Skip to main content
Advertisement

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current Issue
    • Accepted Manuscripts
    • Article Preview
    • Past Issue Archive
    • Video Articles
    • AJNR Case Collection
    • Case of the Week Archive
    • Case of the Month Archive
    • Classic Case Archive
  • Special Collections
    • AJNR Awards
    • ASNR Foundation Special Collection
    • Most Impactful AJNR Articles
    • Photon-Counting CT
    • Spinal CSF Leak Articles (Jan 2020-June 2024)
  • Multimedia
    • AJNR Podcasts
    • AJNR SCANtastic
    • Trainee Corner
    • MRI Safety Corner
    • Imaging Protocols
  • For Authors
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Submit a Video Article
    • Submit an eLetter to the Editor/Response
    • Manuscript Submission Guidelines
    • Statistical Tips
    • Fast Publishing of Accepted Manuscripts
    • Graphical Abstract Preparation
    • Imaging Protocol Submission
    • Author Policies
  • About Us
    • About AJNR
    • Editorial Board
    • Editorial Board Alumni
  • More
    • Become a Reviewer/Academy of Reviewers
    • Subscribers
    • Permissions
    • Alerts
    • Feedback
    • Advertisers
    • ASNR Home

User menu

  • Alerts
  • Log in

Search

  • Advanced search
American Journal of Neuroradiology
American Journal of Neuroradiology

American Journal of Neuroradiology

ASHNR American Society of Functional Neuroradiology ASHNR American Society of Pediatric Neuroradiology ASSR
  • Alerts
  • Log in

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current Issue
    • Accepted Manuscripts
    • Article Preview
    • Past Issue Archive
    • Video Articles
    • AJNR Case Collection
    • Case of the Week Archive
    • Case of the Month Archive
    • Classic Case Archive
  • Special Collections
    • AJNR Awards
    • ASNR Foundation Special Collection
    • Most Impactful AJNR Articles
    • Photon-Counting CT
    • Spinal CSF Leak Articles (Jan 2020-June 2024)
  • Multimedia
    • AJNR Podcasts
    • AJNR SCANtastic
    • Trainee Corner
    • MRI Safety Corner
    • Imaging Protocols
  • For Authors
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Submit a Video Article
    • Submit an eLetter to the Editor/Response
    • Manuscript Submission Guidelines
    • Statistical Tips
    • Fast Publishing of Accepted Manuscripts
    • Graphical Abstract Preparation
    • Imaging Protocol Submission
    • Author Policies
  • About Us
    • About AJNR
    • Editorial Board
    • Editorial Board Alumni
  • More
    • Become a Reviewer/Academy of Reviewers
    • Subscribers
    • Permissions
    • Alerts
    • Feedback
    • Advertisers
    • ASNR Home
  • Follow AJNR on Twitter
  • Visit AJNR on Facebook
  • Follow AJNR on Instagram
  • Join AJNR on LinkedIn
  • RSS Feeds

AJNR is seeking candidates for the AJNR Podcast Editor. Read the position description.

Research ArticlePEDIATRICS

Subarachnoid Space Measurements in Apparently Healthy Fetuses Using MR Imaging

A. Wandel, T. Weissbach, E. Katorza and T. Ziv-Baran
American Journal of Neuroradiology May 2023, DOI: https://doi.org/10.3174/ajnr.A7864
A. Wandel
aFrom the Sackler School of Medicine (A.W., T.W., E.K.)
cDepartment of Diagnostic Radiology (A.W.), Shamir Medical Center, Zerifin, Israel
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for A. Wandel
T. Weissbach
aFrom the Sackler School of Medicine (A.W., T.W., E.K.)
dAntenatal Diagnostic Unit (T.W., E.K.)
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for T. Weissbach
E. Katorza
aFrom the Sackler School of Medicine (A.W., T.W., E.K.)
dAntenatal Diagnostic Unit (T.W., E.K.)
eDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, and Gertner Institute for Epidemiology and Health Policy Research (E.K.), Sheba Medical Center, Tel HaShomer, Israel
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for E. Katorza
T. Ziv-Baran
bSchool of Public Health (T.Z.-B.), Sackler Faculty of Medicine, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for T. Ziv-Baran
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • Responses
  • References
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The fetal subarachnoid space size serves as an indicator of normal brain development. The subarachnoid space is commonly measured by an ultrasound examination. Introduction of MR imaging for fetal brain evaluation enables standardization of MR imaging–driven subarachnoid space parameters for a more accurate evaluation. This study aimed to determine the normal range of MR imaging–derived subarachnoid space size in fetuses according to gestational age.

MATERIALS AND METHODS: A cross-sectional study based on a retrospective assessment of randomly selected brain MR images of apparently healthy fetuses performed between 2012 and 2020 at a large tertiary medical center was performed. Demographic data were collected from the mothers’ medical records. Subarachnoid space size was measured at 10 reference points using the axial and coronal planes. Only MR imaging scans obtained between weeks 28 and 37 of pregnancy were included. Scans with low-quality images, multiple pregnancy, and cases with intracranial pathologic findings were excluded.

RESULTS: Overall, 214 apparently healthy fetuses were included (mean maternal age, 31.2 [SD, 5.4] years). Good interobserver and intraobserver agreement was observed (intraclass correlation coefficient > 0.75 for all except 1 parameter). For each gestational week, the 3rd, 15th, 50th, 85th, and 97th percentiles of each subarachnoid space measurement were described.

CONCLUSIONS: MR imaging–derived subarachnoid space values at a specific gestational age provide reproducible measurements, probably due to the high resolution of MR imaging and adherence to the true radiologic planes. Normal values for brain MR imaging could provide valuable reference information for assessing brain development, thus being an important tool in the decision-making process of both clinicians and parents.

ABBREVIATIONS:

GA
gestational age
ICC
intraclass correlation coefficient
SAS
subarachnoid space
US
ultrasound

The subarachnoid space (SAS) is located between the arachnoid membrane and the pia mater. Trabecular delicate connective tissue and intercommunicating channels containing CSF fill this space.1⇓⇓-4 Normally, the cavity is small. An enlarged cavity is associated with CNS malformations and syndromes, including macrocephaly, communicating hydrocephalus, brain atrophy, and benign enlargement of the SASs.2⇓-4 A normal-sized SAS reflects normal brain development with intact production and absorption of CSF. Assessment of macrocephaly resulting from macrocrania, hydrocephalus, or SAS abnormality5,6 is based on the occipitofrontal circumference and defined as a head circumference of 2 SDs above the mean or the 98th percentile for gestational age (GA).7 Evaluation of head circumference is also important for indicating the need for a cesarean delivery when the increased head circumference may impair vaginal delivery.8 Previous studies reported measurements of the SAS in neonates, infants, and children, using different imaging methods such as ultrasound (US),9⇓⇓⇓⇓-14 CT,15⇓-17 and MR imaging.18 Only a few studies have described the range of the normal SAS at the prenatal period, which was measured by transabdominal US,19,20 transvaginal US,9,21 and in only one study by MR imging.22

There are some technical limitations for the US examinations. Pilu et al20 reported that after 29 weeks of pregnancy, the Sylvian cistern could not be detected as a fluid-filled space; after 30–32 weeks, a decreased size of the fetal cisterns and the increased calcification of the fetal calvaria make it difficult to precisely evaluate the SAS.18,20 Transabdominal US is associated with technical difficulties in obtaining the coronal planes. Corbacioglu Esmer et al9 described the normal SAS value of 154 fetuses, though it was possible to evaluate the sinocortical width in only 88% of fetuses and the anterior craniocortical width in only in 78% of fetuses. Malinger et al21 reported a better ability to evaluate the SAS using transvaginal US and concluded that dilation of the SAS alerts obstetricians to a possible intracranial pathology requiring further investigation. Later, they described a limited measurement accuracy of the head circumference of prenatal US and demonstrated an inconsistency between prenatal and postnatal head circumferences.19 Yaniv et al23 reported discrepancy in fetal head biometry between US and MR imaging performed in fetuses with suspected microcephalus. These reports are consistent with the known advantages and disadvantages of the US compared with the MR imaging examination of the fetal brain.23 To the best of our knowledge, a wide-scale evaluation of the normal measurements of the SAS is still unavailable. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to establish normal values of the SAS in the fetal brain measured using MR imaging during 28–37 gestational weeks.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Research Design and Subjects

A cross-sectional study based on a retrospective assessment of randomly selected brain MR images of apparently healthy fetuses obtained at 28–37 weeks of pregnancy was performed. All scans were obtained between 2012 and 2020 at Sheba Medical Center, a large tertiary referral, university-affiliated medical center. Demographic data were collected from mothers’ medical records. Only good-quality images in terms of alignment, sharpness, and well-defined planes were included.

Approximately 20 scans were selected for each week of pregnancy. GA at MR imaging was calculated from the last menstruation and as corrected by the crown-rump length measured on an US performed in the first trimester. Women with multiple pregnancy and cases with intracranial pathologic findings at MR imaging that may indicate a CNS abnormality were excluded from the study. Fetuses with isolated mild extracranial anomalies, maternal cytomegalovirus infection without evidence of fetal involvement, and healthy fetuses with a maternal history of anomalies in previous gestations were included, as was acceptable in similar studies.24,25 For fetuses that underwent multiple MR imaging, only 1 scan was included.

MR Imaging Technique

Fetal brain MR images were obtained using a 1.5T system (Optima MR450w with GEM Suite; GE Healthcare). Examination protocol consisted of single-shot fast spin-echo T2-weighted images in 3 orthogonal planes. T1-weighted fast-spoiled gradient-echo sequences in the axial plane using a half-Fourier technique (number of excitations = 0.53) were performed with the following parameters: section thickness of 3 mm, no gap, flexible coil (8-channel cardiac coil). The FOV was determined by the size of the fetal head with a range of 240 × 240 mm to 300 × 300 mm; acquisition time was between 40 and 45 seconds with matrix = 320/224, TE = 90 ms, TR = 1298 ms, pixel bandwidth = 122 Hz/pixel; specific absorption rate values = 1.1–1.7 W/kg. DWI sequence and the calculated ADC map were included.25,26

Measurements

Each MR imaging examination was routinely read by 2 expert physicians to detect any abnormality. Measurements of the SAS size, which was identified by a high signal (white color) at T2-weighted imaging, were analyzed manually by a single reader (A.W.) on the PACS reading workstation. Measurements were recorded in 2D slices. The SAS was measured in millimeters, in 4 locations of the axial section (Fig 1), and in 6 locations of the coronal section (Fig 2). All measurements were obtained at the level of midinsula from the cortex to the internal margin of the cranium as shown in Figs 1 and 2: axial section - right frontal gyrus, left frontal gyrus, right insula gyrus, left insula gyrus; coronal section - right frontal gyrus, left frontal gyrus, right insula gyrus, left insula gyrus, right inferior temporal gyrus, and left inferior temporal gyrus.

FIG 1.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
FIG 1.

Axial T2-weighted fetal brain image demonstrating the measurements of the subarachnoid space: 1) Right frontal gyrus. 2) Left frontal gyrus. 3) Right insula gyrus. 4) Left insula gyrus.

FIG 2.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
FIG 2.

Coronal T2-weighted fetal brain image demonstrating the measurements of the subarachnoid space: 1) Right frontal gyrus. 2) Left frontal gyrus. 3) Right insula gyrus. 4) Left insula gyrus. 5) Right inferior temporal gyrus. 6) Left inferior temporal gyrus.

For the evaluation of interobserver agreement, 40 random fetuses (3–4 cases per each gestational week) were remeasured by another operator (T.W.).

A previous study showed that the SAS was not associated with fetal sex.9 Therefore, fetuses whose sex could not be determined were also included in the study.

Statistical Methods

The intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) was used to evaluate the intraobserver and interobserver agreement. Intraclass correlation values were considered according to previously published threshold values. Intraclass correlation values of <0.5, between 0.5 and 0.75, between 0.75 and 0.9, and >0.90 were considered poor, moderate, good, and excellent reliability, respectively.27 A histogram and a quantile-quantile plot were applied to define the distribution of each SAS measurement. Measurement percentiles were generated using the Generalized Additive Model for Location, Scale, and Shape. Models for normal or log-normal distributions with cubic spline smoothing were built. The paired samples t test and Mann-Whitney test were used to compare the left and right sides. All statistical analyses were performed with R statistical and computing software (Version 4.1.0, 2021; http://www.r-project.org/).

Ethics Approval

The study was approved by the institutional review board. Informed consent was waived because of the retrospective nature of the study.

RESULTS

Two hundred fourteen fetuses who had met the inclusion criteria were measured; 101 fetuses were male, 70 were female, and for 43 fetuses, sex was not recorded. The mean maternal age was 31.2 (SD, 5.4) years. The number of fetuses analyzed in each gestational week ranged between 19 and 26 (Online Supplemental Data).

Forty random fetuses were remeasured to evaluate the intra- and interobserver agreement. Overall, good intra- and interobserver agreement was observed. Excellent, good, and moderate intraobserver agreement was observed in 4, 5, and 1 measurement, respectively. Similarly, excellent, good, and moderate interobserver agreement was observed in 2, 6, and 2 measurements, respectively. ICC values are presented in the Table.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup

Intraobserver and interobserver agreement

The fetuses’ measurements were used to evaluate the SAS percentiles. Percentiles according to GA are detailed in the Online Supplemental Data, while the 3rd, 15th, 50th, 85th, and 97th percentiles are summarized in Online Supplemental Data and presented in Figs 3 and 4.

FIG 3.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
FIG 3.

A nomogram presenting the SAS size (millimeters) in the axial plane according to the 3rd, 15th, 50th, 85th, 97th percentiles and GA (weeks). A, Right frontal. B, Left frontal. C, Right insula; D, Left insula.

FIG 4.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
FIG 4.

A nomogram presenting the SAS size (millimeters) in the coronal plane according to 3rd, 15th, 50th, 85th, 97th percentiles, and GA (weeks): A, Right frontal. B, Left frontal. C, Right insula, D, Left insula. E, Right inferior temporal. F, Left inferior temporal.

Figure 3 shows an increase in the axial left and right frontal space up to a GA of 31 weeks, with a decrease at a higher GA. Figure 4 demonstrates measurements of the coronal left and right insula, which reached the highest values at 31 weeks of pregnancy and sharply decreased at higher GAs. Measurements of the right and left insula in both axial and coronal views showed a small increase at 32 weeks of pregnancy but can be considered constant in all GAs analyzed.

There were no significant differences between left- and right-sided measurements in the axial section of the frontal location (P = .893) as well as the coronal section of the insula (P = .610) and inferior temporal space (P = .975). Nonclinical-but-statistically significant differences were observed in axial section at the insula (mean difference = 0.14 mm, P = .007) and in the coronal section at the frontal location (mean difference = 0.05 mm, P = .002).

DISCUSSION

MR imaging is considered the most exact noninvasive technique to assess structures of the developing brains of fetuses.28,29 A systematic review revealed that MR imaging confirmed US-positive findings in 65.4% of the fetuses and provided additional information for about 22.1% of the fetuses. MR imaging gave additional information that changed the clinical management in 30% of fetuses. The review also reported a sensitivity of 97% (95% CI, 95%–98%) and specificity of 70% (95% CI, 58%–81%) in the MR images.30 The ability of MR imaging to detect brain abnormalities that had not been found during US examinations increases the use of MR imaging. The ability of MR imaging to accurately demonstrate the SAS measurements makes it essential to widely determine the normal values of the SAS.

To date, only Watanabe et al22 reported an MR imaging evaluation of the healthy fetal SAS in 2005. The data by Watanabe et al on SAS MR imaging measurements were published more than 15 years ago, and since then, MR imaging technology has evolved to higher resolutions. Moreover, Watanabe et al evaluated the SAS measurement at 3 locations only (frontal, parietal, and cisterna magna). Therefore, there are limited data on the normal size of the SAS, and most of the previous research was based on US examinations. In MR imaging, T2-weighted images provide an accurate demonstration of the CSF within the SAS, which enables more precise measurements.22 Hence, the current study aimed to define MR imaging–derived measurements of the SAS in fetuses with apparently normal brains, in an attempt to provide normal valuable reference data for the SAS during the pregnancy.

In an attempt to compare available literature, we found that MR imaging has provided similar data for SAS measurements and a good agreement with previously published data.22 As mentioned above, the previous study used 3 reference areas only (frontal SAS in an axial scan, parietal SAS in an axial scan, and the cisterna magna in a sagittal scan), while the current study uses 10 well-demarcated anatomic measurements.22

The distribution of CSF across the brain is uneven; therefore, a measurement of 10 well-established anatomic points enables a precise assessment of brain development. The 10 locations for measurements enable overcoming artifacts caused by movement and better assessment of the SAS.

US examination is a real-time, safe exploration and has been a low-cost means of diagnosis for many years. The image quality of the US is operator-dependent and can be hampered by maternal obesity, decreased amniotic fluid, fetal positioning, and calvarial ossification. In addition, its relative lack of diagnostic specificity usually requires MR imaging detection of US abnormalities.31 Transabdominal and transvaginal US depict the SAS measurements in 2 axial sections only (sinocortical and craniocortical width).9,21 The use of MR imaging for evaluation of the fetal brain, especially for fetuses with suspected abnormalities on US, provides an additional accurate measurement of SAS dimensions and calls for a standardized nomenclature of a normal-width fetal SAS. Measurements of the SAS are important parameters to evaluate possible CNS abnormalities. The measurements of the SAS are independent of laterality, as previously described.9,21,22

Our study has several limitations. First, it includes a retrospective random sample of MR images obtained in a single medical center. However, this is a tertiary referral, university-affiliated medical center that performs a large volume of MR images each year. Second, intraobserver and interobserver changes may have an impact on study results. Therefore, intraobserver and interobserver agreement have been evaluated before the nomograms were built. Third, we could not evaluate the development of the children to exclude those with impaired development. Hence, we referred to the study population as apparently healthy. Fourth, because our medical center is a referral center, usually only a small percentage of the women who underwent MR imaging at our medical center also give birth there. Therefore, of the 214 studied fetuses, only 72 (33.6%) were born at our medical center, and almost all neonates were considered healthy at birth (5-minute Apgar, ≥8, 98.6%; birth at ≥37 weeks, 87.5%; normal length of hospitalization, 93.1%; emergency cesarean delivery, 0%). Fifth, because fetal brain MR images are usually obtained at 28+ weeks of pregnancy, only a few scans at <28 weeks of pregnancy were available; thus, normal values could not be achieved for this GA.

CONCLUSIONS

The increased use of MR imaging for the diagnosis of fetal brain pathologies requires a standardization of the normal anatomic development. Using normal values may help to make uniform the way the physicians read the scans. This work provides percentiles of 10 SAS anatomic measurements of apparently healthy fetal brains according to the GA.

Footnotes

  • E. Kotorza and T. Ziv-Baran contributed equally to this work.

  • Disclosure forms provided by the authors are available with the full text and PDF of this article at www.ajnr.org.

References

  1. 1.↵
    1. Mortazavi MM,
    2. Quadri SA,
    3. Khan MA, et al
    . Subarachnoid trabeculae: a comprehensive review of their embryology, histology, morphology, and surgical significance. World Neurosurg 2018;111:279–90 doi:10.1016/j.wneu.2017.12.041 pmid:29269062
    CrossRefPubMed
  2. 2.↵
    1. Barkovich MJ,
    2. Li Y,
    3. Desikan RS, et al
    . Challenges in pediatric neuroimaging. Neuroimage 2019;185:793–801 doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2018.04.044 pmid:29684645
    CrossRefPubMed
  3. 3.↵
    1. Piatt JH Jr.
    Unexpected findings on brain and spine imaging in children. Pediatr Clin North Am 2004;51:507–27 doi:10.1016/S0031-3955(03)00214-1 pmid:15062682
    CrossRefPubMed
  4. 4.↵
    1. Suara RO,
    2. Trouth AJ,
    3. Collins M
    . Benign subarachnoid space enlargement of infancy. J Natl Med Assoc 2001;93:70–73 pmid:12653385
    PubMed
  5. 5.↵
    1. Biran-Gol Y,
    2. Malinger G,
    3. Cohen H, et al
    . Developmental outcome of isolated fetal macrocephaly. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2010;36:147–53 doi:10.1002/uog.7585 pmid:20178112
    CrossRefPubMed
  6. 6.↵
    1. Marcdante KJ,
    2. Kliegman RM,
    3. Schuh AM, eds.
    Nelson Essentials of Pediatrics, Ninth Edition. Elsevier; 2022:6
  7. 7.↵
    1. Nellhaus G
    . Head circumference from birth to eighteen years: practical composite international and interracial graphs. Pediatrics 1968;41:106–14 doi:10.1542/peds.41.1.106 pmid:5635472
    CrossRefPubMed
  8. 8.↵
    1. Burke N,
    2. Burke G,
    3. Breathnach F, et al
    ; Perinatal Ireland Research Consortium. Prediction of cesarean delivery in the term nulliparous woman: results from the prospective, multicenter Genesis study. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2017;216:598.e1–11 doi:10.1016/j.ajog.2017.02.017 pmid:28213060
    CrossRefPubMed
  9. 9.↵
    1. Corbacioglu Esmer A,
    2. Yuksel A,
    3. Aksu Uzunhan T, et al
    . Evaluation of fetal subarachnoid space using transabdominal ultrasonography and normal values during pregnancy. Springerplus 2016;5:1439 doi:10.1186/s40064-016-3121-5 pmid:27652015
    CrossRefPubMed
  10. 10.↵
    1. Frankel DA,
    2. Fessell DP,
    3. Wolfson WP
    . High resolution sonographic determination of the normal dimensions of the intracranial extraaxial compartment in the newborn infant. J Ultrasound Med 1998;17:411–15; quiz 417–18 doi:10.7863/jum.1998.17.7.411 pmid:9669298
    Abstract
  11. 11.↵
    1. Govaert P,
    2. Pauwels W,
    3. Vanhaesebrouck P, et al
    . Ultrasound measurement of the subarachnoid space in infants. Eur J Pediatr 1989;148:412–13 doi:10.1007/BF00595899 pmid:2646128
    CrossRefPubMed
  12. 12.↵
    1. Lam WW,
    2. Ai VH,
    3. Wong V, et al
    . Ultrasonographic measurement of subarachnoid space in normal infants and children. Pediatr Neurol 2001;25:380–84 doi:10.1016/s0887-8994(01)00349-6 pmid:11744312
    CrossRefPubMed
  13. 13.↵
    1. Libicher M,
    2. Tröger J
    . US measurement of the subarachnoid space in infants: normal values. Radiology 1992;184:749–51 doi:10.1148/radiology.184.3.1509061 pmid:1509061
    CrossRefPubMed
  14. 14.↵
    1. Narli N,
    2. Soyupak S,
    3. Yildizdaş HY, et al
    . Ultrasonographic measurement of subarachnoid space in normal term newborns. Eur J Radiol 2006;58:110–12 doi:10.1016/j.ejrad.2005.11.007 pmid:16406435
    CrossRefPubMed
  15. 15.↵
    1. Fukuyama Y,
    2. Miyao M,
    3. Ishizu T, et al
    . Developmental changes in normal cranial measurements by computed tomography. Dev Med Child Neurol 1979;21:425–32 doi:10.1111/j.1469-8749.1979.tb01645.x pmid:520691
    CrossRefPubMed
  16. 16.↵
    1. Kleinman PK,
    2. Zito JL,
    3. Davidson RI, et al
    . The subarachnoid spaces in children: normal variations in size. Radiology 1983;147:455–57 doi:10.1148/radiology.147.2.6601281 pmid:6601281
    CrossRefPubMed
  17. 17.↵
    1. Pedersen H,
    2. Gyldensted M,
    3. Gyldensted C
    . Measurement of the normal ventricular system and supratentorial subarachnoid space in children with computed tomography. Neuroradiology 1979;17:231–37 doi:10.1007/BF00337531 pmid:314607
    CrossRefPubMed
  18. 18.↵
    1. McArdle CB,
    2. Richardson CJ,
    3. Nicholas DA, et al
    . Developmental features of the neonatal brain: MR imaging, Part II: ventricular size and extracerebral space. Radiology 1987;162:230–34 doi:10.1148/radiology.162.1.3786768 pmid:3786768
    CrossRefPubMed
  19. 19.↵
    1. Malinger G,
    2. Lev D,
    3. Ben-Sira L, et al
    . Can syndromic macrocephaly be diagnosed in utero? Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2011;37:72–81 doi:10.1002/uog.8799 pmid:20734344
    CrossRefPubMed
  20. 20.↵
    1. Pilu G,
    2. De Palma L,
    3. Romero R, et al
    . The fetal subarachnoid cisterns: an ultrasound study with report of a case of congenital communicating hydrocephalus. J Ultrasound Med 1986;5:365–72 doi:10.7863/jum.1986.5.7.365 pmid:3522926
    Abstract
  21. 21.↵
    1. Malinger G,
    2. Lerman-Sagie T,
    3. Achiron R, et al
    . The subarachnoid space: normal fetal development as demonstrated by transvaginal ultrasound. Prenat Diagn 2000;20:890–93 doi:10.1002/1097-0223(200011)20:11<890::AID-PD945>3.0.CO;2-Z
    CrossRefPubMed
  22. 22.↵
    1. Watanabe Y,
    2. Abe S,
    3. Takagi K, et al
    . Evolution of subarachnoid space in normal fetuses using magnetic resonance imaging. Prenat Diagn 2005;25:1217–22 doi:10.1002/pd.1315 pmid:16353268
    CrossRefPubMed
  23. 23.↵
    1. Yaniv G,
    2. Katorza E,
    3. Tsehmaister Abitbol V, et al
    . Discrepancy in fetal head biometry between ultrasound and MRI in suspected microcephalic fetuses. Acta Radiol 2017;58:1519–27 doi:10.1177/0284185117698865 pmid:28304179
    CrossRefPubMed
  24. 24.↵
    1. Kertes I,
    2. Hoffman D,
    3. Yahal O, et al
    . The normal fetal cavum septum pellucidum in MR imaging: new biometric data. Eur J Radiol 2021;135:109470 doi:10.1016/j.ejrad.2020.109470 pmid:33338761
    CrossRefPubMed
  25. 25.↵
    1. Ber R,
    2. Bar-Yosef O,
    3. Hoffmann C, et al
    . Normal fetal posterior fossa in MR imaging: new biometric data and possible clinical significance. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2015;36:795–802 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A4258 pmid:25655869
    Abstract/FREE Full Text
  26. 26.↵
    1. Polat A,
    2. Barlow S,
    3. Ber R, et al
    . Volumetric MRI study of the intrauterine growth restriction fetal brain. Eur Radiol 2017;27:2110–18 doi:10.1007/s00330-016-4502-4 pmid:27491875
    CrossRefPubMed
  27. 27.↵
    1. Koo TK,
    2. Li MY
    . A guideline of selecting and reporting intraclass correlation coefficients for reliability research. J Chiropr Med 2016;15:155–63 doi:10.1016/j.jcm.2016.02.012 pmid:27330520
    CrossRefPubMed
  28. 28.↵
    1. Choudhri AF
    . Pediatric Neuroradiology. Thieme; 2016
  29. 29.↵
    1. Garel C
    . MRI of the Fetal Brain: Normal Development and Cerebral Pathologies. Springer; 2004
  30. 30.↵
    1. Rossi AC,
    2. Prefumo F
    . Additional value of fetal magnetic resonance imaging in the prenatal diagnosis of central nervous system anomalies: a systematic review of the literature. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2014;44:388–93 doi:10.1002/uog.13429 pmid:24890732
    CrossRefPubMed
  31. 31.↵
    1. Nagaraj UD,
    2. Kline-Fath BM
    . Clinical applications of fetal MRI in the brain. Diagnostics (Basel) 2022;12:764 doi:10.3390/diagnostics12030764 pmid:35328317
    CrossRefPubMed
  • Received February 11, 2023.
  • Accepted after revision April 4, 2023.
  • © 2023 by American Journal of Neuroradiology
PreviousNext
Back to top
Advertisement
Print
Download PDF
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on American Journal of Neuroradiology.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Subarachnoid Space Measurements in Apparently Healthy Fetuses Using MR Imaging
(Your Name) has sent you a message from American Journal of Neuroradiology
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the American Journal of Neuroradiology web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Cite this article
A. Wandel, T. Weissbach, E. Katorza, T. Ziv-Baran
Subarachnoid Space Measurements in Apparently Healthy Fetuses Using MR Imaging
American Journal of Neuroradiology May 2023, DOI: 10.3174/ajnr.A7864

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
0 Responses
Respond to this article
Share
Bookmark this article
Subarachnoid Space Measurements in Apparently Healthy Fetuses Using MR Imaging
A. Wandel, T. Weissbach, E. Katorza, T. Ziv-Baran
American Journal of Neuroradiology May 2023, DOI: 10.3174/ajnr.A7864
del.icio.us logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One
Purchase

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • ABBREVIATIONS:
    • MATERIALS AND METHODS
    • RESULTS
    • DISCUSSION
    • CONCLUSIONS
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • Responses
  • References
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • No citing articles found.
  • Crossref (4)
  • Google Scholar

This article has been cited by the following articles in journals that are participating in Crossref Cited-by Linking.

  • An Association Between Fetal Subarachnoid Space and Various Pathologies Using MR Imaging
    Lior Onn-Margalit, Tal Weissbach, Michal Gafner, Shalev Fried, Ayelet Wandel, Tomer Ziv-Baran, Eldad Katorza
    Diagnostics 2024 14 22
  • Diagnosis of fetal transverse facial cleft by magnetic resonance imaging negative interval scanning sequence: a case report
    L. Chang, L. Shi
    International Journal of Radiation Research 2025 23 1
  • Ermittlung von Normalwerten für den fetalen SAR mit MRT-Bildgebung
    Neuroradiologie Scan 2023 13 04
  • MR Imaging of Neurofluids in the Developing Brain
    Nivedita Agarwal, Willemijn Klein, Ruth O’Gorman Tuura
    Neuroimaging Clinics of North America 2025 35 2

More in this TOC Section

  • SyMRI & MR Fingerprinting in Brainstem Myelination
  • Comparison of Image Quality and Radiation Dose in Pediatric Temporal Bone CT Using Photon-Counting Detector CT and Energy-Integrating Detector CT
  • Neonatal Hypocalcemia: Cerebral MRI Abnormalities
Show more Pediatrics

Similar Articles

Advertisement

Indexed Content

  • Current Issue
  • Accepted Manuscripts
  • Article Preview
  • Past Issues
  • Editorials
  • Editor's Choice
  • Fellows' Journal Club
  • Letters to the Editor
  • Video Articles

Cases

  • Case Collection
  • Archive - Case of the Week
  • Archive - Case of the Month
  • Archive - Classic Case

Special Collections

  • AJNR Awards
  • ASNR Foundation Special Collection
  • Most Impactful AJNR Articles
  • Photon-Counting CT
  • Spinal CSF Leak Articles (Jan 2020-June 2024)

More from AJNR

  • Trainee Corner
  • Imaging Protocols
  • MRI Safety Corner

Multimedia

  • AJNR Podcasts
  • AJNR Scantastics

Resources

  • Turnaround Time
  • Submit a Manuscript
  • Submit a Video Article
  • Submit an eLetter to the Editor/Response
  • Manuscript Submission Guidelines
  • Statistical Tips
  • Fast Publishing of Accepted Manuscripts
  • Graphical Abstract Preparation
  • Imaging Protocol Submission
  • Evidence-Based Medicine Level Guide
  • Publishing Checklists
  • Author Policies
  • Become a Reviewer/Academy of Reviewers
  • News and Updates

About Us

  • About AJNR
  • Editorial Board
  • Editorial Board Alumni
  • Alerts
  • Permissions
  • Not an AJNR Subscriber? Join Now
  • Advertise with Us
  • Librarian Resources
  • Feedback
  • Terms and Conditions
  • AJNR Editorial Board Alumni

American Society of Neuroradiology

  • Not an ASNR Member? Join Now

© 2025 by the American Society of Neuroradiology All rights, including for text and data mining, AI training, and similar technologies, are reserved.
Print ISSN: 0195-6108 Online ISSN: 1936-959X

Powered by HighWire