Ultrasound fetal weight estimation in twin pregnancy

Dimassi, Kaouther; Hammemi, Aymen; Karoui, Abir; Triki, A.; Gara, Mohamed Faouzi

doi:10.2399/prn.15.0232007

Cited by 2 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…These formulas use a variation of fetal biometrics, including abdominal circumference (AC), femur length (FL), head circumference (HC), and biparietal diameter (BPD). Many studies have been performed to assess the accuracy of these formulas in specific scenarios including small for gestational age [ 13 ], large for gestational age [ 14 , 15 ], macrosomia [ 16 ], fetal gender [ 17 , 18 ], and multiple gestation [ 19 , 20 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of sonographic fetal weight estimation formulas in patients with preterm premature rupture of membranes

Warshafsky

Ronzoni

Quaglietta

et al. 2021

BMC Pregnancy Childbirth

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Estimation of fetal weight (EFW) by ultrasound is useful in clinical decision-making. Numerous formulas for EFW have been published but have not been validated in pregnancies complicated by preterm premature rupture of membranes (PPROM). The purpose of this study is to compare the accuracy of EFW formulas in patients with PPROM, and to further evaluate the performance of the most commonly used formula - Hadlock IV. Methods A retrospective cohort study of women with singleton gestations and PPROM, admitted to a single tertiary center between 2005 and 2017 from 220/7–330/7 (n = 565). All women had an EFW within 14 days of delivery by standard biometry (biparietal diameter, head circumference, abdominal circumference and femur length). The accuracy of previously published 21 estimated EFW formulas was assessed by comparing the Pearson correlation with actual birth weight, and calculating the random error, systematic error, proportion of estimates within 10% of birth weight, and Euclidean distance. Results The mean gestational was 26.8 ± 2.4 weeks at admission, and 28.2 ± 2.6 weeks at delivery. Most formulas were strongly correlated with actual birth weight (r > 0.9 for 19/21 formulas). Mean systematic error was − 4.30% and mean random error was 14.5%. The highest performing formula, by the highest proportion of estimates and lowest Euclidean distance was Ott (1986), which uses abdominal and head circumferences, and femur length. However, there were minimal difference with all of the first 10 ranking formulas. The Pearson correlation coefficient for the Hadlock IV formula was strong at r = 0.935 (p < 0.001), with 319 (56.5%) of measurements falling within 10%, 408 (72.2%) within 15% and 455 (80.5%) within 20% of actual birth weight. This correlation was unaffected by gender (r = 0.936 for males, r = 0.932 for females, p < 0.001 for both) or by amniotic fluid level (r = 0.935 for mean vertical pocket < 2 cm, r = 0.943 for mean vertical pocket ≥2 cm, p < 0.001 for both). Conclusions In women with singleton gestation and PPROM, the Ott (1986) formula for EFW was the most accurate, yet all of the top ten ranking formulas performed quite well. The commonly used Hadlock IV performed quite similarly to Ott’s formula, and is acceptable to use in this specific setting.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of sonographic fetal weight estimation formulas in patients with preterm premature rupture of membranes

Warshafsky

Ronzoni

Quaglietta

et al. 2021

BMC Pregnancy Childbirth

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…These formulas use a variation of fetal biometrics, including abdominal circumference (AC), femur length (FL), head circumference (HC), and biparietal diameter (BPD). Many studies have been performed to assess the accuracy of these formulas in speci c scenarios including small for gestational age [13], large for gestational age [14,15], macrosomia [16], fetal gender [17,18], and multiple gestation [19,20].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of sonographic fetal weight estimation formulas in patients with preterm premature rupture of membranes

Warshafsky

Ronzoni

Quaglietta

et al. 2020

Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Canada

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Estimation of fetal weight (EFW) by ultrasound is useful in clinical decision-making. Numerous formulas for EFW have been published but have not been validated in pregnancies complicated by preterm premature rupture of membranes (PPROM). The purpose of this study is to compare the accuracy of EFW formulas in patients with PPROM, and to further evaluate the performance of the most commonly used formula-Hadlock IV. Methods: A retrospective cohort study of women with singleton gestations and PPROM, admitted to a single tertiary center between 2003-2017 from 22 0/7-33 0/7 (n=565). All women had an EFW within 14 days of delivery by standard biometry (biparietal diameter, head circumference, abdominal circumference and femur length). The accuracy of previously published 21 estimated EFW formulas was assessed by comparing the Pearson correlation with actual birth weight, and calculating the random error, systematic error, proportion of estimates within 10% of birth weight, and Euclidean distance. Results: The mean gestational was 26.8±2.4 weeks at admission, and 28.2±2.6 weeks at delivery. Most formulas were strongly correlated with actual birth weight (r>0.9 for 19/21 formulas). Mean systematic error was-4.30% and mean random error was 14.5%. The highest performing formula, by the highest proportion of estimates and lowest Euclidean distance was Ott (1986), which uses abdominal and head circumferences, and femur length. However, there were minimal difference with all of the rst 10 ranking formulas. The Pearson correlation coe cient for the Hadlock IV formula was strong at r=0.935 (p<0.001), with 319 (56.5%) of measurements falling within 10%, 408 (72.2%) within 15% and 455 (80.5%) within 20% of actual birth weight. This correlation was unaffected by gender (r=0.936 for males, r=0.932 for females, p<0.001 for both) or by amniotic uid level (r=0.935 for mean vertical pocket <2 cm, r=0.943 for mean vertical pocket ≥2cm, p<0.001 for both). Conclusions: Most formulas accurately calculated EFW in patients with PPROM, but the Ott (1986) formula ranked highest, thus it may be the preferred formula to use in this population.

show abstract

Ultrasound fetal weight estimation in twin pregnancy

Cited by 2 publications

References 13 publications

Comparison of sonographic fetal weight estimation formulas in patients with preterm premature rupture of membranes

Comparison of sonographic fetal weight estimation formulas in patients with preterm premature rupture of membranes

Comparison of sonographic fetal weight estimation formulas in patients with preterm premature rupture of membranes

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About