The application of three‐dimensional ultrasound with reformatting technique in the diagnosis of fetal cleft lip/palate. Issue 4 (4th March 2021)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Ji, Chunya; Yang, Zhong; Yin, Linliang; Deng, Xuedong; Pan, Qi; Lu, Bing; Zhang, Jun; Jiang, Wei; Jiang, Xiaoli
• Is Part Of: Journal of clinical ultrasound. Volume 49:Issue 4(2021)
• Page Start: 307
• Page End: 314
• Publication Date: 2021-03-04
• Subjects: cleft lip/palate -- reformatting technique -- secondary palate -- three‐dimensional ultrasound -- two‐dimensional ultrasound; Ultrasonics in medicine -- Periodicals; 616.07543
• DOI: 10.1002/jcu.22994
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0091-2751

Abstract

Abstract: Objective: To evaluate the clinical value of three‐dimensional ultrasound (3D‐US) with reformatting technique in the diagnosis of fetal cleft lip/palate (CL/P), especially those involving the secondary palate. Methods: A total of 113 fetuses suspected with cleft lip (CL) on two‐dimensional ultrasound (2D‐US) were further evaluated by 2D‐US and 3D‐US with reformatting technique, in order to clarify the type of oral cleft. Lesions were classified as cleft lip (CL), cleft lip and alveolus (CLA), and cleft lip and palate (CLP) (including primary and secondary palate). All fetuses were followed until birth or termination of pregnancy. The diagnostic accuracies of 2D‐US and 3D‐US with reformatting technology were compared. Results: Both 2D‐US and 3D‐US with reformatting successfully detected CLs in the final 103 participants. Among these, 29, 25, and 49 cases were confirmed to have CL, CLA, and CLP, respectively. CL, CLA, and CLP were diagnosed by 2D‐US in 34, 66, and 3 cases, respectively, and by 3D‐US with reformatting technology in 31, 27, and 45 cases, respectively. The sensitivities of 2D‐US and 3D‐US with reformatting technology in the diagnosis of CLA were 80% (20/25) and 92.0% (23/25), respectively, and the difference was not statistically significant. For CLP, however, the sensitivities were 6.1% (3/49) and 91.8% (45/49), respectively ( P < .001). Conclusions: Both 2D‐US and 3D‐US with reformatting technique have high diagnostic accuracy for CL and CLA. However, 3D‐US has a much higher diagnostic accuracy for CLP.