Providing pregnant patients with an estimation of the risk  of fetal aneuploidies by first-trimester screening has become the standard of  practice in many countries worldwide. An essential part of this examination,  the so-called combined test, is the measurement of the nuchal translucency  (NT), the hypoechoic area behind the fetal neck, a risk factor for trisomy 21,  and a broad range of other chromosomal and nonchromosomal anomalies.
    Accurate measurement is required for a combined test;  however, in pregnancies undergoing NIPT, the relevant clinical information is  whether the measurement is >3.5 or 3.0 mm, depending on the threshold that  is chosen. Thus far, the measurement of the NT has always been obtained with a  median sagittal view of the fetal neck, and this requires some effort and  expertise. Authors Montaguti E, Rizzo R, Diglio J, et al aimed to evaluate  whether transverse scans, which are easier to obtain because less dependent on  the fetal position, allow the identification of an excessively enlarged NT.
    This was a prospective study enrolling a nonconsecutive  series of women who attended our outpatient clinic from January 2020 to April  2021 for combined screening and were examined by operators certified by the  Fetal Medicine Foundation. In each patient, nuchal translucency measurements were  obtained both from a median sagittal view and from a transverse view. A second  sonologist blinded to the results of the first examination obtained another  measurement to assess intermethod and interobsever reproducibility. This study  aimed to investigate the ability of a transverse view of the fetal head to  detect increased fetal nuchal translucency at 11 to 13 weeks of gestation.
    A total of 1023 women were enrolled. An excellent  correlation was found between sagittal and transverse nuchal translucency  measurements, with a mean difference of 0.01 mm (95% confidence interval, -0.01  to 0.02). No systematic difference was found between the 2 techniques. The  inter-rater reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient, 0.957; 95%  confidence interval, 0.892-0.983) and intrarater reliability (intraclass  correlation coefficient, 0.976; 95% confidence interval, 0.941-0.990) of axial  measurements were almost perfect. Transverse measurements of 3.0 mm identified  all cases with sagittal measurements of 3.0 with a specificity of 99.7%;  transverse measurements of >3.2 mm identified all cases with sagittal  measurements of 3.5 mm with a specificity of 99.7%. The time required to obtain  transverse nuchal translucency measurements was considerably shorter than for sagittal  measurements, particularly when the fetus had an unfavorable position.
    This study suggested that measurement of the NT in  transverse planes is reproducible and closely correlated with measurement in  sagittal planes. In particular, the former accurately predicts excessive values  of the latter. In 30% of fetuses, the NT could not be visualized in the  transverse view, but in all these cases, the sagittal assessment was always  within normal limits. An axial translucency of <3.0 and 3.2 mm effectively  ruled out a sagittal translucency of 3 and 3.5 mm, respectively. The presence  of internal septations was consistently associated with a sagittal NT of 3.5  mm.
    Here, an axial measurement of <3.0 and <3.2 mm  effectively ruled out a sagittal translucency 3.0 and 3.5 mm, respectively,  with very high specificity. This would allow to greatly reduce the number of  cases in which a sagittal view of the fetus needs to be obtained.
    Source: Montaguti  E, Rizzo R, Diglio J, et al. Increased nuchal translucency can be ascertained  using transverse planes. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2022;227:750.e1-6
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2022.05.057
     
 
Disclaimer: This website is primarily for healthcare professionals. The content here does not replace medical advice and should not be used as medical, diagnostic, endorsement, treatment, or prescription advice. Medical science evolves rapidly, and we strive to keep our information current. If you find any discrepancies, please contact us at corrections@medicaldialogues.in. Read our Correction Policy here. Nothing here should be used as a substitute for medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment. We do not endorse any healthcare advice that contradicts a physician's guidance. Use of this site is subject to our Terms of Use, Privacy Policy, and Advertisement Policy. For more details, read our Full Disclaimer here.
NOTE: Join us in combating medical misinformation. If you encounter a questionable health, medical, or medical education claim, email us at factcheck@medicaldialogues.in for evaluation.