Antenatal ultrasonographic findings differentiating complete from partial agenesis of the corpus callosum


      Four cases of complete (three) and partial (one) agenesis were evaluated ultrasonographically. The frontal lobe/biparietal diameter ratio were evaluated in 113 normal fetuses and compared with those ratios in fetuses with corpus callosum agenesis. In the presence of the classic ultrasonographic features of agenesis of the corpus callosum, frontal lobe shortening, along with absence of the cavum septi pellucidi, might contribute to the diagnosis of complete agenesis of the corpus callosum and distinguish it from partial agenesis. (AM J OBSTET GYNECOL 1996;174:877-8.)


      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'


      Subscribe to American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect


        • Ettlinger G.
        Agenesis of the corpus callosum.
        in: Handbook of clinical neurology. 30. : Elsevier/North Holland Bio-medical Press, Amsterdam1977: 285-297
        • Comstock CH
        • Culp D
        • Gonzalez J
        • Boal DB.
        Agenesis of the corpus callosum in the fetus: its evolution and significance.
        J Ultrasound Med. 1985; 4: 613-616
        • Meizner I
        • Barki Y
        • Hertzanu Y.
        Prenatal sonographic diagnosis of agenesis of corpus callosum.
        J Clin Ultrasound. 1987; 15: 262-264
        • Lockwood CJ
        • Ghidini A
        • Aggarwal R
        • Hobbins JC.
        Antenatal diagnosis of partial agenesis of the corpus callosum: a benign cause of ventriculomegaly.
        AM J OBSTET GYNECOL. 1988; 159: 184-186