Is 3‐dimensional volume sonography an effective alternative method to the standard 2‐dimensional technique of measuring the nuchal translucency?

Purpose: To determine whether 3‐dimensional (3D) volume scanning is an effective alternative method of measuring nuchal translucency in first‐trimester fetuses compared with the standard 2‐dimensional (2D) technique, and to report a standardized method of evaluation.Methods: We measured the nuchal translucency of 29 fetuses between 11.4 and 13.9 weeks of age using the standard 2D sonographic technique with the fetus in a sagittal view. We then rescanned the fetus in a coronal orientation and obtained a 3D volume of the fetal neck area from crown to rump using a consistent technique. The sagittal orientation was reconstructed, and the width of the nuchal translucency was measured electronically using the reconstructed midsagittal view. The measurements using a conventional 2D sagittal view were then compared with the 3D reconstructed sagittal view. The nuchal translucency was adequately measured in all fetuses in which the 3D assessment was attempted.Results: The nuchal translucencies of 29 consecutive fetuses were measured using both 2D and 3D multiplanar reconstruction of the fetal neck. The mean ± standard deviation for the standard 2D assessment of the nuchal translucency was 1.7 ± 1.4 mm. Using 3D reconstruction of the Z plane, the measurement was 1.8 ± 1.6 mm. This was not a statistically significant difference ( P = 0.4). There was a very high correlation between the two techniques (r = 0.984, P < 0.001).Conclusions: There is an excellent correlation between the measurements of the nuchal translucency using standard 2D scanning and those obtained from 3D multiplanar reconstruction of the Z plane. Using a consistent technique, the nuchal translucency can be accurately and reliably measured with a 3D rendering. This technique is potentially useful in fetuses that are not in an optimal position for standard 2D nuchal translucency measurement. © 2006 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Clin Ultrasound 34:118–122, 2006