Literature DB >> 34760517

Biparietal diameter measurements using the outer-to-outer versus outer-to-inner measurement: A question of pedantry?

Lufee Wong1, Eldho Paul2, Hamsaveni Km Murday3, Jing Fang4, Ilona Lavender4, Peter R Coombs4,5, Mark Teoh1.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To compare two methods of measuring fetal biparietal diameter (BPD) - outer-to-inner (BPDoi) vs. outer-to-outer (BPDoo) calliper placement - and to compare the differences in EFW calculated using the Hadlock 4 formula and other common EFW formulae.
METHODS: A total of 543 fetuses underwent a single ultrasound prospectively performed by 40 sonographers between 14 and 40 weeks of gestation, taking into account the intra- and inter-observer variability. The measurements for each fetus consisted of BPDoi and BPDoo, and EFW is calculated from HC, AC and FL measurements. The difference between BPDoo and BPDoi was estimated, and this difference was compared with gestational age using linear regression. Translational equations that allow interconversion of the two parameters were derived. EFW calculated from four different formulae using various combinations of biometric measurements was compared.
RESULTS: The difference between BPDoi and BPDoo increases with gestational age, although this difference was small. For BPDoo, the regression equation is BPDoo = 0.555934 + 1.027318 × BPDoi. Similarly, for BPDoi, the regression equation is BPDoi = -0.403458 + 0.9714153 × BPDoo. There is a minimal difference in the EFW calculated from the four formulae, except for gestations prior to 27-28 weeks. EFW derived from INTERGROWTH-21st formulae plot is higher than that from Hadlock 3 or Hadlock 4 before 27-28 weeks.
CONCLUSIONS: Although the absolute difference between BPDoo and BPDoi increased across gestational age, this difference was small. The method of BPD measurement should follow that as prescribed in the EFW equation used in the local context. Estimation of fetal weight using Hadlock 3, Hadlock 4 and INTERGROWTH-21st is similar, with slight differences at gestations less than 27-28 weeks.
© 2018 Australasian Society for Ultrasound in Medicine.

Entities:  

Keywords:  biometry; biparietal diameter; fetal head; measurement; ultrasound

Year:  2018        PMID: 34760517      PMCID: PMC8409806          DOI: 10.1002/ajum.12091

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Australas J Ultrasound Med        ISSN: 1836-6864


  23 in total

1.  Prediction of fetal weight by ultrasound: the contribution of additional examiners.

Authors:  I Gull; G Fait; J Har-Toov; M J Kupferminc; J B Lessing; A J Jaffa; I Wolman
Journal:  Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2002-07       Impact factor: 7.299

2.  Intra- and interobserver variability in fetal ultrasound measurements.

Authors:  I Sarris; C Ioannou; P Chamberlain; E Ohuma; F Roseman; L Hoch; D G Altman; A T Papageorghiou
Journal:  Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2012-03       Impact factor: 7.299

3.  Practice guidelines for performance of the routine mid-trimester fetal ultrasound scan.

Authors:  L J Salomon; Z Alfirevic; V Berghella; C Bilardo; E Hernandez-Andrade; S L Johnsen; K Kalache; K-Y Leung; G Malinger; H Munoz; F Prefumo; A Toi; W Lee
Journal:  Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2011-01       Impact factor: 7.299

4.  Fetal weight estimation: comparison of two-dimensional US and MR imaging assessments.

Authors:  Yasmine Kacem; Mieke M Cannie; Caroline Kadji; Oana Dobrescu; Leila Lo Zito; Samir Ziane; Brigitte Strizek; Ann-Sophie Evrard; Francesca Gubana; Léonardo Gucciardo; Romuald Staelens; Jacques C Jani
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2013-01-17       Impact factor: 11.105

5.  Charts of fetal size: 3. Abdominal measurements.

Authors:  L S Chitty; D G Altman; A Henderson; S Campbell
Journal:  Br J Obstet Gynaecol       Date:  1994-02

6.  Estimation of fetal weight with the use of head, body, and femur measurements--a prospective study.

Authors:  F P Hadlock; R B Harrist; R S Sharman; R L Deter; S K Park
Journal:  Am J Obstet Gynecol       Date:  1985-02-01       Impact factor: 8.661

7.  Sonographic estimation of fetal weight. The value of femur length in addition to head and abdomen measurements.

Authors:  F P Hadlock; R B Harrist; R J Carpenter; R L Deter; S K Park
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  1984-02       Impact factor: 11.105

8.  Scientific basis for standardization of fetal head measurements by ultrasound: a reproducibility study.

Authors:  R Napolitano; V Donadono; E O Ohuma; C L Knight; S Z Wanyonyi; B Kemp; T Norris; A T Papageorghiou
Journal:  Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2016-07       Impact factor: 7.299

9.  International estimated fetal weight standards of the INTERGROWTH-21st Project.

Authors:  J Stirnemann; J Villar; L J Salomon; E Ohuma; P Ruyan; D G Altman; F Nosten; R Craik; S Munim; L Cheikh Ismail; F C Barros; A Lambert; S Norris; M Carvalho; Y A Jaffer; J A Noble; E Bertino; M G Gravett; M Purwar; C G Victora; R Uauy; Z Bhutta; S Kennedy; A T Papageorghiou
Journal:  Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2017-03-05       Impact factor: 7.299

Review 10.  Induction of labour at or near term for suspected fetal macrosomia.

Authors:  Michel Boulvain; Olivier Irion; Therese Dowswell; Jim G Thornton
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2016-05-22
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.