Literature DB >> 9239827

Incorporating sonographic cheek-to-cheek diameter, biparietal diameter and abdominal circumference improves weight estimation in the macrosomic fetus.

J S Abramowicz1, K Robischon, C Cox.   

Abstract

The objective of this study was to improve the accuracy of sonographic fetal weight estimation in macrosomic (> 4000 g) fetuses by combining the cheek-to-cheek diameter (CCD), an indicator of subcutaneous tissue mass, with the biparietal diameter (BPD) and abdominal circumference (AC) in generating a new weight formula. Three hundred well-dated, uncomplicated singleton pregnancies > 32 weeks' gestational age (GA) were analyzed. Sonographic fetal measurements obtained in every case included BPD, head circumference, AC, femur length and CCD. Sonographic estimation of fetal weight (EFW) was derived by using BPD and AC. Actual birth weights (BW) of fetuses delivered within 7 days of the last sonographic examination and weighing over 1500 g (n = 123) were compared to EFW. A formula was derived by correlating BPD, AC and CCD with BW in these 123 fetuses using multiple regression analysis. A second formula was derived from the data of 39 macrosomic fetuses. The two formulae were then tested for accuracy of prediction of fetal weight in 157 other fetuses delivered within 7 days and grouped by birth weight, 44 of them weighing > 4000 g. The new formula for macrosomic fetuses was: EFW (g) = 1065 + 84.5 BPD (cm) + 41.29 AC (cm) + 111.0 CCD (cm). In the macrosomic fetuses, a difference of < 10% between EFW and BW was demonstrated in 72.7% by the BPD-AC formula and 95.5% when incorporating CCD. In this group, the mean percentage error was significantly smaller: 4.14 vs. 7.97% (p = 0.0005). In the regression analysis, the contributions of BPD, AC and CCD to the variance in BW were 5.5%, 16%, and 18.3%, respectively (p = 0.008). In the non-macrosomic fetuses, CCD improved prediction of BW, but the trend did not reach statistical significance. Our results demonstrate that, in the macrosomic fetus, CCD explains more of the variance in BW than other parameters and incorporating it in the sonographic weight estimation greatly improves its accuracy.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1997        PMID: 9239827     DOI: 10.1046/j.1469-0705.1997.09060409.x

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


  4 in total

1.  Fetal weight estimation for prediction of fetal macrosomia: does additional clinical and demographic data using pattern recognition algorithm improve detection?

Authors:  Shimon Degani; Dori Peleg; Karina Bahous; Zvi Leibovitz; Israel Shapiro; Gonen Ohel
Journal:  J Prenat Med       Date:  2008-01

Review 2.  Defining normal and abnormal fetal growth: promises and challenges.

Authors:  Jun Zhang; Mario Merialdi; Lawrence D Platt; Michael S Kramer
Journal:  Am J Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2010-01-13       Impact factor: 8.661

3.  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

Review 4.  Newer Insights Into Fetal Growth and Body Composition.

Authors:  Satoru Ikenoue; Yoshifumi Kasuga; Toyohide Endo; Mamoru Tanaka; Daigo Ochiai
Journal:  Front Endocrinol (Lausanne)       Date:  2021-07-22       Impact factor: 5.555

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.