Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Fetal autopsy parameters standards: biometry, organ weights, and long bone lengths

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Virchows Archiv Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Fetal and perinatal growth charts and tables are essential for proper interpretation of autopsy anthropometric parameters. These parameters depend on factors that may vary between populations; thus, it is recommended that standards be developed from local target populations to ensure that they are truly representative. In this study, we established standards for a complete set of autopsy fetal parameters, including biometrical measurements, organ weights and long bone lengths, based on autopsy data collected retrospectively from a sample of Portuguese fetuses and neonates. Using a robust statistical regression methodology, to fit mean and standard deviation models, we constructed growth curves for gestational ages between 12 and 42 weeks, which aim to be useful for autopsy examination, particularly in the Portuguese population.

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
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Gruenwald P, Hoang Ngoc M (1960) Evaluation of body and organ weights in perinatal pathology. I. Normal standards derived from autopsies. Am J Clin Pathol 34:247–253

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Schulz DM, Giordano DA, Schulz DH (1962) Weights of organs of fetuses and infants. Arch Pathol 74:244–250

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Tanimura T, Nelson T, Hollingsworth RR, Shepard TH (1971) Weight standards for organs from early human fetuses. Anat Rec 171(2):227–236

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. McBride ML, Baillie J, Poland BJ (1984) Growth parameters in normal fetuses. Teratology. 29(2):185–191

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Cussen L, Scurry J, Mitropoulos G, McTigue C, Gross J (1990) Mean organ weights of an Australian population of fetuses and infants. J Paediatr Child Health 26(2):101–103

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Chambers HM, Knowles S, Staples A, Tamblyn M, Haan EA (1993) Anthropometric measurements in the second trimester fetus. Early Hum Dev 33(1):45–59

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Guihard-Costa AM, Menez F, Delezoide AL (2002) Organ weights in human fetuses after formalin fixation: standards by gestational age and body weight. Pediatr Dev Pathol 5(6):559–578

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Guihard-Costa AM, Menez F, Delezoide AL (2003) Standards for dysmorphological diagnosis in human fetuses. Pediatr Dev Pathol 6(5):427–434

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Hansen K, Sung CJ, Huang C, Pinar H, Singer DB, Oyer CE (2003) Reference values for second trimester fetal and neonatal organ weights and measurements. Pediatr Dev Pathol 6(2):160–167

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Archie JG, Collins JS, Lebel RR (2006) Quantitative standards for fetal and neonatal autopsy. Am J Clin Pathol 126(2):256–265

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Phillips JB, Billson VR, Forbes AB (2009) Autopsy standards for fetal lengths and organ weights of an Australian perinatal population. Pathology. 41(6):515–526

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Pryce JWBA, Ashworth MT, Kiho L, Malone M, Sebire NJ (2014) Reference ranges for organ weights of infants at autopsy: results of >1000 consecutive cases from a single centre. BMC Clin Pathol 14:18

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Maroun LL, Graem N (2005) Autopsy standards of body parameters and fresh organ weights in nonmacerated and macerated human fetuses. Pediatr Dev Pathol 8(2):204–217

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Langley F (1971) The perinatal postmortem examination. J Clin Pathol 24(2):159–169

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Valdés-Dapena MA, Huff DS (1983) Perinatal autopsy manual. The Institute

  16. Laurini RN (1986) Aspects of developmental pathology. PhD thesis, Van Denderen

  17. Altman DG (1993) Construction of age-related reference centiles using absolute residuals. Stat Med 12(10):917–924

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Altman DG, Chitty LS (1994) Charts of fetal size: 1. Methodology. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 101(1):29–34

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Kornstein M (1988) Immunopathology of the thymus: a review. Surg Pathol 1:248–272

    Google Scholar 

  20. Silverwood RJ, Cole TJ (2007) Statistical methods for constructing gestational age-related reference intervals and centile charts for fetal size. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 29(1):6–13

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Elejalde BR, De Elejalde MM, Opitz JM, Reynolds JF, Hall JG (1986) The prenatal growth of the human body determined by the measurement of bones and organs by ultrasonography. Am J Med Genet 24(4):575–598

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Carneiro C, Curate F, Cunha E (2016) A method for estimating gestational age of fetal remains based on long bone lengths. Int J Legal Med 130(5):1333–1341

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Kasraeian M, Shahraki HR, Asadi N, Vafaei H, Sameni S (2017) Cross-sectional study of fetal long-bone length in an Iranian population at 17–25 weeks of gestation. Int J Gynecol Obstet 137(1):20–25

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Chitty LS, Altman DG (2002) Charts of fetal size: limb bones. BJOG. 109(8):919–929

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Brons J, Van Geijn H, Bezemer P, Nauta J, Arts NT (1990) The fetal skeleton; ultrasonographic evaluation of the normal growth. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 34(1):21–36

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Francis A, Hugh O, Gardosi J (2018) Customized vs INTERGROWTH-21(st) standards for the assessment of birthweight and stillbirth risk at term. Am J Obstet Gynecol 218(2S):S692–S699

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Barata A, Carvalho L, Couto FM (2017) Anthropometric data analytics: a portuguese case study. In: Paper presented at: international conference on practical applications of computational biology & Bioinformatics2017

    Google Scholar 

  28. Côrte-Real I, Braga AC, Nogueira R, Felino A, Valente F, Vaz P (2016) Growth pattern of the philtrum in cases of normal and pathological fetal development. Rev Port Estomatol Med Dent Cir Maxilofac 57(4):223–228

    Google Scholar 

  29. Sousa-Santos RF, Miguelote RF, Cruz-Correia RJ, Santos CC, Bernardes JF (2016) Development of a birthweight standard and comparison with currently used standards. What is a 10th centile? Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 206:184–193

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Larroche JC (1977) Developmental pathology of the neonate. Excerpta Medica

  31. Quester R, Schröder R (1997) The shrinkage of the human brain stem during formalin fixation and embedding in paraffin. J Neurosci Methods 75(1):81–89

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. American Institute of Ultrasound in M (2013) AIUM practice guideline for the performance of obstetric ultrasound examinations. J Ultrasound Med 32(6):1083–1101

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Boyd R (1861) Tables of the weights of the human body and internal organs in the sane and insane of both sexes at various ages, arranged from 2614 post-mortem examinations. Phil Trans Royal Soc London 151(Part I)

  34. Kurmanavicius J, Wright EM, Royston P, Wisser J, Huch R, Huch A, Zimmermann R (1999) Fetal ultrasound biometry: 1. Head reference values. BJOG Int J Obstet Gynaecol 106(2):126–135

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Kurmanavicius J, Wright EM, Royston P, Zimmermann R, Huch R, Huch A, Wisser J (1999) Fetal ultrasound biometry: 2. Abdomen and femur length reference values. BJOG Int J Obstet Gynaecol 106(2):136–143

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Contributions

Liliana Costa and Nuno Botelho collected the data and pictures; Isabel Vilar and Marta Rodrigues constructed the database; Carla Bartosch designed the project, analyzed the data, and wrote the manuscript draft; Otilia Brandão supervised all the work and critically revised the manuscript text.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Pathology, Portuguese Oncology Institute of Porto, Rua Dr. António Bernardino de Almeida, 4200-072, Porto, Portugal

    Carla Bartosch & Isabel Vilar

  2. Department of Pathology, Centro Hospitalar S. João, Alameda Prof. Hernâni Monteiro, 4200-319, Porto, Portugal

    Marta Rodrigues, Liliana Costa, Nuno Botelho & Otília Brandão

Authors
  1. Carla Bartosch
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Isabel Vilar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Marta Rodrigues
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Liliana Costa
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Nuno Botelho
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Otília Brandão
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Carla Bartosch.

Ethics declarations

This study was conducted at the Centro Hospitalar S. João in Porto, Portugal, after being approved by the hospital’s ethics committee (CES 334.15).

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

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

This article is part of the Topical Collection on Quality in Pathology

Electronic supplementary material

Online Resource 1

- Supplementary table - Partial exclusion criteria. (DOCX 13 kb)

Online Resource 2

- Supplementary tables – Total number of cases for biometrical measurements, organ weights and long bone lengths at each gestational age. (DOCX 22 kb)

Online Resource 3

- Supplementary figures - Plots of fetal autopsy anthropometric parameters showing predicted mean, 3rd, 5th, 10th, 25th, 75th, 90th, 95th and 97th centiles. (DOCX 8226 kb)

Online Resource 4

- Supplementary table - Mathematical equations of fitted mean models and corresponding R2 for fetal anthropometric autopsy parameters. (DOCX 16 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Bartosch, C., Vilar, I., Rodrigues, M. et al. Fetal autopsy parameters standards: biometry, organ weights, and long bone lengths. Virchows Arch 475, 499–511 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00428-019-02639-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00428-019-02639-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation