scholarly journals Validation of Hadlock's and Shepard Formulae of Fetal Weight Estimation in Eastern Region of Nepal

2019 ◽  
Vol 4 (2) ◽  
pp. 738-743
Author(s):  
Roshana Khadka
Keyword(s):  
Birth Weight ◽  
Gestational Age ◽  
Fetal Weight ◽  
Large For Gestational Age ◽  
Eastern Region ◽  
Weight Estimation ◽  
Normal Birth ◽  
Fetal Weight Estimation ◽  
The Difference ◽  
Development Outcomes

Introduction: Ultrasonography plays a pivotal role in present day obstetrics. It has been well recognized that the fetuses of extremes of the normal birth weight range are associated with increased perinatal morbidity, mortality and adverse development outcomes. Categorization of fetal weight into either the small or large for gestational age may lead to timed obstetric interventions that collectively represent significant departure from routine antenatal care. Objective: To compare the accuracy of Hadlock's 1, 2, 3, 4 and Shepard model in estimating expected fetal weight and its comparison with actual birth weight in our population at eastern region of Nepal. Methodology A prospective observational study was performed in the Department of Radiodiagnosis, Nobel Medical college and teaching hospital, Biratnagar, over a period of 6 months dated Jan 2018 to June 2018 using systematic random sampling with sample size estimated as 160, with 5% level of significance, 80% power of test and a maximum of 200 grams differences by our predicting model from actual mean weight. Singleton, term pregnancy (37- 42 weeks gestational age) verified with antenatal USG performed prior to 20 weeks' gestation. Pregnancies complicated by congenital anomalies and deliveries after 2 days of USG examination were excluded. Results: 159 pregnant ladies were enrolled in our study with mean age of 27.60 ± 5.633 years (range 18-43 years). The average (actual) birth weight recorded was 3450.79±438.73gms. The different formulae for estimating birth weight gave us similar results. Estimation of fetal weight by Shepard gave us a mean of 3340.80 ± 463.72. Hadlock1, Hadlock2, Hadlock3 and Hadlock4were 3546.55±429.92grams, 3491.18±439.49 grams, 3445.23 ±422.79grams, and 3446.12±418.43grams respectively. Conclusion: All four Hadlock formulae gave comparable results for fetal weight estimation including the Shepard formula; however, Shepard formula tends to underestimate fetal weight as compared to rest of the formulae. Among the Hadlock's, Hadlock 2 seems to show betier accuracy in fetal weight prediction in our population of study. The mean birth weight recorded using Hadlock 1 formula gave the beer correlation with the actual birth weight though the difference between four Hadlock formulae was all insignificant.

scholarly journals Factors Affecting Ultrasonographic Fetal Weight Estimation Accuracy in Low Birth Weight Newborns

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nevin Tuten ◽  
Onur Guralp ◽  
Koray Gok ◽  
Abdullah Tuten ◽  
Altay Gezer
Keyword(s):  
Birth Weight ◽  
Low Birth Weight ◽  
Gestational Age ◽  
Fetal Weight ◽  
Accurate Estimation ◽  
Weight Estimation ◽  
Factors Affecting ◽  
Fetal Weight Estimation ◽  
Gestational Age At Birth ◽  
Age At Birth

Objective: To investigate the accuracy of fetal weight estimation made by the last prenatal ultrasound measurement in low birth weight newborns (<2500 g). Study Design: A total of 1082 women were evaluated in this retrospective cohort study. Demographic and clinical information of the mother and newborn and obstetric ultrasonography measurements and findings performed in the last week before birth were recorded. Accuracy of fetal weight estimation and parameters affecting it was investigated. Results: Accurate estimation rates were lower in the term compared to the preterm delivery group; and in the SGA group compared to the AGA group (respectively, p=0.016, p=0.032). Accurate estimation rates (p=0.182) were comparable between the 500-1500 g and 1501-2500 g subgroups. The multiple linear regression analysis showed that gestational age at birth, birth weight, examination during labor, and duration between examination to delivery were statistically significant for the accurate estimation(p=0.001) Conclusions: Accurate estimation rates were lower in the term compared to the preterm delivery group, and in the SGA group compared to the AGA group. The factors affecting accurate estimation were found to be gestational age at birth, birth weight, examination during labor, and duration between examination to delivery.Keywords: Accurate estimation rate, Duration between examination to delivery, Examination during

scholarly journals 686: Predictions of large for gestational age by various sonographic fetal weight estimation formulas--how accurate are we?

2016 ◽  
Vol 214 (1) ◽  
pp. S362
Author(s):  
Amir Aviram ◽  
Rinat Gabbay-Benziv ◽  
Liran Hiersch ◽  
Eran Ashwal ◽  
Eran Hadar ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Gestational Age ◽  
Fetal Weight ◽  
Large For Gestational Age ◽  
Weight Estimation ◽  
Fetal Weight Estimation

scholarly journals Birthweight features of the infants of mothers diagnosed with diabetes at different gestational ages in South China from 2014 to 2018: a retrospective study

BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (4) ◽  
pp. e042476
Author(s):  
Xin-xin Huang ◽  
Xiu-Min Jiang ◽  
Qing-Xiang Zheng ◽  
Xiao-Qing Chen ◽  
Yu-Qing Pan
Keyword(s):  
Birth Weight ◽  
Gestational Diabetes ◽  
South China ◽  
Gestational Age ◽  
Fetal Weight ◽  
Large For Gestational Age ◽  
Secondary Outcome ◽  
Appropriate For Gestational Age ◽  
The Difference ◽  
And Gender

ObjectivesThe primary purpose was to measure the birth weight of infants of mothers with gestational diabetes (IMGDs) at different gestational ages to develop new reference charts and curves for them. A further purpose was to compare them with those of 159 334 infants in China to provide more accurate reference charts for the diagnosis of suspected abnormal birth weight of IMGDs. The final purpose was to evaluate the key periods for such mothers to control their weight in line with the difference of fetal weight of each two neighbouring gestational ages.SettingA specialised hospital in South ChinaParticipantsIMGDs born here from January 2014 to December 2018.Primary and secondary outcome variablesBirth weight, gestational ages of IMGDs, gender and year of birth.ResultsData of 14 311 singleton live births at the gestational weeks 25–42 here were collected. The proportions of low birth weight, normal birth weight and macrosomia were 7.26%, 87.04%, and 5.70%, respectively. The proportions of small for gestational age, appropriate for gestational age and large for gestational age were 5.69%, 84.42% and 9.89%, respectively. In the macrosomia group, the mean of all birth weight in 2017 decreased for the first time since 2014. Both the means of birth weight of male infants at gestational weeks 36–41 and of female at weeks 38–40 were greater than that of the 159 334 infants. The increase of each weekly mean of IMGDs at gestational weeks 27–31 and 33–35 was >10% compared with the former. Based on this, new reference charts of birth weight for IMGDs in terms of different gestational age and gender were formulated.ConclusionThese charts may be applied as reference for more accurate diagnosis and quick treatment of abnormal birth weight. This study showed that the identification of key periods for fetal weight gain was helpful for the management of the weight of women with gestational diabetes.

Prediction of large for gestational age by various sonographic fetal weight estimation formulas—which should we use?

2017 ◽  
Vol 37 (5) ◽  
pp. 513-517 ◽  
Author(s):  
A Aviram ◽  
Y Yogev ◽  
E Ashwal ◽  
L Hiersch ◽  
E Hadar ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Gestational Age ◽  
Fetal Weight ◽  
Large For Gestational Age ◽  
Weight Estimation ◽  
Fetal Weight Estimation

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 Accuracy of ultrasonic fetal weight estimation using head and abdominal circumference and femur length

2005 ◽  
Vol 58 (11-12) ◽  
pp. 548-552 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ljiljana Mladenovic-Segedi ◽  
Dimitrije Segedi
Keyword(s):  
Birth Weight ◽  
Head Circumference ◽  
Fetal Weight ◽  
Abdominal Circumference ◽  
Weight Estimation ◽  
Fetal Head ◽  
Total Body Mass ◽  
Femur Length ◽  
Fetal Weight Estimation ◽  
Gynecology And Obstetrics

Introduction Former investigations have shown that the accuracy of fetal weight estimation is significantly higher if several ultrasonic fe?tal parameters are measured, because the total body mass depends on the size of fetal head, abdominal circumference and femur length. The aim of this investigation was to establish the best regression model, that is a number of combinations of fetal parameters providing the most accurate fetal weight estimation in utero in our population. Material and methods This prospective study was carried out at the Gynecology and Obstetrics Clinic of the Clinical Center Novi Sad. It included 270 pregnant women with singleton pregnancies within 72 hours of delivery who underwent ultrasound measurements of the biparietal diameter (BPD), head circumference (HC), ab?dominal circumference (AC) and femur length (FL). Results In regard to fetal weight estimation formulas, the deviation was lowest using regression models that simultaneously analyzed four fetal parameters (0.55%) with SD ?7.61%. In these models the estimates of fetal weights were within ?5% of actual birth weight in 48.89%, and within ?10% of actual birth weight in 81.48%. Good results were also obtained using AC, FL measurements (0.92% ? 8.20) as well as using AC, HC, FL measurements (-1.45% ? 7.81). In our sample the combination of AC and FL model gave better results in fetal weight estimation (0.92 ? 8.20%) than the one using BPD and AC (2.97 ? 8.83%). Furthermore, the model using parameters AC, HC and FL showed a lower error in accuracy (-1.45 ? 7.81%) than the model using BPD, AC and FL (2.51 ? 7.82%). Conclusion This investigation has confirmed that the accuracy of fetal weight estimation increases with the number of measured ultra?sonic fetal parameters. In our population the greatest accuracy was obtained using BPD, HC, AC and FL model. In cases when fast estimation of fetal weight is needed, AC, HC, FL model may be appropriate, but if fetal head circumference cannot be measured (amnion rupture and/or fetal head already in the pelvis) the AC, FL model should be used.

scholarly journals INTEGRATION OF FETAL MID THIGH SOFT TISSUE THICKNESS IN ULTRASOUND BIRTH WEIGHT ESTIMATION FORMULA INCREASES THE ACCURACY OF FETAL WEIGHT ESTIMATION NEAR TERM

2018 ◽  
Vol 11 (4) ◽  
pp. 446
Author(s):  
Shripad Hebbar ◽  
Sukriti Malaviya ◽  
Sunanda Bharatnur
Keyword(s):  
Birth Weight ◽  
Prediction Models ◽  
Fetal Weight ◽  
Abdominal Circumference ◽  
Estimation Methods ◽  
Weight Estimation ◽  
Singleton Pregnancy ◽  
Fetal Biometry ◽  
Fetal Weight Estimation ◽  
Soft Tissue Thickness

Objective: The objective of the study was to find whether incorporation of MTSTT in fetal weight estimation formulae which are traditionally based on biparietal diameter (BPD), head circumference (HC), abdominal circumference (AC), and femur length (FL) improves birth weight (BW) estimation. Methods: In a prospective observational study, MTSTT was measured within 1 week of delivery in 100 women with term singleton pregnancy along with other standard biometric parameters, i.e. BPD, HC, AC and FL, and MTSTT. Multiple regression analysis was carried out using PHOEBE regression software using different combinations of biometric variables to find out the best fit model of fetal weight estimation. The predicted BW was compared with actual neonatal BW soon after delivery and regression coefficients (R2) were determined for each of prediction models for comparing the accuracies. Results: Mean gestational age at delivery was 38.4±1.08 weeks and the BW of neonates varied between 2.18 kg and 4.38 kg (mean ± standard deviation: 3.07±0.43 kg). By adding MTSTT to BPD, HC, AC, and FL, we obtained the formula Log 10 (BW) = −0.14783+0.00725 *BPD +0.00043 *HC +0.00436 *AC +0.01942 *FL +0.16299 *MTSTT, which had a very good Pearson regression coefficient ((r2: 0.89 p<0.001) compared to conventional models based on standard fetal biometry. All prediction models had better strength of correlation when combined with MTSTT (p<0.001). The routine four parameter formula could identify 45% and 80% of fetuses within 5% and 10% weight range; pick up rate was further increased to 61% and 95% by addition of MTSTT. Conclusion: It is evident that addition of MTSTT to other biometric variables in models of fetal weight estimation improves neonatal BW prediction (r2=0.89).

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document