Fetal head circumference versus fetal weight at term as a predictor of labour outcome


  • Nishita Shettian Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, AJ institute of Medical Sciences and Research Centre, Mangalore, Karnataka, India
  • Nikita Pitty Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, AJ institute of Medical Sciences and Research Centre, Mangalore, Karnataka, India




Indian population, Head circumference, Estimated- fetal weight, Term scan, Labour outcomes


Background: Several models have been proposed to predict the need for an LSCS. With reference to this, the impact of the size of the fetal head traversing the birth canal is an important determinant of delivery outcomes. We examined the association between the head circumference and mode of delivery and perinatal outcomes, when compared to birth weight predicted by scan.

Methods: This was a retrospective study, on 800 electronic delivery records between December 2019 and May 2021. Sociodemographic data, obstetrical parameter, term scan findings of head circumference and estimated fetal weight, and labour and perinatal outcomes were collected and analysed.

Results: HC >95th centile was found to be comparatively more predictive and statistically significant compared to EFW >95th centile in the prediction of LSCS, with the most common indication being cephalopelvic disproportion. Prolonged second stage of labour was statistically significant in both cohort A and B, undergoing vaginal delivery. It was also noted that a significant number of newborns in cohort A required NICU admissions, while NICU admissions after emergency LSCS was significantly higher in the cohort B (p=0.0032) though the overall 5 and 10 minute APGAR scores and duration of stay were comparable in the groups classified on basis of EFW and HC.

Conclusions: The above statistics observed on an Indian population may aid obstetricians in the planning of the mode of delivery, improve pre-labor counselling and efficient management of mothers of large babies.



Zandvakili F, Rezaie M, Shahoei R, Roshani D. Maternal outcomes associated with caesarean versus vaginal delivery. J Clin Diagnostic. 2017;11:QC01-4.

Shams-Beyranvand M. Predictors of caesarean section-a cross-sectional study in Hungary. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2020;45:52-9.

Renes L, Barka N, Gyurkovits Z, Paulik E, Nemeth G, Orvos H. Predictors of caesarean section – a cross-sectional study in Hungary.J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2018;31(3):320-4.

Benjamin SJ, Daniel AB, Kamath A, Ramkumar V. Anthropometric measurements as predictors of cephalopelvic disproportion. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2012; 91:122-7.

Khan MN, Islam MM, Shariff AA, Alm MM, Rahman MM. Socio-demographic predictors and average annual rates of caesarean section in Banglaesh between 2004 and 2014. Plos ONE. 2017;12(5):e0177579.

Froehlich RJ, Sandoval G, Bailit JL, GrobmanWA, Reddy UM, wapner RJ, et al. MSCE, for the eunice kennedy shriver national institute of child health and human development (NICHD) maternal- fetal medicine units (mfmu)network. association of recorded estimated fetal weight and caesarean delivery in attempted vaginal delivery at term. Obstet Gynecol. 2016 ;128(3):487-94.

Temerinac D, ChenXI, Sutterlin M, Kehl S. Influence of fetal birth weight on caesearean sectionrate and fetal outcomes after induction of labour. In Vivo. 2015;29(5):519-24.

De Vries B, Bryce B, Zandanova T, Ting J, Kelly P, Phipps H, Hyett JA. Is neonatal head circumference related to Ceasarean section for failure to progress? Aust N Z J Ostet Gynaecol. 2016;(6);571-7.

Lipschuetz M, Cohen SM, Ein-Mor E. A large head circumference is more strongly associated with unplanned cesarean or instrumental delivery

and neonatal complications than high birthweight. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2015;213:833.e1-12.






Original Research Articles