Advertisement

Determination of Fetal Transcerebellar Diameter Nomogram in the Second Trimester

  • Raziye DesdiciogluEmail author
  • Ali Ipek
  • Kadir Desdicioglu
  • Mehmet Gumus
  • Ayse Filiz Yavuz
Original Article
  • 7 Downloads

Abstract

The aim of the study was obtain nomogram of fetal transcerebellar diameter at 18–24 weeks of gestation with known prognosis of normal pregnancies. The study included 1236 healthy fetuses in the 18th–24th gestational week of women aged from 18 to 40 years (mean: 28.70 ± 5.26). The transcerebellar diameter, bi-parietal diameter, femur length and abdominal circumference of the fetuses were measured. Additionally, groups were divided according to maternal age and according to body mass index. The transcerebellar diameter of fetuses from 18 to 24 weeks gestation varied from 18.13 ± 2.16 to 26.42 ± 1.91 mm (mean: 22.12 ± 2.57 mm). Additionally, the mean and standard deviation of transcerebellar diameter and fetal parameters were determined according to gestational week, maternal age and maternal body mass index. Later, the correlations between transcerebellar diameter with pregnancy week, maternal age, maternal body mass index and fetal parameters were examined. Transcerebellar diameter was correlated with pregnancy week and fetal parameters (p < 0.01) but was not correlated with maternal age (p > 0.01). Additionally, transcerebellar diameter and fetal parameters were determined to show negative correlation with maternal body mass index (p < 0.01). Comparison of transcerebellar diameter with pregnancy week determined differences between weeks (p < 0.05), but no differences for age groups and body mass index groups (p > 0.05). Maternal age and maternal body mass index are significant factors affecting fetal development. We believe our data related to the transcerebellar diameter obtained at the end of the study will be beneficial for assessment of fetal development and identification of fetal anomalies.

Keywords

Pregnancy Fetus Cerebellum Development Malformation Ultrasonography 

Notes

Author Contribution

RD: Project development, Manuscript writing. AI: Data Collection. KD: Manuscript writing. MG: Data Collection. AFY: Project development, Manuscript writing.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interest

There is no conflict between writers and an interesting in our study.

Ethical Approval

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors (Permission for the study was granted by Ankara Yıldırım Beyazıt University Yenimahalle Education and Research Hospital ethics committee (Date: 25.12.2018, Protocol No: 80).

References

  1. 1.
    Göynümer FG, Arısoy R, Yayla M, Durukan B. Nomogram of fetal transcerebellar diameter at 16–24th gestational weeks. J Turkish-German Gynecol Assoc. 2009;10:21–5.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Reddy RH, Prashanth K, Ajit M. Significance of foetal transcerebellar diameter in foetal biometry: a pilot study. J Clin Diagn Res. 2017;11(6):TC01–4.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Zalel Y, Seidman DS, Brand N, Lipitz S, Achiron R. The development of the fetal vermis: an in utero sonographic evaluation. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2002;19(2):136–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Chavez MR, Ananth CV, Smulian JC, Yeo L, Oyelese Y, Vintzileos AM. Fetal transcerebellar diameter measurement with particular emphasis in the third trimester: a reliable predictor of gestational age. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2004;191(3):979–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Jacquemyn Y, Sys SU, Verdonk P. Fetal transverse cerebellar diameter in different ethnic groups. J Perinat Med. 2000;28(1):14–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Chavez MR, Ananth CV, Smulian JC, Lashley S, Kontopoulos EV, Vintzileos AM. Fetal transcerebellar diameter nomogram in singleton gestations with special emphasis in the third trimester: a comparison with previously published nomograms. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2003;189(4):1021–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Chavez MR, Ananth CV, Kaminsky LM, Smulian JC, Yeo L, Vintzileos AM. Fetal transcerebellar diameter measurement for prediction of gestational age in twins. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2006;195(6):1596–600.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Holanda-Filho JA, Souza AI, Souza AS, Figueroa JN, Ferreira AL, Cabral-Filho JE. Fetal transverse cerebellar diameter measured by ultrasound does not differ between genders. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2011;284(2):299–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Malik G, Waqar F, Ghaffar A, Zaidi H. Determination of gestational age transverse cerebellar diameter in third trimester of pregnancy. J Coll Phys Surg Pak. 2006;16(4):249–52.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Vinkesteijn AS, Mulder PG, Wladimiroff JW. Fetal transverse cerebellar diameter measurements in normal and reduced fetal growth. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2000;15(1):47–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Chavez MR, Ananth CV, Smulian JC, Vintzileos AM. Fetal transcerebellar diameter measurement for prediction of gestational age at the extremes of fetal growth. J Ultrasound Med. 2007;26(9):1167–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Meyer WJ, Gauthier DW, Goldenberg B, Santolaya J, Sipos J, Cattledge F. The fetal transverse cerebellar diameter/abdominal circumference ratio: a gestational age-independent method of assessing fetal size. J Ultrasound Med. 1993;12(7):379–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Rotmensch S, Goldstein I, Liberati M, Shalev J, Ben-Rafael Z, Copel JA. Fetal transcerebellar diameter in down syndrome. Obstet Gynecol. 1997;89(4):534–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Winter TC, Ostrovsky AA, Komarniski CA, Uhrich SB. Cerebellar and frontal lobe hypoplasia in fetuses with trisomy 21: usefulness as combined US markers. Radiology. 2000;214(2):533–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hill LM, Rivello D, Peterson C, Marchese S. The transverse cerebellar diameter in the second trimester is unaffected by down syndrome. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1991;164:101–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Vinkesteijn AS, Jansen CL, Los FJ, Mulder PG, Wladimiroff JW. Fetal transcerebellar diameter and chromosomal abnormalities. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2001;17(6):502–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Society of Fetal Medicine 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Faculty of MedicineAnkara Yıldırım Beyazıt UniversityAnkaraTurkey
  2. 2.Radiology ClinicAnkara Atatürk Training and Research HospitalAnkaraTurkey
  3. 3.Department of Anatomy, Faculty of MedicineAnkara Yıldırım Beyazıt UniversityAnkaraTurkey
  4. 4.Department of Radiology, Faculty of MedicineAnkara Yıldırım Beyazıt UniversityAnkaraTurkey

Personalised recommendations