产前超声检查“软指标”与“硬指标”的临床解读与管理

梁爽, 常颖

中国实用妇科与产科杂志 ›› 2026, Vol. 42 ›› Issue (2) : 154-157.

PDF(999 KB)
PDF(999 KB)
中国实用妇科与产科杂志 ›› 2026, Vol. 42 ›› Issue (2) : 154-157. DOI: 10.19538/j.fk2026020107
专题笔谈

产前超声检查“软指标”与“硬指标”的临床解读与管理

作者信息 +

Clinical interpretation and management of ultrasound “soft indicators” and “hard indicators”in prenatal ultrasound examination

Author information +
文章历史 +

摘要

产前超声检查是胎儿结构筛查与评估的重要手段。随着分辨率的提升与循证医学的积累,超声指标已从经验性识别演变为基于风险分层的精细化管理工具。“硬指标”作为结构性畸形的直接证据,是启动侵入性产前诊断与多学科诊疗的明确指征;而“软指标”属于轻微的超声表现,其临床意义的解读高度依赖于是否孤立存在、母体背景风险及相关的分子遗传学检测结果等。进入分子医学时代后,随着无创产前筛查、染色体微阵列技术以及高通量测序技术等的广泛应用,临床医生应了解和掌握如何构建“影像识别-风险分层-分子诊断-预后评估-个体化咨询”的整合式诊疗范式,学会如何从影像的静态识别走向循证量化、从静态异常记录走向系统性病理推理。

Abstract

Prenatal ultrasound examination is an important means for screening and evaluating fetal structures. With the improvement in resolution and the accumulation of evidence-based medicine,ultrasound indicators have evolved from empirical identification to refined management tools based on risk stratification. "Hard markers" serve as direct evidence of structural malformations and are clear indications for initiating invasive prenatal diagnosis and multidisciplinary treatment. "Soft markers", on the other hand,represent minor ultrasound manifestations,and the interpretation of their clinical significance is highly dependent on whether they occur in isolation,the background risk of the mother,and the results of related molecular genetic testing.On entering the era of molecular medicine,with the widespread application of non-invasive prenatal screening,chromosomal microarray technology,and high-throughput sequencing technology,clinicians should understand and master how to construct an integrated diagnosis and treatment model of "image recognition-risk stratification-molecular diagnosis-prognosis assessment-individualized counseling",and learn how to move from static image recognition to evidence-based quantification and from abnormal static records to systematic pathological reasoning.

关键词

产前超声 / 软指标 / 硬指标 / 遗传学检测 / 风险分层管理

Key words

prenatal ultrasound / soft markers / hard makers / genetic testing / risk stratification management

引用本文

导出引用
梁爽, 常颖. 产前超声检查“软指标”与“硬指标”的临床解读与管理[J]. 中国实用妇科与产科杂志. 2026, 42(2): 154-157 https://doi.org/10.19538/j.fk2026020107
LIANG Shuang, CHANG Ying. Clinical interpretation and management of ultrasound “soft indicators” and “hard indicators”in prenatal ultrasound examination[J]. Chinese Journal of Practical Gynecology and Obstetrics. 2026, 42(2): 154-157 https://doi.org/10.19538/j.fk2026020107
中图分类号: R714.5   

参考文献

[1]
Mangla M, Kumar N. First trimester ultrasound soft markers in a fetus:genetic associations and diagnostic implications[J]. Matern Fetal Med, 2025, 7(4):244-255. DOI:10.1097/FM9.0000000000000301.
Advances in prenatal screening have significantly improved the early detection of fetal anomalies and chromosomal abnormalities. Among these, first-trimester soft markers have emerged as valuable indicators of potential adverse outcomes. This review explores the clinical relevance of key markers—including increased nuchal translucency (NT), nasal bone hypoplasia, tricuspid regurgitation, aberrant right subclavian artery, and abnormal ductus venosus flow—and their associations with aneuploidy, structural malformations, and pregnancy complications such as preeclampsia and fetal growth restriction. We emphasize the importance of interpreting soft markers within a comprehensive clinical context, rather than in isolation, and examine their underlying pathophysiological mechanisms and associated statistical risks. Particular attention is given to the integration of soft marker findings with advanced screening techniques, including cell-free DNA (cfDNA) testing and maternal serum biochemistry, to improve diagnostic accuracy. In addition, we review current recommendations for clinical management, such as the use of follow-up diagnostic procedures like chorionic villus sampling or amniocentesis, and the role of multidisciplinary counselling in high-risk pregnancies. Future research should aim to validate novel soft markers and promote the standardization of screening protocols to enhance maternal and fetal outcomes.
[2]
American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists' Committee on Practice Bulletins—Obstetrics, Committee on Genetics, Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine. Screening for fetal chromosomal abnormalities:ACOG practice bulletin,number 226[J]. Obstet Gynecol, 2020, 136(4):e48-e69. DOI:10.1097/AOG.0000000000004084.
[3]
Alluhaybi AA, Altuhaini K, Ahmad M. Fetal ventriculomegaly:a review of literature[J]. Cureus, 2022, 14(2):e22352. DOI:10.7759/cureus.22352.
[4]
Kagan KO, Hoopmann M, Sonek J. Second trimester soft markers:still worth to be mentioned?[J]. Arch Gynecol Obstet, 2025, 311(5):1233-1240. DOI:10.1007/s00404-025-08021-7.
[5]
Giorgione V, Haratz KK, Constantini S, et al. Fetal cerebral ventriculomegaly:What do we tell the prospective parents?[J]. Prenat Diagn, 2022, 42(13):1674-1681. DOI:10.1002/pd.6266.
Fetal cerebral ventriculomegaly is a relatively common finding, observed during approximately 1% of obstetric ultrasounds. In the second and third trimester, mild (≥10 mm) and severe ventriculomegaly (≥15 mm) are defined according to the measurement of distal lateral ventricles that is included in the routine sonographic examination of central nervous system. A detailed neurosonography and anatomy ultrasound should be performed to detect other associated anomalies in the central nervous system and in other systems, respectively. Fetal MRI might be useful when neurosonography is unavailable or suboptimal. The risk of chromosomal and non‐chromosomal genetic disorders associated with ventriculomegaly is high, therefore invasive genetic testing, including microarray, is recommended. Screening for prenatal infections, in particular cytomegalovirus and toxoplasmosis, should also be carried out at diagnosis. The prognosis is determined by the severity of ventriculomegaly and/or by the presence of co‐existing abnormalities. Fetal ventriculoamniotic shunting in progressive isolated severe ventriculomegaly is an experimental procedure. After delivery, ventricular‐peritoneal shunting or ventriculostomy are the two available options to treat hydrocephalus in specific conditions with similar long‐term outcomes. A multidisciplinary fetal neurology team, including perinatologists, geneticists, pediatric neurologists, neuroradiologists and neurosurgeons, can provide parents with the most thorough prenatal counseling. This review outlines the latest evidence on diagnosis and management of pregnancies complicated by fetal cerebral ventriculomegaly.
[6]
Di Mascio D, Sileo FG, Khalil A, et al. Role of magnetic resonance imaging in fetuses with mild or moderate ventriculomegaly in the era of fetal neurosonography:systematic review and meta-analysis[J]. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol, 2019, 54(2):164-171. DOI:10.1002/uog.20197.
To report the rate of additional central nervous system (CNS) anomalies detected exclusively on prenatal magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in fetuses diagnosed with isolated mild or moderate ventriculomegaly (VM) on ultrasound, according to the type of ultrasound protocol adopted (dedicated neurosonography vs standard assessment of the fetal brain), and to explore whether the diagnostic performance of fetal MRI in detecting such anomalies is affected by gestational age at examination and laterality and degree of ventricular dilatation.MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and Clinicaltrials.gov were searched for studies reporting on the prenatal MRI assessment of fetuses diagnosed with isolated mild or moderate VM (ventricular dilatation of 10-15 mm) on ultrasound. Additional anomalies detected only on MRI were classified as callosal, septal, posterior fossa, white matter, intraventricular hemorrhage, cortical, periventricular heterotopia, periventricular cysts or complex malformations. The rate of additional anomalies was compared between fetuses diagnosed on dedicated neurosonography, defined as a detailed assessment of the fetal brain, according to the International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology guidelines, and those diagnosed on standard fetal brain assessment. The rate of additional CNS anomalies missed on prenatal MRI and detected only at birth was calculated and compared between fetuses that had early (at or before 24 weeks' gestation) and those that had late (after 24 weeks) MRI. Subanalysis was performed according to the laterality (uni- vs bilateral) and degree (mild vs moderate, defined as ventricular dilatation of 10-12 and 13-15 mm, respectively) of ventricular dilatation. Whether MRI assessment led to a significant change in prenatal management was explored. Random-effects meta-analysis of proportions was used.Sixteen studies (1159 fetuses) were included in the systematic review. Overall, MRI detected an anomaly not identified on ultrasound in 10.0% (95% CI, 6.2-14.5%) of fetuses. However, when stratifying the analysis according to the type of ultrasound assessment, the rate of associated anomalies detected only on MRI was 5.0% (95% CI, 3.0-7.0%) when dedicated neurosonography was performed compared with 16.8% (95% CI, 8.3-27.6%) in cases that underwent a standard assessment of the fetal brain in the axial plane. The overall rate of an additional anomaly detected only at birth and missed on prenatal MRI was 0.9% (95% CI, 0.04-1.5%) (I, 0%). There was no difference in the rate of an associated anomaly detected only after birth when fetal MRI was carried out before, compared with after, 24 weeks of gestation (P = 0.265). The risk of detecting an associated CNS abnormality on MRI was higher in fetuses with moderate than in those with mild VM (odds ratio, 8.1 (95% CI, 2.3-29.0); P = 0.001), while there was no difference in those presenting with bilateral, compared with unilateral, dilatation (P = 0.333). Finally, a significant change in perinatal management, mainly termination of pregnancy owing to parental request, following MRI detection of an associated anomaly, was observed in 2.9% (95% CI, 0.01-9.8%) of fetuses undergoing dedicated neurosonography compared with 5.1% (95% CI, 3.2-7.5%) of those having standard assessment.In fetuses undergoing dedicated neurosonography, the rate of a CNS anomaly detected exclusively on MRI is lower than that reported previously. Early MRI has an excellent diagnostic performance in identifying additional CNS anomalies, although the findings from this review suggest that MRI performed in the third trimester may be associated with a better detection rate for some types of anomaly, such as cortical, white matter and intracranial hemorrhagic anomalies. Copyright © 2018 ISUOG. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.Copyright © 2018 ISUOG. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
[7]
Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine(SMFM), Monteagudo A, Kuller JA, et al. Mild fetal ventriculomegaly:diagnosis,evaluation,and management[J]. Am J Obstet Gynecol, 2018, 219(1):B2-B9. DOI:10.1016/j.ajog.2018.04.039.
[8]
Li X, Hu T, Xiao X. Expert consensus on fetal ventriculomegaly:evidence-based recommendations for 23 key clinical questions[J]. Front Pediatr, 2025, 13:1678359. DOI:10.3389/fped.2025.1678359.
Fetal ventriculomegaly (VM), defined as an atrial diameter ≥10 mm, is one of the most frequently identified central nervous system anomalies on prenatal imaging. This expert consensus aims to address current gaps and inconsistencies in the prenatal diagnosis and management of fetal VM by providing evidence-based, graded recommendations across five key domains: diagnosis and etiology, systematic evaluation, antenatal management, delivery considerations, and short- and long-term prognosis.
[9]
Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine(SMFM), Prabhu M, Kuller JA, et al. Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine Consult Series #57:Evaluation and management of isolated soft ultrasound markers for aneuploidy in the second trimester:(Replaces Consults #10,Single umbilical artery,October 2010;#16,Isolated echogenic bowel diagnosed on second-trimester ultrasound,August 2011;#17,Evaluation and management of isolated renal pelviectasis on second-trimester ultrasound,December 2011;#25,Isolated fetal choroid plexus cysts,April 2013;#27,Isolated echogenic intracardiac focus,August 2013)[J]. Am J Obstet Gynecol, 2021, 225(4):B2-B15. DOI:10.1016/j.ajog.2021.06.079.
[10]
Spingler T, Sonek J, Hoopmann M, et al. Importance of a detailed anomaly scan after a cfDNA test indicating fetal trisomy 21,18 or 13[J]. Arch Gynecol Obstet, 2024, 310(2):749-755. DOI:10.1007/s00404-023-07311-2.
To investigate the effect of the presence or absence of fetal anomalies and soft markers diagnosed by ultrasound on positive predictive value (PPV) 21, 18 and 13 in pregnancies with a high-risk cfDNA result.
[11]
Pan L, Wu J, Liang D, et al. Association analysis between chromosomal abnormalities and fetal ultrasonographic soft markers based on 15,263 fetuses[J]. Am J Obstet Gynecol MFM, 2023, 5(10):101072. DOI:10.1016/j.ajogmf.2023.101072.
[12]
Jones HE, Battaglia S, Hurt L, et al. Echogenic intracardiac foci detection and location in the second-trimester ultrasound and association with fetal outcomes:A systematic literature review[J]. PLoS One, 2024, 19(4):e0298365. DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0298365.
Echogenic Intracardiac Foci (EIF) are non-structural markers identified during the routine 18–20-week foetal anomaly ultrasound scan yet their clinical significance on future outcomes for the infant is unclear.
[13]
Agathokleous M, Chaveeva P, Poon LC, et al. Meta-analysis of second-trimester markers for trisomy 21[J]. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol, 2013, 41(3):247-261. DOI:10.1002/uog.12364.
To summarize by meta-analysis the accumulated data on the screening performance of second-trimester sonographic markers for fetal trisomy 21.We conducted a literature search to identify studies between 1995 and September 2012 that provided data on the incidence of sonographic markers in trisomy 21 and euploid fetuses at 14-24 weeks' gestation. Weighted independent estimates of detection rate, false-positive rate and positive and negative likelihood ratios (LR) of markers were calculated.A total of 48 studies was included in the analysis. The pooled estimates of positive and negative LR were, respectively: 5.83 (95% CI, 5.02-6.77) and 0.80 (95% CI, 0.75-0.86) for intracardiac echogenic focus; 27.52 (95% CI, 13.61-55.68) and 0.94 (95% CI, 0.91-0.98) for ventriculomegaly; 23.30 (95% CI, 14.35-37.83) and 0.80 (95% CI, 0.74-0.85) for increased nuchal fold; 11.44 (95% CI, 9.05-14.47) and 0.90 (95% CI, 0.86-0.94) for hyperechogenic bowel; 7.63 (95% CI, 6.11-9.51) and 0.92 (95% CI, 0.89-0.96) for mild hydronephrosis; 3.72 (95% CI, 2.79-4.97) and 0.80 (95% CI, 0.73-0.88) for short femur; 4.81 (95% CI, 3.49-6.62) and 0.74 (95% CI, 0.63-0.88) for short humerus; 21.48 (95% CI, 11.48-40.19) and 0.71 (95% CI, 0.57-0.88) for aberrant right subclavian artery (ARSA); and 23.27 (95% CI, 14.23-38.06) and 0.46 (95% CI, 0.36-0.58) for absent or hypoplastic nasal bone. The combined negative LR, obtained by multiplying the values of individual markers, was 0.13 (95% CI, 0.05-0.29) when short femur but not short humerus was included and 0.12 (95% CI, 0.06-0.29) when short humerus but not short femur was included.The presence of sonographic markers increases, and absence of such markers decreases, the risk for trisomy 21. In the case of most isolated markers there is only a small effect on modifying the pre-test odds for trisomy 21, but with ventriculomegaly, nuchal fold thickness and ARSA there is a 3-4-fold increase in risk and with hypoplastic nasal bone a 6-7-fold increase.Copyright © 2012 ISUOG. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
[14]
Lee RS, Cendron M, Kinnamon DD, et al. Antenatal hydronephrosis as a predictor of postnatal outcome:a meta-analysis[J]. Pediatrics, 2006, 118(2):586-593. DOI:10.1542/peds.2006-0120.
OBJECTIVE.Antenatal hydronephrosis is diagnosed in 1% to 5% of all pregnancies; however, the antenatal and postnatal management of hydronephrosis varies widely. No previous studies define the risk of postnatal pathology in infants with antenatal hydronephrosis. Our objective was to review the current literature to determine whether the degree of antenatal hydronephrosis and related antenatal ultrasound findings are associated with postnatal outcome.
[15]
Kim U, Jung YM, Oh S, et al. Chromosomal microarray analysis in fetuses with ultrasonographic soft markers:a meta-analysis of the current evidence[J]. J Korean Med Sci, 2024, 39(8):e70. DOI:10.3346/jkms.2024.39.e70.
[16]
Huang Y, Liu C, Ding H, et al. Exome sequencing in fetuses with short long bones detected by ultrasonography:A retrospective cohort study[J]. Front Genet, 2023, 14:1032346. DOI:10.3389/fgene.2023.1032346.
Background: Prenatal diagnosis of fetal short long bones (SLBs) was reported to be associated with skeletal dysplasias, chromosomal abnormalities, and genetic syndromes. This study aims to identify the genetic causes for fetal short long bones, and retrospectively evaluate the additional diagnostic yield of exome sequencing (ES) for short long bones following the use of conventional genetic testing.
[17]
Xie X, Su L, Li Y, et al. Single nucleotide polymorphism array (SNP-array) analysis for fetuses with abnormal nasal bone[J]. Arch Gynecol Obstet, 2024, 309(6):2475-2482. DOI:10.1007/s00404-023-07122-5.
[18]
陆尧胜, 李致远, 白杰云, 等. 人工智能在产科全孕程管理中的应用与展望[J]. 中国实用妇科与产科杂志, 2026, 42(1):124-128.DOI:10.19538/j.fk2026010126.
[19]
Xue S, Liu Y, Wang L, et al. Clinical application of chromosome microarray analysis and karyotyping in prenatal diagnosis in Northwest China[J]. Front Genet, 2024, 15:1347942. DOI:10.3389/fgene.2024.1347942.
Karyotyping and chromosome microarray analysis (CMA) are the two main prenatal diagnostic techniques currently used for genetic testing. We aimed to evaluate the value of chromosomal karyotyping and CMA for different prenatal indications.
[20]
Wang Y, Yin F, Chai Y, et al. Prenatal diagnosis of fetuses with ultrasound anomalies by whole-exome sequencing in Luoyang city,China[J]. Front Genet, 2023, 14:1301439. DOI:10.3389/fgene.2023.1301439.
Background: There is a great obstacle in prenatal diagnosis of fetal anomalies due to their considerable genetic and clinical heterogeneity. Whole-exome sequencing (WES) has been confirmed as a successful option for genetic diagnosis in pediatrics, but its clinical utility for prenatal diagnosis remains to be limited.
[21]
文燕青, 漆洪波. 多学科团队诊疗——提高救治效果[J]. 中国实用妇科与产科杂志, 2024, 40(10):978-981.DOI:10.19538/j.fk2024100105.

脚注

利益冲突 所有作者均声明不存在利益冲突

基金

国家自然科学基金面上项目(82571979)
天津市工健委高层次人才项目(TJWJ2024RC017)

PDF(999 KB)

Accesses

Citation

Detail

段落导航
相关文章

/