Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics 1/2015

01-07-2015 | Maternal-Fetal Medicine

Sonographic weight estimation in fetal macrosomia: influence of the time interval between estimation and delivery

Authors: F. Faschingbauer, U. Dammer, E. Raabe, M. Schneider, C. Faschingbauer, M. Schmid, A. Mayr, R. L. Schild, M. W. Beckmann, S. Kehl

Published in: Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics | Issue 1/2015

Login to get access

Abstract

Purpose

To evaluate the influence of the time interval between examination and delivery on the accuracy of sonographic weight estimation (WE) in fetal macrosomia.

Materials and methods

896 singleton pregnancies (birth weight > 4,000 g) with a total of 1,281 sonographic weight estimations were included in this retrospective cohort study. Fetuses were divided into six groups with regard to the time interval between estimation and delivery: group 1: scan-to-delivery interval: 0 days; group 2: scan-to-delivery interval: 1–3 days; group 3: scan-to-delivery interval: 4–7 days; group 4: scan-to-delivery interval: 8–14 days; group 5: scan-to-delivery interval: 15–21 days; group 6: scan-to-delivery interval: 22–42 days. The accuracy of WE was compared between five commonly used formulas using means of percentage errors (MPE), random error, medians of absolute percentage errors (MAPE), and proportions of estimates within 10 % of actual birth weight.

Results

Significant differences were found between the time interval groups with regard to MAPE and MPE values (p < 0.001). All formulas showed a systematic underestimation of fetal weight (negative MPEs) (p < 0.05). MPE values were closest to zero in time interval group 1 and 2. From group 3 to 6, a continuous decrease was observed. The lowest MAPE was found with the Merz formula in group 1 and 2. Values increased continuously from group 3 to 6. Differences between time interval group one and three did not reach statistical significance.

Conclusions

WE in fetal macrosomia shows the best results when examinations are performed within 7 days before delivery, using the formula of Merz et al. Accuracy significantly decreases after this time period.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
go back to reference Kramer MS, Morin I, Yang H et al (2002) Why are babies getting bigger? Temporal trends in fetal growth and its determinants. J Pediatr 141:538–542CrossRefPubMed Kramer MS, Morin I, Yang H et al (2002) Why are babies getting bigger? Temporal trends in fetal growth and its determinants. J Pediatr 141:538–542CrossRefPubMed
2.
go back to reference Surkan PJ, Hsieh CC, Johansson AL, Dickman PW, Cnattingius S (2004) Reasons for increasing trends in large for gestational age births. Obstet Gynecol 104:720–726CrossRefPubMed Surkan PJ, Hsieh CC, Johansson AL, Dickman PW, Cnattingius S (2004) Reasons for increasing trends in large for gestational age births. Obstet Gynecol 104:720–726CrossRefPubMed
3.
go back to reference Patterson RM (1985) Estimation of fetal weight during labor. Obstet Gynecol 65:330–332PubMed Patterson RM (1985) Estimation of fetal weight during labor. Obstet Gynecol 65:330–332PubMed
4.
go back to reference Dietz HP (2010) Childbirth-related Pelvic Floor Trauma. Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd 70:969–978CrossRef Dietz HP (2010) Childbirth-related Pelvic Floor Trauma. Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd 70:969–978CrossRef
5.
go back to reference Brieger GM, Rogers MS, Rushton AW, Mongelli M (1997) Are Hong Kong babies getting bigger? Int J Gynaecol Obstet 57:267–271CrossRefPubMed Brieger GM, Rogers MS, Rushton AW, Mongelli M (1997) Are Hong Kong babies getting bigger? Int J Gynaecol Obstet 57:267–271CrossRefPubMed
6.
go back to reference Orskou J, Kesmodel U, Henriksen TB, Secher NJ (2001) An increasing proportion of infants weigh more than 4,000 grams at birth. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 80:931–936CrossRefPubMed Orskou J, Kesmodel U, Henriksen TB, Secher NJ (2001) An increasing proportion of infants weigh more than 4,000 grams at birth. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 80:931–936CrossRefPubMed
7.
go back to reference Boulet SL, Alexander GR, Salihu HM, Pass M (2003) Macrosomic births in the united states: determinants, outcomes, and proposed grades of risk. Am J Obstet Gynecol 188:1372–1378CrossRefPubMed Boulet SL, Alexander GR, Salihu HM, Pass M (2003) Macrosomic births in the united states: determinants, outcomes, and proposed grades of risk. Am J Obstet Gynecol 188:1372–1378CrossRefPubMed
8.
go back to reference Dudley NJ (2005) A systematic review of the ultrasound estimation of fetal weight. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 25:80–89CrossRefPubMed Dudley NJ (2005) A systematic review of the ultrasound estimation of fetal weight. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 25:80–89CrossRefPubMed
9.
go back to reference Hadlock FP, Harrist RB, Sharman RS, Deter RL, Park SK (1985) Estimation of fetal weight with the use of head, body, and femur measurements–a prospective study. Am J Obstet Gynecol 151:333–337CrossRefPubMed Hadlock FP, Harrist RB, Sharman RS, Deter RL, Park SK (1985) Estimation of fetal weight with the use of head, body, and femur measurements–a prospective study. Am J Obstet Gynecol 151:333–337CrossRefPubMed
10.
go back to reference Shepard MJ, Richards VA, Berkowitz RL, Warsof SL, Hobbins JC (1982) An evaluation of two equations for predicting fetal weight by ultrasound. Am J Obstet Gynecol 142:47–54PubMed Shepard MJ, Richards VA, Berkowitz RL, Warsof SL, Hobbins JC (1982) An evaluation of two equations for predicting fetal weight by ultrasound. Am J Obstet Gynecol 142:47–54PubMed
11.
go back to reference Hadlock FP, Harrist RB, Carpenter RJ, Deter RL, Park SK (1984) Sonographic estimation of fetal weight. The value of femur length in addition to head and abdomen measurements. Radiology 150:535–540CrossRefPubMed Hadlock FP, Harrist RB, Carpenter RJ, Deter RL, Park SK (1984) Sonographic estimation of fetal weight. The value of femur length in addition to head and abdomen measurements. Radiology 150:535–540CrossRefPubMed
12.
go back to reference Merz E, Lieser H, Schicketanz KH, Harle J (1988) Intrauterine fetal weight assessment using ultrasound. A comparison of several weight assessment methods and development of a new formula for the determination of fetal weight. Ultraschall Med 9:15–24CrossRefPubMed Merz E, Lieser H, Schicketanz KH, Harle J (1988) Intrauterine fetal weight assessment using ultrasound. A comparison of several weight assessment methods and development of a new formula for the determination of fetal weight. Ultraschall Med 9:15–24CrossRefPubMed
13.
go back to reference Warsof SL, Gohari P, Berkowitz RL, Hobbins JC (1977) The estimation of fetal weight by computer-assisted analysis. Am J Obstet Gynecol 128:881–892PubMed Warsof SL, Gohari P, Berkowitz RL, Hobbins JC (1977) The estimation of fetal weight by computer-assisted analysis. Am J Obstet Gynecol 128:881–892PubMed
14.
go back to reference Melamed N, Yogev Y, Meizner I et al (2009) Sonographic fetal weight estimation: which model should be used? J Ultrasound Med 28:617–629PubMed Melamed N, Yogev Y, Meizner I et al (2009) Sonographic fetal weight estimation: which model should be used? J Ultrasound Med 28:617–629PubMed
15.
go back to reference Siemer J, Egger N, Hart N et al (2008) Fetal weight estimation by ultrasound: comparison of 11 different formulae and examiners with differing skill levels. Ultraschall Med 29:159–164CrossRefPubMed Siemer J, Egger N, Hart N et al (2008) Fetal weight estimation by ultrasound: comparison of 11 different formulae and examiners with differing skill levels. Ultraschall Med 29:159–164CrossRefPubMed
16.
go back to reference Hoopmann M, Abele H, Wagner N, Wallwiener D, Kagan KO (2010) Performance of 36 different weight estimation formulae in fetuses with macrosomia. Fetal Diagn Ther 27:204–213CrossRefPubMed Hoopmann M, Abele H, Wagner N, Wallwiener D, Kagan KO (2010) Performance of 36 different weight estimation formulae in fetuses with macrosomia. Fetal Diagn Ther 27:204–213CrossRefPubMed
17.
go back to reference Faschingbauer F, Voigt F, Goecke TW et al (2011) Fetal weight estimation in extreme macrosomia (≥ 4,500 g): comparison of 10 formulas. Ultraschall Med Faschingbauer F, Voigt F, Goecke TW et al (2011) Fetal weight estimation in extreme macrosomia (≥ 4,500 g): comparison of 10 formulas. Ultraschall Med
18.
go back to reference Kurmanavicius J, Burkhardt T, Wisser J, Huch R (2004) Ultrasonographic fetal weight estimation: accuracy of formulas and accuracy of examiners by birth weight from 500 to 5000 g. J Perinat Med 32:155–161CrossRefPubMed Kurmanavicius J, Burkhardt T, Wisser J, Huch R (2004) Ultrasonographic fetal weight estimation: accuracy of formulas and accuracy of examiners by birth weight from 500 to 5000 g. J Perinat Med 32:155–161CrossRefPubMed
19.
go back to reference ACOG (2009) ACOG practice bulletin no. 101: ultrasonography in pregnancy. Obstet Gynecol 113:451–461CrossRef ACOG (2009) ACOG practice bulletin no. 101: ultrasonography in pregnancy. Obstet Gynecol 113:451–461CrossRef
20.
go back to reference Eichhorn KH, Schramm T, Bald R, Hansmann M, Gembruch U (2006) DEGUM grade I quality standards in obstetric ultrasound diagnosis during the 19th–22nd week of pregnancy. Ultraschall Med 27:185–187CrossRefPubMed Eichhorn KH, Schramm T, Bald R, Hansmann M, Gembruch U (2006) DEGUM grade I quality standards in obstetric ultrasound diagnosis during the 19th–22nd week of pregnancy. Ultraschall Med 27:185–187CrossRefPubMed
21.
go back to reference Merz E, Eichhorn KH, Hansmann M, Meinel K (2002) Quality demands on continuing differential diagnostic sonography in prenatal diagnostics (DEGUM stage II) during the 18th to 22nd weeks of gestation. Ultraschall Med 23:11–12CrossRefPubMed Merz E, Eichhorn KH, Hansmann M, Meinel K (2002) Quality demands on continuing differential diagnostic sonography in prenatal diagnostics (DEGUM stage II) during the 18th to 22nd weeks of gestation. Ultraschall Med 23:11–12CrossRefPubMed
22.
go back to reference Heer IM, Kumper C, Vogtle N et al (2008) Analysis of factors influencing the ultrasonic fetal weight estimation. Fetal Diagn Ther 23:204–210CrossRefPubMed Heer IM, Kumper C, Vogtle N et al (2008) Analysis of factors influencing the ultrasonic fetal weight estimation. Fetal Diagn Ther 23:204–210CrossRefPubMed
23.
go back to reference Basha AS, Abu-Khader IB, Qutishat RM, Amarin ZO (2012) Accuracy of sonographic fetal weight estimation within 14 days of delivery in a Jordanian population using Hadlock formula 1. Med Princ Prac Int J Kuwait Univ Health Sci Centre 21:366–369CrossRef Basha AS, Abu-Khader IB, Qutishat RM, Amarin ZO (2012) Accuracy of sonographic fetal weight estimation within 14 days of delivery in a Jordanian population using Hadlock formula 1. Med Princ Prac Int J Kuwait Univ Health Sci Centre 21:366–369CrossRef
24.
go back to reference Mongelli M, Gardosi J (1996) Gestation-adjusted projection of estimated fetal weight. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 75:28–31CrossRefPubMed Mongelli M, Gardosi J (1996) Gestation-adjusted projection of estimated fetal weight. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 75:28–31CrossRefPubMed
25.
go back to reference Benacerraf BR, Gelman R, Frigoletto FD Jr (1988) Sonographically estimated fetal weights: accuracy and limitation. Am J Obstet Gynecol 159:1118–1121CrossRefPubMed Benacerraf BR, Gelman R, Frigoletto FD Jr (1988) Sonographically estimated fetal weights: accuracy and limitation. Am J Obstet Gynecol 159:1118–1121CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
Sonographic weight estimation in fetal macrosomia: influence of the time interval between estimation and delivery
Authors
F. Faschingbauer
U. Dammer
E. Raabe
M. Schneider
C. Faschingbauer
M. Schmid
A. Mayr
R. L. Schild
M. W. Beckmann
S. Kehl
Publication date
01-07-2015
Publisher
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in
Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics / Issue 1/2015
Print ISSN: 0932-0067
Electronic ISSN: 1432-0711
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-014-3604-y

Other articles of this Issue 1/2015

Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics 1/2015 Go to the issue