women by MRI with three-dimensional reconstruction. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2018;298 (2):433–41.
Diagnostic Imaging in Pregnant and Nursing Women—UpToDate. Available online: https://www-uptodate-com.ezproxy.dbazes.lsmuni.lt/contents/diagnostic-imaging-in-pregnant-and-nursing-women?search=Diagnostic%20imaging%20in%20pregnant%20and%20nursing%20women&source=search_result&selectedTitle=1~150&usage_type=default&display_rank=1 (accessed on 5 November 2018).
Plunk, M.R.; Chapman, T. The Fundamentals of Fetal MR Imaging: Part 1. Curr. Prob. Diagn. Radiol. 2014, 43, 331–346. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Hand, J.; Li, Y.; Thomas, E.; Rutherford, M.; Hajnal, J. Prediction of specific absorption rate in mother and fetus associated with MRI examinations during pregnancy. Magn. Reson. Med. 2006, 55, 883–893. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
Strizek, B.; Jani, J.C.; Mucyo, E.; De Keyzer, F.; Pauwels, I.; Ziane, S.; Mansbach, A.-L.; Deltenre, P.; Cos, T.; Cannie, M.M.; et al. Safety of MR Imaging at 1.5 T in Fetuses: A Retrospective Case-Control Study of Birth Weights and the Effects of Acoustic Noise. Radiology 2015, 275, 530–537. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Bharatha, A.; Ray, J.G.; Vermeulen, M.J.; Montanera, W.J.; Park, A.L. Association between MRI Exposure during Pregnancy and Fetal and Childhood Outcomes. JAMA 2016, 316, 952–961. [Google Scholar]
Bouyssi-Kobar, M.; Du Plessis, A.J.; Robertson, R.L.; Limperopoulos, C. Fetal magnetic resonance imaging: Exposure times and functional outcomes at preschool age. Pediatr. Radiol. 2015, 45, 1823–1830. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Leyendecker, J.R.; Gorengaut, V.; Brown, J.J. MR Imaging of Maternal Diseases of the Abdomen and Pelvis during Pregnancy and the Immediate Postpartum Period. RadioGraphics 2004, 24, 1301–1316. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Sundgren, P.C.; Leander, P. Is the administration of gadolinium-based contrast media to pregnant women and small children justified? J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2011, 34, 750–757. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
Woods, M.; Oh, K.Y.; Roberts, V.H.J.; Schabel, M.C.; Grove, K.L.; Frias, A.E. Gadolinium Contrast Material in Pregnancy: Fetal Biodistribution in the Nonhuman Primate. Radiology 2015, 276, 110–118. [Google Scholar]
Prola-Netto, J.; Woods, M.; Roberts, V.H.J.; Sullivan, E.L.; Miller, C.A.; Frias, A.E.; Oh, K.Y. Gadolinium Chelate Safety in Pregnancy: Barely Detectable Gadolinium Levels in the Juvenile Nonhuman Primate after in Utero Exposure. Radiology 2017, 286, 122–128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
