DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.18203/2320-1770.ijrcog20184150

Transcerebellar diameter: an effective tool in predicting gestational age in normal and IUGR pregnancy

Sunita Dashottar, Krishna Pratap Singh Senger, Yashashvi Shukla, Ankita Singh, Surabhi Sharma

Abstract


Background: Gestational age is the common term used during pregnancy to describe how far advanced is the pregnancy. In the second and third trimesters, estimation of gestational age is accomplished by measuring the biparietal diameter, head circumference, abdominal circumference, and femur length. The transverse cerebellar diameter (TCD) may serve as a reliable predictor of gestational age (GA) of the fetus and a standard against which aberrations in other fetal parameters can be compared.

Methods: The study was conducted in the tertiary care teaching hospital from July 2016 to March 2017. 200 pregnant women of gestational age 15-40 weeks of pregnancy referred from Dept of Obs and Gynae for antenatal scan comprised our study sample.

Results: Age of women ranged from 18 to 43 years with maximum number of patients aged 26-30 years. Maximum cases with clinical suspicion for IUGR were in gestational age >36-40 weeks (50%). Evaluation of difference in actual and estimated gestational age between normal and actual gestational age showed that for normal pregnancy as well as in IUGR pregnancies mean difference between estimated and actual gestational age was minimum in TCD followed by other established parameters.

Conclusions: TCD being a stable parameter irrespective of growth status of fetus, provides a basis for its usefulness as a ratio to predict IUGR and other perainatal outcomes as used in several studies. Thus, despite not being a direct marker for IUGR it can serve as a surrogate marker for detection of IUGR and another adverse perinatal outcome.


Keywords


Biometry, IUGR, Pregnancy, TCD

Full Text:

PDF

References


Caughey AB, Nicholson JM, Washington AE. First- vs second-trimester ultrasound: the effect on pregnancy dating and perinatal outcomes. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2008;198(6):703–5.

Araujo EJ, Pires CR, Nardozza LM. Correlation of the fetal cerebellar volume with other fetal growth indices by three-dimensional ultrasound. J Matern Fetal Neonat Med 2007; 20(8):581-7.

Chavez MR, Ananth CV, Smulian JC, Yeo L, Oyelese Y, Vintzileo AM. Fetal transcerebellar diameter measurement with particular emphasis in the third trimester: a reliable predictor of gestational age. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2004; 191(3):979-84.

Satish Prasad BS, Likhitha S. Cerebellar Measurements with Ultrasonography in the Evaluation of Fetal Age. IOSR Journal of Dental and Medical Sciences (IOSR-JDMS).2014; 13(9):49-56.

Fatima K, Shahid R, Virk A. Determination of mean fetal transcerebellar diameter as a predictive biometric parameter in third trimester of pregnancy in correlation with fetal gestational age. Pak Armed Forces Med J. 2017; 67(1):155-60.

Bansal M, Bansal A, Jain S, Khare S, Ghai R. A study of Correlation of Transverse Cerebellar Diameter with Gestational Age in the Normal & Growth Restricted Fetuses in Western Uttar Pradesh. People’s J Sci Res. 2014;7(2):16-21.

Gupta AD, Banerjee A, Rammurthy N, Revati P, Jose J, Karak P et al. Gestational age estimation using transcerebellar diameter with grading of fetal cerebellar growth. Nat J Clinical Anat. 2012;1(3):115-120.

Garg A, Pathak N, Gorea RK, Mohan P. Ultrasonographical Age Estimation from Fetal Biparietal Diameter. J Indian Acad Forensic Med. 2010;32(4):308-310.

Malik R, Pandya V K, Shrivastava P. Gestational age estimation using transcerebellar diameter with grading of fetal cerebellum and evaluation of TCD/AC (Transcerebellar diameter/abdominal circumference) ratio as a gestational age independent parameter. Indian J Radiol Imaging. 2003;13(1):95-7.

Taipale P and Hiilesmaa V. Predicting Delivery Date by Ultrasound and Last Menstrual Period in Early Gestation. Obstet Gynecol. 2001;97(2):189-94.

Gameraddin M, Alhaj B, Alabdeen MZ. The Reliability of Biparietal Diameter and Femoral Length in Estimation the Gestational Age Using Ultrasonography. J Gynecol Obstet.2014;2(6):112-5.

Goel P, Singla M, Ghai R, Jain S, Budhiraja V, Rameshbabu CS. Transverse cerebellar diameter - a marker for estimation of gestational age. J. Anat. Soc. India 2010;59(2):158-61.

Davies MW, Swaminathan M and Betheras FR. Measurement of the transverse cerebellar diameter in preterm neonates and its use in assessment of gestational age. Austral Radiol. 2001;45(3);309-12.

Luiz N, Fernandes MA and Luiz K Jr. Ultrasonographic Evaluation of Fetal Growth with the use of the Transverse Cerebellar Diameter. Rev. Bras. Ginecol. Obstet. 2000;22(5):281-6.

Papageorghiou AT, Kemp B, Stones W, Ohuma EO, Kennedy SH, Purwar M, et al. Ultrasound Based gestational-age estimation in late pregnancy. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2016;48(6):719-26.

Uikey PA, Kedar KV, Khandale SN. Role of trans-cerebellar diameter in estimating gestational age in second and third trimester of pregnancy. International Journal of Reproduct, Contracep, Obstet Gynecol. 2016;5(10):3411-5.

Mahmoud MZ, Mahmoud OA and Abdulla AA. Fetal Transverse Cerebellar Diameter Measurement for Prediction of Gestational Age in Pregnant Sudanese Ladies. Int J Life Sci Med Res. 2013;31(3):89-93.

Naseem F, Fatima N, Yasmeen S and Saleem S. Comparison Between Transcerebellar Diameter with Biparietal Diameter of Ultrasound for Gestational Age Measurement in Third Trimester of Pregnancy. J Coll Physicians Surg Pak. 2013;23(5):322-5.

Chavez MR, Ananth CV, Smulian JC, Vintzileas AM. Fetal Transcerebellar Diameter Measurement for Prediction of Gestational Age at the Extremes of Fetal Growth. J Ultrasound Med 2007;26(9):1167-71.

Vinkesteijn, Mulder PG, Wladimiroff JW. Fetal transverse cerebellar diameter measurements in normal and reduced fetal growth. ultrasound Obst Gynaecol. 2000;15(1):47-51.

Dhumale H, Pujar YV, Shravage JC, Bellad MB, Sherigar BY, Durdi GS, Amber SS. Fetal Transcerebellar Diameter to Abdominal Circumference Ratio (TCD/AC) in the Assessment of Normal Fetal Growth Donald School J Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol, 2010;4(4):455-7.