Subscription Center
June 8, 2012 | 9
In 2010 a woman in Germany became the first person to give birth inside a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scanner. The results, published May 2 in European Radiology, provide an extraordinary view of what exactly happens as a baby moves through the birth canal.
The study details how the researchers adapted a regular MRI machine to hold the mother-to-be and her accoutrements. They widened the machine's mouth to make room for the obstetrician, stripped the metallic components out of a fetal heart monitor so that it could be used near the scanner's big magnet, and laid down sheeting to protect the machine from "fluid leakages."
During labor, the 24-year-old volunteer lay supine and wore earmuffs to block out the noise of the machine. As the baby's head emerged, the machine was shut off to prevent damage to its ears.*
Movement distorts MRI images, but you can't reasonably ask a woman in labor to hold still (go ahead and try it…); the sharpest images (above) were taken before and immediately after the birth. The first (a) shows the baby heading toward the birth canal, and the following images show the uterus before (b) and after (c) it expelled the afterbirth.
Researchers were able to watch the writhing contortions of the uterine muscles and the rotation of the fetus during its journey. The images revealed "how extensively the rectum and adjacent muscles are pushed against the coccyx to enable the child to pass through the birth canal," the researchers wrote.
Although they aren't recommending that doctors should adopt this technique to monitor normal births, the research paves the way for using MRI technology to understand what goes wrong during obstructed labor—including why the baby fails to move properly through the birth canal in 15 percent of vaginal deliveries.
—Sarah Fecht
* Correction (6/11/12): This sentence originally stated incorrectly that the machine was shut off before the amniotic sack broke.
See what we're tweeting about
BoraZ RT @davenuss79: Why stories make a good vehicle for science communication http://t.co/7u1ey95e7i
beatricebiology 4 wonderful reviews of my book! Yay! http://t.co/AlWssKkIjb
sciam U.S. Has Depleted Two Lake Eries' Worth Of Groundwater Since 1900 - http://t.co/1LzinNyQPJ
Deadline: Jul 15 2013
Reward: $5,000 USD
SciBX: Science-Business eXchange, a joint publication from the makers
Deadline: Jul 25 2013
Reward: Varies
This challenge provides an opportunity for Solvers to build a web-based or mobile “app” to explore data relationships in scholarly conte
Powered By: 
YES! Send me a free issue of Scientific American with no obligation to continue the subscription. If I like it, I will be billed for the one-year subscription.
9 Comments
Add CommentIt doesn't happen often that I laugh at one of your articles, but this one gave me a moment's mirth! Having given birth 5 times myself, I can just imagine anyone asking a woman in labor, even if she is a scientist, to, "Please hold still during this next contraction! We need to get better pictures!" I would also like to know how they got the dear woman's claw marks off of the inside of the machine, and what they did to treat the bruises the doctor got when his patient kicked him in the head. Just wondering ... Laughing Out Loud
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIs there some reason the SciAm article doesn't mention the names of the researchers, their papers, the hospital, or the person quoted? And why are readers not invited to read the papers for themselves, one of which happens to be available for free, along with a video?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Human birth observed in real-time open magnetic resonance imaging" by Christian Bamberg, et al.
http://www.ajog.org/article/S0002-9378(12)00023-3/fulltext
and (not yet free)
"Magnetic resonance imaging of the active second stage of labour: Proof of principle" F.V. Güttler, et al.
http://www.springerlink.com/content/m3m2n0086v634719/
Also, the article has an inaccuracy. The MRI was shut off when the baby's ears were about to be exposed, not when the woman's water broke.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI'm wondering if Sarah Fecht is actually the writer of this SciAm article. The name is down there at the bottom, but it's not on her SciAm publication list.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOn her website, she says, "I mostly write about connections... and how those connections evolve over time." That is a wonderful thing for a journalist to do, but there are no connections here-- no mention of other research that led up to this or that will come out of this. For example, I happen to know of at least one other study that aimed to compare MRI with ultrasound techniques for monitoring labor.
I stand corrected. She responded on Twitter:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Posts in the Image Gallery are usu v short posts that accompany a neat image. Theyre not mean to be full articles
But I agree, I should have linked to the paper! I usu do, but forgot this time. My apologies"
Apparently we have here an unusually thorough image caption and not a full article that's missing information. I'm glad to hear that she usually does her part for science awareness by linking to the paper. I wish more science writers would do so.
Hi everyone, thanks for the feedback! I added in the link, as you suggested, and fixed the mistake that I made. Sorry for the mix-up
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"As the baby's head emerged, the machine was shut off to prevent damage to its ears."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHaving passed several hours in the terrible racket or the scanner, this baby had a terribly stressing birth. One more victim of unaware lurker scientists. In order to avoid such abuses, please read this:
"Placenta, clitoris, foreskin, Leboyer against adults' violence"
http://circabolition.multiply.com/journal/item/345/Placenta_clitoris_foreskin_Leboyer_against_adults_violence
Was this something we real needed to see? Did it really add to the depth and breath of scientific knowledge or was it just science faddism writ large.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDid it really add to the depth and breath of scientific knowledge or was it just science faddism writ large.?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOf course it did! This is real science. This can lead to new discoveries that can help so many woman during childbirth it is unbelievable, just think of all the possibilities that can come from this research, think of what they can learn and overcome about breach births alone.
Just to ask such a question to me, you have obviously never been with a woman during child birth, it is one of the most astounding things any man can go through, I have had the pleasure, the excitement, the thrill of assisting my wife and my daughter to bring my son and grandson into the world, it is something I will never forget.