nach oben

Erschienen in:

01.10.2015 | Maternal-Fetal Medicine

Intrapartum sonographic weight estimation

verfasst von: F. Faschingbauer, U. Dammer, E. Raabe, M. Schneider, C. Faschingbauer, M. Schmid, R. L. Schild, M. W. Beckmann, S. Kehl, A. Mayr

Erschienen in: Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics | Ausgabe 4/2015

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Purpose

To evaluate the accuracy of intrapartum sonographic weight estimation (WE).

Materials and methods

This retrospective, cross-sectional study included 1958 singleton pregnancies. Inclusion criteria were singleton pregnancy with cephalic presentation, vaginal delivery and ultrasound examination with complete biometric parameters performed on the day of delivery during the latent or active phase of labor, and absence of chromosomal or structural anomalies. The accuracy of intrapartum WE was compared to a control group of fetuses delivered by primary cesarean section at our perinatal center and an ultrasound examination with complete biometric parameters performed within 3 days before delivery (n = 392). Otherwise, the same inclusion criteria as in the study group were applied. The accuracy of WE was compared between five commonly applied formulas using means of percentage errors (MPE), medians of absolute percentage errors (MAPE), and proportions of estimates within 10 % of actual birth weight.

Results

In the whole study group, all equations showed a systematic underestimation of fetal weight (negative MPEs). Overall, best MAPE and MPE values were found with the Hadlock II formula, using BPD, AC and FL as biometric parameters (Hadlock II, MPE: −1.28; MAPE: 6.52). MPEs differed significantly between WE in the study and control group for all evaluated formulas: in the control group, either no systematic error (Hadlock III, IV and V) or a significant overestimation (Hadlock I, II) was found. Regarding MAPEs, application of the Hadlock III (HC, AC, FL) and V (AC) formula resulted in significant lower values in the control group (Hadlock III, MAPE: 7.48 vs. 5.95, p = 0.0008 and Hadlock V, MAPE: 8.79 vs. 7.52, p = 0.0085). No significant differences were found for the other equations.

Conclusions

A systematic underestimation of fetal weight has to be taken into account in sonographic WE performed intrapartum. Overall, the best results can be achieved with WE formulas using the BPD as the only head measurement.

Brieger GM, Rogers MS, Rushton AW et al (1997) Are Hong Kong babies getting bigger? Int J Gynaecol Obstet 57:267–271CrossRefPubMed

Orskou J, Kesmodel U, Henriksen TB et al (2001) An increasing proportion of infants weigh more than 4000 grams at birth. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 80:931–936CrossRefPubMed

Boulet SL, Alexander GR, Salihu HM et al (2003) Macrosomic births in the united states: determinants, outcomes, and proposed grades of risk. Am J Obstet Gynecol 188:1372–1378CrossRefPubMed

Doctor BA, O’Riordan MA, Kirchner HL et al (2001) Perinatal correlates and neonatal outcomes of small for gestational age infants born at term gestation. Am J Obstet Gynecol 185:652–659CrossRefPubMed

Ott WJ (1995) Small for gestational age fetus and neonatal outcome: reevaluation of the relationship. Am J Perinatol 12:396–400CrossRefPubMed

Bernstein IM, Horbar JD, Badger GJ et al (2000) Morbidity and mortality among very-low-birth-weight neonates with intrauterine growth restriction. The Vermont Oxford Network. Am J Obstet Gynecol 182:198–206CrossRefPubMed

Baschat AA, Cosmi E, Bilardo CM et al (2007) Predictors of neonatal outcome in early-onset placental dysfunction. Obstet Gynecol 109:253–261CrossRefPubMed

Dudley NJ (2005) A systematic review of the ultrasound estimation of fetal weight. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 25:80–89CrossRefPubMed

Dammer U, Raabe E, Kehl S, Schmid M, Mayr A, Schild RL, Beckmann MW, Faschingbauer F (2014) Sonographic weight estimation in small-for-gestational-age fetuses. Ultraschall Med [Epub ahead of print]

10.

Hadlock FP, Harrist RB, Sharman RS et al (1985) Estimation of fetal weight with the use of head, body, and femur measurements—a prospective study. Am J Obstet Gynecol 151:333–337CrossRefPubMed

11.

Shepard MJ, Richards VA, Berkowitz RL et al (1982) An evaluation of two equations for predicting fetal weight by ultrasound. Am J Obstet Gynecol 142:47–54PubMed

12.

Scioscia M, Scioscia F, Scioscia G et al (2015) Statistical limits in sonographic estimation of birth weight. Arch Gynecol Obstet 291:59–66CrossRefPubMed

13.

Merz E, Lieser H, Schicketanz KH et al (1988) 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. Ultraschall Med 9:15–24CrossRefPubMed

14.

Siemer J, Egger N, Hart N et al (2008) Fetal weight estimation by ultrasound: comparison of 11 different formulae and examiners with differing skill levels. Ultraschall Med 29:159–164CrossRefPubMed

15.

Hadlock FP, Harrist RB, Carpenter RJ et al (1984) Sonographic estimation of fetal weight. The value of femur length in addition to head and abdomen measurements. Radiology 150:535–540CrossRefPubMed

16.

Schild RL, Sachs C, Fimmers R et al (2004) Sex-specific fetal weight prediction by ultrasound. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 23:30–35CrossRefPubMed

17.

Basha AS, Abu-Khader IB, Qutishat RM, Amarin ZO (2012) Accuracy of sonographic fetal weight estimation within 14 days of delivery in a Jordanian population using Hadlock formula 1. Med Princ Pract 21(4):366–369. doi:10.1159/000335539 CrossRefPubMed

18.

Heer IM, Kumper C, Vogtle N et al (2008) Analysis of factors influencing the ultrasonic fetal weight estimation. Fetal Diagn Ther 23:204–210CrossRefPubMed

19.

Faschingbauer F, Dammer U, Raabe E et al (2014) Sonographic weight estimation in fetal macrosomia: influence of the time interval between estimation and delivery. Arch Gynecol Obstet. doi:10.1007/s00404-014-3604-y

20.

Baum JD, Gussman D, Wirth JC 3rd (2002) Clinical and patient estimation of fetal weight vs. ultrasound estimation. J Reprod Med 47:194–198PubMed

21.

Hendrix NW, Grady CS, Chauhan SP (2000) Clinical vs. sonographic estimate of birth weight in term parturients. A randomized clinical trial. J Reprod Med 45:317–322PubMed

22.

Farrell T, Holmes R, Stone P (2002) The effect of body mass index on three methods of fetal weight estimation. BJOG Int J Obstet Gynaecol 109:651–657CrossRef

23.

Noumi G, Collado-Khoury F, Bombard A et al (2005) Clinical and sonographic estimation of fetal weight performed during labor by residents. Am J Obstet Gynecol 192:1407–1409CrossRefPubMed

24.

Peregrine E, O’Brien P, Jauniaux E (2007) Clinical and ultrasound estimation of birth weight prior to induction of labor at term. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 29:304–309CrossRefPubMed

25.

American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (2009) ACOG Practice Bulletin No. 101: ultrasonography in pregnancy. Obstet Gynecol 113(2 Pt 1):451–461. doi:10.1097/AOG.0b013e31819930b0

26.

Eichhorn KH, Schramm T, Bald R et al (2006) DEGUM grade I quality standards in obstetric ultrasound diagnosis during the 19th to 22nd week of pregnancy. Ultraschall Med 27:185–187CrossRefPubMed

27.

Merz E, Eichhorn KH, Hansmann M et al (2002) Quality demands on continuing differential diagnostic sonography in prenatal diagnostics (DEGUM stage II) during the 18th to 22nd weeks of gestation. Ultraschall Med 23:11–12CrossRefPubMed

28.

Snedecor GW, Cochran WG (1989) Comparison of two correlated variances in paired samples in statistical methods. Iowa State University Press, Ames, pp 192–193

29.

Melamed N, Ben-Haroush A, Meizner I et al (2011) Accuracy of sonographic weight estimation as a function of fetal sex. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 38:67–73CrossRefPubMed

30.

Schmidt U, Temerinac D, Bildstein K et al (2014) Finding the most accurate method to measure head circumference for fetal weight estimation. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. doi:10.1016/j.ejogrb.2014.03.047

31.

Sherman DJ, Arieli S, Tovbin J et al (1998) A comparison of clinical and ultrasonic estimation of fetal weight. Obstet Gynecol 91:212–217CrossRefPubMed

Titel: Intrapartum sonographic weight estimation
verfasst von: F. Faschingbauer
U. Dammer
E. Raabe
M. Schneider
C. Faschingbauer
M. Schmid
R. L. Schild
M. W. Beckmann
S. Kehl
A. Mayr
Publikationsdatum: 01.10.2015
Verlag: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Erschienen in: Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics / Ausgabe 4/2015
Print ISSN: 0932-0067
Elektronische ISSN: 1432-0711
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-015-3720-3

Neu im Fachgebiet Gynäkologie und Geburtshilfe

17.04.2024 | Postoperative nausea and vomiting | Nachrichten

Update Gynäkologie

Bestellen Sie unseren Fach-Newsletter und bleiben Sie gut informiert – ganz bequem per eMail.

Newsletter bestellen

Live-Webinar: Aktuelle Leitlinien bei Herz-Kreislauf-Erkrankungen

Springer Medizin

Intrapartum sonographic weight estimation

Abstract

Purpose

Materials and methods

Results

Conclusions

Neu im Fachgebiet Gynäkologie und Geburtshilfe

Hochrisiko-Eingriffe für postoperative Übelkeit

Adjuvante Brustkrebstherapie: Doppelt hält besser

Manche Gestagene können das Risiko für Meningeome erhöhen

Stillende Frauen haben geringeres kardiovaskuläres Risiko

Update Gynäkologie

Live-Webinar: Aktuelle Leitlinien bei Herz-Kreislauf-Erkrankungen

Springer Medizin

Abstract

Purpose

Materials and methods

Results

Conclusions

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu diesem Inhalt zu erhalten

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 4/2015

Lactobacilli vaginal colonisation after oral consumption of Respecta® complex: a randomised controlled pilot study

Surgery, endometriosis-related infertility and negative impact on ovarian reserve: “which came first, the hen or the egg?” An unresolved dilemma

Dual-energy contrast-enhanced spectral mammography (CESM)

Message from the Editor in Chief

Reply to the letter: “Comments on non-invasive prenatal testing”

The significance of a uterine rupture in subsequent births

Neu im Fachgebiet Gynäkologie und Geburtshilfe

Hochrisiko-Eingriffe für postoperative Übelkeit

Adjuvante Brustkrebstherapie: Doppelt hält besser

Manche Gestagene können das Risiko für Meningeome erhöhen

Stillende Frauen haben geringeres kardiovaskuläres Risiko

Update Gynäkologie