Fetal transverse cerebellar diameter measured by ultrasound does not differ between genders
- 209 Downloads
The aim of this study was to determine the correlation between fetal transverse cerebellar diameter (TCD) and gestational age of male and female fetus in women under low-risk prenatal care between the 13th and 40th week of gestation.
A cross-sectional study was carried out with 184 pregnant women, at the age of 18 years or more, gestational age ranging from 13 to 40 weeks, with a single fetus. A single TCD measurement by ultrasound was used for each fetus. Correlations between fetal TCD and gestational age were determined for the whole sample and each gender separately.
We identified 102 males and 82 female fetuses. A linear correlation was observed between fetal TCD and gestational age for the whole sample (r = 96.9%; p < 0.001). A significant linear correlation was also observed for both males (r = 97.0%; p < 0.001) and females (r = 96.9%; p < 0.001). Comparing the regression lines between genders, no significant difference was observed.
The data of this study suggest TCD fetal ultrasound as a predictive biometric parameter of gestational age independently of fetal gender in the last two trimesters of a pregnancy.
KeywordsCerebellar Gestational age Prenatal ultrasound Fetus
Conflict of interest
We declare that we have no conflict of interest.
- 1.Goldestein I, Reece AE, Pilu G, Bovicelli L, Hobbins JC (1987) Cerebellar measurements with ultrasonography in the evaluation of fetal growth and development. Am J Obstet Gynecol 156:106–1069Google Scholar
- 6.Duchatel F, Mennesson B, Berseneff H, Oury JF (1989) Mesures écographiques de cervelet foetal: intérêt dans l’évaluation du développement foetal. J Gynecol Obstet Biol Reprod (Paris) 18:879–883Google Scholar
- 9.Gardosi J (2002) Ultrasound biometry and fetal growth restriction. Fetal Matern Med Rev 13:249–259Google Scholar
- 11.Singhakom N, Chawanpaiboon S (2004) Reference centile for ratio of fetal transverse cerebellar diameter to abdominal circumference in a Thai population. J Med Assoc Thai 87:54–58Google Scholar
- 14.Baytur YB, Yidiz H, Ozler A, Inceboz US, Çaglar H (2006) The effect of sex on fetal ultrasound measurements: is it necessary sex-specific nomograms? Perinat J 14:26–30Google Scholar
- 16.Ebrahim GJ (1999) Research methods: multivariate analysis. In: Ebrahim GJ (ed) Research methods—II: multivariate analysis. Book-Aid, London, pp 51–52Google Scholar
- 17.Jeanty P (2001) Fetal biometry. In: Fleischer AC, Manning FA et al (eds) Sonography in obstetrics and gynecology: principles and practice, 6th international edn. Appleton and Lange, pp 131–147Google Scholar
- 18.Goldestein I, Reece AE (1987) Cerebellar measurements with ultrasonography in the evaluation of fetal growth and development. Am J Obstet Gynecol 156:1065–1069Google Scholar