OBJECTIVE: To study the perinatal management of fetal macrosomia (FM) and the obstetrical and neonatal results related to FM in the Ile de France area. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Case-control study from the fifteenth of July to the fifteenth of September 1999 in fifteen maternity in Paris and the Ile de France area. All singletons, without malformation, weighing more than 4,000 grams, born after 37 weeks of pregnancy during the study were included. The control group had the same inclusion and exclusion criteria (except the birth-weight) and was defined by the next delivery of same parity. RESULTS: 384 FM and 384 controls have been included. Usual risk factors of macrosomia have been found. The screening of gestational diabetes was realised in 56.8% and FM was suspected before delivery in 59.3% in the FM group. In cases of FM, the midwife was alone at the time of delivery in 53.4% of spontaneous vaginal delivery. FM was associated with a longer labour and a more frequent use of oxytocin. There was six times more severe perineal tears (1.7 vs 0.3%; p = 0.05) for women with FM whereas the rate of haemorrhage at delivery was the same in both groups. Cesarean section' rate before and during labor was higher in the FM group whereas instrumental extraction was not different. In this study, FM was not associated with an excess of fetal morbidity (injury, Apgar score, pH cord) even if we found ten times more shoulder dystocia. CONCLUSION: Complications related to FM were mainly maternal in this study. Some recommendations accounting fetal macrosomia were not widely adopted as screening of gestational diabetes or necessity to have a whole obstetric team at the time of delivery.
OBJECTIVE: To study the perinatal management of fetal macrosomia (FM) and the obstetrical and neonatal results related to FM in the Ile de France area. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Case-control study from the fifteenth of July to the fifteenth of September 1999 in fifteen maternity in Paris and the Ile de France area. All singletons, without malformation, weighing more than 4,000 grams, born after 37 weeks of pregnancy during the study were included. The control group had the same inclusion and exclusion criteria (except the birth-weight) and was defined by the next delivery of same parity. RESULTS: 384 FM and 384 controls have been included. Usual risk factors of macrosomia have been found. The screening of gestational diabetes was realised in 56.8% and FM was suspected before delivery in 59.3% in the FM group. In cases of FM, the midwife was alone at the time of delivery in 53.4% of spontaneous vaginal delivery. FM was associated with a longer labour and a more frequent use of oxytocin. There was six times more severe perineal tears (1.7 vs 0.3%; p = 0.05) for women with FM whereas the rate of haemorrhage at delivery was the same in both groups. Cesarean section' rate before and during labor was higher in the FM group whereas instrumental extraction was not different. In this study, FM was not associated with an excess of fetal morbidity (injury, Apgar score, pH cord) even if we found ten times more shoulder dystocia. CONCLUSION: Complications related to FM were mainly maternal in this study. Some recommendations accounting fetal macrosomia were not widely adopted as screening of gestational diabetes or necessity to have a whole obstetric team at the time of delivery.