Developed method of three-plane magnetic resonance pelviophetometry.

Background. Magnetic resonance pelviophetometry is a highly informative, non-invasive and safe method for assessing the size of the pelvis of a pregnant woman and the fetal head, but it has several disadvantages — a long scanning time, heating of the tissues of the pregnant woman and the fetus, and operator dependence.

Objective. Evaluation of the capabilities of the three-plane 3D Dixon MR-pelviophetometry (3D MR-PFM) technique, its comparative analysis with the generally accepted method of two-plane 2D MR-pelviophetometry (2D MR-PFM).

Design and methods. A retrospective analysis was perormed out in 26 pregnant women with risk for the development clinically narrow pelvis for various reasons. Results. The data obtained using the Dixon pulse sequence is comparable to the data obtained during the standard technique.

Conclusion. The Dixon sequence can be used for the developed 3D method of MR pelviophetometry, since it allows to reduce the scanning time and, according to statistical analysis, show comparable results.

1. Mervak BM, Altun E, McGinty KA, et al. MRI in pregnancy: Indications and practical considerations. Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging. 2019; 49(3):621– 631. DOI:10.1002/jmri.26317.

2. Lum M, Tsiouris AJ. MRI safety considerations during pregnancy. Clin. Imaging 2020, 62, 69–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinimag.2020.02.007

3. Zaretsky MV, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging pelvimetry and the prediction of labor dystocia //Obstetrics & Gynecology. 2005. Vol. 106. No 5. Part 1. P. 919–926. DOI:10.1097/01.AOG.0000182575.81843.e7.

4. Ternovoy SK. Magnetic resonance pelviometry / S. K. Ternova, A. I. Volobuev, S. B. Kurinov // Med. visual. 2001. No 4. P. 6–12. In Russian

5. Stark DD, et al. Pelvimetry by magnetic resonance imaging //American journal of roentgenology. 1985. Vol. 144. No. 5. P. 947–950. DOI: 10.2214/ajr.144.5.947.

6. Spörri S, et al. Pelvimetry by magnetic resonance imaging as a diagnostic tool to evaluate dystocia // Obstetrics & Gynecology. 1997. Vol. 89. No 6. P. 902–908. DOI: 10.1016/s0029-7844(97)00148-8.

7. Westbrook K, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging. Practical guide. 2013. 228 p. In Russian

8. Franz M, Von Bismarck A, Delius M, et al. MR pelvimetry: Prognosis for successful vaginal delivery in patients with suspected fetopelvic disproportion or breech presentation at term. Arch. Gynecol. Obstet. 2017, 295, 351– 359. DOI: 10.1007/s00404-016-4276-6.

9. Li J, Lou Y, Chen C, et al. Predictive Value of MRI Pelvimetry in Vaginal Delivery and Its Practicability in Prolonged Labour — A Prospective Cohort Study. J. Clin. Med. 2023, 12, 442. DOI: 10.3390/jcm12020442.

10. Shmedyk NYu. Magnetic resonance pelvimetry in the diagnosis of anatomically and clinically narrow pelvis: dis. — Military-med. acad. them. S. M. Kirova, 2015. In Russian

11. Bychenko VG, Kulabukhova EA, Baev OR, Babich DA. Magnetic resonance pelvimetry. Obstetrics and gynecology. 2021; 9:190–198. In Russian

12. Zilber AP, Shifman EM. Obstetrics through the eyes of an anesthesiologist. «Etudes of Critical Medicine», Vol. 3. Petrozavodsk: PGU Publishing House, 1997. 397 p. In Russian

13. Bamber JH, Dresner M. Aortocaval compression in pregnancy: the effect of changing the degree and direction of lateral tilt on maternal cardiac output //Anesthesia & Analgesia. 2003. Vol. 97. No. 1. P. 256–258. DOI: 10.1213/01.ANE.0000067400.79654.30.

14. Lee AJ, Landau R. Aortocaval compression syndrome: time to revisit certain dogmas //Anesthesia & Analgesia. 2017. Vol. 125. No. 6. P. 1975–1985. DOI: 10.1213/ANE.0000000000002313.

15. Hand JW, et al. Prediction of specific absorption rate in mother and fetus associated with MRI examinations during pregnancy //Magnetic Resonance in Medicine: An Official Journal of the International Society for Magnetic Resonance in Medicine. 2006. Vol. 55. No 4. P. 883–893. DOI: 10.1002/mrm.20824.

16. Wu D, et al. Evaluations of specific absorption rate and temperature increase within pregnant female models in magnetic resonance imaging birdcage coils // IEEE Transactions on Microwave Theory and Techniques. 2006. Vol. 54. No 12. P. 4472–4478. DOI: 10.1109/TMTT.2006.884655.

17. Reiser M, Semmler W, Hricak H. Magnetic Resonance, Tomography //J Nucl Med. 2009. Vol. 50. P. 325.

18. Westbrook C, Talbot J. MRI in Practice. John Wiley & Sons, 2018.

19. Horowitz AL. MRI physics for physicians. Springer Science & Business Media, 2012.

20. Wang Z, et al. SAR and temperature: simulations and comparison to regulatory limits for MRI //Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging: An Official Journal of the International Society for Magnetic Resonance in Medicine. 2007. Vol. 26. No 2. P. 437–441. DOI: 10.1002/jmri.20977.