Literature DB >> 3283926

[Intrauterine fetal weight assessment using ultrasound. A comparison of several weight assessment methods and development of a new formula for the determination of fetal weight].

E Merz1, H Lieser, K H Schicketanz, J Härle.   

Abstract

At the Department of Gynaecology and Obstetrics of the University of Mainz, the foetal weights were estimated in 196 foetuses between 24 and 42 weeks of gestation. All estimates were based on sonographic determination 0-6 days prior to delivery. In a prospective study the equations of Hansmann, Schillinger et al., Campbell and Wilkin, Warsof et al., Shepard et al., Higginbottom et al., Thurnau et al. and an own unpublished formula of Merz were compared. In addition, with the aid of computer analysis, a new equation for predicting foetal weight was evolved from the data measured in this study. This formula should be valid for all weight groups. In 25.5% of the newborn the actual birth weights ranged from 610 to 2499 g, in 42.9% from 2500 to 3499 g and in 31.6% from 3500 to 4520 g. On comparing the individual equations for the entire study group, the most reliable formulas for estimating foetal weights were found to be those of Shepard et al. (72.4%), Hansmann (61.2%) and Merz (61.2%). In the very low birth-weight range less than 2500 g the formula of Shepard et al. proved to be the most reliable for estimating foetal weight with 72%. In the group between 2500 and 3499 g reliability in estimating foetal weight was over 60% with the equations of Shepard et al. (72.6%), Hansmann (67.9%) and Merz (61.9%). In the birth-weight group of 3500 to 4520 g the most reliable formula for predicting foetal weight was found to be that of Schillinger et al. (91.9%), Hansmann (83.9%), Shepard et al. (72.6%) and Merz (69.4%). The formula which was derived from own data was as follows: W (g) = -3200.40479 + 157.07186 AC (cm) + 15.90391 (BPD)2 (cm). With this formula we obtained 71.4% reliability in predicting foetal weight with a mean absolute weight difference of 221 g for the complete study group. Are of validity for this formula could be defined as follows: BPD 7.0-10.5 cm AC 21.8-36.5 cm (all measurements from outer to outer margin).

Mesh:

Year:  1988        PMID: 3283926     DOI: 10.1055/s-2007-1011588

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ultraschall Med        ISSN: 0172-4614            Impact factor:   6.548


  7 in total

1.  Comparison of Errors of 35 Weight Estimation Formulae in a Standard Collective.

Authors:  M Hoopmann; K O Kagan; A Sauter; H Abele; P Wagner
Journal:  Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd       Date:  2016-11       Impact factor: 2.915

2.  Ultrasound (in)accuracy: it's in the formulae not in the technique - assessment of accuracy of abdominal circumference measurement in term pregnancies.

Authors:  Erin M Nesbitt-Hawes; Emma Tetstall; Kiera Gee; Alec W Welsh
Journal:  Australas J Ultrasound Med       Date:  2015-12-31

3.  New MRI Criteria for Successful Vaginal Breech Delivery in Primiparae.

Authors:  Janine Hoffmann; Katrin Thomassen; Patrick Stumpp; Matthias Grothoff; Christoph Engel; Thomas Kahn; Holger Stepan
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2016-08-17       Impact factor: 3.240

4.  Ultrasonography-based Fetal Weight Estimation: Finding an Appropriate Model for an Indian Population.

Authors:  Sujitkumar S Hiwale; Hemant Misra; Shrutin Ulman
Journal:  J Med Ultrasound       Date:  2016-12-15

5.  Disadvantages of a weight estimation formula for macrosomic fetuses: the Hart formula from a clinical perspective.

Authors:  Christoph Weiss; Peter Oppelt; Richard Bernhard Mayer
Journal:  Arch Gynecol Obstet       Date:  2018-10-04       Impact factor: 2.344

6.  Does the Porter formula hold its promise? A weight estimation formula for macrosomic fetuses put to the test.

Authors:  Christoph Weiss; Sabine Enengl; Simon Hermann Enzelsberger; Richard Bernhard Mayer; Peter Oppelt
Journal:  Arch Gynecol Obstet       Date:  2019-12-27       Impact factor: 2.344

7.  Effective Macrosomia Prediction Using Random Forest Algorithm.

Authors:  Fangyi Wang; Yongchao Wang; Xiaokang Ji; Zhiping Wang
Journal:  Int J Environ Res Public Health       Date:  2022-03-10       Impact factor: 3.390

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.