F M Chang1, R I Liang, H C Ko, B L Yao, C H Chang, C H Yu. 1. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, National Cheng Kung University Medical College and Hospital, Tainan, Taiwan. fchang@mail.ncku.edu.tw
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare the accuracy of three-dimensional ultrasound-assessed fetal thigh volumetry in predicting birth weight with that of other commonly used formulas composed of biparietal diameter (BPD), abdominal circumference (AC), and femur length (FL) by two-dimensional ultrasound. METHODS: We assessed the thigh volume of 100 fetuses using three-dimensional ultrasound. Meanwhile, their BPD, AC, and FL were measured by two-dimensional ultrasound. All infants were delivered within 48 hours after the ultrasound examinations. From polynomial regression analysis, we generated a best-fit formula for the thigh volume to predict birth weight. The accuracy of this thigh-volume formula was compared with those of three formulas commonly used in the United States. In addition, another group of 50 fetuses was measured for prospective validation. RESULTS: The high volume assessed by three-dimensional ultrasound was highly correlated with birth weight (r = 0.89, n = 100, P < .0001). The best-fit formula for thigh volume to predict birth weight was linear, and it was superior to the other commonly used two-dimensional formulas in predicting birth weight. The predicting error (0 g), percent error (0.7%), absolute error (176.1 g), and absolute percent error (5.8%) of the thigh-volume formula were all smaller than those of the other formulas (n = 100, all P < .05). In addition, the thigh-volume formula predicted birth weight more accurately than the other two-dimensional formulas in the prospective-validation group. The three-dimensional formula had smaller mean values of predicting error (38.6 g), percent error (1.5%), absolute error (160.0 g), and absolute percent error (5.1%) than the two-dimensional formulas (n = 50, all P < or = .001), as well as the smallest variances of the above errors (178.1 g, 5.6%, 84.3 g, and 2.9%, respectively). CONCLUSION: The three-dimensional ultrasound-assessed thigh volume has better accuracy in predicting birth weight than the commonly used formulas by two-dimensional ultrasound, and it may improve fetal weight prediction in clinical practice. However, a large-scale prospective validation study may be needed to confirm our conclusions.
OBJECTIVE: To compare the accuracy of three-dimensional ultrasound-assessed fetal thigh volumetry in predicting birth weight with that of other commonly used formulas composed of biparietal diameter (BPD), abdominal circumference (AC), and femur length (FL) by two-dimensional ultrasound. METHODS: We assessed the thigh volume of 100 fetuses using three-dimensional ultrasound. Meanwhile, their BPD, AC, and FL were measured by two-dimensional ultrasound. All infants were delivered within 48 hours after the ultrasound examinations. From polynomial regression analysis, we generated a best-fit formula for the thigh volume to predict birth weight. The accuracy of this thigh-volume formula was compared with those of three formulas commonly used in the United States. In addition, another group of 50 fetuses was measured for prospective validation. RESULTS: The high volume assessed by three-dimensional ultrasound was highly correlated with birth weight (r = 0.89, n = 100, P < .0001). The best-fit formula for thigh volume to predict birth weight was linear, and it was superior to the other commonly used two-dimensional formulas in predicting birth weight. The predicting error (0 g), percent error (0.7%), absolute error (176.1 g), and absolute percent error (5.8%) of the thigh-volume formula were all smaller than those of the other formulas (n = 100, all P < .05). In addition, the thigh-volume formula predicted birth weight more accurately than the other two-dimensional formulas in the prospective-validation group. The three-dimensional formula had smaller mean values of predicting error (38.6 g), percent error (1.5%), absolute error (160.0 g), and absolute percent error (5.1%) than the two-dimensional formulas (n = 50, all P < or = .001), as well as the smallest variances of the above errors (178.1 g, 5.6%, 84.3 g, and 2.9%, respectively). CONCLUSION: The three-dimensional ultrasound-assessed thigh volume has better accuracy in predicting birth weight than the commonly used formulas by two-dimensional ultrasound, and it may improve fetal weight prediction in clinical practice. However, a large-scale prospective validation study may be needed to confirm our conclusions.
Authors: J P Kusanovic; J K Nien; L F Gonçalves; J Espinoza; W Lee; M Balasubramaniam; E Soto; O Erez; R Romero Journal: Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol Date: 2008-02 Impact factor: 7.299
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
Authors: W Lee; M Balasubramaniam; R L Deter; L Yeo; S S Hassan; F Gotsch; J P Kusanovic; L F Gonçalves; R Romero Journal: Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol Date: 2009-11 Impact factor: 7.299