scholarly journals OC143: Comparable estimated fetal weight from biometries of preterm and term singleton pregnancies support the use of birth weight charts for normal fetuses

2008 ◽  
Vol 32 (3) ◽  
pp. 289-289
Author(s):  
M. Yamamoto ◽  
F. Rozas ◽  
C. Lopez ◽  
L. A. Caicedo ◽  
J. L. Leiva ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Birth Weight ◽  
Fetal Weight ◽  
Estimated Fetal Weight ◽  
Singleton Pregnancies

Deviation of Sonographic Estimated Fetal Weight from Actual Birth Weight in Two Consecutive Pregnancies of the Same Parturients

2014 ◽  
Vol 37 (1) ◽  
pp. 37-43
Author(s):  
Amir Aviram ◽  
Rami Aviram ◽  
Kinneret Tenenbaum-Gavish ◽  
Liran Hiersch ◽  
Eran Ashwal ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Birth Weight ◽  
Systematic Error ◽  
Fetal Weight ◽  
Weak Correlation ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
A Minor ◽  
Biometric Features ◽  
Estimated Fetal Weight ◽  
Singleton Pregnancies

Objective: To determine whether maternal features affect the accuracy of sonographic estimated fetal weight (SEFW) by evaluating the consistency of the systematic error of SEFW with regards to the birth weight (BW) in two consecutive pregnancies of the same gravida. Methods: The cohort included women with SEFW within 1 week of delivery (32-42 weeks' gestation) in two consecutive singleton pregnancies from 2007 to 2012. The systematic error was calculated as (SEFW - BW)/BW × 100 and expressed as a percentage of the BW. Results: A total of 636 pregnancies (318 gravidas) were eligible for analysis. The BW and SEFW were correlated in both first examined (r = 0.873, p < 0.001) and consecutive (r = 0.843, p < 0.001) pregnancies. There was a significant difference in mean systematic error between first examined and consecutive pregnancies (3.13 ± 8.95 vs. 0.34 ± 8.75%, p < 0.001), with a very weak correlation between the two (r = 0.135, p = 0.16). Nulliparity or multiparity at the first examined pregnancy was not found to be a significant factor, and in both groups the error was higher in the first examined pregnancy. There were no significant differences between parturients with a minor (10% and below) or major (>10%) difference in the systematic error between the two pregnancies. Conclusion: The systematic error between the SEFW and BW in two consecutive pregnancies is inconsistent, suggesting that it is unaffected by maternal biometric features.

Discrepancy Analysis between Clinical Versus Ultrasound Estimated Fetal Weight and Actual Birth Weight at 3rd Trimester

2019 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
pp. 32-38
Author(s):  
Naznin Rashid Shewly ◽  
Menoka Ferdous ◽  
Hasina Begum ◽  
Shahadat Hossain Khan ◽  
Sheema Rani Debee ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Birth Weight ◽  
Low Birth Weight ◽  
Fetal Weight ◽  
P Value ◽  
Weight Estimation ◽  
Third Trimester ◽  
Mortality And Morbidity ◽  
Fetal Weight Estimation ◽  
Obstetric Management ◽  
Estimated Fetal Weight

Background: In obstetric management fetal weight estimation is an important consideration when planning the mode of delivery in our day to day practice. In Bangladesh low birth weight is a major public health problem & incidence is 38% - 58%. Neonatal mortality and morbidity also yet high. So accurate antenatal estimation of fetal weight is a good way to detect macrosomia or small for date baby. Thus to improve the pregnancy outcome and neonatal outcome decreasing various chance of neonatal mortality and morbidity antenatal fetal weight prediction is an invaluable parameter in some situation where to identify the at risk pregnancy for low birth weight become necessary. Reliable method for prenatal estimation of fetal weight two modalities have got popularity - Clinical estimation and another one is ultrasonic estimation. This study was designed to determine the accuracy of clinical versus ultrasound estimated fetal weight detecting the discrepancy with actual birth weight at third trimester. So that we can verify more reliable and accurate method. Objectives: To find out more accurate and reliable modality of fetal weight estimation in antenatal period during obstetric management planning. To compare clinical versus ultrasound estimated fetal weight & to determine discrepancy of both variable with actual birth weight. Method: This prospective, cross sectional analytical study was carried out in Dhaka Medical College Hospital from January 2006 to December 2006. By purposive sampling 100 pregnant women fulfilling inclusion criteria were included in my study in third trimester (29wks-40wks). In clinical weight estimation procedure SFH (Symphysio Fundal Height) was measured in centimeter. On pervaginal finding whether vertex below or above the ischial spine was determined. By Johnson’s formula fetal weight in grams was estimated. Then by ultrasound scan different biometric measurements were taken and finally by Hadlock’s formula fetal weight was estimated. Eventually actual birth weight was taken after birth by Globe Brand weighing machine. Accuracy of both modalities were compared and which one was more reliable predictor was determined by statistical analysis. Results: After data collection were analyzed by computer based software (SPSS). There was gradual and positive relationship between symphysiofundal height and estimated birth weight. Discrepancy between clinical and actual birth weight at third trimester was statistically significant – Paired Student’s ‘t’ test was done where p value was <0.001. Whereas discrepancy between sonographically estimated fetal weight with actual birth weight was not statistically significant (by paired ‘t’ test where p value was >0.05). That implies discrepancy between ultrasound estimated fetal weight and actual birth weight was significantly less than that of clinically estimated fetal weight. 14% clinically and 46% sonographically estimated fetal weight were observed within £ 5% of actual birth weight. 31% clinical and 42% sonographically estimates observed within 6% to 10% of actual birth weight and 55% clinical and 12% sonographically estimate were >10% of actual birth weight. That is about 88% sonographical versus 45% clinical estimates were within 10% of actual birth weight. Conclusion: There is no doubt about importance of fetal weight in many obstetric situations. Clinical decisions at times depends on fetal weight. Whether to use oxytocin, to use forceps or vacuum for delivery or extend of trial or ended by Caesarian section immediately or no scope of trial to be largely depend on fetal size and weight. So more accurate modality for antenatal fetal weight estimation has paramount importance. In my study sonographically estimated weight have more accuracy than that of clinical estimate in predicting actual birth weight. Sonographically estimated fetal weight is more reliable, accurate and reproducible rather than other modality. J Shaheed Suhrawardy Med Coll, June 2019, Vol.11(1); 32-38

scholarly journals Intrapartum Ultrasonography for Detecting Fetal Macrosomia

2019 ◽  
pp. 193-202
Author(s):  
Croce P ◽  
Croce G ◽  
Panzeri L ◽  
Zanchi SM ◽  
Perotti D ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Birth Weight ◽  
Predictive Value ◽  
Absolute Error ◽  
Fetal Weight ◽  
Abdominal Circumference ◽  
Fetal Macrosomia ◽  
Average Body Mass ◽  
Average Body ◽  
First Stage Of Labor ◽  
Singleton Pregnancies

Objective: To compare the accuracy of three ultrasound methods to estimate fetal weight within 48 hours before delivery, in order to recognize macrosomia, defined as birth weight greater than 4000 g.Methods: A prospective and ultrasonic study was performed on a sample of singleton pregnancies between 37 weeks and 41 weeks plus 6 days of gestation. Fetal weight was evaluated with Estimated Fetal Weight (EFW) formula, with the measurement of the Abdominal Circumference (AC) and with the assessment of the Abdominal Circumference corrected with the constant “c” (ACc).Results: 1030 patients with single pregnancy were included, 67.28% of them were primiparous, average Body Mass Index (BMI) at birth was 27.37 and macrosomia was found in 77 (8,08%) fetuses. EFW showed a sensitivity of 61.53%, a specificity of 90.72%, a positive predictive value (PPV) of 27.58% and negative predictive value (NPV) of 97.46%, to recognize birth weight of more than 4000 g. AC greater than 375 mm presented a sensitivity of 53.24%, a specificity of 93.21%, a PPV of 41.41% and a NPV of 95.67%, to detect macrosomic fetuses. ACc greater than 375 mm showed a sensitivity of 66.23%, a specificity of 88.65%, a PPV of 34.35% and a NPV of 96.68%, to predict macrosomia. The mean absolute error when the neonatal weight was greater than 4000 g, with EFW was 9,23%, with AC were 11,02% and with ACc was 9,32%.Conclusions: In this study was shown that either EFW, or AC-only, or ACc are useful tools to detect fetal macrosomia. The measurement of AC and Acc seem to be the easiest methods to learn and to be used every time. During the first stage of labor, ultrasound scan associated to clinic evaluation, provides further elements to physician, to allow a better management of delivery. The finding of a NPV greater than 95% with the three methods, leads to exclude macrosomia with a good approximation, even in case of clinic hypothesis.

scholarly journals The Accuracy of the Weight of the Fetal Agency Using Ultrasound Based on the Formula Hadlock Compared to the Birth of New Body Weight

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nurbaiti . ◽  
Sri Haryati Gofar ◽  
Samsun . ◽  
Guntur Winarno ◽  
Akhmadi .
Keyword(s):  
Body Weight ◽  
Birth Weight ◽  
T Test ◽  
Fetal Weight ◽  
Weight Estimation ◽  
Fetal Weight Estimation ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Fetal Birth Weight ◽  
Estimated Fetal Weight

The purpose of this study is to analyze the result of the calculation of fetal weight estimation based on Hadlock’s formula with baby birth weight. The design of this research is quantitative analytic. The data is analyzed by the t-test. The results of this study showed that the analysis of the average comparison between TBJ (Fetal Weight Estimation) and BBL (Fetal Birth Weight) is 2623,60 with 2946,67. There is a significant difference with the value of sig.(2-tailed) 0,000 <0,05, which means there is a significant difference between the estimated fetal weight based on Hadlock’s formula with baby birth weight. Based on the result of the study of fetal weight interpretation using Hadlock’s formula, an accuracy of 89,34% was seen.

PERBANDINGAN RUMUS JOHNSON DAN RUMUS RISANTO DALAM MENENTUKAN TAKSIRAN BERAT JANIN PADA IBU HAMIL DENGAN BERAT BADAN BERLEBIH

2020 ◽  
Vol 5 (2) ◽  
pp. 24-27
Author(s):  
Leo Jumadi Simanjuntak ◽  
Patrick Anando Simanjuntak
Keyword(s):  
Birth Weight ◽  
Mode Of Delivery ◽  
Mean Difference ◽  
Fetal Weight ◽  
P Value ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Care Workers ◽  
The Mean ◽  
Mean Differences ◽  
Estimated Fetal Weight

Background: Estimated fetal weight (EFW) is important to determine mode of delivery. The use of estimated fetal weight based on fundal height has been widely used, but the use on overweight mothers is still limited. Objectives: This study aimed to compare the Johnson’s and Risanto’s formula in estimating fetal weight on overweight mothers. Method: The design used was cross-sectional, conducted at Mitra Sejati, Herna, and Methodist Sussana Wesley hospital on November 2019 until January 2020. Mann-Whitney test was used to compare EFW mean differences between Johnson’s and Risanto’s to actual birth weight. Paired t-test was used to compare EFW mean differences between Johnson’s and Risanto’s. Results: There were 103 overweight pregnant mothers fulfilling study criteria. The BMI mean was 31,26 ± 5l,54 kg/m2. Both Johnson’s and Risanto’s formula had no significant mean difference compare to actual birth weight, of 332,45 gram on Johnson’s (p value = 0,070) and 298,57 gram on Risanto’s (p value = 0,863). The mean difference between Risanto’s formula and actual birth weight was significantly lower than Johnson’s (mean difference = 33,88 gram, p value = 0,01). Conclusions: EFW measurement using Johnson’s and Risanto’s formula based on fundal height can be applied and used properly by health care workers. Risanto’s formula was more accurate to estimate fetal weight than Johnson’s in overweight mothers.   Latar belakang: Menentukan taksiran berat janin (TBJ) adalah penting bagi penolong persalinan untuk menentukan jenis persalinan. Pengukuran TBJ menggunakan tinggi fundus uterus merupakan metode yang banyak digunakan, namun penggunaan pada ibu hamil dengan berat badan berlebih masih terbatas. Tujuan: Penelitian ini bertujuan membandingkan rumus Johnson dan rumus Risanto dalam menentukan TBJ pada ibu hamil dengan berat badan berlebih. Metode: Desain penelitian adalah potong lintang, data diambil di RSU Mitra Sejati, RSU Herna, dan RSU Methodist Sussana Wesley pada November 2019 – Januari 2020. Dilakukan uji Mann-Whitney untuk membandingkan perbedaan rerata TBJ dengan rumus Johnson dan Risanto dengan berat badan lahir. Uji-t berpasangan digunakan untuk membandingkan perbedaan rerata TBJ dengan rumus Johnson dan Risanto. Hasil: Didapatkan 103 ibu hamil yang memenuhi kriteria penelitian dengan rerata IMT 31,26 ± 5l,54 kg/m2. Terdapat perbedaan rerata TBJ rumus Johnson dan rumus Risanto dibandingkan berat badan lahir sebesar 332,45 gram dan 298,57 gram. Tidak terdapat perbedaan rerata bermakna antara penghitungan TBJ menggunakan rumus Johnson dengan berat badan lahir (p = 0,070) dan rumus Risanto dengan berat badan lahir (p = 0,863). Perbedaan selisih TBJ Risanto dengan berat badan lahir lebih rendah dibandingkan selisih TBJ Johnson dengan berat badan lahir, yaitu sebesar 33,88 gram dan bermakna secara statistik (p = 0,01). Kesimpulan: Pengukuran TBJ menggunakan rumus Johnson dan rumus Risanto dapat diterapkan dan digunakan dengan baik oleh tenaga medis. Rumus Risanto memiliki tingkat ketepatan yang lebih baik dibandingkan rumus Johnson dalam menentukan TBJ pada ibu hamil dengan berat badan berlebih.

Comparison between clinical estimated fetal weights (CEFW) Versus Ultrasonographic estimated fetal weight (UEFW) for co-relation with actual birth weight (ABW) in 3rd Trimester of Pregnancy

2020 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
pp. e1-e4
Author(s):  
Rabia Razaq
Keyword(s):  
Birth Weight ◽  
Pearson Correlation ◽  
Tertiary Care ◽  
Fetal Weight ◽  
P Value ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Positive Correlation ◽  
Study Results ◽  
The Mean ◽  
Estimated Fetal Weight

Background: Accurate prenatal estimation of birth weight is useful in the management of labour and delivery. Objective: To determine the correlation between clinical estimated fetal weight with actual birth weight in 3rd trimester of pregnancy and to determine the correlation between Ultrasonographic fetal weight assessment with actual birth weight in 3rd trimester of pregnancy. Material & Methods: This cross sectional study with non-probability purposive sampling technique was conducted in three tertiary care hospitals of Punjab, Department of Obstetrics & Gynaecology, Allied Hospital, Faisalabad, Lady Aitcheson Hospital Lahore and Lady Willington Hospital Lahore. Informed consent was obtained from each female to use their data for research purpose. Demographic details were also noted. Then females undergo CEFW was done by using Johnson’s formula. Then ultrasonography was done on every female by experienced radiologists to get UEFW. FW measurement was done by using Shepard formula. Then females were followed-up till delivery of fetus. Actual birth weight (ABW) was noted on birth. Pearson correlation was used to measure the correlation coefficient for CEFW and UEFW with ABW. P-value≤0.05 was taken as significant. Results: In our study the mean age of the patients was 29.60±6.23 years and the mean gestational age of 33.30±2.31 weeks. The mean BMI value of the patients was 23.08±1.26 Kg/m2, the mean CEFW value 2219.60±556.41 grams while the mean UEFW value of the patients was 2227.77±521.94 grams and the mean value of ABW of the patients was 2284.00±515.29 grams. In our study the positive correlation was found between the CEFW, UEFW with ABW of the baby. Conclusion: Our study results concluded that both the clinical estimation ultrasonography estimation showed the feasible and reliable results. Both showed positive correlation with actual birth weight.

scholarly journals Sonographic Estimated Fetal Weight among Diabetics at ≥ 34 Weeks and Composite Neonatal Morbidity

2018 ◽  
Vol 08 (02) ◽  
pp. e121-e127
Author(s):  
Leen Al-Hafez ◽  
Michael Pirics ◽  
Suneet Chauhan
Keyword(s):  
Retrospective Study ◽  
Confidence Intervals ◽  
Gestational Age ◽  
Neonatal Morbidity ◽  
Fetal Weight ◽  
Inclusion Criteria ◽  
Increased Risk ◽  
Estimated Fetal Weight ◽  
Singleton Pregnancies

Objectives The objective was to assess the composite neonatal morbidity (CNM) among diabetic women with sonographic estimated fetal weight (SEFW) at 10 to 90th versus >90th percentile for gestational age (GA). Study Design The inclusion criteria for this retrospective study were singleton pregnancies at 34 to 41 weeks, complicated by diabetes, and that had SEFW within 4 weeks of delivery. Odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated. Results Among the 140 cohorts that met the inclusion criteria, 72% had SEFW at 10th to 90th percentile for GA, and 28% at >90th percentile. Compared with women with diabetes with last SEFW at 10th to 90th percentile, those with estimate > 90th percentile for GA had a significantly higher rate of CNM (13 vs. 28%; OR, 2.65; 95% CI, 1.07–6.59). Among 109 diabetic women who labored, the rate of shoulder dystocia was significantly higher with SEFW at >90th percentile for GA than those at 10th to 90th percentile (25 vs. 2%; p = 0.002); the corresponding rate of CNM was 29 versus 10% (p = 0.02). Conclusion Among diabetic women with SEFW > 90th percentile for GA, CNM was significantly higher than in women with estimate at 10 to 90th percentile. Despite the increased risk of CNM, these newborns did not have long-term morbid sequela.

scholarly journals Clinical formulas, mother's opinion and ultrasound in predicting birth weight

2008 ◽  
Vol 126 (3) ◽  
pp. 145-149 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maria Regina Torloni ◽  
Nelson Sass ◽  
Jussara Leiko Sato ◽  
Ana Carolina Pinheiro Renzi ◽  
Maísa Fukuyama ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Birth Weight ◽  
Conclusive Evidence ◽  
Fetal Weight ◽  
Weight Estimation ◽  
Abdominal Girth ◽  
Fetal Weight Estimation ◽  
Chi Squared ◽  
Weight Prediction ◽  
Estimate Fetal Weight ◽  
Singleton Pregnancies

CONTEXT AND OBJECTIVE: Accurate fetal weight estimation is important for labor and delivery management. So far, there has not been any conclusive evidence to indicate that any technique for fetal weight estimation is superior to any other. Clinical formulas for fetal weight estimation are easy to use but have not been extensively studied in the literature. This study aimed to evaluate the accuracy of clinical formulas for fetal weight estimation compared to maternal and ultrasound estimates. DESIGN AND SETTING: Prospective study involving 100 full-term, cephalic, singleton pregnancies delivered within three days of fetal weight estimation. The setting was a tertiary public teaching hospital in São Paulo, Brazil. METHODS: Upon admission, the mother's opinion about fetal weight was recorded. Symphyseal-fundal height and abdominal girth were measured and two formulas were used to calculate fetal weight. An ultrasound scan was then performed by a specialist to estimate fetal weight. The four estimates were compared with the birth weight. The accuracy of the estimates was assessed by calculating the percentage that was within 10% of actual birth weight for each method. The chi-squared test was used for comparisons and p < 0.05 was considered significant. RESULTS: The birth weight was correctly estimated (± 10%) in 59%, 57%, 61%, and 65% of the cases using the mother's estimate, two clinical formulas, and ultrasound estimate, respectively. The accuracy of the four methods did not differ significantly. CONCLUSION: Clinical formulas for fetal weight prediction are as accurate as maternal and ultrasound estimates.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document