A pragmatic comparison of fetal biometry curves

被引:0
|
作者
Dhombres, Ferdinand [1 ,2 ,4 ]
Massoud, Mona [3 ]
机构
[1] Sorbonne Univ, Hop Trousseau, AP HP, Serv Med Foetale,GRC26, Paris, France
[2] Inserm, LIMICS, Paris, France
[3] Univ Claude Bernard Lyon 1, Ctr Hosp Lyon Sud, Serv Obstet & Med Foetale, Hosp Civils Lyon, Lyon, France
[4] Hop Armand Trousseau, Serv Med Foetale, 26 Ave Dr Arnold Netter, F-75020 Paris, France
来源
关键词
Biometry; Ultrasonography; Prenatal; Growth Charts; SHORT FEMUR; GROWTH; CHARTS; ASSOCIATION; ULTRASOUND; SIZE; STANDARDS; FRANCE; LENGTH; HEAD;
D O I
10.1016/j.gofs.2023.09.003
中图分类号
R71 [妇产科学];
学科分类号
100211 ;
摘要
Introduction. - The fetal biometrics charts recommended in France for ultrasound screening include measurements of head circumference (HC), biparietal diameter (BIP), abdominal circumference (AC) and femur length (FL). New international growth standards have been recommended since 2022. The aim of this work is to quantitatively describe the differences between these biometric curves.Methods. - The biometry curves from the French College for Fetal Ultrasound, OMS and INTERGROWTH21 are pragmatically compared based on their original quantile regression equations (superposition and quantification of differences in millimeters and in proportion) for different percentiles of clinical interest.Results. - Compared with the new charts, CFEF underestimates HC <-3DS and AC < 10eP. The proportions of differences between the CFEF and INTERGROWTH-21 or WHO curves always remained <5%. The proportions of difference of the 3rd percentile of HC and FL, 10th and 90th percentile of AC were always lower than 2%, 2%, 5% and 4% respectively, between OMS and INTERGROWTH-21.Conclusion. - The switch to prescriptive standards suggests an improvement in the detection of fetuses with AC < 10th percentile, an improvement in the detection of prenatal onset microcephaly, with no argument for a decrease in the detection rate of severe constitutional bone disease or modification of obstetrical guidelines.@ 2023 Published by Elsevier Masson SAS.
引用
收藏
页码:524 / 530
页数:7
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [21] Fetal biometry in different ethnic groups
    Jacquemyn, Y
    Sys, SU
    Verdonk, P
    EARLY HUMAN DEVELOPMENT, 2000, 57 (01) : 1 - 13
  • [22] Fetal Biometry: Relevance in Obstetrical Practice
    March, Melissa I.
    Warsof, Steven L.
    Chauhan, Suneet P.
    CLINICAL OBSTETRICS AND GYNECOLOGY, 2012, 55 (01): : 281 - 287
  • [23] Accuracy of Sonographic Fetal Biometry Measurements
    Mansour, Trina
    Oshiro, Bryan
    OBSTETRICS AND GYNECOLOGY, 2016, 127 : 113S - 113S
  • [24] PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS OF ULTRASOUND FETAL BIOMETRY
    BOURGEOT, P
    POTIER, A
    GOEUSSE, P
    DELECOUR, M
    LEROY, JL
    PUECH, F
    LILLE MEDICAL, 1979, 24 (09): : 677 - 682
  • [25] Fetal Biometry Assessment of Biparietal Diameter for Saudi Arabia Population and Comparison with Other Countries
    A-Marri, Hana Mohammed
    Ramli, Ramzun Maizan
    Al-sahlanee, Mayyadah Hasan Rhaif
    Azman, Nurul Zahirah Noor
    Rahman, Azhar Abdul
    Mustafa, Iskandar Shahrim
    Razak, Nik Noor Ashikin Nik Abdul
    Ayob, Nur Syuhada
    Zakaria, Nabela
    Al-Marri, Hana Mohammed
    Yahaya, Nor Zakiah
    2016 6TH IEEE INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON CONTROL SYSTEM, COMPUTING AND ENGINEERING (ICCSCE), 2016, : 366 - 369
  • [26] Fetal biometry in the Korean population: reference charts and comparison with charts from other populations
    Kwon, Ji Young
    Park, In Yang
    Wie, Jeoung Ha
    Choe, Suyearn
    Kim, Chan Joo
    Shin, Jong Chul
    PRENATAL DIAGNOSIS, 2014, 34 (10) : 927 - 934
  • [27] Variation in fetal ultrasound biometry based on differences in fetal ethnicity
    Ogasawara, Keith K.
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS AND GYNECOLOGY, 2009, 200 (06) : 676.e1 - 676.e4
  • [28] Comparison of Fetal and Neonatal Growth Curves in Detecting Growth Restriction
    Marconi, Anna Maria
    Ronzoni, Steania
    Bozzetti, Patrizia
    Vailati, Simona
    Morabito, Alberto
    Battaglia, Frederick C.
    OBSTETRICS AND GYNECOLOGY, 2008, 112 (06): : 1227 - 1234
  • [29] BiometryAssist® versus manual approach for fetal biometry: correlation, level of agreement and comparison of acquisition time
    Rolle, V.
    Garcia-Gonzalez, C.
    Casanova, C.
    Fernandez-Buhigas, I.
    Santacruz, B.
    Gil, M.
    ULTRASOUND IN OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY, 2023, 62 : 112 - 113
  • [30] Modeling fetal-growth biometry with Response Modeling Methodology (RMM) and comparison to current models
    Benson-Karhi, Diamanta
    Shore, Haim
    Malamud, Maya
    COMMUNICATIONS IN STATISTICS-SIMULATION AND COMPUTATION, 2018, 47 (01) : 129 - 142