Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

An analytical cross-sectional study: determining gestational age using fetal clavicle length during the second trimester

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

Abstract

Purpose

To investigate the correlation between fetal clavicle length and gestational age in pregnant patients from 14 and 27 weeks of gestation.

Methods

This was a retrospective cross-sectional study of patients from 14 and 27 weeks of gestation. Ultrasonographic measurements such as abdominal circumference (AC), femur length (FL), humerus length (HL), clavicle length (CL), head circumference (HC), biparietal diameter (BPD), estimated fetal weight (EFW), and transverse cerebellum diameter (TCD) were made and compared.

Results

A total of 552 patients were evaluated in our clinic and CL was measured properly and successfully in all fetuses. Fetal AC, FL, HL, CL, BPD, HC, EFW and TCD measurements were significantly and strongly correlated with gestational week, and Pearson’s correlation values were 0.964, 0.965, 0.959, 0.965, 0.951, 0.917, 0.925, and 0.954, respectively (p < 0.001). In the regression analysis equation, gestational week = 0.894 + CL × 0.961.

Conclusion

There was a significant positive correlation between fetal CL (mm) and gestational week. We suggest that the 1 mm = 1 week rule can be used for patients with anomalies of the cerebellum and vermis, as well as for patients with unknown last menstrual period.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

The data that support this article is available from the corresponding author, upon reasonable request.

References

  1. Vogel JPCS, Moller AB, Watananirun K, Bonet M, Lumbiganon P (2018) The global epidemiology of preterm birth. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bpobgyn.2018.04.003

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Tran T, Luo, W, Phung, D et al (2016) Preterm birth prediction: Stable selection of interpretable rules from high dimensional data. In F. Doshi-Velez, J. Fackler, D. Kale, B. Wallace, & J. Wiens (Eds.), 1st Machine Learning for Healthcare Conference: 19–20 August 2016, Children’s Hospital LA, Los Angeles, CA, USA (Vol. 56, pp. 164–177). Proceedings of Machine Learning Research (PMLR). proceedings.mlr.press/v56/Tran16.pdf.

  3. Trotter A SR, Sander S, Muche R, Lucke W (2018) Frühgeburtenrate in 6 Perinatalzentren in Baden-Württemberg – Potential zur Reduktion der Frühgeborenenzahl [Preterm Birth Rate at 6 Centres for Perinatal Medicine in Baden-Württemberg - Potential to Reduce Prematurity]. Z Geburtshilfe Neonatol 222 (5):197–206. German. https://doi.org/10.1055/a-0721-2232.

  4. Walani SR (2020) Global burden of preterm birth. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 150(1):31–33. https://doi.org/10.1002/ijgo.13195

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Thorsell MKM, Almström H, Andolf E (2008) Expected day of delivery from ultrasound dating versus last menstrual period–obstetric outcome when dates mismatch. BJOG 115(5):585–589. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-0528.2008.01678.x

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Nguyen THLT, Engholm G, Møller H (1999) Evaluation of ultrasound-estimated date of delivery in 17,450 spontaneous singleton births: do we need to modify Naegele’s rule? Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 14(1):23–28. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1469-0705.1999.14010023.x

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Macaulay SBE, Dunger DB, Norris SA (2019) Reliability and validity of last menstrual period for gestational age estimation in a low-to-middle-income setting. J Obstet Gynaecol Res 45(1):217–225. https://doi.org/10.1111/jog.13801

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Alalfy M, Idris O, Gaafar H, Saad H, Nagy O, Lasheen Y et al (2017) The value of fetal transcerebellar diameter in detecting GA in different fetal growth patterns in Egyptian fetuses. Imaging Med 9(5):131–138

    Google Scholar 

  9. Reddy UM AA, Levine D, Saade GR (2014) Fetal Imaging Workshop Invited Participants*. Fetal imaging: executive summary of a joint Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine, American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine, American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, American College of Radiology, Society for Pediatric Radiology, and Society of Radiologists in Ultrasound Fetal Imaging workshop. Obstet Gynecol 123 (5) 1070–1082. https://doi.org/10.1097/AOG.0000000000000245.

  10. Butt K, Lim K, (2014) Diagnostic Imaging Committee. Retired: Determination of gestational age by ultrasound. J Obstet Gynaecol Can 36 (2): 171–181. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1701-2163(15)30664-2.

  11. Bottomley C, Bourne T (2009) Dating and growth in the first trimester. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol 23(4):439–452. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bpobgyn.2009.01.011

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Doubilet PM (2014) Ultrasound evaluation of the first trimester. Radiol Clin North Am 52(6):1191–1199. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rcl.2014.07.004

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Sladkevicius PSS, Almström H, Kublickas M, Grunewald C, Valentin L (2005) Ultrasound dating at 12–14 weeks of gestation A. prospective cross-validation of established dating formulae in in-vitro fertilized pregnancies. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 26(5):504–511. https://doi.org/10.1002/uog.1993

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Sabbagha RE, Hughey M (1978) Standardization of sonar cephalometry and gestational age. Obstet Gynecol 52(4):402–406

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Mohsin A, Alam Z, Ekramuddin FNA (2013) Bilateral variations in the growth and development of human foetal clavicle. Biomed Res India 24(2):235–241

    Google Scholar 

  16. Nagarchi K, Pillai KT, Saheb SH, Brekeit K, Alharbi M (2014) Morphometry of Clavicle. J Pharm Sci Res 6(2):112–114

    Google Scholar 

  17. Fawcett (1913) The Development and Ossification of the Human Clavicle. J Anat Physiol 47 (Pt 2):225-234.

  18. Yarkoni S, Schmidt W, Jeanty P, Reece EA, Hobbins JC (1985) Clavicular measurement: a new biometric parameter for fetal evaluation. J Ultrasound Med 4(9):467–470. https://doi.org/10.7863/jum.1985.4.9.467

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Sherer DMSM, Dalloul M, Khoury-Collado F, Osho JA, Lamarque MD, Abulafia O (2006) Fetal clavicle length throughout gestation: a nomogram. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 27(3):306–310. https://doi.org/10.1002/uog.2706

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Jones KL (1997) Smith’s recognizable patterns of human malformation, 5th edn. Philadelphia, PA, WB Saunders

    Google Scholar 

  21. Koothan V, Choudhury DD, Singh R, Masilamani S (2019) Correlation of calvicular length with femur length for estimation of gestational age in fetus in a tertiary institute. Europ J Obstet Gynecology Reprod Bio. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejogrb.2018.08.267

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Dey D, Ghosh SK, Raja SW, Dolui K, Bairagi AK (2021) Evaluation of fetal clavicular length as a sonological parameter for the estimation of gestational age. Scholars J Appl Med Sci. https://doi.org/10.3647/sjams.2021.v09i03.005

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Gosavi A, Kulkarni PR (2013) Relationship of Length of Clavicle and Crown-Rump Length. J Krishna Instit Med Sci University 2:89–93

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

The authors have not disclosed any funding.

Author information

Author notes

  1. Onder Ercan & Bulent Kostu

    Present address: Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Kahramanmaras Sutcu Imam University Faculty of Medicine, Kahramanmaras, Turkey

  2. Nur Gozde Kulhan

    Present address: Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Health Sciences, Konya City Hospital, Konya, Turkey

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Selcuk University Faculty of Medicine, Deparment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Konya, Turkey

    Fazıl Avcı, Salih Serin, Deniz Cemgil Arıkan, Mehmet Kulhan, Ahmet Bilgi, Cetin Celik & Ayse Ceren Duymus

  2. Clinic of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Private, Bitlis, Turkey

    Salih Serin

  3. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Kahramanmaras Sutcu Imam University Faculty of Medicine, Kahramanmaras, Turkey

    Murat Bakacak & Deniz Cemgil Arıkan

Authors
  1. Fazıl Avcı
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Salih Serin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Murat Bakacak
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Onder Ercan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Bulent Kostu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Deniz Cemgil Arıkan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Mehmet Kulhan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Ahmet Bilgi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Cetin Celik
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Ayse Ceren Duymus
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Nur Gozde Kulhan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

All authors contributed to the study conception and design. Material preparation, data collection and analyss were performed by FA, SS, MB, OE, BK, DCA. The first draft of the manuscript was written by FA, MK, AB, CC Ayse Ceren Duymus and Nur Gozde Kulhan and all authors commented on previous of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Fazıl Avcı.

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

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Avcı, F., Serin, S., Bakacak, M. et al. An analytical cross-sectional study: determining gestational age using fetal clavicle length during the second trimester. Arch Gynecol Obstet 309, 2663–2668 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-023-07196-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-023-07196-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation