Differences in Origin and Outcome of Intra-Abdominal Cysts in Male and Female Fetuses.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the origin and outcome in a cohort of male and female fetuses with intra-abdominal cysts, in order to provide recommendations on management and to improve prenatal counselling. METHODS: From 2002 to 2016, intra-abdominal cysts were detected by ultrasound in 158 fetuses. Cases with an umbilical vein varix were excluded. Fetal, neonatal, and maternal characteristics were retrieved from electronic patient files. RESULTS: In female fetuses (n = 114), intra-abdominal cysts were diagnosed at a later gestational age compared with male fetuses (n = 44) (median 32.0 vs. 21.5 weeks, p < 0.001). The maximum prenatal cyst diameter was larger in female fetuses (median 35 vs. 17 mm, p < 0.001). Associated anomalies were less frequent in females (n = 15, 13.2%) compared with males (n = 15, 34.1%). In females (n = 114), most cysts were of ovarian origin (n = 81, 71.1%). Surgery was performed in 30 (26.3%) female and 15 (34.1%) male neonates (p = 0.33). Anorectal malformations were present in 6 cases and often not recognized prenatally. CONCLUSIONS: The differences in the origin of intra-abdominal cysts between male and female fetuses, resulting in differences in prenatal presentation and postnatal outcome should be taken into account in prenatal counseling within a multidisciplinary team. Evaluation of the fetal perianal muscular complex is indicated.

High resolution MRI for preoperative work-up of neonates with an anorectal malformation: a direct comparison with distal pressure colostography/fistulography.

OBJECTIVE: To compare MRI and colostography/fistulography in neonates with anorectal malformations (ARM), using surgery as reference standard. METHODS: Thirty-three neonates (22 boys) with ARM were included. All patients underwent both preoperative high-resolution MRI (without sedation or contrast instillation) and colostography/fistulography. The Krickenbeck classification was used to classify anorectal malformations, and the level of the rectal ending in relation to the levator muscle was evaluated. RESULTS: Subjects included nine patients with a bulbar recto-urethral fistula, six with a prostatic recto-urethral fistula, five with a vestibular fistula, five with a cloacal malformation, four without fistula, one with a H-type fistula, one with anal stenosis, one with a rectoperineal fistula and one with a bladderneck fistula. MRI and colostography/fistulography predicted anatomy in 88 % (29/33) and 61 % (20/33) of cases, respectively (p = 0.012). The distal end of the rectal pouch was correctly predicted in 88 % (29/33) and 67 % (22/33) of cases, respectively (p = 0.065). The length of the common channel in cloacal malformation was predicted with MRI in all (100 %, 5/5) and in 80 % of cases (4/5) with colostography/fistulography. Two bowel perforations occurred during colostography/fistulography. CONCLUSIONS: MRI provides the most accurate evaluation of ARM and should be considered a serious alternative to colostography/fistulography during preoperative work-up. KEY POINTS: • High-resolution MRI is feasible without the use of sedation or anaesthesia. • MRI is more accurate than colostography/fistulography in visualising the type of ARM. • MRI is as reliable as colostography/fistulography in predicting the level of the rectal pouch. • Colostography/fistulography can be complicated by bowel perforation.

[Guideline 'Imaging with ionizing radiation': risks, communication and shielding]. / Richtlijn 'Beeldvorming met ioniserende straling'.

The guideline 'imaging with ionizing radiation' provides information about the risks when using ionizing radiation and the communication thereabout. Because most radiological investigations are performed at one time, the chance of adverse effects, is small, even in children and pregnant women. In case of complex or multiple investigations, the medical physicist can be consulted to estimate the risks. The working group recommends using population diagrams when discussing possible risks. The working group recommends giving patients/caregivers room to express their concerns and questions. The working group advices using supporting material. The working group advocates the development of nationally uniform information material. If the patient/caregiver still has concerns, the working group recommends calling in experts such as radiologists, medical physicists, and radiographers.

The incidence of negative intraoperative findings after unsuccessful hydrostatic reduction of ileocolic intussusception in children: A retrospective analysis.

BACKGROUND: There is a lack of studies addressing the occurrence of negative intraoperative findings (that is the absence of intussusception) after an unsuccessful hydrostatic reduction of an ileocolic intussusception. The aim of this study is to determine the incidence of negative intraoperative findings after unsuccessful hydrostatic reduction of ileocolic intussusception. METHODS: We conducted a multicentre retrospective study of all children aged 0-18 years treated for ileocolic intussusception from January 1, 2010 to December 31, 2015 in 9 Dutch hospitals. Primary outcome measure was the percentage of children without an intussusception during surgical exploration after unsuccessful hydrostatic reduction. RESULTS: In the study period 436 patients were diagnosed with an ileocolic intussusception. Of these, 408 patients underwent hydrostatic reduction of an ileocolic intussusception. 112 patients (27.5%) underwent surgery after an unsuccessful hydrostatic reduction. In 13 (11.6%) patients no intraoperative evidence of intussusception was found. Patients who underwent surgical intervention after unsuccessful hydrostatic reduction were significantly younger than patients who had a successful hydrostatic reduction; there was no gender difference. CONCLUSION: A substantial number of children (11.6%) underwent a laparotomy after unsuccessful hydrostatic reduction in whom no intussusception was found intraoperatively. We suggest initiating laparoscopy instead of laparotomy when surgery is necessary. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level II.

Predictive value of clinical evaluation in the follow-up of children with a brain tumor.

BACKGROUND: During follow-up of children with a brain tumor, traditionally surveillance-imaging studies are done in addition to clinical evaluations. The purpose of this study was to determine the role of clinical evaluations by a multidisciplinary team for the detection of recurrent tumor. PROCEDURE: We retrospectively assessed the predictive value of clinical evaluation, using subsequent neuroimaging as the gold standard. Ninety-eight children with a newly diagnosed primary brain tumor were included in the study. In these patients, 393 imaging studies were done, 75 because of clinical suspicion of recurrence, and 318 for routine surveillance only. RESULTS: In 28 of these 75 imaging studies on clinical indications, a radiologic diagnosis of recurrence was made. Only 9 out of 318 routine surveillance imaging studies resulted in an unexpected diagnosis of recurrence. Thus, the overall positive predictive value of clinical evaluation was 37%; the overall negative predictive value was 97%. The negative predictive values for specific brain tumors varied from 91% (optical glioma) to 99% (primitive neuroectodermal tumors). CONCLUSIONS: An accurate multidisciplinary clinical evaluation has a very high negative predictive value. Consequently, the added value of surveillance imaging studies is limited. The role of such studies during the follow-up of children with brain tumors should be reconsidered.