Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

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

  • Maternal-Fetal Medicine
  • Published:
Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Kramer MS, Morin I, Yang H et al (2002) Why are babies getting bigger? Temporal trends in fetal growth and its determinants. J Pediatr 141:538–542

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Surkan PJ, Hsieh CC, Johansson AL, Dickman PW, Cnattingius S (2004) Reasons for increasing trends in large for gestational age births. Obstet Gynecol 104:720–726

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Patterson RM (1985) Estimation of fetal weight during labor. Obstet Gynecol 65:330–332

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Dietz HP (2010) Childbirth-related Pelvic Floor Trauma. Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd 70:969–978

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Brieger GM, Rogers MS, Rushton AW, Mongelli M (1997) Are Hong Kong babies getting bigger? Int J Gynaecol Obstet 57:267–271

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. 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 80:931–936

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. 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 188:1372–1378

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Dudley NJ (2005) A systematic review of the ultrasound estimation of fetal weight. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 25:80–89

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. 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 151:333–337

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. 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 142:47–54

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. 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 150:535–540

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. 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 9:15–24

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Warsof SL, Gohari P, Berkowitz RL, Hobbins JC (1977) The estimation of fetal weight by computer-assisted analysis. Am J Obstet Gynecol 128:881–892

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Melamed N, Yogev Y, Meizner I et al (2009) Sonographic fetal weight estimation: which model should be used? J Ultrasound Med 28:617–629

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. 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 29:159–164

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. 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 27:204–213

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. 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. 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 32:155–161

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. ACOG (2009) ACOG practice bulletin no. 101: ultrasonography in pregnancy. Obstet Gynecol 113:451–461

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. 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 27:185–187

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. 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 23:11–12

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Heer IM, Kumper C, Vogtle N et al (2008) Analysis of factors influencing the ultrasonic fetal weight estimation. Fetal Diagn Ther 23:204–210

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. 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 21:366–369

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Mongelli M, Gardosi J (1996) Gestation-adjusted projection of estimated fetal weight. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 75:28–31

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Benacerraf BR, Gelman R, Frigoletto FD Jr (1988) Sonographically estimated fetal weights: accuracy and limitation. Am J Obstet Gynecol 159:1118–1121

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflict of interest

None.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Erlangen University Hospital, Universitätsstrasse 21–23, 91054, Erlangen, Germany

    F. Faschingbauer, U. Dammer, E. Raabe, M. Schneider, C. Faschingbauer, M. W. Beckmann & S. Kehl

  2. Department of Medical Informatics, Biometry and Epidemiology, Rheinische Friedrich-Wilhelms-University Bonn, Bonn, Germany

    M. Schmid

  3. Department of Medical Informatics, Biometry and Epidemiology, University of Erlangen-Nuremberg, Erlangen, Germany

    A. Mayr

  4. Department of Obstetrics and Perinatal Medicine, DDH Frauenkliniken, Hanover, Germany

    R. L. Schild

Authors
  1. F. Faschingbauer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. U. Dammer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. E. Raabe
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. M. Schneider
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. C. Faschingbauer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. M. Schmid
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. A. Mayr
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. R. L. Schild
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. M. W. Beckmann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. S. Kehl
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to F. Faschingbauer.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 17 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Faschingbauer, F., Dammer, U., Raabe, E. et al. Sonographic weight estimation in fetal macrosomia: influence of the time interval between estimation and delivery. Arch Gynecol Obstet 292, 59–67 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-014-3604-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-014-3604-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation