Correlation of ultrasonographic estimated fetal weight with actual birth weight at a rural setting

Authors

  • Elnazeer A. Hashim Department of Radiology, Faculty of Medicine, University of West Kordofan, Sudan
  • Elsir A. Saeed Department of Radiology, Faculty of Graduate Studies, The National Ribat University, Sudan
  • Elsadig Y. Mohamed Department of Community Medicine and Public Health, College of Medicine, Majmaah University, Saudi Arabia
  • Elabbas M. Ebaid Department of Radiology, College of Medicine, Majmaah University, Saudi Arabia
  • Hussam Zain Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, College of Medicine, Majmaah University, Saudi Arabia/ College of Medicine, Alfashir University, Alfashir, Sudan
  • Sawsan M. Abdalla Department of Community Medicine and Public Health, College of Medicine, Majmaah University, Saudi Arabia
  • Khalid E. Medani Department of Community Medicine and Public Health, College of Medicine, Majmaah University, Saudi Arabia
  • Rayan G. Albarakati Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, College of Medicine, Majmaah University, Saudi Arabia

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.18203/2320-1770.ijrcog20202743

Keywords:

Correlation, Fetal weight, Ultrasonographic estimation

Abstract

Background: Ultrasound estimation of fetal weight in term pregnancies is used to determine fetal growth. The objective of this study was to assess the precision of sonographic estimation of fetal weight in normal vaginal deliveries at a rural setting.

Methods: The study was cross-sectional. A group of 74 pregnant women delivered normally in Muglad hospital in West Kordofan, Sudan, were considered in the study. Fetal weight was estimated by Hadlock and shephards formulae within one week prior to delivery and then newborn weight was taken within 24 hours after delivery. Data were collected by a questionnaire and medical examination as well as sonographic examination. Data analysis was done by SPSS version 23 and Kruskal Wallis Test (post-hoc analysis) Pearson’s correlation coefficient within 95% confidence interval. p value <0.05 was considered as statistically significant.

Results: The correlation, by Paired sample, to assess fetal weight was as follows: between Hadlock and shephards was 0.901 (p < 0.001), between Hadlock and AFW was 0.908 (p < 0.001) and between Shephards and AFW was 0.781 (p < 0.001).

Conclusions: Estimation of fetal weight by Hadlock has been more correlated with actual fetal weight (AFW) than that done with shephards. The study recommends using Hadlock formula which is more accurate in estimation of fetal weight by sonography.

References

- Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. The investigation and management of the small-for-gestational age fetus. No. 31, 2nd edn London: Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, 2013. [Google Scholar]

- Ashrafganjooei T, Naderi T. Eshrati B and Babapoor N. Accuracy of ultrasound, clinical and maternal estimates of birth weight in term women. EMHJ, 2010, 16(3):313-317.

- Sharma D, Shastri S, Sharma P. Intrauterine Growth Restriction: Antenatal and Postnatal Aspects. Clin Med Insights Pediatr. 2016; 10:67‐83. Published 2016 Jul 14. doi:10.4137/CMPed.S40070

- Albu AR, Horhoianu IA, Dumitrascu MC, Horhoianu V. Growth assessment in diagnosis of Fetal Growth Restriction. Review. J Med Life. 2014;7(2):150‐154.

Gardosi J. Ultrasound biometry and fetal growth restriction. Fetal Matern Med Rev 2002; 13(4): 249–59. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0965539502000426

Gardosi J, Francis A, Turner S, Williams M. Customized growth charts: rationale, validation and clinical benefits. Expert Review; 218 (2) SUPPLEMENT , S609-S618, February 01, 2018 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2017.12.011

Zhang J, Merialdi M, Platt LD, Kramer MS. Defining normal and abnormal fetal growth promises and challenges. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2010;202(6):522‐528.

doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2009.10.889

Sharma D, Shastri S, Sharma P. Intrauterine Growth Restriction: Antenatal and Postnatal Aspects. Clin Med Insights Pediatr. 2016; 10:67‐83. Published 2016 Jul 14. doi:10.4137/CMPed.S40070

Bertino E., Oggè G., Di Nicola P., Giuliani F., Coscia A., Todros T. (2016) Intrauterine Growth Restriction: Obstetric and Neonatal Aspects. Intervention Strategies. In: Buonocore G., Bracci R., Weindling M. (eds) Neonatology:1-23 DOI https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-18159-2_158-1

Lanowski JS, Lanowski G, Schippert C, Drinkut K, Hillemanns P, Staboulidou I. Ultrasound versus Clinical Examination to Estimate Fetal Weight at Term. Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd. 2017;77(3):276‐283. doi:10.1055/s-0043-102406

Colman A, Maharaj D, Hutton J, Tuohy J. Reliability of ultrasound estimation of fetal weight in term singleton pregnancies. N Z Med J. 2006;119(1241):U2146.

Ratanasiri T, Jirapornkul S, Somboonporn W, Seejorn K, Patumnakul P. Comparison of the accuracy of ultrasonic fetal weight estimation by using the various equations. J Med Assoc Thai. 2002;85(9):962‐967.

Eze CU, Egwuanumku KI, Agwuna KK, Odidi L, Ochie K, Nwadike IU. Validity of common ultrasound methods of fetal weight estimation in late pregnancy among women in Kwale, Niger Delta region, Nigeria. Afr Health Sci. 2015;15(1):206‐216. doi:10.4314/ahs.v15i1.27

Joshi A, Panta O, Sharma B. Estimated Fetal Weight: Comparison of Clinical Versus Ultrasound Estimate. June 2017Journal of Nepal Health Research Council 15 (35) DOI: 10.3126/jnhrc.v15i1.18014

Yadav R, Sharma BK, Deokota RN, Rahman H. Assessment of clinical methods and ultrasound in predicting fetal birth weight in term pregnant women. International Journal of Reproduction, Contraception, Obstetrics and Gynecology Vol 5, No 8 (2016) DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.18203/2320-1770.ijrcog20162664

Lima AMH, Carvalho PRN, Junior SCG, Carioca ACCM, Lopez JM. Analysis of the Performance of 11 Formulae for Fetal Weight Estimation in Preterm Fetuses with Abnormal Doppler Velocimetry - A Retrospective Multicenter Study. Rev. Bras. Ginecol. Obstet. [online]. 2018, vol.40, n.10 [cited 2020-05-08], pp.580-586. Available from: <http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S010072032018001000580&lng=en&nrm=iso>. ISSN 0100-7203. http://dx.doi.org/10.1055/s-0038-1670643.

Melamed N, Yogev Y, Meizner I, Mashiach R, Bardin R, Ben-Haroush A: Sonographic fetal weight estimation: which model should be used? J Ultrasound Med 2009; 28: 617–629.

Heer IM, Kumper C, Vogtle N, Muller-Egloff S, Dugas M, Strauss A: Analysis of factors influencing the ultrasonic fetal weight estimation. Fetal Diagn Ther 2008; 23: 204–210.

Eze CU, Abonyi LC, Njoku J, Okorie U, Owonifari O. Correlation of ultrasonographic estimated fetal weight with actual birth weight in a tertiary hospital in Lagos, Nigeria. Afr Health Sci. 2015;15(4):1112‐1122. doi:10.4314/ahs.v15i4.9

Westerway SC. Estimating fetal weight for best clinical outcome. Australasian Journal of Ultrasound in Medicine. 2012 Feb;15(1):13-17. DOI: 10.1002/j.2205-0140. 2012.tb00136.x.

Mills MD, Nageotte MP, Elliott JP, Crade M, Dorchester W: Reliability of ultrasonographic formulary in the prediction of fetal weight and survival of very-low-birth-weight infants. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1990; 163: 1568–1574.

Siemer J, Wolf T, Hart N, Schrauder M, Meurer B, Goecker T, Beckmann MW, Schild RL: Increased accuracy of fetal weight estimation with a gender-specific weight formula. Fetal Diagn Ther 2008; 24: 321 326.

Siemer J, Egger N, Hart N, et al. Fetal weight estimation by ultrasound: comparison of 11 different formulae and examiners with differing skill levels. Ultraschall Med. 2008;29(2):159‐164. doi:10.1055/s-2007-963165.

Milner J, Arezina J. The accuracy of ultrasound estimation of fetal weight in comparison to birth weight: A systematic review. Ultrasound. 2018;26(1):32‐41. doi:10.1177/1742271X17732807

Downloads

Published

2020-06-25

Issue

Vol. 9 No. 7 (2020): July 2020

Section

Original Research Articles