Suspected macrosomia? Better not tell

Abstract

Objective

To evaluate the management policy of delivery in a suspected macrosomic fetus and to describe the outcome of this policy.

Study design

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.

Results

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.

Conclusion

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.

Fig. 1

References

  1. 1.

    American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology (2000) Fetal macrosomia, practice Bulletin No. 22. ACOG, Washington, DC

  2. 2.

    Zamorski MA, Biggs WS (2001) Management of suspected macrosomia. Am Fam Physician 63:302–306

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Sacks DA, Chen W (2000) Estimating fatal weight in the management of macrosomia. Obstet Gynecol Surv 55:229–239. Review

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Chauhan SP, Grobman WA, Gherman RA (2005) Suspicion and treatment of the macrosomic fetus: a review. Am J Obstet Gynecol 193:332–346

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Dudley NJ (1995) selection of appropriate ultrasound methods for the estimation of fetal weight. Br J radiol 68:385–388

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    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

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Miller JM, Korndorffer FA, Gabert HA (1986) Fetal weight estimates in late pregnancy with emphasis on macrosomia. J Clin Ultrasound 14:437–442

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    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

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    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

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Simhayoff N, Sheiner E et al (2004) To induce or not to induce labor: a macrosomic dilemma. Gynecol Obstet Invest 58:121–125

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    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

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    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

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    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

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Combs CA, Singh NB, Khoury JC (1993) Elective induction versus spontaneous labor after sonographic diagnosis of fetal macrosomia. Obstet Gynecol 81:492–496

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Friesen CD, Miller AM, Rayburn WR (1995) Influence of spontaneous or induced labor on delivering the macrosomic fetus. Am J Perinatol 12:63–66

    PubMed  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to D. Sadeh-Mestechkin.

Additional information

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.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

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

Download citation

Keywords

  • Suspected macrosomia
  • Cesarean delivery
  • Induction of labor
  • Estimation of fetal weight