Volume 11, Issue 11 (12-2013)                   IJRM 2013, 11(11): 933-0 | Back to browse issues page

XML Persian Abstract Print

Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Kalantari M, Negahdari A, Roknsharifi S, Qorbani M. A new formula for estimated fetal weight: The impression of biparietal diameter, abdominal circumference, mid-thigh soft tissue thickness and femoral length on birth weight. IJRM 2013; 11 (11) :933-0
URL: http://ijrm.ir/article-1-357-en.html
A new formula for estimated fetal weight: The impression of biparietal diameter, abdominal circumference, mid-thigh soft tissue thickness and femoral length on birth weight
Mojgan Kalantari1 , Arezou Negahdari1 , Shima Roknsharifi * 2, Mostafa Qorbani3
1- Department of Radiology, Mahdiyeh Hospital, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
2- Department of Radiology, Mahdiyeh Hospital, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran , roknsharifi.sh@gmail.com
3- Department of Public Health, Alborz University of Medical Sciences, Karaj, Iran
Abstract:   (13478 Views)
Background: Abdominal circumference (AC), biparietal diameters (BPD) and femoral length (FL) are now the main parameters used to obtain estimated fetal weight (EFW). Although the role of soft tissue parameters in determining fetal weight was proved but clinical attention to mid-thigh soft tissue thickness (STT) is limited.
Objective: To find the impression of STT on birth weight (BW) and represent a new predictive formula.
Materials and Methods: One hundred and fourteen normal singleton term (36-42w) pregnancies with delivery within 72 hours were randomly selected to participate in this prospective cohort study. Variables measured for each case included: AC, BPD, FL, STT by ultrasonography before birth and actual neonatal BW. Linear regression model was used and R square and P-value were reported.
Results: The mean (SD) of BW was 3406 (405) gr. R square was best fit for the model that STT was added to AC, BPD, FL (r2: 0.77). R square for the model using BPD, AC, FL and model using BPD, STT, FL was the same (r2: 0.7). Best fit formula was Log (BW)= 2.461+0.003BPD+0.001AC+0.007STT+0.005FL. AC (R: 0.67, p<0.001), STT (R: 0.50, p<0.001), BPD (R: 0.59, p<0.001), FL (R: 0.66, p<0.001) were significantly correlated with birth weight. AC had also significant correlation with STT (p=0.001).
Conclusion: This study showed adding STT to other variables in predictive models of fetal weight would provide a nice estimation (r2=0.77) and in cases that measuring AC is suboptimal STT may be a good replacement.
Keywords: Fetal weight, Soft tissue thickness, Abdominal circumference, Ultrasonography, biparietal diameters, Femoral length
Full-Text [PDF 571 kb]   (625 Downloads) |   |   Full-Text (HTML)  (394 Views)  
Type of Study: Original Article |
References
1. Nahum GG. Estimation of Fetal Weight. Available at: http:// emedicine. medscape. com/ article/ 262865-overview.
2. Mocanu EV, Greene RA, Byrne BM, Turner MJ. Obstetric and neonatal outcome of babies weighing more than 4.5 kg: an analysis by parity. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2000; 92: 229-233. [DOI:10.1016/S0301-2115(99)00280-8]
3. Jolly MC, Sebire NJ, Harris JP, Regan L, Robinson S. Risk factors for macrosomia and its clinical consequences: a study of 350,311 pregnancies. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2003; 111: 9-14. [DOI:10.1016/S0301-2115(03)00154-4]
4. Peregrine E, O'brien P, Jauniaux E. Clinical and ultrasound estimation of birth weight prior to induction of labor at term. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2007; 29: 304-309. [DOI:10.1002/uog.3949]
5. Ashrafganjooei T, Naderi T, Eshrati B, Babapoor N. Accuracy of ultrasound, clinical and maternal estimates of birth weight in term women. East Mediterr Health J 2010; 16: 313-317. [DOI:10.26719/2010.16.3.313]
6. Dudley N. A systematic review of the ultrasound estimation of fetal weight. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2005; 25: 80-89. [DOI:10.1002/uog.1751]
7. Honarvar M, Allahyari M, Dehbashi S. Assessment of fetal weight based on ultrasonic femur length after the second trimester. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2001; 73: 15-20. [DOI:10.1016/S0020-7292(00)00368-4]
8. Firoozabadi RD, Ghasemi N, Firoozabadi MD. Sonographic fetal weight estimation using femoral length: Honarvar equation. Ann Saudi Med 2007; 27: 179-182. [DOI:10.5144/0256-4947.2007.179]
9. Balouet P, Speckel D, Herlicoviez M. Ultrasonic estimation of fetal weight. Value of measuring limb fat. J Gynecol Obstet Biol Reprod 1992; 21: 795-802.
10. McGahan JP, Goldberg BB. Diagnostic Ultrasound. 2nd Ed. New York, London; 2008.
11. Valensise H, Larciprete G, Arduini D, Lorenzo AD. The fetal body compartments and their detection during pregnancy. A review. Acta Diabet 2003; 40: 79-82. [DOI:10.1007/s00592-003-0033-y]
12. Lee W, Balasubramaniam M, Deter RL, Hassan SS, Gotsch F, Kusanovic JP, et al. Fractional limb volume-a soft tissue parameter of fetal body composition: validation, technical considerations and normal ranges during pregnancy. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2009; 33:427-440. [DOI:10.1002/uog.6319]
13. Catalano PM, Tyzbir ED, Allen SR, McBean JH, McAuliffe TL. Evaluation of fetal growth by estimation of neonatal body composition. Obstet Gynecol 1992; 79: 46-50.
14. Balouet P, Hamel P, Domessent D, Allouche C, Speckel D, Barjot P, et al. [The estimation of fetal weight by measurement of the adipose tissue of the extremities. Use in the diagnosis of hypotrophy]. J Gynecol Obstet Biol Reprod (paris) 1994; 23: 64-68. (In French)
15. Han Y, Lin H, Liu Y. [Ultrasonic measurements of fetal thigh soft tissue thickness in the estimation of fetal weight]. Zhonghua Fu Chan Ke Za Zhi 1998; 33: 277-279. (In Chinese)
16. Larciprete G, Valensise H, Barbati G, Di Pierro G, Jarvis S, Deaibess T, et al. Ultrasound‐determined fetal subcutaneous tissue thickness for a birthweight prediction model. J Obstet Gynaecol Res 2007; 33: 635-640. [DOI:10.1111/j.1447-0756.2007.00624.x]
17. Al-Hilli NMS. Antepartum Detection of Macrosomic Fetus: Clinical Versus Sonographic, Including Humeral Soft Tissue Thickness. Med J Babylon 2009; 6: 217-227.
18. Schild R. Three dimensional volumetry and fetal weight measurement. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2007; 30: 799-803. [DOI:10.1002/uog.5181]
19. Lee W, Deter R,L Ebersole JD, Huang R, Blanckaert K, Romero R. Birth weight prediction by three-dimensional ultrasonography: fractional limb volume. J Ultrasound Med 2001; 20: 1283-1292. [DOI:10.7863/jum.2001.20.12.1283]
20. Song TB, Moore TR, Lee JY, Kim YH, Kim EK. Fetal weight prediction by thigh volume measurement with three-dimensional ultrasonography. Obstet Gynecol 2000; 96: 157-161.
21. Srisantiroj N, Chanprapaph P, Komoltri C. Fractional thigh volume by three-dimensional ultrasonography for birth weight prediction. J Med Assoc Thai 2011; 92: 1580-1585.
22. Lee W, Deter R, Sangi-Haghpeykar H, Yeo L, Romero R. Prospective validation of fetal weight estimation using fractional limb volume. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2013; 41: 198-203. [DOI:10.1002/uog.11185]
23. O'Connor C, Farah N, O'Higgins A, Segurado R, Fitzpatrick C, Turner MJ, et al. Longitudinal measurement of fetal thigh soft tissue parameters and its role in the prediction of birth weight. Prenat Diagn 2013; 28: 1-7. [DOI:10.1002/pd.4170]
24. Scioscia M, Scioscia F, Vimercati A, Caradonna F, Nardelli C, Pinto LR, et al. Estimation of fetal weight by measurement of fetal thigh soft‐tissue thickness in the late third trimester. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2008; 31: 314-320. [DOI:10.1002/uog.5253]
25. Larciprete G, Di Pierro G, Barbati G, Deaibess T, Jarvis S, Valensise H, et al. Could birthweight prediction models be improved by adding fetal subcutaneous tissue thickness? J Obstet Gynaecol Res 2008; 34: 18-26. [DOI:10.1111/j.1447-0756.2007.00741.x]
26. Scioscia M, Vimercati A, Ceci O, Vicino M, Selvaggi LE. Estimation of Birth Weight by Two-Dimensional Ultrasonography: a critical appraisal of its accuracy. Obstet Gynecol 2008; 111: 57-65. [DOI:10.1097/01.AOG.0000296656.81143.e6]
27. Kurmanavicius J, Burkhardt T, Wisser J, Huch R. Ultrasonographic fetal weight estimation: accuracy of formulas and accuracy of examiners by birth weight from 500 to 5000 g. J Perinat Med 2004; 32: 155-161. [DOI:10.1515/JPM.2004.028]
28. Melamed N, Yogev Y, Meizner I, Mashiach R, Bardin R, Ben-Haroush A. Sonographic Fetal Weight Estimation Which Model Should Be Used? J Ultrasound Med 2009; 28: 617-629. [DOI:10.7863/jum.2009.28.5.617]
29. Sokol RJ, Chik L, Dombrowski MP, Zador IE. Correctly identifying the macrosomic fetus: improving ultrasonography-based prediction. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2000; 182: 1489-195. [DOI:10.1067/mob.2000.106853]
30. Dudley N, Chapman E. The importance of quality management in fetal measurement. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2002;19: 190-196. [DOI:10.1046/j.0960-7692.2001.00549.x]
31. Lee W, Balasubramaniam M, Deter RL, Hassan SS, Gotsch F, Kusanovic JP, et al. Fetal growth parameters and birth weight: their relationship to neonatal body composition. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2009; 33: 441-446. [DOI:10.1002/uog.6317]
32. Moyer-Mileur LJ, Slater H, Thomson JA, Mihalopoulos N, Byrne J, Varner MW. Newborn adiposity measured by plethysmography is not predicted by late gestation two-dimensional ultrasound measures of fetal growth. J Nutr 2009; 139: 1772-1778. [DOI:10.3945/jn.109.109058]
33. Santolaya-Forgas J, Meyer WJ, Gauthier DW, Kahn D. Intrapartum fetal subcutaneous tissue/femur length ratio: an ultrasonographic clue to fetal macrosomia. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1994; 171: 1072-1075. [DOI:10.1016/0002-9378(94)90038-8]
Send email to the article author

Rights and permissions
Creative Commons License This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

Designed & Developed by : Yektaweb