What are the limits of accuracy in fetal weight estimation with conventional biometry in two-dimensional ultrasound? A novel postpartum study

被引:25
|
作者
Kehl, S. [1 ]
Schmidt, U. [1 ]
Spaich, S. [1 ,2 ]
Schild, R. L. [3 ]
Suetterlin, M. [1 ,2 ]
Siemer, J. [4 ]
机构
[1] Univ Med Ctr, Dept Obstet & Gynecol, Mannheim, Germany
[2] Frankenthal Hosp, Dept Obstet & Gynecol, Frankenthal, Germany
[3] Diakonie Hosp, Dept Obstet & Gynecol, Hannover, Germany
[4] Ludmillenstift Hosp, Dept Obstet & Gynecol, Meppen, Germany
关键词
fetal biometry; fetal weight estimation; newborn; regression analysis; weight formula; PREDICTING BIRTH-WEIGHT; SONOGRAPHIC ESTIMATION; HEAD CIRCUMFERENCE; FORMULAS; MACROSOMIA; FETUSES; COMBINATION; EXAMINERS; VOLUMETRY; PREGNANCY;
D O I
10.1002/uog.10094
中图分类号
O42 [声学];
学科分类号
070206 ; 082403 ;
摘要
Objective Commonly used formulae for fetal weight estimation, including combinations of several biometric parameters, lack accuracy despite efforts to improve them. This study aimed to investigate the limits of fetal weight estimation based on conventional biometric parameters on two-dimensional (2D) ultrasound by developing and evaluating new weight equations using postpartum biometric parameters. Methods This was a prospective multicenter study including 628 singleton pregnancies at term. Inclusion criteria were healthy newborns with no physical or chromosomal malformations. Postpartum measurement of head circumference, abdominal circumference and thigh length was performed. Six best-fit formulae were derived using forward regression analysis in a formula-finding group (n = 419), and their accuracy was compared with birth weight in an evaluation group (n = 209) using percentage error, absolute percentage error, limits of agreement and the proportion of weight estimations falling within a discrepancy level of +/- 10%. Results The new formulae showed no systematic error, with SD for the percentage error between 7.42 and 8.77 and no significant differences between median absolute percentage errors (4.845.71). They included 74.681.3% of neonates within a discrepancy level of 10%. With regard to the 95% limits of agreement, weight estimates were within a range of about +/- 500 g. Conclusion These results show that a good sonographic weight formula has the following features: no systematic error, an SD of about 7% and inclusion of 80% of cases within a discrepancy level of 10%. The study indicates that the current accuracy of fetal weight estimation with conventional biometric parameters by 2D ultrasound has reached its limits. Further improvement will probably only be achieved through new approaches in ultrasonography. Copyright (c) 2012 ISUOG. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
引用
下载
收藏
页码:543 / 548
页数:6
相关论文
共 30 条
  • [1] Five-dimensional long bones biometry for estimation of femur length and fetal weight at term compared to two-dimensional ultrasound: a pilot study
    Laban, Mohamed
    Alanwar, Ahmed A.
    Etman, Mohamed K.
    Elsokkary, Mohammed S.
    Elkotb, Ahmed M.
    Hasanien, Ahmad S.
    KhalafAllah, Ali E.
    Noah, Nancy M.
    JOURNAL OF MATERNAL-FETAL & NEONATAL MEDICINE, 2018, 31 (15): : 2036 - 2042
  • [2] Biometry and fetal weight estimation by two-dimensional and three-dimensional ultrasonography: an intraobserver and interobserver reliability and agreement study
    Lima, J. C.
    Miyague, A. H.
    Filho, F. M.
    Nastri, C. O.
    Martins, W. P.
    ULTRASOUND IN OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY, 2012, 40 (02) : 186 - 193
  • [3] Comparison of diagnostic value of two-dimensional ultrasound and clinical examination in fetal weight estimation
    Nurzadeh, Maryam
    Naemi, Mahsa
    Hasani, Shahrzad Sheikh
    JOURNAL OF FAMILY MEDICINE AND PRIMARY CARE, 2022, 11 (02) : 775 - 779
  • [4] Assessment of the female fetal pelvis using conventional two-dimensional ultrasound
    Lépinard, C
    ULTRASOUND IN OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY, 2006, 27 (03) : 331 - 332
  • [5] Prediction of Birth Weight and Neonatal Adiposity Using Ultrasound Assessment of Soft Tissue Parameters in Addition to Two-Dimensional Conventional Biometry
    Garcia Flores, Jose
    Mogra, Ritu
    Sadowski, Monica
    Hyett, Jon
    FETAL DIAGNOSIS AND THERAPY, 2021, 48 (03) : 201 - 208
  • [6] Fetal Weight Estimation: Comparison of Two-dimensional US and MR Imaging Assessments
    Kacem, Yasmine
    Cannie, Mieke M.
    Kadji, Caroline
    Dobrescu, Oana
    Lo Zito, Leila
    Ziane, Samir
    Strizek, Brigitte
    Evrard, Ann-Sophie
    Gubana, Francesca
    Gucciardo, Leonardo
    Staelens, Romuald
    Jani, Jacques C.
    RADIOLOGY, 2013, 267 (03) : 902 - 910
  • [7] Estimation of birth weight by two-dimensional ultrasonography - A critical appraisal of its accuracy
    Scioscia, Marco
    Vimercati, Antonella
    Ceci, Oronzo
    Vicino, Mario
    Selvaggi, Luigi E.
    OBSTETRICS AND GYNECOLOGY, 2008, 111 (01): : 57 - 65
  • [8] Fetal biometry and estimated fetal weight in the second trimester: A comparison of intra- and interobserver agreement and variability using ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging with two-dimensional measurements and three-dimensional whole fetal volume techniques
    Matthew, J.
    Knight, C.
    Malamateniou, C.
    Pasupathy, D.
    Rutherford, M.
    BJOG-AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS AND GYNAECOLOGY, 2017, 124 : 45 - 46
  • [9] Accuracy of ultrasound signs on two-dimensional transvaginal ultrasound in prediction of adenomyosis: prospective multicenter study
    Krentel, H.
    Keckstein, J.
    Fueger, T.
    Hornung, D.
    Theben, J.
    Salehin, D.
    Buchweitz, O.
    Mueller, A.
    Schaefer, S. D.
    Sillem, M.
    Schweppe, K. W.
    Tchartchian, G.
    Gilman, E.
    De Wilde, R. L.
    ULTRASOUND IN OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY, 2023, 62 (05) : 739 - 746
  • [10] Fetal face: What we can see using two-dimensional and three-dimensional ultrasound imaging
    Hull, AD
    Pretorius, DH
    SEMINARS IN ROENTGENOLOGY, 1998, 33 (04) : 369 - 374