Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Does decreased fetal growth estimation in the appropriate for gestational age range affect delivery outcomes?

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

Abstract

Purpose

To study the effect of decreased estimated fetal weight (EFW) percentiles in appropriate for gestational age fetuses.

Methods

This retrospective cohort study included women who had second and third trimester ultrasound examinations. Delivery and neonatal outcomes of pregnancies with decreased EFW of ≥  30 percentiles in EFW between ultrasound examinations (decreased growth group) and those without such a decrease (control group) were compared. Deliveries with EFW or birthweight below the 10th percentile were excluded.

Results

Among 1610 deliveries, 57 were in the decreased growth group and 1553 in the control group. Maternal characteristics did not differ between the groups except for higher rate of nulliparity in the decreased growth group. We found similar rates of Category II/III monitoring, cesarean deliveries due to non-reassuring fetal heart rate and adverse neonatal outcomes. Neonatal birthweight was lower in the decreased growth group as compared to controls.

Conclusions

This study did not find association between the group of appropriate for gestational age fetuses with decreased growth, with adverse outcomes.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

Data is available upon reasonable request.

References

  1. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists’ Committee on Practice Bulletins—Obstetrics and. the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine (2019) ACOG Practice Bulletin No. 204: Fetal Growth Restriction. Obstet Gynecol 133:e97–e109. https://doi.org/10.1097/AOG.0000000000003070

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. de Jong CL, Francis A, van Geijn HP, Gardosi J (1999) Fetal growth rate and adverse perinatal events. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 13:86–89. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1469-0705.1999.13020086.x

  3. Figueras F, Gratacos E (2014) Update on the diagnosis and classification of fetal growth restriction and proposal of a stage-based management protocol. Fetal Diagn Ther 36:86–98. https://doi.org/10.1159/000357592

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Gordijn SJ et al (2016) Consensus definition of fetal growth restriction: a Delphi procedure. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 48(3):333–339

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Bardien N et al (2016) Placental insufficiency in fetuses that slow in growth but are born appropriate for gestational age: a prospective longitudinal study. PLoS ONE 11(1):e0142788

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Stratton JF et al (1995) Are babies of normal birth weight who fail to reach their growth potential as diagnosed by ultrasound at increased risk? Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 5(2):114–118

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. MacDonald TM et al (2017) Reduced growth velocity across the third trimester is associated with placental insufficiency in fetuses born at a normal birthweight: a prospective cohort study. BMC Med 15(1):164

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Salafia CM, Charles AK, Maas EM (2006) Placenta and fetal growth restriction. Clin Obstet Gynecol 49(2):236–256

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Brosens I, Puttemans P, Benagiano G (2019) Placental bed research: I. The placental bed: from spiral arteries remodeling to the great obstetrical syndromes. Am J Obstet Gynecol 221(5):437–456

  10. Kovo M et al (2013) The placental factor in early- and late-onset normotensive fetal growth restriction. Placenta 34(4):320–324

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Hendrix MLE et al (2019) Maternal vascular malformation in the placenta is an indicator for fetal growth restriction irrespective of neonatal birthweight. Placenta 87:8–15

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Hendrix MLE et al (2019) Reduced fetal growth velocities and the association with neonatal outcomes in appropriate-for-gestational-age neonates: a retrospective cohort study. BMC Preg Childbirth 19(1):31

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Hadlock FP et al (1985) Estimation of fetal weight with the use of head, body, and femur measurements—a prospective study. Am J Obstet Gynecol 151(3):333–337

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Dollberg S et al (2005) Birth weight standards in the live-born population in Israel. Isr Med Assoc J 7(5):311–314

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Macones GA et al (2008) The 2008 National Institute of Child Health and Human Development workshop report on electronic fetal monitoring: update on definitions, interpretation, and research guidelines. Obstet Gynecol 112(3):661–666

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Bligh LN, Flatley CJ, Kumar S (2019) Reduced growth velocity at term is associated with adverse neonatal outcomes in non-small for gestational age infants. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 240:125–129

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Chatzakis C et al (2021) Perinatal outcome of appropriate-weight fetuses with decelerating growth. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 34(20):3362–3369

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Pacora P et al (2021) Reduced fetal growth velocity precedes antepartum fetal death. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 57(6):942–952

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. Broere-Brown ZA et al (2019) Deceleration of fetal growth rate as alternative predictor for childhood outcomes: a birth cohort study. BMC Pregn Childbirth 19(1):216

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Pedersen NG et al (2008) Early fetal size and growth as predictors of adverse outcome. Obstet Gynecol 112(4):765–771

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Pedersen NG et al (2008) Fetal growth between the first and second trimesters and the risk of adverse pregnancy outcome. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 32(2):147–154

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Kallen K (2004) Increased risk of perinatal/neonatal death in infants who were smaller than expected at ultrasound fetometry in early pregnancy. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 24(1):30–34

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

The authors declare that no funds, grants, or other support were received for this study.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Meir Medical Center, Kfar Saba, Affiliated with School of Medicine, Tel Aviv University, 59 Tchernichovsky St, 44281, Kfar Saba, Israel

    Michal Ovadia, Hadar Gluska, Gal Cohen, Hanoch Schreiber, Tal Biron-Shental, Michal Kovo & Gil Shechter-Maor

Authors
  1. Michal Ovadia
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Hadar Gluska
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Gal Cohen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Hanoch Schreiber
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Tal Biron-Shental
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Michal Kovo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Gil Shechter-Maor
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

All authors contributed to the study conception and design. Study protocol and plan was prepared by Michal Ovadia, Tal Biron-Shental. Michal Kobo and Gil Shechter Maor. Material preparation, data collection and analysis were performed by Michal Ovadia, Hadar Gluska, Gal Cohen, Hanoch Schreiber and Gil Shechter-Maor. The first draft of the manuscript was written by Michal Ovadia and Michal Kobo. All authors commented on previous versions of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Gil Shechter-Maor.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors have no relevant financial or non-financial interests to disclose.

Ethical approval

This study was performed in accordance with the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki. Approval was granted by the Meir Medical Center Ethics Committee.

Consent to participate

This was a retrospective study and written informed consent was not required.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ovadia, M., Gluska, H., Cohen, G. et al. Does decreased fetal growth estimation in the appropriate for gestational age range affect delivery outcomes?. Arch Gynecol Obstet (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-024-07432-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-024-07432-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation