Top

BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth

Published in:

Open Access 01-12-2021 | Research article

The impact of optimal dating on the assessment of fetal growth

Authors: N. Fries, F. Dhombres, M. Massoud, J. J. Stirnemann, R. Bessis, G. Haddad, L. J. Salomon

Published in: BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth | Issue 1/2021

Abstract

Background

The impact of using the Intergrowth (IG) dating formulae in comparison to the commonly used Robinson dating on the evaluation of biometrics and estimated fetal weight (EFW) has not been evaluated.

Methods

Nationwide cross-sectional study of routine fetal ultrasound biometry in low-risk pregnant women whose gestational age (GA) had been previously assessed by a first trimester CRL measurement. We compared the CRL-based GA according to the Robinson formula and the IG formula. We evaluated the fetal biometric measurements as well as the EFW taken later in pregnancy depending on the dating formula used. Mean and standard deviation of the Z scores as well as the number and percentage of cases classified as <3rd, < 10th, >90th and > 97th percentile were compared.

Results

Three thousand five hundred twenty-two low-risk women with scans carried out after 18 weeks were included. There were differences of zero, one and 2 days in 642 (18.2%), 2700 (76.7%) and 180 (5%) when GA was estimated based on the Robinson or the IG formula, respectively. The biometry Z scores assessed later in pregnancy were all statistically significantly lower when the Intergrowth-based dating formula was used (p < 10^− 4). Likewise, the number and percentage of foetuses classified as <3rd, < 10th, >90th and > 97th percentile demonstrated significant differences. As an example, the proportion of SGA foetuses varied from 3.46 to 4.57% (p = 0.02) and that of LGA foetuses from 17.86 to 13.4% (p < 10^− 4).

Conclusion

The dating formula used has a quite significant impact on the subsequent evaluation of biometry and EFW. We suggest that the combined and homogeneous use of a recent dating standard, together with prescriptive growth standards established on the same low-risk pregnancies, allows an optimal assessment of fetal growth.

Salomon LJ, Alfirevic Z, Da Silva Costa F, et al. ISUOG Practice guidelines: ultrasound assessment of fetal biometry and growth. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2019;53:715–23. https://doi.org/10.1002/uog.20272.CrossRefPubMed

Lees CC, Stampalija T, Baschat A, et al. ISUOG Practice guidelines: diagnosis and management of small-for-gestational-age fetus and fetal growth restriction. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2020;56:298–312. https://doi.org/10.1002/uog.22134.CrossRefPubMed

ACOG Practice Bulletin No. 204 summary. Fetal growth restriction. Obstet Gynecol. 2019;133:390–2. https://doi.org/10.1097/AOG.0000000000003071.CrossRef

Martins JG, Biggio JR, Abuhamad A. Society for maternal-fetal medicine (SMFM) consult series #52: diagnosis and management of fetal growth restriction. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2020:S0002937820305354. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2020.05.010.

Monier I, Blondel B, Ego A, et al. Poor effectiveness of antenatal detection of fetal growth restriction and consequences for obstetric management and neonatal outcomes: a French national study. BJOG. 2015;122:518–27. https://doi.org/10.1111/1471-0528.13148.CrossRefPubMed

Sovio U, White IR, Dacey A, et al. Screening for fetal growth restriction with universal third trimester ultrasonography in nulliparous women in the pregnancy outcome prediction (POP) study: a prospective cohort study. Lancet. 2015;386:2089–97. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(15)00131-2.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Ioannou C, Talbot K, Ohuma E, et al. Systematic review of methodology used in ultrasound studies aimed at creating charts of fetal size. BJOG. 2012. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-0528.2012.03451.x.

Salomon LJ, Bernard JP, Duyme M, et al. The impact of choice of reference charts and equations on the assessment of fetal biometry: assessment of fetal biometry. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2005;25:559–65. https://doi.org/10.1002/uog.1901.CrossRefPubMed

Sarris I, Ioannou C, Dighe M, et al. Standardization of fetal ultrasound biometry measurements: improving the quality and consistency of measurements. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2011;38:681–7. https://doi.org/10.1002/uog.8997.CrossRefPubMed

10.

Drukker L, Droste R, Chatelain P, et al. Expected-value bias in routine third-trimester growth scans. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2020;55:375–82. https://doi.org/10.1002/uog.21929.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

11.

Vayssière C, Haumonte J-B, Chantry A, et al. Prolonged and post-term pregnancies: guidelines for clinical practice from the French College of Gynecologists and Obstetricians (CNGOF). Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2013;169:10–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejogrb.2013.01.026.CrossRefPubMed

12.

Salomon LJ. How to date pregnancy? J Gynecol Obstet Biol Reprod (Paris). 2011;40:726–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jgyn.2011.09.016.CrossRef

13.

Dudley NJ, Griffith K. The importance of rigorous testing of circumference measuring callipers. Ultrasound Med Biol. 1996;22:1117–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0301-5629(96)00100-7.CrossRefPubMed

14.

Napolitano R, Donadono V, Ohuma EO, et al. Scientific basis for standardization of fetal head measurements by ultrasound: a reproducibility study. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2016;48:80–5. https://doi.org/10.1002/uog.15956.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

15.

Papageorghiou AT, Ohuma EO, Altman DG, et al. International standards for fetal growth based on serial ultrasound measurements: the fetal growth longitudinal study of the INTERGROWTH-21st project. Lancet. 2014;384:869–79. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(14)61490-2.CrossRefPubMed

16.

Vayssière C, Sentilhes L, Ego A, et al. Fetal growth restriction and intra-uterine growth restriction: guidelines for clinical practice from the French College of Gynaecologists and Obstetricians. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2015;193:10–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejogrb.2015.06.021.CrossRefPubMed

17.

Salomon LJ, Alfirevic Z, Seshadri S, et al. ISUOG Practice Guidelines: performance of first-trimester fetal ultrasound scan. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2013;41(1):102–13. https://doi.org/10.1002/uog.12342.

18.

Savitz DA, Terry JW, Dole N, et al. Comparison of pregnancy dating by last menstrual period, ultrasound scanning, and their combination. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2002;187:1660–6.CrossRef

19.

Hoffman CS, Messer LC, Mendola P, et al. Comparison of gestational age at birth based on last menstrual period and ultrasound during the first trimester. Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol. 2008;22:587–96. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-3016.2008.00965.x.CrossRefPubMed

20.

Papageorghiou AT, Kennedy SH, Salomon LJ, et al. International standards for early fetal size and pregnancy dating based on ultrasound measurement of crown-rump length in the first trimester of pregnancy. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2014;44:641–8. https://doi.org/10.1002/uog.13448.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

21.

Robinson HP, Fleming JE. A critical evaluation of sonar “crown-rump length” measurements. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1975;82:702–10.CrossRef

22.

Stirnemann JJ, Fries N, Bessis R, et al. Implementing the INTERGROWTH-21(st) fetal growth standards in France: a “flash study” of the college Français d’Echographie Foetale (CFEF). Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2017;49:487–92. https://doi.org/10.1002/uog.17223.CrossRefPubMed

23.

Dhombres F, Khoshnood B, Bessis R, et al. Quality of first-trimester measurement of crown-rump length. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2014;211:672.e1–5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2014.06.012.CrossRef

24.

Stirnemann J, Salomon LJ, Papageorghiou A. The Intergrowth standards for Hadlock’s estimation of fetal weight. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol Published Online First: 22 February 2020. doi:https://doi.org/10.1002/uog.22000.

25.

Borghi E, de Onis M, Garza C, et al. Construction of the World Health Organization child growth standards: selection of methods for attained growth curves. Stat Med. 2006;25:247–65. https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.2227.CrossRefPubMed

26.

WHO. Report on the regional consultation towards the development of a strategy for optimizing fetal growth and development. Cairo: World Health Organization; 2005.

27.

Papageorghiou AT, Kennedy SH, Salomon LJ, et al. The INTERGROWTH-21 st fetal growth standards: toward the global integration of pregnancy and pediatric care. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2018;218:S630–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2018.01.011.CrossRefPubMed

28.

Villar J, Papageorghiou AT, Pang R, et al. Monitoring human growth and development: a continuum from the womb to the classroom. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2015;213:494–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2015.07.002.CrossRefPubMed

29.

Salomon L, Hourrier S, Fanchin R, et al. Is first-trimester crown-rump length associated with birthweight? BJOGPublished Online First: 18 May 2011. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-0528.2011.03009.x.

30.

ISUOG Practice guidelines: performance of first-trimester fetal ultrasound scan. ISUOG guidelines. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2013;41:102–13. https://doi.org/10.1002/uog.12342.CrossRef

31.

Committee Opinion No 700. Methods for estimating the due date. Obstet Gynecol. 2017;e150:129. https://doi.org/10.1097/AOG.0000000000002046.CrossRef

32.

Napolitano R, Dhami J, Ohuma EO, et al. Pregnancy dating by fetal crown-rump length: a systematic review of charts. BJOG. 2014;121:556–65. https://doi.org/10.1111/1471-0528.12478.CrossRefPubMed

33.

Gardosi J, Geirsson RT. Routine ultrasound is the method of choice for dating pregnancy. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1998;105:933–6.CrossRef

34.

Harrington D, MacKenzie I, Thompson K, et al. Does a first trimester dating scan using crown rump length measurement reduce the rate of induction of labour for prolonged pregnancy? An uncompleted randomised controlled trial of 463 women. BJOG. 2006;113:171–6. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-0528.2005.00833.x.CrossRefPubMed

35.

Caughey AB, Nicholson JM, Washington AE. First- vs second-trimester ultrasound: the effect on pregnancy dating and perinatal outcomes. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2008;198:703.e1–5; discussion 703.e5–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2008.03.034.CrossRef

36.

Dhombres F, Roux N, Friszer S, et al. Relation between the quality of the ultrasound image acquisition and the precision of the measurement of the crown-rump length in the late first trimester: what are the consequences? Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2016;207:37–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejogrb.2016.10.019.CrossRefPubMed

37.

Anderson NH, Sadler LC, McKinlay CJD, et al. INTERGROWTH-21st vs customized birthweight standards for identification of perinatal mortality and morbidity. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2016;214:509.e1–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2015.10.931.CrossRef

38.

Liu S, Metcalfe A, León JA, et al. Evaluation of the INTERGROWTH-21st project newborn standard for use in Canada. PLoS One. 2017;e0172910:12. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0172910.CrossRef

39.

Choi SKY, Gordon A, Hilder L, et al. Performance of six birthweight and estimated fetal weight standards for predicting adverse perinatal outcomes: a 10-year nationwide population-based study. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol Published Online First: 16 2020. doi:https://doi.org/10.1002/uog.22151.

40.

Skjaerven R, Gjessing HK, Bakketeig LS. Birthweight by gestational age in Norway. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2000;79:440–9.PubMed

41.

Ghosh RE, Berild JD, Sterrantino AF, et al. Birth weight trends in England and Wales (1986-2012): babies are getting heavier. Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed. 2018;103:F264–70. https://doi.org/10.1136/archdischild-2016-311790.CrossRefPubMed

42.

Hadlock FP, Harrist RB, Sharman RS, et al. Estimation of fetal weight with the use of head, body, and femur measurements--a prospective study. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1985;151:333–7.CrossRef

43.

Callaghan WM, Dietz PM. Differences in birth weight for gestational age distributions according to the measures used to assign gestational age. Am J Epidemiol. 2010;171:826–36. https://doi.org/10.1093/aje/kwp468.CrossRefPubMed

44.

Lynch CD, Zhang J. The research implications of the selection of a gestational age estimation method. Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol. 2007;21(Suppl 2):86–96. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-3016.2007.00865.x.CrossRefPubMed

45.

Ioannou C, Sarris I, Hoch L, et al. Standardisation of crown-rump length measurement. BJOG. 2013;120(Suppl 2):38–41. https://doi.org/10.1111/1471-0528.12056.CrossRefPubMed

Title: The impact of optimal dating on the assessment of fetal growth
Authors: N. Fries
F. Dhombres
M. Massoud
J. J. Stirnemann
R. Bessis
G. Haddad
L. J. Salomon
Publication date: 01-12-2021
Publisher: BioMed Central
Published in: BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth / Issue 1/2021
Electronic ISSN: 1471-2393
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12884-021-03640-9

2024 ASCO Annual Meeting

Springer Medicine

The impact of optimal dating on the assessment of fetal growth

Abstract

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusion

2024 ASCO Annual Meeting

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 1/2021

Association between antenatal ultrasound findings and neonatal outcomes in rural Uganda: a secondary analysis

Stillbirth as left truncation for early neonatal death in California, 1989–2015: a time-series study

Evidence for HPV DNA in the placenta of women who resorted to elective abortion

Determinants of antenatal care and skilled birth attendance services utilization among childbearing women in Guinea: evidence from the 2018 Guinea Demographic and Health Survey data

Analysis of determinants of postpartum emotional disorders

Correction to: Maternal HBsAg carriers and pregnancy outcomes: a retrospective cohort analysis of 85,190 pregnancies