Skip to content
Licensed Unlicensed Requires Authentication Published by De Gruyter March 3, 2020

Fetal brain development in small-for-gestational age (SGA) fetuses and normal controls

  • Elena Jacob EMAIL logo , Janina Braun , Kathrin Oelmeier , Helen Ann Köster , Mareike Möllers , Maria Falkenberg , Walter Klockenbusch , Ralf Schmitz and Kerstin Hammer ORCID logo EMAIL logo

Abstract

Objective

To assess whether fetal brain structures routinely measured during the second and third trimester ultrasound scans, particularly the width of the cavum septi pellucidi (CSP), differ between fetuses small for gestational age (SGA), fetuses very small for gestational age (VSGA) and normal controls.

Methods

In this retrospective study, we examined standard ultrasound measurements of 116 VSGA, 131 SGA fetuses and 136 normal controls including the head circumference (HC), transversal diameter of the cerebellum (TCD), the sizes of the lateral ventricle (LV) and the cisterna magna (CM) from the second and third trimester ultrasound scans extracted from a clinical database. We measured the CSP in these archived ultrasound scans. The HC/CSP, HC/LV, HC/CM and HC/TCD ratios were calculated as relative values independent of the fetal size.

Results

The HC/CSP ratio differed notably between the controls and each of the other groups (VSGA P = 0.018 and SGA P = 0.017). No notable difference in the HC/CSP ratio between the VSGA and SGA groups could be found (P = 0.960). The HC/LV, HC/CM and HC/TCD ratios were similar in all the three groups.

Conclusion

Relative to HC, the CSP is larger in VSGA and SGA fetuses than in normal controls. However, there is no notable difference between VSGA and SGA fetuses, which might be an indicator for abnormal brain development in this group.


Corresponding authors: Elena Jacob and Dr. Kerstin Hammer, MD, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University Hospital of Münster, Albert-Schweitzer-Campus 1, 48149 Münster, Germany, Phone: +49-16095211934, Fax: +49-2518348210

  1. Author contributions: All the authors have accepted responsibility for the entire content of this submitted manuscript and approved submission.

  2. Research funding: None declared.

  3. Employment or leadership: None declared.

  4. Honorarium: None declared.

  5. Competing interests: The funding organisation(s) played no role in the study design; in the collection, analysis, and interpretation of data; in the writing of the report; or in the decision to submit the report for publication.

References

1. Robson SC, Martin WL, Morris RK. Green-top Guideline No. 31: The investigation and management of the small-for-gestational-age fetus. Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, 2nd ed., February 2013. http://www.rcog.org.uk/globalassets/documents/guidelines/gtg_31.pdf.Search in Google Scholar

2. Sheridan C. Intrauterine growth restriction – diagnosis and management. Aust Fam Physician. 2005;34:717–23.Search in Google Scholar

3. Intrauterine Growth Restriction. Guideline of the German Society of Gynecology and Obstetrics. S2k, AWMF-Registry-No.: 015/080, October 2016. http://www.awmf.org/leitlinien/detail/II/015-080.html.Search in Google Scholar

4. Unterscheider J, Daly S, Geaty MP, Kenelly MM, McAuliffe FM, O’Donoghue K, et al. Optimizing the definition of intrauterine growth restriction: the multicenter prospective PORTO Study. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2013;208:290.e1–6.10.1097/OGX.0b013e3182a0597fSearch in Google Scholar

5. Wixey JA, Chand KK, Colditz PB, Bjorkman ST. Review: Neuroinflammation in intrauterine growth restriction. Placenta 2017;54:117–24.10.1016/j.placenta.2016.11.012Search in Google Scholar PubMed

6. Malhotra A, Allison BJ, Castillo-Melendez M, Jenkin G, Polglase GR, Miller SL. Neonatal morbidities of fetal growth restriction: pathophysiology and impact. Front Endocrinol (Lausanne) 2019;10:55.10.3389/fendo.2019.00055Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

7. Swamy RS, Mcconachie H, Ng J, Rankin J, Korada M, Sturgiss S, et al. Cognitive outcome in childhood of birth weight discordant monochorionic twins: the long-term effects of fetal growth restriction. Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed 2018;103:512–6.10.1136/archdischild-2017-313691Search in Google Scholar PubMed

8. Miller SL, Huppi PS, Mallard C. The consequences of fetal growth restriction on brain structure and neurodevelopmental outcome. J Physiol 2016;594:807–23.10.1113/JP271402Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

9. Committee ISoUiOGE. Sonographic examination of the fetal central nervous system: guidelines for performing the ‘basic examination’ and the ‘fetal neurosonogram.’ Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2007;29:109–16.10.1002/uog.3909Search in Google Scholar PubMed

10. Hosseinzadeh K, Luo J, Borhani A, Hill L. Non-visualisation of cavum septi pellucidi: implication in prenatal diagnosis? Insights Imaging 2013;4:357–67.10.1007/s13244-013-0244-xSearch in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

11. Abele H, Babiy-Pachomow O, Sonek J, Hoopmann M, Schaelike M, Kagan KO. The cavum septi pellucidi in euploid and aneuploid fetuses. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2013;42: 156–60.10.1002/uog.12393Search in Google Scholar PubMed

12. Winter TC, Kennedy AM, Byrne J, Woodward PJ. The cavum septi pellucidi: why is it important? J Ultrasound Med 2010;29:427–44.10.7863/jum.2010.29.3.427Search in Google Scholar PubMed

13. Chaoui R, Heling KS, Zhao Y, Sinkovskaya E, Abuhamad A, Karl K. Dilated cavum septi pellucidi in fetuses with microdeletion 22q11. Prenat Diagn 2016;36:911–5.10.1002/pd.4911Search in Google Scholar PubMed

14. Trzesniak C, Oliveira IR, Kempton MJ, Galvao-de Almeida A, Chagas MH, Ferrari MC, et al. Are cavum septum pellucidum abnormalities more common in schizophrenia spectrum disorders? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Schizophr Res 2011;125:1–12.10.1016/j.schres.2010.09.016Search in Google Scholar PubMed

15. Pearce JM. Some observations on the septum pellucidum. Eur Neurol 2008;59:332–4.10.1159/000121428Search in Google Scholar PubMed

16. Shaw CM, Alvord EC. Cava septi pellucidi et vergae: their normal and pathological states. Brain 1969;92:213–23.10.1093/brain/92.1.213Search in Google Scholar PubMed

17. Gardner RC, Hess CP, Brus-Ramer M, Possin KL, Cohn-Sheehy BI, Kramer JH, et al. Cavum septum pellucidum in retired American pro-football players. J Neurotrauma 2016;33:157–61.10.1089/neu.2014.3805Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

18. Falco P, Gabrielli S, Visentin A, Perolo A, Pilu G, Bovicelli L. Transabdominal sonography of the cavum septum pellucidum in normal fetuses in the second and third trimesters of pregnancy. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2000;16:549–53.10.1046/j.1469-0705.2000.00244.xSearch in Google Scholar PubMed

19. Malinger G, Lev D, Kidron D, Heredia F, Hershkovitz R, Lerman-Sagie T. Differential diagnosis in fetuses with absent septum pellucidum. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2005;25:42–9.10.1002/uog.1787Search in Google Scholar PubMed

20. Cignini P, Patacchiola F. Re: Cavum septi pellucidi (CSP) ratio: a marker for partial agenesis of the fetal corpus callosum. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2018;51:418–9.10.1002/uog.19007Search in Google Scholar PubMed

21. Koerte IK, Hufschmidt J, Muehlmann M, Tripodis Y, Stamm JM, Pasternak O, et al. Cavum septi pellucidi in symptomatic former professional football players. J Neurotrauma 2016;33:346–53.10.1089/neu.2015.3880Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

22. Aviv RI, Tomlinson G, Kendall B, Thakkar C, Valentine A. Cavum septi pellucidi in boxers. Can Assoc Radiol J 2010;61:29–32.10.1016/j.carj.2009.09.002Search in Google Scholar PubMed

23. Serhatlioglu S, Kocakoc E, Kiris A, Sapmaz E, Boztosun Y, Bozgeyik Z. Sonographic measurement of the fetal cerebellum, cisterna magna, and cavum septum pellucidum in normal fetuses in the second and third trimesters of pregnancy. J Clin Ultrasound 2003;31:194–200.10.1002/jcu.10163Search in Google Scholar PubMed

24. Mccowan LM, Pryor J, Harding JE. Perinatal predictors of neurodevelopmental outcome in small-for-gestational-age children at 18 months of age. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2002;186:1069–75.10.1067/mob.2002.122292Search in Google Scholar PubMed

25. Kemp MW, Schmidt AF, Jobe AH. Optimizing antenatal corticosteroid therapy. Semin Fetal Neonatal Med 2019;24:176–81.10.1016/j.siny.2019.05.003Search in Google Scholar PubMed

26. Hrabalkova L, Takahashi T, Kemp MW, Stock SJ. Antenatal corticosteroids for fetal lung maturity – too much of a good thing? Curr Pharm Des 2019;25:593–600.10.2174/1381612825666190326143814Search in Google Scholar PubMed

27. Jameson RA, Bernstein HB. Magnesium sulfate and novel therapies to promote neuroprotection. Clin Perinatol 2019;46:187–201.10.1016/j.clp.2019.02.008Search in Google Scholar PubMed

28. Bachnas MA, Akbar MIA, Dachlan EG, Dekker G. The role of magnesium sulfate (MgSO4) in fetal neuroprotection. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 2019;27:1–13.10.1080/14767058.2019.1619688Search in Google Scholar PubMed

Received: 2019-10-28
Accepted: 2020-01-23
Published Online: 2020-03-03
Published in Print: 2020-04-28

©2020 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston

Downloaded on 19.3.2024 from https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/jpm-2019-0401/html
Scroll to top button