Clinical Radiology
Volume 61, Issue 8 , Pages 679-685 , August 2006

Post-mortem MRI of the foetal spine and spinal cord

  • E. Widjaja

      Affiliations

    • Academic Section of Radiology
    • Corresponding Author InformationGuarantor and correspondent: E. Widjaja, Academic Unit of Radiology, University of Sheffield, Sheffield S10 2JF, UK. Tel.:+44 114 271 3584; fax: +44 114 271 1714.
    • ,
  • E.H. Whitby

      Affiliations

    • Academic Section of Radiology
    • ,
  • M. Cohen

      Affiliations

    • Department of Pathology, Sheffield Children's Hospital, Sheffield, UK
    • ,
  • M.N.J. Paley

      Affiliations

    • Academic Section of Radiology
    • ,
  • P.D. Griffiths

      Affiliations

    • Academic Section of Radiology

Received 20 November 2005 ,Revised 8 January 2006 ,Accepted 11 January 2006.

References 

  1. Snowdon C, Elbourne DR, Garcia J. Perinatal pathology in the context of a clinical trial: attitudes of bereaved parents. Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed. 2004;89:F208–F211
  2. Snowdon C, Elbourne DR, Garcia J. Perinatal pathology in the context of a clinical trial: attitudes of neonatologists and pathologists. Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed. 2004;89:F204–F207
  3. Griffiths PD, Variend D, Evans M, et al. Postmortem MR imaging of the fetal and stillborn central nervous system. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2003;24:22–27
  4. Widjaja E, Whitby EH, Paley MNJ, et al. Normal fetal lumbar spine on post mortem MR imaging. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2006;27:553–559
  5. Vujanic GM, Cartlidge PHT, Stewart JH. Improving the quality of perinatal and infant necroscopy examinations: a follow up study. J Clin Pathol. 1998;51:850–853
  6. The Chief Medical Officer . Report of a census of organs and tissues retained by pathology services in England. London: Department of Health, The Stationery Office; 2000;
  7. The Chief Medical Officer . The removal, retention and use of human organs and tissues from post mortem examination. London: Department of Health, The Stationery Office; 2001;
  8. Parker A. Less invasive autopsy: the place of magnetic resonance imaging. 2004 [www.publications.doh.gov.uk/cmo/progress/organretention/mri_report.pdf].
  9. Griffiths PD, Paley MNJ, Whitby EH. Post-mortem MR imaging as an alternative to fetal/neonatal autopsy: the position in 2005. Lancet. 2005;365:1271–1273
  10. Woodward PJ, Sohaey R, Jackson DP, et al. Post mortem MR imaging: comparison with findings at autopsy. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1997;168:41–46
  11. Brookes JAS, Hall-Craggs MA, Lees WR, et al. Non-invasive perinatal necroscopy by magnetic resonance imaging. Lancet. 1996;348:1139–1141
  12. Huisman TA, Wisser J, Stallmach T, et al. MRI autopsy in fetuses. Fetal Diagn Ther. 2002;17:58–64
  13. Alderliesten ME, Peringa J, van der Hulst VP, et al. Perinatal mortality: clinical value of post mortem MRI, compared with autopsy in routine obstetric practice. BJOG. 2003;110:378–382
  14. Tortori-Donati P, Rossi A, Biancheri R, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging of spinal dysraphism. Top Magn Reson Imaging. 2001;12:375–409
  15. Pang D, Dias M. Cervical myelomeningoceles. Neurosurgery. 1993;33:363–373
  16. Belmont PJ, Kuklo TR, Taylor KF, et al. Intraspinal anomalies associated with isolated congenital hemivertebra: the role of routine magnetic resonance imaging. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2004;86:1704–1710

PII: S0009-9260(06)00096-1

doi: 10.1016/j.crad.2006.01.016

Clinical Radiology
Volume 61, Issue 8 , Pages 679-685 , August 2006

Article Tools

* Image Usage & Resolution