A Longitudinal Study of Fetal Growth Variability

Guihard-Costa, Anne-Marie; Droullé, P.; Thiébaugeorges, O.; Hascoët, J.-M.

doi:10.1159/000014239

Cited by 19 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 5 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…This is in agreement with Owen et al who reported that growth velocity of the head was not significantly different from the reference population whereas the trunk growth velocity was significantly reduced in the third trimester in pregnancies with neonatal features of intrauterine malnourishment [11]. Previously, it has been reported that fetal measurements show linear growth rates until 26 weeks with low variances whereas growth rates related variances increase significantly thereafter with a great diversity in individual growth trajectories [25]. [8][9][10] week interval between US examination has been suggested as statistically reliable in assessing fetal growth [26].…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 91%

Predicting late-onset growth abnormalities using growth velocity between trimesters

Salomon

Bernard

Duyme

et al. 2005

The Journal of Maternal-Fetal & Neonatal Medicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 91%

Predicting late-onset growth abnormalities using growth velocity between trimesters

Salomon

Bernard

Duyme

et al. 2005

The Journal of Maternal-Fetal & Neonatal Medicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…By contrast, Guihard-Costa et al (7), on the basis of 24 pregnancies followed from the wk 7 up to delivery, asserts that differences in growth velocity emerge only during the third trimester. Whether possible differences in early intrauterine growth velocity are simply the effect of random growth fluctuations or, on the contrary, affect the size at birth is still a debated issue.…”

mentioning

confidence: 94%

Differences in Size at Birth Are Determined by Differences in Growth Velocity during Early Prenatal Life

et al. 2005

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Physiologic interindividual differences in neonatal size are traditionally thought of as determined by differences in fetal growth occurring only in the second half of pregnancy. Whether possible differences in early intrauterine growth velocity are the effect of random growth fluctuations or may affect size at birth is still debated. This article aims at evaluating to what extent differences in neonatal size are accounted for by differences in fetal growth velocity. We analyzed the fetal growth of 130 healthy singletons for whom head (HC) and abdomen (AC) circumferences and femur diaphysis length (FDL) longitudinal profiles were available, together with the measures of weight (BW), length (BL), and head circumference (BHC) at birth. Individual profiles were fitted with ad-hoc models. Neonatal traits were transformed into standard deviation scores (SDS). Neonates in the upper third of BW-SDS distribution (3618 Ϯ 43 g, mean Ϯ SEM) had, at 22 wk of gestational age, AC growth velocity higher by 0.55 Ϯ 0.10 mm/wk than those in the lower third (2902 Ϯ 36 g). Neonates in the upper third of BL-SDS distribution (51.7 Ϯ 0.21 cm) had, at 20 wk, FDL growth velocity higher by 0.11 Ϯ 0.05 mm/wk than those in the lower third (48.2 Ϯ 0.18 cm). Neonates in the upper third of BHC-SDS distribution (35.7 Ϯ 0.13 cm) had, at 18 wk, HC growth velocity higher by 0.57 Ϯ 0.20 mm/wk than those in the lower third (33.3 Ϯ 0.11 cm). The differences in growth velocity remain constant throughout the second and third trimester for AC, and tend to vanish in the third trimester for HC and FDL. The differences in fetal growth velocity, which in our study were observed as early as mo 4, suggest that the genetic component plays an important role in fetal growth and is precociously expressed. Abbreviations AC, abdomen circumference BHC, head circumference at birth BL, birth length BPD, biparietal diameter BW, birth weight CRL, crown-rump length FDL, femur diaphysis length GA, gestational age HC, head circumference SDS, standard deviation score Physiologic interindividual differences in neonatal size are traditionally thought of as determined by differences in fetal growth occurring only in the second half of pregnancy (1,2). Actually, the assessment of GA derived from the measurement of CRL during the late first trimester (3), as well as of BPD, HC, and FDL during the second trimester (4), rests on the assumption that in this period fetuses of the same size have nearly the same GA. Empirical evidence against the above assumption is unlikely to be provided, inasmuch as differences in size in the first half of pregnancy are expected to be small, growth being a cumulative process, and measurement error being relatively large with respect to size. On the other hand, negligible interindividual differences in size at a given gestational age do not necessarily imply negligible differences in growth velocity, which may be estimated only by means of longitudinal studies.Longitudinal studies presently available, although based on few subjects and limited to t...

show abstract

“…In a previous study [3] , we attempted to determine the best model describing the kinetics of fetal head growth. We found a new two-phase mathematical model, computed independently for male and female data, taking into account the increasing inter-subject variability with gestational age, and the decrease in mean growth rate at about 30 gestational weeks, which has been reported previously [4] . The present study extends the previous model on two other dimensions usually involved in routine ultrasound screening of fetuses: the abdominal circumference (AC) and femur length (FL).…”

mentioning

confidence: 63%

“…The fi rst one was developed by Pineau [7] , and successfully tested on head circumference (HC) and biparietal diameter data [1] . Three other commonly used models were also computed: a linear-quadratic model (a + bt + ct 2 ), a linear-cubic model corresponding to the model used by Deter et al [8] to fi t longitudinal data (a + bt + ct 3 ) and the Rossavik equation [4] . To test the four models, we utilized the SYSTAT software to calculate the coeffi cient of determination (R 2 ) and the standard er- Fig.…”

Section: Mathematical and Statistical Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

Optimal Standards for Fetal Biometry: To Each Measurement Its Fitting Model

Pineau

Thiébaugeorges²,

Guihard-Costa³

2006

Fetal Diagn Ther

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: To determine the best mathematical model to construct charts of fetal abdominal circumference (AC) and femur length (FL). Methods: Ultrasound measurements were made on 1,336 normal fetuses in one center. Four mathematical models were compared (a linear-quadratic model, a linear-cubic model, the Rossavik model and a new two-phase model, which has been found to best fit fetal head data). Results: The best fitting of AC and FL data was obtained with the linear-quadratic model without separate computing for gender. Centile charts have been computed. Conclusion: Fetal growth of AC and FL is much simpler than that of the head. Therefore, a unique mathematical model should not be used to fit all measurements.

show abstract

A Longitudinal Study of Fetal Growth Variability

Cited by 19 publications

References 5 publications

Predicting late-onset growth abnormalities using growth velocity between trimesters

Predicting late-onset growth abnormalities using growth velocity between trimesters

Differences in Size at Birth Are Determined by Differences in Growth Velocity during Early Prenatal Life

Optimal Standards for Fetal Biometry: To Each Measurement Its Fitting Model

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About