Skip to content
Licensed Unlicensed Requires Authentication Published by De Gruyter May 20, 2014

Effect of assisted reproductive technology on fetal brain development assessed by prenatal ultrasonography

  • Linliang Yin , Yongle Xu , Hong Li , Chen Ling , Kwong Wai Choy , Fei Xia and Xuedong Deng EMAIL logo


Aims: The aim was to evaluate whether assisted reproductive technology (ART) affects the development of the fetal central nervous system (CNS).

Methods: This study was carried out on women with singleton pregnancies, including 427 women who became pregnant by ART and 32,859 women with natural conceptions (NCs). The cavum septum pellucidum (CSP) width, transverse cerebellar diameter (TCD), cisterna magna (CM) depth, and lateral ventricle width were measured by ultrasound for 72 normal ART fetuses and 201 normal NC fetuses. The malformation rate of CNS was determined for both groups.

Results: In both groups, significant positive correlations with gestational age were found for CSP width (ART: r=0.7841, NC: r=0.7864; P<0.0001) and for TCD (ART: r=0.7698, NC: r=0.6926; P<0.0001). However, neither CM depth nor lateral ventricle width showed a significant correlation with gestational age. None of the measured parameters showed a statistically significant difference between the two groups. The CNS malformation detection rate was 1.2% (5/427) in ART fetuses and 0.9% (296/32,859) in NC fetuses. It did not reach statistical significance (P>0.05).

Conclusions: The development and malformation rate of the fetal CNS is not significantly different between ART and NC fetuses, thus, ART does not affect the development of the fetal brain.

Corresponding author: Xuedong Deng, Center for Medical Ultrasound, Suzhou Hospital Affiliated to Nanjing Medical University, 26 Daoqian Street, Suzhou, Jiangsu Province, China, Tel./Fax: +86 051262362332, E-mail:


We are grateful for the cooperation and support from all of our study participants. We would like to express our great appreciation to Professor Fei Xia from the First Affiliated Hospital of Soochow University for her original conception of the study. We thank Directors Qing Liang, Wei Lu, Xiaoli Jiang, Hongmei Chang, and Yaqi Tang for their support. We thank Drs. Hong Liang, Wei Jiang, Lingling Sun, Zhong Yang, Jingling Zhou, and Bing Lu for sample collection. Thanks to all other members in the Center for Medical Ultrasound for their support. We also thank Dr. Qin Zhang from the Reproductive Genetics Center for the follow-up and karyotype analysis data, and Director Feng Fan for the biopsy report of fetuses.


[1] Almog B, Gamzu R, Achiron R, Fainaru O, Zalel Y. Fetal lateral ventricular width: what should be its upper limit? A prospective cohort study and reanalysis of the current and previous data. J Ultrasound Med. 2003;22:39–43.10.7863/jum.2003.22.1.39Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[2] American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine. AIUM practice guideline for the performance of obstetric ultrasound examinations. J Ultrasound Med. 2010;29:157–66.10.7863/jum.2010.29.1.157Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[3] Anderson PJ, Doyle LW. Cognitive and educational deficits in children born extremely preterm. Semin Perinatal. 2008;32:51–8.10.1053/j.semperi.2007.12.009Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[4] Aslan M, Dogan M, Celik O, Karsavuran N, Dogan DG, Botan E, et al. Comparison of brain apparent diffusion coefficient value in naturally and assisted conceived newborns. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2012;25:2762–5.10.3109/14767058.2012.703713Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[5] Ceelen M, van Weissenbruch MM, Vermeiden JP, van Leeuwen FE, Delemarre-van de Waal HA. Growth and development of children born after in vitro fertilization. Fertil Steril. 2008;90:1662–73.10.1016/j.fertnstert.2007.09.005Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[6] Cheung AP. Assisted reproductive technology: both sides now. J Reprod Med. 2006;51:283–92.Search in Google Scholar

[7] Davies MJ, Moore VM, Willson KJ, Van Essen P, Priest K, Scott H, et al. Reproductive technologies and the risk of birth defects. N Engl J Med. 2012;366:1803–13.10.1056/NEJMoa1008095Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[8] Edwards RG, Steptoe PC, Purdy JM. Establishing full-term human pregnancies using cleaving embryos grown in vitro. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1980;87:737–56.10.1111/j.1471-0528.1980.tb04610.xSearch in Google Scholar PubMed

[9] Falco P, Gabrielli S, Visentin A, Perolo A, Pilu G, Bovicelli L. Transabdominal sonography of the cavum septum pellucidum in normal fetuses in the second and third trimesters of pregnancy. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2000;16:549–53.10.1046/j.1469-0705.2000.00244.xSearch in Google Scholar PubMed

[10] Goldbeck L, Gagsteiger F, Mindermann I, Ströbele S, Izat Y. Cognitive development of singletons conceived by intracytoplasmic sperm injection or in vitro fertilization at age 5 and 10 years. J Pediatr Psychol. 2009;34:774–81.10.1093/jpepsy/jsn120Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[11] Haddad S, Peleg D, Matilsky M, Ben-Ami M. Cerebral lateral ventricular atrial diameter of male and female fetuses at 20–24 weeks’ gestation. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2001;18:155–6.10.1046/j.1469-0705.2001.00418.xSearch in Google Scholar PubMed

[12] Hansen M, Bower C, Milne E, de Klerk N, Kurinczuk JJ. Assisted reproductive technologies and the risk of birth defects–a systematic review. Hum Reprod. 2005;20:328–38.10.1093/humrep/deh593Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[13] Hansen M, Kurinczuk JJ, Milne E, de Klerk N, Bower C. Assisted reproductive technology and birth defects: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Hum Reprod Update. 2013;19:330–53.10.1093/humupd/dmt006Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[14] Hosseinzadeh K, Luo J, Borhani A, Hill L. Non-visualisation of cavum septi pellucidi: implication in prenatal diagnosis? Insights Imaging. 2013;4:357–67.10.1007/s13244-013-0244-xSearch in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

[15] Jou HJ, Shyu MK, Wu SC, Chen SM, Su CH, Hsieh FJ. Ultrasound measurement of the fetal cavum septi pellucidi. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 1998;12:419–21.10.1046/j.1469-0705.1998.12060419.xSearch in Google Scholar PubMed

[16] Kallen B, Finnstrom O, Lindam A, Nilsson E, Nygren KG, Otterblad Olausson P. Trends in delivery and neonatal outcome after in vitro fertilization in Sweden: data for 25 years. Hum Reprod. 2010;25:1026–34.10.1093/humrep/deq003Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[17] Leibovitz Z, Haratz KK, Malinger G, Shapiro I, Pressman C. Fetal posterior fossa dimensions: normal and anomalous development assessed in mid-sagittal cranial plane by three-dimensional multiplanar sonography. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2014;43:147–53.10.1002/uog.12508Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[18] Mahony BS, Callen PW, Filly RA, Hoddick WK. The fetal cisterna magna. Radiology. 1984;153:773–6.10.1148/radiology.153.3.6387792Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[19] Neri QV, Takeuchi T, Palermo GD. An update of assisted reproductive technologies results in the United States. Ann NY Acad Sci. 2008;1127:41–8.10.1196/annals.1434.017Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[20] Oteruelo F. On the cavum septi pellucidi and the cavum Vergae. Anatomischer Anzeiger. 1986;162:271–8.Search in Google Scholar

[21] Paladini D, Volpe P. Ultrasound of congenital fetal anomalies. London: Informa Healthcare UK; 2007. p. 11–62.10.1201/b13793Search in Google Scholar

[22] Pinborg A, Henningsen AK, Malchau SS, Loft A. Congenital anomalies after assisted reproductive technology. Fertil Steril. 2013;99:327–32.10.1016/j.fertnstert.2012.12.001Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[23] Pinborg A, Wennerholm UB, Romundstad LB, Loft A, Aittomaki K, Söderström-Anttila V, et al. Why do singletons conceived after assisted reproduction technology have adverse perinatal outcome? Systematic review and meta-analysis. Hum Reprod Update. 2013;19:87–104.10.1093/humupd/dms044Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[24] Räisänen S, Randell K, Nielsen HS, Gissler M, Kramer MR, Klemetti R, et al. Socioeconomic status affects the prevalence, but not the perinatal outcomes, of in vitro fertilization pregnancies. Hum Reprod. 2013;28:3118–25.10.1093/humrep/det307Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[25] Reefhuis J, Honein MA, Schieve LA, Correa A, Hobbs CA, Rasmussen SA, et al. Assisted reproductive technology and major structural birth defects in the United States. Hum Reprod. 2008;24:360–6.10.1093/humrep/den387Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[26] Scott DE, Bergevin M. Fine structural correlates of the choroid plexus of the lateral cerebral ventricle of the human fetal brain. Anat Rec A Discov Mol Cell Evol Biol. 2005;282:8–12.Search in Google Scholar

[27] Serhatlioglu S, Kocakoc E, Kiris A, Sapmaz E, Boztosun Y, Bozgeyik Z. Sonographic measurement of the fetal cerebellum, cisterna magna, and cavum septum pellucidum in normal fetuses in the second and third trimesters of pregnancy. J Clin Ultrasound. 2003;31:194–200.10.1002/jcu.10163Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[28] Tao G, Yew DT, Gu T, Liu S, Ma Z, Zhan X, et al. Sex-related differences in the anteroposterior diameter of the foetal cisterna magna. Clin Radiol. 2008;63:1015–8.10.1016/j.crad.2008.02.007Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[29] Vinkesteijn AS, Mulder PG, Wladimiroff JW. Fetal transverse cerebellar diameter measurements in normal and reduced fetal growth. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2000;15:47–51.10.1046/j.1469-0705.2000.00024.xSearch in Google Scholar PubMed

[30] Winter TC, Kennedy AM, Byrne J, Woodward PJ. The cavum septi pellucidi: why is it important? J Ultrasound Med. 2010;29:427–44.10.7863/jum.2010.29.3.427Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[31] Zalel Y, Yagel S, Achiron R, Kivilevich Z, Gindes L. Three- dimensional ultrasonography of the fetal vermis at 18 to 26 weeks’ gestation: time of appearance of the primary fissure. J Ultrasound Med. 2009;28:1–8.10.7863/jum.2009.28.1.1Search in Google Scholar PubMed

The authors stated that there are no conflicts of interest regarding the publication of this article.

Received: 2014-1-20
Accepted: 2014-4-10
Published Online: 2014-5-20
Published in Print: 2015-1-1

©2015 by De Gruyter

Downloaded on 7.6.2023 from
Scroll to top button