Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Significant deviations in sonographic fetal weight estimation: causes and implications

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

Abstract

Purpose

To allocate parameters associated with significant deviations in sonographic estimated fetal weight (EFW) and evaluate labor outcomes in such circumstances.

Methods

Retrospective case–control study of women with a singleton gestation who underwent sonographic EFW within a week prior to delivery in a single tertiary university-affiliated medical center (2012–2018). The study group was comprised of 177 pregnancies in which sonographic EFW was at least ± 20% of actual birth weight, matched to 354 pregnancies with an accuracy of ± 1% of sonographic EFW to actual birth weight. Matching was based on age, gravidity, parity, and gestational age at delivery. Placental location, fetal presentation, spine position and amniotic fluid volumes during the ultrasound evaluation, as well as pregnancy outcomes, were compared between groups.

Results

Median gestational age at delivery (37.0 vs. 38.0 weeks, p < 0.001), median estimated fetal weight (2591 vs. 3198 g, p < 0.001) and median birth weight (2916 vs. 3158 g, p = 0.001) were all lower in the non-accurate compared to the accurate weight estimation group. Ultrasound parameters significantly differed between groups. Women in the non-accurate, compared to accurate weight estimations group, presented higher rates of breech presentation (20.34 vs. 9.89%, p = 0.001), lower rates of anterior placenta (44.6 vs. 53.67%, p = 0.002) and lateral spine position (80.23 vs. 88.42%, p < 0.021). Multivariate analysis was utilized to control potential confounders, non-lateral spine position was found to be an independent risk factor for inaccuracies in EFW [OR = 2.505, 95% CI 1.159–5.416, p = 0.0196]. Obstetric parameters did not differ between groups. Higher rates of neonatal intensive care unit admission (20.34 vs. 11.02%, p = 0.003) and neonatal respiratory complications (7.34 vs. 3.39%, p = 0.042) were observed in the non-accurate EFW subgroup. Multivariate analysis demonstrated that inaccuracy in sonographic EFW was an independent risk factor for NICU admission (OR = 2.4, 95% CI 1.034–5.577, p = 0.041).

Conclusion

Accuracy in sonographic EFW depends on fetal presentation, spine position and placental location. Non-accuracy is associated with adverse neonatal 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

References

  1. Kovo M, Schreiber L, Elyashiv O, Ben-Haroush A, Abraham G, Bar J (2015) Pregnancy outcome and placental findings in pregnancies complicated by fetal growth restriction with and without preeclampsia. Reprod Sci 22:316–321

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Scifres CM, Feghali M, Dumont T, Althouse AD, Speer P, Caritis SN et al (2015) Large-for-gestational-age ultrasound diagnosis and risk for cesarean delivery in women with gestational diabetes mellitus. Obstet Gynecol 126:978–986

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Boulvain M, Senat MV, Perrotin F, Winer N, Beucher G, Subtil D et al (2015) Induction of labour versus expectant management for large-for-date fetuses: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet 385:2600–2605

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Visentin S, Londero AP, Grumolato F, Trevisanuto D, Zanardo V, Ambrosini G et al (2014) Timing of delivery and neonatal outcomes for small-for-gestational-age fetuses. J Ultrasound Med 33:1721–1728

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Yu J, Flatley C, Greer RM, Kumar S (2017) Birth-weight centiles and the risk of serious adverse neonatal outcomes at term. Perinat Med 46(9):1048–1056

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Bajracharya J, Shrestha NS, Karci C (2012) Accuracy of prediction of birth weight by fetal ultrasound. Kathmandu Uni Med J 10(38):74–76

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Scioscia M, Vimercati A, Ceci O, Vicino M, Selvaggi LE (2008) Estimation of birth weight by two-dimensional ultrasonography: a critical appraisal of its accuracy. Obstet Gynecol 111:57–65

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Gultekin IB, Altinboga O, Ozkaya E, Gultekin S, Mahmutoglu S, Kara OF, Kucukozkan T (2016) Waist circumference as a predictor of failure of sonographic estimation of fetal birth weight. Gynecol Obstet Invest 81(1):23–27

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Dudley NJ (2005) A systemic review of the ultrasound estimation of fetal weight. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 25(1):80–89

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Hadlock FP, Harrist RB, Sharman RS, Deter RL, Park SK (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  Google Scholar 

  11. Salomon LJ, Alfirevic Z, Da Silva Costa F, Deter RL, Figueras F, Ghi T, Papageorghiou A (2019) ISUOG practice guidelines: ultrasound assessment of fetal biometry and growth. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 53(6):715–723

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Krispin E, Berezowsky A, Chen R, Meizner I, Wiznitzer A, Hadar E, Bardin R (2020) Updating the amniotic fluid index nomograms according to perinatal outcome. J Matern-Fetal Neonatal Med 33(1):113–119

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Dollberg S, Haklai Z, Mimouni FB, Gorfein I, Gordon ES (2005) Birthweight standards in the live-born population in Israel. Isr Med Assoc J 7(5):311–314

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. American Diabetes Association (2003) Gestational diabetes mellitus. Diabetes Care 26(1):S103–S105

    Google Scholar 

  15. Roberts JM, August PA, Bakris G, Barton JR, Bernstein IM, Druzin M, Karumanchi S (2013) American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists; task force on hypertension in pregnancy. Hypertension in pregnancy. Report of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists task force on hypertension in pregnancy. Obstet Gynecol 122(5):1122–1131

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Wier LM, Witt E, Burgess J, Elixhauser A (2010) Hospitalizations related to diabetes in pregnancy, 2008. HCUP Statistical Brief #102. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Rockville (MD)

  17. Melamed N, Ben-Haroush A, Meizner I, Mashiach R, Yogev Y, Pardo J (2011) Accuracy of sonographic fetal weight estimation: a matter of presentation. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 38(4):418–424

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Chauhan SP, Magann EF, Naef RW III, Martin JN Jr, Morrison JC (1995) Sonographic assessment of birth weight among breech presentations. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 6:54–57

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Tas EE, Kir EA, Yilmaz G, Yavuz AF (2019) Accuracy of sonographic fetal weight estimation in full-term singleton pregnant women. Pak J Med Sci 35(1):34

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Shamley KT, Landon MB (1994) Accuracy and modifying factors for ultrasonographic determination of fetal weight at term. Obstet Gynecol 84:926–930

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Yu J, Flatley C, Greer RM, Kumar S (2018) Birth-weight centiles and the risk of serious adverse neonatal outcomes at term. J Perinat Med 46(9):1048–1056

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

None.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Helen Schneider Hospital for Women, Rabin Medical Center, Petah Tikva, Israel

    Eyal Krispin, Elchanan Dreyfuss, Ofer Fischer, Arnon Wiznitzer, Eran Hadar & Ron Bardin

  2. Sackler Faculty of Medicine, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel

    Eyal Krispin, Elchanan Dreyfuss, Ofer Fischer, Arnon Wiznitzer, Eran Hadar & Ron Bardin

Authors
  1. Eyal Krispin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Elchanan Dreyfuss
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Ofer Fischer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Arnon Wiznitzer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Eran Hadar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Ron Bardin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

EK: project development, data collection, data analysis, manuscript writing. ED: data collection, data analysis. OF: data analysis, manuscript writing. AW: manuscript editing. EH: data analysis, manuscript editing. RB: project development, data analysis, manuscript editing

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ron Bardin.

Ethics declarations

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.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Krispin, E., Dreyfuss, E., Fischer, O. et al. Significant deviations in sonographic fetal weight estimation: causes and implications. Arch Gynecol Obstet 302, 1339–1344 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-020-05732-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-020-05732-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation