Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2012 Apr;6(2):13-7.

Correlation between ultrasound diagnosis and autopsy findings of fetal malformations

Affiliations

Correlation between ultrasound diagnosis and autopsy findings of fetal malformations

Antonella Vimercati et al. J Prenat Med. 2012 Apr.

Abstract

Objective: to compare ultrasound (US) and autopsy findings of fetal malformations in second trimester terminations of pregnancy to evaluate the degree of agreement between US and fetal autopsy.

Methods: in this study, all second trimester termination of pregnancy between 2003-2010 were considered. US and autopsy findings were compared and all cases were classified into five categories according to the degree of agreement between US and pathology (A1: full agreement between US and autopsy; A2: autopsy confirmed all US findings but revealed additional anomalies 'rarely detectable' prenatally; B: autopsy demonstrated all US findings but revealed additional anomalies 'detectable' prenatally; C: US findings were only partially demonstrated at fetal autopsy; D: total disagreement between US and autopsy).

Results: 144 cases were selected. In 49% of cases there was total agreement between US and autopsy diagnosis (A1). In 22% of cases additional information were about anomalies 'not detectable' by US (A2). In 12% of cases autopsy provided additional information about anomalies not observed but 'detectable' by US (B). In 13% of cases some anomalies revealed at US, such as valve insufficiencies, pericardial and pleural effusions, were not verified at autopsy (C). Total lack of agreement was noted only in 4% of cases (D). Main areas of disagreement concerned cardiovascular, CNS and complex malformations. The degree of agreement was higher if malformations were diagnosed in a tertiary center.

Conclusions: this study shows an overall high degree of agreement between definitive US and autopsy findings in second trimester termination of pregnancy for fetal malformations. Autopsy reveals to be the best tool to diagnose malformations and often showed other abnormalities of clinical importance not detected by US, but sometimes also US could provide additional information about functional anomalies because US is a dynamic examination.

Keywords: fetal autopsy; fetal malformations; prenatal diagnosis; prenatal ultrasound.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Division of malformations according to organ system.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Division of different organs affected by malformations in the five categories.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Percentage of degree of agreement between first and definitive diagnosis according to five classes.

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Sankar VH, Phadke SR. Clinical utility of fetal autopsy and comparison with prenatal ultrasound findings. J. Perinatol. 2006;26:224–9. - PubMed
    1. Antonsson P, Sundberg A, Kublickas M, Pilo C, Ghazi S, Westgren M, Papadogiannakis N. Correlation between ultrasound and autopsy findings after 2nd trimester terminations of pregnancy. J. Perinat. Med. 2008;36:59–69. - PubMed
    1. Oztekin O, Oztekin D, Tinar S, Adibelli Z. Ultrasonographic diagnosis of fetal structural abnormalities in prenatal screening at 11–14 weeks. Diagn Interv Radiol. 2009;15:221–225. - PubMed
    1. Amini H, Antonsson P, Papadogiannakis N, Ericson K, Pilo C, Eriksson L, et al. Comparison of ultrasound and autopsy findings in pregnancies terminated due to fetal anomalies. Acta Obstet. Gynecol. Scand. 2006;85:1208–16. - PubMed
    1. Chescheir NC, Reitnauer PJ. A comparative study of prenatal diagnosis and perinatal autopsy. J. Ultrasound Med. 1994;13:451–6. - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources