Related Experiment Video
Updated: Apr 27, 2026

Author Spotlight: Enhancing Success of Ultrasound-Guided Neuraxial Anesthesia in Cases with Difficult Anatomy
Published on: January 31, 2025
Spinal ultrasound in patients with anorectal malformations: is this the end of an era?
Federico Scottoni1, Barbara Daniela Iacobelli, Antonio Maria Zaccara
1Department of Medical and Surgical Neonatology, Bambino Gesù Children's Hospital, Rome, Italy, fscottoni@msn.com.
Insights
Neonatal spinal ultrasound (US) is not a suitable screening tool for occult spinal dysraphism (SD) in infants with anorectal malformations (ARMs). The study found US has low sensitivity (14.8%) for detecting SD, despite high specificity (100%).
Area of Science:
- Pediatric Surgery
- Diagnostic Imaging
- Neonatal Neurology
Background:
- Occult spinal dysraphism (SD) is a concern in patients with anorectal malformations (ARMs).
- Lumbar magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is the gold standard for diagnosing occult SD.
- Spinal ultrasound (US) is commonly used as a screening tool for neonatal SD up to 5 months of age.
Purpose of the Study:
- To evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of neonatal spinal ultrasound (US) in detecting occult spinal dysraphism (SD).
- To determine the sensitivity and specificity of US compared to MRI in patients with anorectal malformations (ARMs).
Main Methods:
- Retrospective analysis of patients treated for ARMs between 1999 and 2013.
- Inclusion criteria: patients who underwent both spinal US (up to 5 months) and MRI.
- Sensitivity and specificity of US were calculated against MRI findings.
Main Results:
- 82 patients with ARMs underwent both US and MRI.
- 47 patients (57.3%) had occult SD confirmed by MRI.
- Spinal US detected SD in only 7 (14.8%) of these patients, with 100% specificity but low sensitivity.
Conclusions:
- Neonatal spinal ultrasound demonstrates low sensitivity (14.8%) for detecting occult spinal dysraphism in patients with ARMs.
- Despite high specificity (100%), the low sensitivity renders US unsuitable as a screening test for this condition.
- The study advises against using US as a screening tool to avoid a false sense of security for clinicians and families.
Purpose:
Even if lumbar magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is considered the gold standard in the diagnosis of occult spinal dysraphism (SD) in patients with anorectal malformations (ARMs), spinal ultrasound (US) performed up to 5 months of life have been largely used as a screening test. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the accuracy in terms of sensibility and specificity of neonatal US to detect occult SD in patients with ARMs.
Methods:
Retrospective analysis of all patients treated for ARMs between 1999 and 2013 at our institution who underwent both spinal US (up to 5 months of life) and MRI. Sensibility and specificity have been calculated for US based on MRI results.
Results:
Of 244 patients treated for ARMs at our institution, 82 (34 females, 48 males) underwent both the imaging studies and have been included in this study. ARMs types were: anal stenosis (7), recto-vestibular fistula (19), recto-perineal fistula (3) and cloaca (5) in female and imperforate anus (7) recto-perineal fistula (14), recto-urethral fistula (22), recto-vesical fistula (5) in males. Forty-seven patients (57, 3 % of total, 18 females, 29 males) had some occult SD (tethered spinal cord, spinal lipoma, syringomyelia) at MRI. Only 7 (14, 8 %) patients of those with spinal anomalies at MRI had pathological US studies. In our population, sensibility and specificity of US for diagnosis of occult SD were, respectively, 14, 8 and 100 %.
Conclusion:
Since it is well known that a screening test must have a high sensibility, our data suggest that spinal ultrasound is not suitable as a screening test for occult spinal dysraphism in patients with ARMs. Furthermore, we strongly advise against the use of US as a screening test for spinal dysraphism to prevent a false sense of security in physician and patients' families.
Related Concept Videos
Imaging Studies II: Ultrasonography
Imaging Studies IV: Magnetic Resonance Imaging
Ultrasonography
During an ultrasonography procedure, a handheld device called...
Ultrasound II: Endoscopic Ultrasound and FibroScan
Endoscopic Ultrasound (EUS):

