Modulation of birthweight through gestational age and fetal growth

1996 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
pp. 37-53 ◽  
Author(s):  
E Petridou ◽  
D Trichopoulos ◽  
K Revinthi ◽  
D Tong ◽  
E Papathoma
Keyword(s):  
Fetal Growth ◽  
Gestational Age

INTRAUTERINE GROWTH RETARDATION - A REVIEW ARTICLE

2018 ◽  
pp. 184-195
Author(s):  
Minh Son Pham ◽  
Vu Quoc Huy Nguyen ◽  
Dinh Vinh Tran
Keyword(s):  
Fetal Growth ◽  
Gestational Age ◽  
Small For Gestational Age ◽  
Fetal Growth Restriction ◽  
Growth Restriction ◽  
Growth Potential ◽  
National Guidelines ◽  
Intrauterine Growth ◽  
No Gold Standard

Small for gestational age (SGA) and fetal growth restriction (FGR) is difficult to define exactly. In this pregnancy condition, the fetus does not reach its biological growth potential as a consequence of impaired placental function, which may be because of a variety of factors. Fetuses with FGR are at risk for perinatal morbidity and mortality, and poor long-term health outcomes, such as impaired neurological and cognitive development, and cardiovascular and endocrine diseases in adulthood. At present no gold standard for the diagnosis of SGA/FGR exists. The first aim of this review is to: summarize areas of consensus and controversy between recently published national guidelines on small for gestational age or fetal growth restriction; highlight any recent evidence that should be incorporated into existing guidelines. Another aim to summary a number of interventions which are being developed or coming through to clinical trial in an attempt to improve fetal growth in placental insufficiency. Key words: fetal growth restriction (FGR), Small for gestational age (SGA)

284 Umbilical vein flow in fetal growth restriction versus small for gestational age fetuses

2021 ◽  
Vol 224 (2) ◽  
pp. S186
Author(s):  
Odessa P. Hamidi ◽  
Camille Driver ◽  
Tamara Stampalija ◽  
Sarah Martinez ◽  
Diana Gumina ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Fetal Growth ◽  
Gestational Age ◽  
Small For Gestational Age ◽  
Fetal Growth Restriction ◽  
Umbilical Vein ◽  
Growth Restriction

Categories of intrauterine growth retardation

1993 ◽  
Vol 5 (4) ◽  
pp. 203-212 ◽  
Author(s):  
Roger A Fay ◽  
David A Ellwood
Keyword(s):  
Soft Tissue ◽  
Fetal Growth ◽  
Gestational Age ◽  
Growth Retardation ◽  
Large Scale ◽  
Intrauterine Growth Retardation ◽  
Low Birthweight ◽  
Ponderal Index ◽  
Intrauterine Growth ◽  
Different Types

Originally all low birthweight infants were considered to be premature. When prematurity was redefined in terms of gestational age (SGA) and not preterm. With the large scale collection of obstetric data the distributions of birthweight at different gestational ages were described and from these, infants who were SGA could be defined. SGA became synonymous with terms such as growth retardation, but it soon became appearent that the two were not necessarily interchangeable. Scott and Usher found that it was the degree of soft tissue wasting rather than birthweight that related to poor perinatal outcome. Miller and Hassanein stated that: “birthweight by itself is not a valid measure of fetal growth impairment”. They used Rorher’s Ponderal Index (weight (g) × 100/length (cm)) to diagnose the malnourished or excessively wasted infants with reduced soft tissue mass. Most studies of intrauterine growth retardation (IUGR) still use low birthweight for gestational age centile as their only definition of IUGR or only study infants who have a low birthweight. Altman and Hytten expressed disquiet about this definition and stated: “There is now an urgent need to establish true measures of fetal growth from which deviations indicating genuine growth retardation can be derived” and that “it is particularly important that some reliable measures of outcome should be established”. In large series of term deliveries published recently, two groups of IUGR infants with different growth patterens have been identified. These studies confirm that birthweight alone is inadequate to define the different types of IUGR. They established that low Ponderal Index (PI) is a measure of IUGR associated with an increased incidence of perinatal problems and that it is time to re-evaluate IUGR in terms of the different types of aberrant fetal growth.

scholarly journals Blood Biomarkers of Late Pregnancy Exposure to Trihalomethanes in Drinking Water and Fetal Growth Measures and Gestational Age in a Chinese Cohort

2016 ◽  
Vol 124 (4) ◽  
pp. 536-541 ◽  
Author(s):  
Wen-Cheng Cao ◽  
Qiang Zeng ◽  
Yan Luo ◽  
Hai-Xia Chen ◽  
Dong-Yue Miao ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Drinking Water ◽  
Fetal Growth ◽  
Gestational Age ◽  
Late Pregnancy ◽  
Blood Biomarkers ◽  
Chinese Cohort

scholarly journals Metabolomics for predicting fetal growth restriction: protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis

BMJ Open ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 8 (12) ◽  
pp. e022743 ◽  
Author(s):  
Debora Farias Batista Leite ◽  
Aude-Claire Morillon ◽  
Elias F Melo Júnior ◽  
Renato T Souza ◽  
Ali S Khashan ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Diagnostic Accuracy ◽  
Fetal Growth ◽  
Gestational Age ◽  
Fetal Growth Restriction ◽  
Case Reports ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Adverse Outcomes ◽  
Growth Restriction ◽  
Sample Collection

IntroductionFetal growth restriction (FGR) is a relevant research and clinical concern since it is related to higher risks of adverse outcomes at any period of life. Current predictive tools in pregnancy (clinical factors, ultrasound scan, placenta-related biomarkers) fail to identify the true growth-restricted fetus. However, technologies based on metabolomics have generated interesting findings and seem promising. In this systematic review, we will address diagnostic accuracy of metabolomics analyses in predicting FGR.Methods and analysisOur primary outcome is small for gestational age infant, as a surrogate for FGR, defined as birth weight below the 10th centile by customised or population-based curves for gestational age. A detailed systematic literature search will be carried in electronic databases and conference abstracts, using the keywords ‘fetal growth retardation’, ‘metabolomics’, ‘pregnancy’ and ‘screening’ (and their variations). We will include original peer-reviewed articles published from 1998 to 2018, involving pregnancies of fetuses without congenital malformations; sample collection must have been performed before clinical recognition of growth impairment. If additional information is required, authors will be contacted. Reviews, case reports, cross-sectional studies, non-human research and commentaries papers will be excluded. Sample characteristics and the diagnostic accuracy data will be retrieved and analysed. If data allows, we will perform a meta-analysis.Ethics and disseminationAs this is a systematic review, no ethical approval is necessary. This protocol will be publicised in our institutional websites and results will be submitted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42018089985.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document