Prospective ultrasound diagnosis of orofacial clefts in the first trimester

Wu, Siqi; Han, Jin Hee; Li, Zhen; Ma, Ying; Li, D.; Liao, Can

doi:10.1002/uog.22123

Cited by 7 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…With advances in US technologies, it may become easier to accurately diagnose a fetal OFC [2][3][4]. In future decades, further improvements in the expertise of sonographers should also result in continued increases in detection accuracy and rates [5][6][7]. OFCs may involve the lip, the primary palate and secondary palate, or the soft palate, and may also involve structures around the oral cavity, which can extend into the facial structures resulting in oral, facial, and craniofacial deformity [8].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of prenatal ultrasound with MRI in the evaluation and prediction of fetal orofacial clefts

2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Orofacial clefts (OFCs) are common craniofacial abnormalities. This study aimed to compare the diagnostic and predictive values of prenatal ultrasonography (US) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Methods We reviewed the newborn physical examinations or fetal autopsy data with OFCs. Between January 2013 and December 2018, the diagnoses resulting from prenatal US and MRI examination were compared retrospectively with the postpartum diagnoses. The diagnostic prediction of prenatal imaging was then determined. Results 334 infants were identified with OFCs by either newborn physical exam or stillborn autopsy. For detection of OFCs by US, the total accuracy (ACC), true positive rate (TPR), true negative rate (TNR), positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) were 99.9% (111,178/110,286), 81.9% (230/281), 99.9% (109,948/110,005), 80.1% (230/287), and 99.9% (109,948/109,999), respectively. For MRI, the ACC, TPR, TNR, PPV, and NPV were 99.8% (4,125/4,132), 89.8% (44/49), 99.9% (4,081/4,083), 95.7% (44/46), and 99.9% (4,081/4,086), respectively. When we compared the predictive values between prenatal US and MRI, there were significant differences in the PPV of OFCs (P < 0.05), NPV of OFCs (P < 0.05), TPR of CLO (P < 0.001), PPV of CLP (P < 0.05), and TPR of CPO (P < 0.05). Conclusion Our results suggest that prenatal US could be effective for diagnosing and ruling out fetal OFCs. Diagnostic confidence is significantly improved when fetal MRI is used to assess fetal OFCs as an adjunct to US examination.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of prenatal ultrasound with MRI in the evaluation and prediction of fetal orofacial clefts

2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Then 38 full texts were assessed for the eligibility. Finally, 13 studies were ultimately included in our meta‐analysis 6–18 …”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Finally, 13 studies were ultimately included in our metaanalysis. [6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18]…”

Section: Searching Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The performance of first‐trimester ultrasound in diagnosing fetal cleft palate: Meta‐analysis and systematic review

Zhang

Sun

et al. 2023

J of Clinical Ultrasound

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective This system review and meta‐analysis was aim to evaluate the accuracy of prenatal ultrasound in diagnosing cleft palates (CPs) during first trimester. Data Source We systematically searched the databases of PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library for the articles, which assessed the accuracy of CPs diagnosed by ultrasound during first trimester. Review Method The characteristics of the included studies were recorded. The quality of included studies was assessed by QUADAS‐2. The pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio (PLR), negative likelihood ratio (NLR), diagnostic odds ratio (DOR), and the area under the curve (AUC) were calculated using Meta‐Disc software version 1.4. The publication bias was assessed by Stata software version 12.0. Results This meta‐analysis included 13 studies with 39 806 fetuses. The pooled sensitivity, specificity, PLR, NLR were 0.874, 0.999, 689.84, and 0.161, respectively. The DOR and AUC were 6651.3 and 0.9084, respectively. Conclusion The overall detection rate was 0.874, which indicated high value of first trimester ultrasound in diagnosing CPs.

show abstract

“…Improved detection of orofacial clefts can be achieved by targeted examination of the face in a coronal view allowing the assessment of the retronasal triangle (RNT), 11 which can be enhanced by 3D ultrasound reslicing techniques 12 . Orofacial clefting may be identified not only using the mid‐sagittal plane but also using other insonation planes as recently suggested by Wu et al 13 and displayed in Figures 2–4.…”

Section: First Trimestermentioning

confidence: 99%

Ultrasound and fetal magnetic resonance imaging: Clinical performance in the prenatal diagnosis of orofacial clefts and mandibular abnormalities

Tonni

Peixoto

Werner

et al. 2023

J of Clinical Ultrasound

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Cleft lip, with or without cleft palate, is the most common congenital craniofacial anomaly and the second most common birth defect worldwide. Micrognathia is a rare facial malformation characterized by small, underdeveloped mandible and frequently associated with retrognathia. Second‐ and third‐trimester prenatal ultrasound is the standard modality for screening and identification of fetal orofacial abnormalities, with a detection rate in the low‐risk population ranging from 0% to 73% for all types of cleft. The prenatal ultrasonography detection can also be performed during the first trimester of pregnancy. Given the potential limitations of obstetric ultrasound for examining the fetal face, such as suboptimal fetal position, shadowing from the surrounding bones, reduce amniotic fluid around the face, interposition of fetal limbs, umbilical cord and placenta, and maternal habitus/abdominal scars, the use of adjunct imaging modalities can enhance prenatal diagnosis of craniofacial anomalies in at‐risk pregnancies. Fetal magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is a potentially useful second‐line investigation for the prenatal diagnosis of orofacial malformations with a pooled sensitivity of 97%. In this review, we discuss the role of ultrasound and fetal MRI in the prenatal assessment of abnormalities of the upper lip, palate, and mandible.

show abstract

Prospective ultrasound diagnosis of orofacial clefts in the first trimester

Cited by 7 publications

References 6 publications

Comparison of prenatal ultrasound with MRI in the evaluation and prediction of fetal orofacial clefts

Comparison of prenatal ultrasound with MRI in the evaluation and prediction of fetal orofacial clefts

The performance of first‐trimester ultrasound in diagnosing fetal cleft palate: Meta‐analysis and systematic review

Ultrasound and fetal magnetic resonance imaging: Clinical performance in the prenatal diagnosis of orofacial clefts and mandibular abnormalities

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About