Analysis of foci of ossification of the diaphysis of the humerus in fetuses of 20-32 weeks of gestation
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.15574/PP.2024.98.16Keywords:
humerus, ossification foci, computed tomography, fetusAbstract
Nowadays, the assessment of the length of the femur and humerus is preferred, which plays a key role in doubtful cases to determine the age of the fetus in the second or third trimester of intrauterine development.
The aim of the study was to evaluate the characteristics of ossification of the right and left humeral diaphysis in fetuses at 20-32 weeks of gestation for assessing the age of the fetus.
Materials and methods. Plain radiographs and computed tomography scans of 52 human fetuses at 20-32 weeks of gestation were analyzed to determine the characteristics of humeral ossification in human fetuses. The results of the study were statistically analyzed using Excel. The results are presented as statistical means with standard deviations. Student's t-test for independent variables and one-way analysis of variance were used to compare means.
Results. In fetuses of 20-32 weeks of gestation, the average length of ossification of the right humerus increases from 21.26±0.50 mm to 40.04±0.24 mm, and the left humerus - from 21.64±0.23 mm to 40.52±0.05 mm.
The analysis of the proximal transverse diameter of the diaphysis of the right humerus showed that in fetuses aged 20-32 weeks, this indicator increases from 3.50±0.08 mm to 6.59±0.04 mm (for the right humerus) and from 3.56±0.04 mm to 6.67±0.01 mm (for the left humerus). The cross-sectional diameter of the middle part of the diaphysis of the right humerus increases from 2.67±0.06 mm to 5.02±0.03 mm, and that of the left humerus from 2.71±0.03 mm to 5.08±0.01 mm. The transverse diameter of the distal part of the diaphysis of the right humerus increased from 3.25±0.08 mm to 6.16±0.04 mm, and the left humerus - from 3.33±0.04 mm to 6.24±0.01 mm.
Conclusions. Based on the correlation coefficient, which indicates the presence of a strong direct correlation, we can conclude that linear regression models adequately describe the dependence of the length of ossification of the humeral diaphysis, proximal transverse, middle and distal transverse diameters of the humerus on fetal age. In human fetuses aged 20-32 weeks of gestation, no sex differences were found in the morphometric parameters of the humeral ossification foci. The obtained morphometric data of the foci of ossification of the diaphysis of the humerus can be considered as normative for the corresponding weeks of gestation and can be used for the assessment of the age of the fetus and for the ultrasound diagnosis of congenital malformations.
The research was carried out in accordance with the principles of the Helsinki Declaration. The study protocol was approved by the Local Ethics Committee of the participating institution. The informed consent of the patient was obtained for conducting the studies.
No conflict of interests was declared by the authors.
References
Barkova E, Mohan U, Chitayat D, Keating S, Toi A, Frank J et al. (2015). Fetal skeletal dysplasias in a tertiary care center: radiology, pathology, and molecular analysis of 112 cases. Clin Genet. 87(4): 330-337. https://doi.org/10.1111/cge.12434; PMid:24863959
Baumgart M, Wiśniewski M, Grzonkowska M, Badura M, Dombek M et al. (2016). Morphometric study of the two fused primary ossification centers of the clavicle in the human fetus. Surg Radiol Anat. 38(8): 937-945. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00276-016-1640-y; PMid:26861013 PMCid:PMC5030228
Benacerraf BR, Neuberg D, Frigoletto FD Jr. (1991). Humeral shortening in second-trimester fetuses with Down syndrome. Obstet Gynecol. 77(2): 223-227. https://doi.org/10.1097/00006250-199102000-00012; PMid:1824870
Bober MB, Taylor M, Heinle R, Mackenzie W. (2012). Achondroplasia-hypochondroplasia complex and abnormal pulmonary anatomy. Am J Med Genet A. 158A(9): 2336-2341. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajmg.a.35530; PMid:22888019
Bonafe L, Cormier-Daire V, Hall C, Lachman R, Mortier G, Mundlos S et al. (2015). Nosology and classification of genetic skeletal disorders: 2015 revision. Am J Med Genet A. 167A(12): 2869-2892. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajmg.a.37365; PMid:26394607
Chauvin NA, Victoria T, Khwaja A, Dahmoush H, Jaramillo D. (2020). Magnetic resonance imaging of the fetal musculoskeletal system. Pediatr Radiol. 50(13): 2009-2027. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00247-020-04769-z; PMid:33252766
Chinn DH, Bolding DB, Callen PW, Gross BH, Filly RA. (1983). Ultrasonographic identification of fetal lower extremity epiphyseal ossification centers. Radiology. 147(3): 815-818. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiology.147.3.6844619; PMid:6844619
Cho SY, Jin DK. (2015). Guidelines for genetic skeletal dysplasias for pediatricians. Ann Pediatr Endocrinol Metab. 20(4): 187-191. https://doi.org/10.6065/apem.2015.20.4.187; PMid:26817005 PMCid:PMC4722157
Coqueugniot H, Weaver TD. (2007). Brief communication: infracranial maturation in the skeletal collection from Coimbra, Portugal: new aging standards for epiphyseal union. Am J Phys Anthropol. 134(3): 424-437. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajpa.20683; PMid:17632795
Dmytrenko RR, Koval OA, Andrushchak LA, Makarchuk IS, Tsyhykalo OV. (2023). Peculiarities of the identification of different types of tissues during 3d-reconstruction of human microscopic structures. Neonatology, surgery and perinatal medicine. 4(50): 125-134. https://doi.org/10.24061/2413-4260.XIII.4.50.2023.18
Donne HD Jr, Faúndes A, Tristão EG, de Sousa MH, Urbanetz AA. (2005). Sonographic identification and measurement of the epiphyseal ossification centers as markers of fetal gestational age. J Clin Ultrasound. 33(8): 394-400. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcu.20156; PMid:16240421
Gilligan LA, Calvo-Garcia MA, Weaver KN, Kline-Fath BM. (2020). Fetal magnetic resonance imaging of skeletal dysplasias. Pediatr Radiol. 50(2): 224-233. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00247-019-04537-8; PMid:31776601
Goderie T, Hendricks S, Cocchi C, Maroger ID, Mekking D, Mosnier I et al. (2023). The International Standard Set of Outcome Measures for the Assessment of Hearing in People with Osteogenesis Imperfecta. Otol Neurotol. 44(7): e449-e455. https://doi.org/10.1097/MAO.0000000000003921; PMid:37317476 PMCid:PMC10348656
Goldfisher R, Amodio J. (2015). Separation of the proximal humeral epiphysis in the newborn: rapid diagnosis with ultrasonography. Case Rep Pediatr. 2015: 825413. https://doi.org/10.1155/2015/825413; PMid:25694841 PMCid:PMC4324951
Kumari R, Yadav AK, Bhandari K, Nimmagadda HK, Singh R. (2015). Ossification centers of distal femur, proximal tibia and proximal humerus as a tool for estimating gestational age of fetuses in third trimester of pregnancy in west Indian population: an ultrasonographic study. Int J Basic Appl Med Sc. 5(2): 316-321.
Lohitkul S, Jaovisidha S, Thongchaiprasit K, Siriwongpairat P. (2001). Humeral head ossification center in congenital heart disease. J Med Assoc Thai. 84(5): 635-639.
Macedo MP, Werner H, Araujo Júnior E. (2020). Fetal skeletal dysplasias: a new way to look at them. Radiol Bras. 53(2): 112-113. https://doi.org/10.1590/0100-3984.2018.0140; PMid:32336826 PMCid:PMC7170586
Mahony BS, Bowie JD, Killam AP, Kay HH, Cooper C. (1986). Epiphyseal ossification centers in the assessment of fetal maturity: sonographic correlation with the amniocentesis lung profile. Radiology. 159(2): 521-524. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiology.159.2.3515425; PMid:3515425
Nazário AC, Tanaka CI, Novo NF. (1993). Proximal humeral ossification center of the fetus: time of appearance and the sensitivity and specificity of this finding. J Ultrasound Med. 12(9): 513-515. https://doi.org/10.7863/jum.1993.12.9.513; PMid:8107180
Nishimura G, Handa A, Miyazaki O, Tsujioka Y, Murotsuki J, Sawai H et al. (2023). Prenatal diagnosis of bone dysplasias. Br J Radiol. 96(1147): 20221025. https://doi.org/10.1259/bjr.20221025; PMid:37351952 PMCid:PMC10321247
Pazzaglia UE, Beluffi G, Benetti A, Bondioni MP, Zarattini G. (2011). A review of the actual knowledge of the processes governing growth and development of long bones. Fetal Pediatr Pathol. 30(3): 199-208. https://doi.org/10.3109/15513815.2010.524693; PMid:21355682
Pepe G, Calafiore M, Valenzise M, Corica D, Morabito L, Pajno GB et al. (2020). Bone Maturation as a Predictive Factor of Catch-Up Growth During the First Year of Life in Born Small for Gestational Age Infants: A Prospective Study. Front Endocrinol (Lausanne). 11: 147. https://doi.org/10.3389/fendo.2020.00147; PMid:32265840 PMCid:PMC7105798
Schaefer MC, Black SM. (2007). Epiphyseal union sequencing: aiding in the recognition and sorting of commingled remains. J Forensic Sci. 52(2): 277-285. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1556-4029.2006.00381.x; PMid:17316222
Snyder EJ, Moldenhauer JS, Victoria T. (2023). Prenatal Diagnosis of Skeletal Dysplasias: What Can CT Do for You? Fetal Diagn Ther. 50(2): 61-69. https://doi.org/10.1159/000528692; PMid:36948169
Stembalska A, Dudarewicz L, Śmigiel R. (2021). Lethal and life-limiting skeletal dysplasias: Selected prenatal issues. Adv Clin Exp Med. 30(6): 641-647. https://doi.org/10.17219/acem/134166; PMid:34019743
Stempfle N, Huten Y, Fredouille C, Brisse H, Nessmann C. (1999). Skeletal abnormalities in fetuses with Down's syndrome: a radiographic post-mortem study. Pediatr Radiol. 29(9): 682-688. https://doi.org/10.1007/s002470050675; PMid:10460330
Ulla M, Aiello H, Cobos MP, Orioli I, García-Mónaco R, Etchegaray A et al. (2011). Prenatal diagnosis of skeletal dysplasias: contribution of three-dimensional computed tomography. Fetal Diagn Ther. 29(3): 238-247. https://doi.org/10.1159/000322212; PMid:21212631
Werner H, Castro P, Lopes J, Ribeiro G, Araujo Júnior E. (2022). Maternal-fetal physical model: image fusion obtained by white light scanner and magnetic resonance imaging. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 35(23): 4427-4430. https://doi.org/10.1080/14767058.2020.1850682; PMid:33207976
Werner H, Rolo LC, Araujo Júnior E, Dos Santos JR. (2014). Manufacturing models of fetal malformations built from 3-dimensional ultrasound, magnetic resonance imaging, and computed tomography scan data. Ultrasound Q. 30(1): 69-75. https://doi.org/10.1097/RUQ.0000000000000048; PMid:24901782
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2024 Ukrainian Journal of Perinatology and Pediatrics
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
The policy of the Journal “Ukrainian Journal of Perinatology and Pediatrics” is compatible with the vast majority of funders' of open access and self-archiving policies. The journal provides immediate open access route being convinced that everyone – not only scientists - can benefit from research results, and publishes articles exclusively under open access distribution, with a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial 4.0 international license(СС BY-NC).
Authors transfer the copyright to the Journal “MODERN PEDIATRICS. UKRAINE” when the manuscript is accepted for publication. Authors declare that this manuscript has not been published nor is under simultaneous consideration for publication elsewhere. After publication, the articles become freely available on-line to the public.
Readers have the right to use, distribute, and reproduce articles in any medium, provided the articles and the journal are properly cited.
The use of published materials for commercial purposes is strongly prohibited.
