To evaluate the management policy of delivery in a suspected macrosomic fetus and to describe the outcome of this policy.
For this prospective observational study we followed the management by reviewing the medical records of 145 women and their infants. The study population included women at term admitted to the obstetrics department with suspected macrosomic infants, as was diagnosed by an obstetrician and/or by fetal sonographic weight estimation of ≥4,000 g. The comparison group (n = 5,943) consisted of all women who gave birth during the data collection period.
Induction of labor and cesarean delivery rates in the macrosomic pregnancies (actual birth weight >4,000 g) of the study group were significantly higher when compared with the macrosomic pregnancies of the comparison group. When comparing the non-macrosomic to the macrosomic pregnancies (actual birth weight </>4,000 g) of the study group no significant difference was demonstrated regarding maternal or infant complications. The sensitivity, specificity and positive predictive value of the methods used for detecting macrosomia were 21.6, 98.6 and 43.5%, respectively.
Our ability to predict macrosomia is poor. Our management policy of suspected macrosomic pregnancies raises induction of labor and cesarean delivery rates without improving maternal or fetal outcome.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.
Buy single article
Instant access to the full article PDF.
Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology (2000) Fetal macrosomia, practice Bulletin No. 22. ACOG, Washington, DC
Zamorski MA, Biggs WS (2001) Management of suspected macrosomia. Am Fam Physician 63:302–306
Sacks DA, Chen W (2000) Estimating fatal weight in the management of macrosomia. Obstet Gynecol Surv 55:229–239. Review
Chauhan SP, Grobman WA, Gherman RA (2005) Suspicion and treatment of the macrosomic fetus: a review. Am J Obstet Gynecol 193:332–346
Dudley NJ (1995) selection of appropriate ultrasound methods for the estimation of fetal weight. Br J radiol 68:385–388
Hirata GI, Medearis AL, Horenstein J et al (1990) Ultrasonographic estimation of fetal weight in the clinically macrosomic fetus. Am J Obstet Gynecol 162:238–242
Miller JM, Korndorffer FA, Gabert HA (1986) Fetal weight estimates in late pregnancy with emphasis on macrosomia. J Clin Ultrasound 14:437–442
Conway DL, Langer O (1998) Elective delivery of infants with macrosomia in diabetic women: Reduced shoulder dystocia versus increased cesarean deliveries. Am J Obstet Gynecol 178:922–925
Gonen O, Rosen DJD, Dolfin Z et al (1997) Induction of labor versus expectant management in macrosomia: A randomized study. Obstet Gynecol 89:913–917
Simhayoff N, Sheiner E et al (2004) To induce or not to induce labor: a macrosomic dilemma. Gynecol Obstet Invest 58:121–125
Gonen R, Bader D, Ajami M (2000) Effects of a policy of elective cesarean delivery in cases of suspected fetal macrosomia on the incidence of brachial plexus injury and the rate of cesarean delivery. Am J Gynecol 183:1296–1300
Rouse DJ, Owen J, Goldenberg RL et al (1996) The effectiveness and costs of elective cesarean delivery for fetal macrosomia diagnosed by ultrasound. JAMA 276:1480–1486
Rouse DJ, Owen J (1999) Prophylactic cesarean delivery for fetal macrosomia diagnosed by means of ultrasonography-A Faustian bargain? Am J Obstet Gynecol 181:332–338
Combs CA, Singh NB, Khoury JC (1993) Elective induction versus spontaneous labor after sonographic diagnosis of fetal macrosomia. Obstet Gynecol 81:492–496
Friesen CD, Miller AM, Rayburn WR (1995) Influence of spontaneous or induced labor on delivering the macrosomic fetus. Am J Perinatol 12:63–66
Synopsis: Current management policy of delivery in suspected macrosomic fetuses raises the rates of induction of labor and cesarean delivery without improving maternal or fetal outcome.
About this article
Cite this article
Sadeh-Mestechkin, D., Walfisch, A., Shachar, R. et al. Suspected macrosomia? Better not tell. Arch Gynecol Obstet 278, 225–230 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-008-0566-y