Literature DB >> 19725080

New fetal weight estimation models using fractional limb volume.

W Lee1, M Balasubramaniam, R L Deter, L Yeo, S S Hassan, F Gotsch, J P Kusanovic, L F Gonçalves, R Romero.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: The main goal of this study was to determine the accuracy and precision of new fetal weight estimation models, based on fractional limb volume and conventional two-dimensional (2D) sonographic measurements during the second and third trimesters of pregnancy.
METHODS: A prospective cross-sectional study of 271 fetuses was performed using three-dimensional ultrasonography to extract standard measurements-biparietal diameter (BPD), abdominal circumference (AC) and femoral diaphysis length (FDL)-plus fractional arm volume (AVol) and fractional thigh volume (TVol) within 4 days of delivery. Weighted multiple linear regression analysis was used to develop 'modified Hadlock' models and new models using transformed predictors that included soft tissue parameters for estimating birth weight. Estimated and observed birth weights were compared using mean percent difference (systematic weight estimation error) and the SD of the percent differences (random weight estimation error). The proportion of newborns with estimated birth weight within 5 or 10% of actual birth weight were compared using McNemar's test.
RESULTS: Birth weights in the study group ranged from 235 to 5790 g, with equal proportions of male and female infants. Six new fetal weight estimation models were compared with the results for modified Hadlock models with sample-specific coefficients. All the new models were very accurate, with mean percent differences that were not significantly different from zero. Model 3 (which used the natural logarithms of BPD, AC and AVol) and Model 6 (which used the natural logarithms of BPD, AC and TVol) provided the most precise weight estimations (random error = 6.6% of actual birth weight) as compared with 8.5% for the best original Hadlock model and 7.6% for a modified Hadlock model using sample-specific coefficients. Model 5 (which used the natural logarithms of AC and TVol) classified an additional 9.1% and 8.3% of the fetuses within 5% and 10% of actual birth weight and Model 6 classified an additional 7.3% and 4.1% of infants within 5% and 10% of actual birth weight.
CONCLUSION: The precision of fetal weight estimation can be improved by adding fractional limb volume measurements to conventional 2D biometry. New models that consider fractional limb volume may offer novel insight into the contribution of soft tissue development to weight estimation. Copyright (c) 2009 ISUOG. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19725080      PMCID: PMC2784152          DOI: 10.1002/uog.7327

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol        ISSN: 0960-7692            Impact factor:   7.299


  48 in total

1.  Reduction of subcutaneous mass, but not lean mass, in normal fetuses in Denver, Colorado.

Authors:  H L Galan; S Rigano; T Radaelli; I Cetin; M Bozzo; J Chyu; J C Hobbins; E Ferrazzi
Journal:  Am J Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2001-10       Impact factor: 8.661

2.  Estimation of fetal weight by means of ultrasound: a comparison of methods.

Authors:  D W Jackson; D K Pitts; R Kushner
Journal:  J Am Osteopath Assoc       Date:  1990-12

Review 3.  The developmental origins of adult disease (Barker) hypothesis.

Authors:  Hendrina A de Boo; Jane E Harding
Journal:  Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol       Date:  2006-02       Impact factor: 2.100

4.  Weight estimation by three-dimensional ultrasound imaging in the small fetus.

Authors:  R L Schild; M Maringa; J Siemer; B Meurer; N Hart; T W Goecke; M Schmid; T Hothorn; M E Hansmann
Journal:  Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2008-08       Impact factor: 7.299

5.  How good is fetal weight estimation using volumetric methods?

Authors:  J Siemer; W Peter; H Zollver; N Hart; A Müller; B Meurer; T Goecke; R L Schild
Journal:  Ultraschall Med       Date:  2008-05-15       Impact factor: 6.548

6.  Fetal weight estimation by three-dimensional ultrasound.

Authors:  R L Schild; R Fimmers; M Hansmann
Journal:  Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2000-10       Impact factor: 7.299

Review 7.  Sonographic estimation of fetal weight based on a model of fetal volume.

Authors:  C A Combs; R K Jaekle; B Rosenn; M Pope; M Miodovnik; T A Siddiqi
Journal:  Obstet Gynecol       Date:  1993-09       Impact factor: 7.661

8.  Fetal head circumference: relation to menstrual age.

Authors:  F P Hadlock; R L Deter; R B Harrist; S K Park
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  1982-04       Impact factor: 3.959

9.  Prediction of fetal macrosomia using sonographically measured abdominal subcutaneous tissue thickness.

Authors:  B M Petrikovsky; C Oleschuk; M Lesser; N Gelertner; B Gross
Journal:  J Clin Ultrasound       Date:  1997-09       Impact factor: 0.910

10.  Fetal growth parameters and birth weight: their relationship to neonatal body composition.

Authors:  W Lee; M Balasubramaniam; R L Deter; S S Hassan; F Gotsch; J P Kusanovic; L F Gonçalves; R Romero
Journal:  Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2009-04       Impact factor: 7.299

View more
  16 in total

1.  Evidence-based recommendations for energy intake in pregnant women with obesity.

Authors:  Jasper Most; Marshall St Amant; Daniel S Hsia; Abby D Altazan; Diana M Thomas; L Anne Gilmore; Porsha M Vallo; Robbie A Beyl; Eric Ravussin; Leanne M Redman
Journal:  J Clin Invest       Date:  2019-08-01       Impact factor: 14.808

2.  Prospective validation of fetal weight estimation using fractional limb volume.

Authors:  W Lee; R Deter; H Sangi-Haghpeykar; L Yeo; R Romero
Journal:  Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2013-01-07       Impact factor: 7.299

3.  The relationship of newborn adiposity to fetal growth outcome based on birth weight or the modified neonatal growth assessment score.

Authors:  Wesley Lee; Thomas Riggs; Winston Koo; Russell L Deter; Lami Yeo; Roberto Romero
Journal:  J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med       Date:  2012-05-29

4.  Personalized third-trimester fetal growth evaluation: comparisons of individualized growth assessment, percentile line and conditional probability methods.

Authors:  Russell L Deter; Wesley Lee; Haleh Sangi-Haghpeykar; Adi L Tarca; Jia Li; Lami Yeo; Roberto Romero
Journal:  J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med       Date:  2015-09-25

5.  Fetal growth cessation in late pregnancy: its impact on predicted size parameters used to classify small for gestational age neonates.

Authors:  Russell L Deter; Wesley Lee; Haleh Sangi-Haghpeykar; Adi L Tarca; Lami Yeo; Roberto Romero
Journal:  J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med       Date:  2014-07-11

6.  A modified prenatal growth assessment score for the evaluation of fetal growth in the third trimester using single and composite biometric parameters.

Authors:  Russell L Deter; Wesley Lee; Haleh Sangi-Haghpeykar; Adi L Tarca; Lami Yeo; Roberto Romero
Journal:  J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med       Date:  2014-07-11

7.  Sex-related growth differences are present but not enhanced in in vitro fertilization pregnancies.

Authors:  Kathleen E O'Neill; Methodius Tuuli; Anthony O Odibo; Randall R Odem; Amber Cooper
Journal:  Fertil Steril       Date:  2013-11-09       Impact factor: 7.329

8.  Body Composition During Pregnancy Differs by Obesity Class.

Authors:  Jasper Most; Abby D Altazan; Daniel S Hsia; Robbie A Beyl; Leanne M Redman
Journal:  Obesity (Silver Spring)       Date:  2019-12-31       Impact factor: 5.002

9.  Fetal weight estimation by automated three-dimensional limb volume model in late third trimester compared to two-dimensional model: a cross-sectional prospective observational study.

Authors:  Hua Meng; Yunshu Ouyang; Xining Wu; Zihan Niu; Zhonghui Xu; Yuxin Jiang; Yixiu Zhang
Journal:  BMC Pregnancy Childbirth       Date:  2021-05-08       Impact factor: 3.007

10.  The Relationship between Fetal Abdominal Wall Thickness and Intrapartum Complications amongst Mothers with Pregestational Type 2 Diabetes.

Authors:  E Paige Isabey; Christy L Pylypjuk
Journal:  J Diabetes Res       Date:  2021-05-31       Impact factor: 4.011

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.