Fetal Weight Estimation: Comparison of Two-dimensional US and MR Imaging Assessments

Kacem, Y.; Cannie, Mieke; Kadji, Caroline; Dobrescu, Oana Gabriela; Zito, Leila Lo; Ziane, Samir; Strizek, Brigitte; Evrard, Ann Sophie; Gubana, F.; Gucciardo, Léonardo; Staelens, R; Jani, Jacques

doi:10.1148/radiol.12121374

Cited by 46 publications

(58 citation statements)

References 32 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Among clinical methods in our study, Dares formula was 100% sensitive in predicting weight >3.5 Kg Kacem et al used MRI to predict EBW and found it more accurate then USG however it cannot be routinely used. 5 In our study we found Johnson equation giving a fair degree of accuracy compared to ultrasonic methods which had lower error at extremes of fetal weight. Obstetrical equation did not give good accuracy; however Shittu et al found it quite accurate in a study conducted in Nigeria.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 48%

Comparison of three clinical and three ultrasonic equations in predicting fetal birth weight

Malik

Thakur

Agarwal

2016

Int J Reprod Contracept Obstet Gynecol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 48%

Comparison of three clinical and three ultrasonic equations in predicting fetal birth weight

Malik

Thakur

Agarwal

2016

Int J Reprod Contracept Obstet Gynecol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Whether this is due to a different density in such fetuses, indicating a need for a customized formula in MR-EFW, is unknown. In a previous study, the density of fetuses did not differ between diabetic and nondiabetic mothers, but the study was underpowered to show such a difference [14] .…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 84%

“…Further, all planimetric measurements were performed by maternal-fetal medicine trainees supervised by C.K. on picture archiving and communication system (PACS; Impax, Agfa-Gevaert, Mortsel, Belgium) as previously described [14] .…”

Section: Mr Imaging Planimetrymentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The Use of a Software-Assisted Method to Estimate Fetal Weight at and Near Term Using Magnetic Resonance Imaging

Kadji

Groof²,

Camus³

et al. 2017

Fetal Diagn Ther

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: The aim of this study was to apply a semi-automated calculation method of fetal body volume and, thus, of magnetic resonance-estimated fetal weight (MR-EFW) prior to planned delivery and to evaluate whether the technique of measurement could be simplified while remaining accurate. Methods: MR-EFW was calculated using a semi-automated method at 38.6 weeks of gestation in 36 patients and compared to the picture archiving and communication system (PACS). Per patient, 8 sequences were acquired with a slice thickness of 4-8 mm and an intersection gap of 0, 4, 8, 12, 16, or 20 mm. The median absolute relative errors for MR-EFW and the time of planimetric measurements were calculated for all 8 sequences and for each method (assisted vs. PACS), and the difference between the methods was calculated. Results: The median delivery weight was 3,280 g. The overall median relative error for all 288 MR-EFW calculations was 2.4% using the semi-automated method and 2.2% for the PACS method. Measurements did not differ between the 8 sequences using the assisted method (p = 0.313) or the PACS (p = 0.118), while the time of planimetric measurement decreased significantly with a larger gap (p < 0.001) and in the assisted method compared to the PACS method (p < 0.01). Conclusion: Our simplified MR-EFW measurement showed a dramatic decrease in time of planimetric measurement without a decrease in the accuracy of weight estimates.

show abstract

“…2.6% for MR-EFW and 6.4% for US-EFW [15] . Fetal weight in 26.6% of cases was estimated with an error of more than 10% using US and 1.1% with MR imaging.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 88%

A Longitudinal Study on Fetal Weight Estimation at Third Trimester of Pregnancy: Comparison of Magnetic Resonance Imaging and 2-D Ultrasound Predictions

Kadji

Cannie²,

Wettere³

et al. 2017

Fetal Diagn Ther

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: To prospectively compare magnetic resonance (MR) estimation of fetal weight (MR-EFW) performed at third trimester with ultrasound (US) estimation of fetal weight (US-EFW) and actual birth weight, and to evaluate factors influencing fetal growth rate near term. Methods: US-EFW and MR-EFW were calculated at a median of 33.0 and 37.7 weeks of gestation in 37 fetuses and plotted on curve centiles to predict birth weights at 39.3 weeks of gestation. The median absolute relative errors for predicted US-EFW and MR-EFW were calculated. Regression analysis was used to investigate the effect of different variables on fetal growth rate at 35.2 weeks of gestation. Results: The relative error of actual birth weight as predicted by US at 33.0 weeks was significantly higher compared with MR (7.33 vs. 4.11%; p = 0.001). This was also the case for fetal weight predicted by US at 37.7 weeks as compared with MR (6.63 vs. 2.60%; p < 0.01). Fetal growth rate was significantly and independently positively associated with the mother's weight and with gestational age at estimation (p < 0.05 for both variables). Conclusion: Fetal weight estimates predicted using MR at third trimester are better than those given by prenatal US. Fetal growth rate depends on fetal and maternal characteristics.

show abstract

Fetal Weight Estimation: Comparison of Two-dimensional US and MR Imaging Assessments

Abstract: In the second half of pregnancy, fetal density varies with gestational age. Fetal weight estimates by using fetal MR imaging are better than those by using prenatal US.

Cited by 46 publications

References 32 publications

Comparison of three clinical and three ultrasonic equations in predicting fetal birth weight

Comparison of three clinical and three ultrasonic equations in predicting fetal birth weight

The Use of a Software-Assisted Method to Estimate Fetal Weight at and Near Term Using Magnetic Resonance Imaging

A Longitudinal Study on Fetal Weight Estimation at Third Trimester of Pregnancy: Comparison of Magnetic Resonance Imaging and 2-D Ultrasound Predictions

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About