ABSTRACT
The purpose of this study was to compare the role of antenatal ultrasound screening for congenital pyelectasis at term with postnatal screening. An ultrasonographic prospective study of 231 fetuses of low-risk pregnancies was performed, evaluating the renal pelvis at term (38 to 42 weeks gestation) and after birth (first and third months of life). Cut-off points used were 9 mm antenatally, and 10 and 12 mm, respectively postnatally, all in an anteroposterior view. A sensitivity of 20% and a specificity of 93.4% was obtained when comparing the antenatal versus the third-month scan, whereas when we compared the sonograms from the first versus the third month of life, we found a sensitivity of 60% and a specificity of 89.7%, with a positive predictive value of 14.7% in the first case and 25% in the second case. A p value < 0.001 was obtained when comparing the sensitivities; a p value of 0.2 was reported when comparing the specificities. Data on a comparative screening of the renal pelvis measured antenatally at term and postnatally do not exist. Although it is extremely feasible, the measurement of the fetal renal pelvis during the routine ultrasound scan at term of gestation seems of no benefit in terms of sensitivity and positive predictive values in identifying infants affected by congenital pyelectasis. Because of the low values of sensitivity obtained in our study, a screening program for the renal pelvis dilation both in fetuses and newborns cannot be recommended.
KEYWORDS
Pyelectasis - perinatal - screening
REFERENCES
-
1
Thomas D FM.
Fetal uropathy.
Br J Urol.
1990;
66
225-231
-
2
Gotoh H, Masuzaki H, Fukuda H, Yoshimura S, Ishimaru T.
Detection and assessment of pyelectasis in the fetus: relationship to postnatal renal function.
Obstet Gynecol.
1998;
92
226-231
-
3
Mathieu H, Loirat C, Macher M A et al..
Long term outcome of children with malformative uropathies.
Int J Pediatr Nephrol.
1985;
6
3-12
-
4
Beseghi U, Chiossi C, Bonacini G et al..
Ultrasound screening of urinary malformations in “normal” newborns.
Eur Urol.
1996;
30
108-111
-
5
Steinhart J M, Kuhn J P, Eisenberg B, Vaughan R L, Maggioli A J, Cozza T F.
Ultrasound screening of healthy infants for urinary tract abnormalities.
Pediatrics.
1988;
82
609-614
-
6
Podevin G, Levard G, Marechaud M, Girault F, Barret D.
Post-natal diagnostic strategy of urinary tract malformations detected by prenatal screening.
Arch Pediatr.
1997;
4
411-415
-
7
Sakuma T, Ogawa O.
[Ultrasonographic screening in healthy 3-month-old children for congenital malformations of the urinary tract.]
Nippon Hinyokika Gakkai Zasshi.
1998;
89
468-476
-
8
Scott J E, Lee R E, Hunter E W, Coulthard M G, Matthews J N.
Ultrasound screening of newborn urinary tract.
Lancet.
1991;
338
1571-1573
-
9
Wing D A, Fishman A, Gonzalez C, Paul R H.
How frequently should the amniotic fluid index be performed during the course of antepartum testing?.
Am J Obstet Gynecol.
1996;
174
33-36
-
10
McMahon M J, Kuller J A, Yankowitz J.
Assessment of the post-term pregnancy.
Am Fam Physician.
1996;
54
631-636
641-642
-
11
Farina A, Rizzo N, Di Luzio L, Paccaloni B, Visentin A, Bovicelli L.
Amniotic fluid volume and onset of labor in physiological pregnancy.
Am J Perinatol.
1999;
16
217-221
-
12
Seffah J D, Armah J O.
Amniotic fluid index for screening late pregnancies.
East Afr Med J.
1999;
76
348-351
-
13
Anderson N, Clautice-Engle T, Allan R, Abbott G, Wells J E.
Detection of obstructive uropathy in the fetus: predictive value of sonographic measurements of renal pelvic diameter at various gestational ages.
AJR Am J Roentgenol.
1995;
164
719-723
-
14
Chitty L S, Hunt G H, Moore J, Lobb M O.
Effectiveness of routine ultrasonography in detecting fetal abnormalities in a low risk population.
BMJ.
1991;
303
1165-1169
-
15
Corteville J E, Gray D L, Crane J P.
Congenital hydronephrosis: correlation of fetal ultrasonographic findings with infant outcome.
Am J Obstet Gynecol.
1991;
165
384-388
-
16
Helin I, Persson P H.
Prenatal diagnosis of urinary tract abnormalities by ultrasound.
Pediatrics.
1986;
78
879-883
-
17
Paduano L, Giglio L, Bembi B, Peratoner L, Benussi G.
Clinical outcome of fetal uropathy. II. Sensitivity of echography for prenatal detection of obstructive pathology.
J Urol.
1991;
146
1097-1098
-
18
Bosman G, Reuss A, Nijman J M, Wladimiroff J W.
Prenatal diagnosis, management and outcome of fetal ureteropelvic junction obstruction.
Ultrasound Med Biol.
1991;
17
117-120
-
19
Riccipetitoni G, Chierici R, Tamisari L et al..
Postnatal ultrasound screening of urinary malformations.
J Urol.
1992;
148
604-605
-
20
Fasolato V, Poloniato A, Bianchi C et al..
Feto-neonatal ultrasonography to detect renal abnormalities: evaluation of 1-year screening program.
Am J Perinatol.
1998;
15
161-164
-
21
Rosendahl H.
Ultrasound screening for fetal urinary tract malformations: a prospective study in general population.
Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol.
1990;
36
27-33
-
22
Adra A M, Mejides A A, Dennaoui M S, Beydoun S N.
Fetal pyelectasis: is it always “physiologic”?.
Am J Obstet Gynecol.
1995;
173
1263-1266
-
23
Stocks A, Richards D, Frentzen B, Richard G.
Correlation of prenatal renal pelvic anteroposterior diameter with outcome infancy.
J Urol.
1996;
155
1050-1052
-
24
Utikalova A.
Prenatal and postnatal ultrasonic screening in the early diagnosis and treatment of congenital developmental defects of the kidneys and urinary tract.
Rozhl Chir.
1996;
75
587-593
-
25
Nijman J M.
[Prenatal ultrasonic detection of asymptomatic urogenital abnormalities: advantages and disadvantages].
Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd.
2000;
144
310-312
-
26
Lepercq J, Beaudoin S, Bargy F.
Outcome of 116 moderate renal pelvis dilatations at prenatal ultrasonography.
Fetal Diagn Ther.
1998;
13
79-81
-
27
Cacciari A, Ruggeri G.
Relationship between prenatal and postnatal echographic diagnosis of uropathy: is mass screening useful?.
Arch Ital Urol Androl.
1996;
68(suppl)
13-17
Valentina CiardelliM.D.
Medicina dell'Età Prenatale, Ospedale S.Orsola Università degli Studi di Bologna
via Massarenti 13, 40125 Bologna, Italy
