Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Ultrasound Assessment

  • Chapter
Intrauterine Growth Restriction

Abstract

The introduction of ultrasound technology in obstetrics has totally changed the antenatal scenario. In the early days, the term “screening” was used when the ultrasound examination was offered to the pregnant population and used for assessing number of fetuses, gestational age, placental localisation, fetal anatomy, and fetal size. The procedure has later been termed “routine ultrasound examination”, but the ethical controversies and the discussion of its benefits have not ceased. In industrialised countries the majority of the pregnant population undergoes at least one ultrasound examination, and in some countries the ultrasound examination has become a firmly integrated part of antenatal care, involving two, three, or more examinations for screening or surveillance. The obvious advantages of ultrasound technology have favoured a rapidly increasing use of the technology in the developing world as well. The rationale for ultrasound practice, however, varies greatly because of differing standards of the equipment, skills, allocated time and resources, purpose of the examination, population characteristics, socio-economic conditions, nutritional status and morbidity pattern. This should be kept in mind when applying current knowledge in the daily clinic or when studies are planned, interpreted and evaluated. Particularly so, since much of the systematic information on ultrasound examination is collected with the best equipment in a small, privileged part of the world’s population.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Garner P, Kramer MS, Chalmers I. Might efforts to increase birthweight in undernourished women do more harm than good. Lancet 1992;340:1021–3.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Bergsjö P, Denman DW, Hoffman HJ, Meirik 0. Duration of human sigleton pregnancy. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 1990;69:197–207.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Mittendorf R, Williams MA, Berkley CS, Cotter PF. The length of uncomplicated human gestation. Obstet Gynecol 1990;75:929–32.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Kieler H, Axelsson O, Nilsson S, Waldenström U. The length of human pregnancy as calculated by ultrasonographic measurement of the fetal biparietal diameter. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 1995;6:353–7.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Tunón K, Eik-Nes SH, Grøttum P. A comparison between ultrasound and a reliable last menstrual period as predictor of the day of delivery in 15 000 examinations. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 1996;8:178–85.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Persson P-H, Grennert L, Gennser G. Impact of fetal and maternal factors on normal growth of biparietal diameter. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 1978;78(Suppl.):21–7.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Moore WMO, Ward BS, Jones VP, Bamford FN. Sex differences in fetal head growth. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1988;95:238–42.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Daya S. Accuracy of gestational age estimation by means of fetal crown-rump length measurement. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1993;168:903–8.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Wisser J, Dirschedl P, Krone S. Estimation of gestational age by transvaginal sonographic measurement of embryonic length in dated human embryos. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 1994;4:457–62.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Mul T, Mongelli M, Gardosi J. A comparative analysis of second-trimester ultrasound dating formulae in pregnancies conceived with artificial reproductive techniques. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 1996;8:397–402.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Olsen O, Clausen JA. Routine ultrasound dating has not been shown to be more accurate than the calendar method. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1997;104:1221–2.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Geirsson RT. Ultrasound instead of last menstrual period as the basis of gestational age assignment. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 1991;1:212–19.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Campbell S, Warsof SL, Little D, Cooper DJ. Routine ultrasound screening for the prediction of gestational age. Obstet Gynecol 1985;65:613–20.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Mongelli M, Wilcox M, Gardosi J. Estimating the date of confinement: ultrasonographic biometry versus certain menstrual dates. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1996;174:278–81.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Gardosi J. Dating of pregnancy; time to forget the last menstrual period. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 1997;9:367–8.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Altman DG, Chitty LS. New charts for ultrasound dating of pregnancy. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 1997;10:174–91.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Bakketeig LS. Ultrasound dating of pregnancies changes dramatically the observed rates of pre-term, post-term, and small-for-gestational-age births: a commentary. Iatrogenics 1991;1:174–5.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Mařsál K, Persson P-H, Larsen T, Lilja H, Selbing A, Sultan B. Intrauterine growth curves based on ultrasound estimated foetal weights. Acta Paediatr 1996;85:843–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Robinson HP, Fleming JEE. A critical evaluation of sonar “crown-rump length” measurements. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1975;82:702–10.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Drumm JE, Clinch J, Mackenzie G. The ultrasonic measurement of fetal crown-rump length as a method of assessing gestational age. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1976;83:417–21.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Pedersen JF. Fetal crown-rump length measurement by ultrasound in normal pregnancy. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1982;89:926–30.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Campbell S. The prediction of fetal maturity by ultrasonic measurements of the biparietal diameter. J Obstet Gynaecol Br Commonwealth 1969;76:603–9.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Lasser DM, Peisner DB, Vollebergh J, Timor-Tritsch I. First-trimester fetal biometry using transvaginal sonography. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 1993;3:104–8.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Chitty L, Altman G.D, Henderson A, Campbell S. Charts of fetal size: 2. Head measurements. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1994;101:35–43.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Campbell S, Wilkin D. Ultrasonic measurement of fetal abdomen circumference in the estimation of fetal weight. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1975;82:689–97.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Chitty LS, Altman DG, Henderson A, Campbell S. Charts of fetal size: 3. Abdominal measurements. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1994;101:125–31.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Warda AH, Deter RL, Rossavik IK, Carpenter RJ, Hadlock FP. Fetal femur length: a critical reevaluation of the relationship with menstrual age. Obstet Gynecol 1985;66:69–75.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Persson P-H, Weidner B-M. Reliability of ultrasound fetometry in estimating gestational age in second trimester. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 1986;65:481–3.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Persson P-H, Weldner B-M. Normal range growth curves for fetal biparietal diameter, occipitofrontal diameter, mean abdominal diameters and femur length. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 1986;65:759–61.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Sarmandal P, Bailey S, Grant JM. A comparison of three methods of assessing inter-observer variation applied to ultrasonic fetal measurement in the third trimester. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1989;96:1261–5.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Chang TC, Robson SC, Spencer JAD, Gallivan S. Ultrasonic fetal weight estimation: analysis of inter- and intra-observer variability. J Clin Ultrasound 1993;21:515–19.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Secher NJ, Kern Hansen P, Lenstrup C, Sindberg Eriksen P, Morsing G. A randomized study of fetal abdominal diameter and fetal weight estimation for detection of light-for-gestation infants in low-risk pregnancies. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1987;94:105–9.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Secher NJ, Kern Hansen P, Lenstrup C, Sindberg Eriksen P, Lykke Thomsen B, Keiding N. On the evaluation of routine ultrasound screening in the third trimester for detection of light for gestational age (LGA) infants. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 1987;66:463–71.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Sarmandal P, Grant JM. Effectiveness of ultrasound determination of fetal abdominal circumference and fetal ponderal index in the diagnosis of asymetrical growth retardation. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1990;97:118–23.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Backe B, Nakling J. Effectiveness of antenatal care: a population based study. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1993;100:727–32.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Robson SC, Chang TC. Measurement of human fetal growth. In: Hanson MA, Spencer JAD, Rodeck CH, editors. Fetus and neonate. Physiology and clinical application, vol 3: Growth. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995:297–325.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Altman D, Chitty LS. Charts of fetal size: 1. Methodology. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1994;101:29–34.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. Royston P, Altman DG. Design and analysis of longitudinal studies of fetal size. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 1995;6:307–12.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. Royston P, Wright EM. How to construct “normal ranges” for fetal variables. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 1998;11:30–8.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. Hadlock FP, Deter RL, Harrist RB, Park SK. Fetal biparietal diameter: a critical re-evaluation of the relation to menstrual age by means of real-time ultrasound.] Ultrasound Med 1982;1:97–104.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Deter RL, Harrist RB, Hadlock FP, Carpenter RJ. Fetal head and abdominal circumferences: II. A critical réévaluation of relationship to menstrual age. J Clin Ultrasound 1982;10:365–72.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Deter RL, Harrist RB, Hadlock FP, Poindexter AN. Longitudinal studies of fetal growth with the use of dynamic image ultrasonography. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1982;143:545–54.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  43. Gallivan S, Robson SC, Chang TC, Vaughan J, Spencer JAD. An investigation of fetal growth using serial ultrasound data. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 1993;3:109–14.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  44. Owen P, Donnet L, Ogston S, Christie AD, Patel N, Howie PW. Standards for ultrasound fetal growth velocity. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1996;103:60–9.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  45. Royston P. Calculation of unconditional reference intervals for foetal size and growth from longitudinal measurements. Stats Med 1995;14:1417–36.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  46. Gardosi J, Chang A, Kalyan B, Sahota D, Symonds EM. Customised antenatal growth charts. Lancet 1992;339:283–7.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  47. Gardosi J. Ethnic differences in fetal growth. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 1995;6:73–4.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  48. Wilcox M, Gardosi J, Mongelli M, Ray C, Johnson I. Birth weight from pregnancies dated by ultrasonography in a multicultural British population. BMJ 1993;307:588–91.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  49. Spencer JAD, Chang TC, Robson SC, Gallivan S. Fetal size and growth in Bangladeshi pregnancies. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 1995;5:313–17.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  50. Mongelli M, Gardosi J. Reduction of falspositive diagnosis of fetal growth restriction by application of customized fetal growth standards. Obstet Gynecol 1996;88:844–8.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  51. Alexander GR, Himes JH, Kaufman RB, Mor J, Kogan M. A United States National Reference for fetal growth. Obstet Gynecol 1996;87:163–8.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  52. Källén BA. A birthweight for gestational age standard based on data in the Swedish Medical Birth Registry 1985–1989. Eur J Epidemiology 1995;11:601–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Persson P-H, Weidner B-M. Intra-uterine weight curves obtained by ultrasound. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 1986;65:169–73.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  54. Thompson HE, Holmes JH, Gottesfeld KR, Taylor ES. Fetal development as determined by ultrasonic pulse echo techniques. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1965;146:942–7.

    Google Scholar 

  55. Jeanty P, Cousaert E, Cantraine F. Normal growth of the abdominal perimeter. Am J Perinatol 1984;1:127–35.

    Google Scholar 

  56. Campbell S, Thorns A. Ultrasound measurement of the fetal head and abdominal circumference ratio in the assessment of fetal growth retardation. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1977;84:165–74.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  57. Shepard MJ, Richards VA, Berkowitz RL, Warsof SL, Hobbins JC. An evaluation of two equations for predicting fetal weight by ultrasound. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1982;142:47–54.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  58. Hadlock FP, Harrist RB, Sharman RS, Deter RL, Park SK. Estimation of fetal weight with the use of head, body, and femur measurements — A prospective study. AM J Obstet Gynecol 1985;151:333–7.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  59. Simon NV, Levinsky JS, Shearer DM, O’Leear MS, Flood JT. Influence of fetal growth patterns on sonographic estimation of fetal weight. J Clin Ultrasound 1987;15:376–83.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  60. Sabbagha RE, Minogue J, Tamura RK, Hungerford SA. Estimation of birth weight by use of ultra-sonographic formulas targeted to large-, appropriate-, and small-for-gestanional age fetuses. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1989;160:854–62.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  61. Robson SC, Gallivan S, Walkinshaw SA, Vaughan J, Rodeck CH. Ultrasonic estimation of fetal weight: use of targeted formulas in small for gestational age fetuses. Obstet Gynecol 1993;82:359–64.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  62. Shinozuka N, Okai T, Kohzuma S, et al. Formulas for fetal weight estimation by ultrasound measurements based on neonatal specific gravity and volumes. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1987;157:1140–5.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  63. Deter RL, Harrist RB. Growth standards for anatomic measurements and growth rates derived from longitudinal studies of normal fetal growth. J Clin Ultrasound 1992;20:381–8.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  64. Rossavik IK, Deter RL. Mathematical modeling of fetal growth. I. Basic principles. J Clin Ultrasound 1984;12:529–33.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  65. Deter RL, Rossavik IK. A simplified method for determining indivudual growth curve standards. Obstet Gynecol 1987;70:801–5.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  66. Bakketeig LS, Hoffman HJ, Jacobsen G, Hagen JA, Storvik BE. Intrauterine growth pattern by the tendency to repeat small-for-gestational-age births in successive pregnancies. Acta Obstet Gynecol 1997;76(Suppl 165):3–7.

    Google Scholar 

  67. Smith GCS, Smith MFS, McNay MB, Fleming JEE. First-trimester growth and risk of low birth weight. N Eng J Med 1998;339:1817–22.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  68. Mongelli M, Gardosi J. Longitudinal study of fetal growth in subgroups of a low-risk population. Ultrsound Obstet Gynecol 1995;6:340–4.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  69. Owen P, Ogston S. Conditional centiles for the quantification of fetal growth. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 1998;11:110–17.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  70. Divon MY, Chamberlain PF, Sipos L, Manning FA, Platt LD. Identification of the small for gestational age fetus with the use of gestational-age dependent indices of fetal growth. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1986;155:1197–201.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  71. Chang TC, Robson SC, Boys RJ, Spencer JAD. Prediction of small for gestational age infant: which ultrasonic measurement is best. Obstet Gynecol 1992;80:1030–8.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  72. Stratton JF, Ni Scanaill S, Stuart B, Turner MJ. Are babies of normal birth weight who fail to reach their growth potential as diagnosed by ultrasound at increased risk? Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 1995;5:114–18.

    Google Scholar 

  73. Hogberg U, Larsson N. Early dating by ultrasound and perinatal outcome. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 1997;76:907–12.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  74. Roth S. Small-for-gestational-age infants and antenatal prediction of outcome. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 1996;8:149–51.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  75. Piper JM, Xenakis EM-J, McFarland M, Elliott BD, Berkus MD, Langer O. Do growth-retarded premature infants have different rates of perinatal morbidity and mortality than appropriately grown premature infants. Obstet Gynecol 1996;87:169–74.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  76. Barker DJP, Bull AR, Osmond C, Simmonds SJ. Fetal and placental size and risk of hypertension in adult life. BMJ 1990;301:259–62.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  77. Bakketeig LS, Jacobsen G, Brodtkorb C, et al. Randomized controlled trial of ultrasonographic screening in pregnancy. Lancet 1984;ii:207–10.

    Google Scholar 

  78. Neilson JP, Munjaja SP, Whitfield CR. Screening for small-for-date fetuses: a controlled trial. BMJ 1984;289:1179–82.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  79. Larsen T, Larsen JF, Petersen S, Greisen G. Detection of small-for-gestational age fetuses by ultrasound screening in a high risk population: a randomized controlled study. Br J Obstet Gynecol 1992;99:469–74.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  80. Ewigman BG, Crane JP, Frigoletto FD, LeFevre ML, Bain RP, McNellis DA. Effect of ultrasound screening on perinatal outcome. N Eng J Med 1993;329:821–7.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  81. Pearson V. Antenatal ultrasound scanning. 1997 Cochrane Library; Issue 4.

    Google Scholar 

  82. Saari-Kemppainen A, Karjalainen O, Ylöstalo P, Heinonen OP. Ultrasound screening and perinatal mortality: controlled trial of systematic one-stage screening in pregnancy. Lancet 1990;336:387–91.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  83. Grannum PA, Hobbins JC. The ultrasound changes in the maturing placenta and their relationship to fetal pulmonic maturity. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1979;133:915–22.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  84. Jauniaux E, Jurkovic D, Campbell S. In vivo investigations of the anatomy and the physiology of early human placental circulation. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 1991;1:435–45.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  85. Jauniaux E, Ramsay B, Campbell S. Ultrasonographic investigation of placental morphometric characteristics and size during the second trimester of pregnancy. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1994;170:130–7.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  86. Proud J, Grant AM. Third trimester placental grading by ultrasonography as a test of fetal wellbeing. BMJ 1987;294:1641–4.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  87. Chamberlain PF, Manning FA, Morrison I, Harman CR, Lange IR. Ultrasound evaluation of amniotic fluid volume. I. The relationsship of marginal and decreased amniotic fluid volumes to perinatal outcome. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1984;150:245–9.

    Google Scholar 

  88. Brace RA, Wolf EJ. Normal amniotic fluid volume changes throughout pregnancy. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1989;161:382–8.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  89. Phelan JP, Ahn MO, Smith CV, Rutherford SE, Anderson E. Amniotic fluid index measurements during pregnancy. J Reprod Med 1987;32:601–4.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  90. Manning FA, Platt LD. Qualitative assessment of amniotic fluid volume — A rapid screen for detecting the small for gestational age fetus. Twenty-sixth Annual Meeting of the Society of Gynecologic Investigation. San Diego: Elsevier, 1979:126.

    Google Scholar 

  91. Moore TR, Cayle JE. The amniotic fluid index in normal human pregnancy. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1990;162:1168–73.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  92. Moore T. Superiority of four-quadrant sum over the single deepest-pocket technique in ultrasonographic identification of abnormal amniotic fluid volumes. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1990;163:762–7.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  93. Youssef AA, Abdulla SA, Sayed EH, Salem HT, Abdelalim AM, Devoe LD. Superiority of amniotic fluid index over amniotic fluid pocket measurement for predictig bad fetal outcome. South Med J 1993;86:426–9.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  94. Nwosu EC, Welch CR, Manasse PR, Walkinshaw SA. Longitudinal assessment of amniotic fluid index. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1993;100:816–9.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  95. Owen P, Ogston S. Standards for the quantification of serial changes in the amniotic fluid index. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 1996;8:403–7.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  96. Rutherford SE, Smith CV, Phelan JP, Kawakami K, Ahn MO. Four-quadrant assessment of amniotic fluid volume: interobserver and intraobserver variation. J Reprod Med 1987; 32:587–9.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  97. Bruner JP, Reed GW, Sarno AP, Harrington RA, Goodman MA. Intraobserver and interobserver variability of the amniotic fluid index. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1993;168:1309–13.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  98. Soothill PW, Nicolaides KH, Campbell S. Prenatal asphyxia, hyperlactaemia and erythroblastosis in growth retarded fetuses. BMJ 1987;i:1051–3.

    Google Scholar 

  99. Kingdom JCP, Burrell SJ, Kaufmann P. Pathology and clinical implications of abnormal umbilical artery Doppler waveforms. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 1997;9:271–86.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  100. Gill RW. Pulsed Doppler with B-mode imaging for quantitative blood flow measurement. Ultrasound Med Biol 1979;5:223–35.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  101. Gill RW, Kossoff G, Warren PS, Garrett WJ. Umbilical venous flow in normal and complicated pregnancies. Ultrasound Med Biol 1984;10:349–63.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  102. Eik-Nes SH, Brubakk AO, Ulstein MK. Measurement of human fetal blood flow. BMJ 1980;280:283–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  103. Lingman G, Marsál K. Fetal central blood circulation in the third trimester of normal pregnancy. Longitudinal study. I. Aortic and umbilical flow. Early Hum Dev 1986;13:137–50.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  104. Laurin J, Lingman G, Marsál K, Persson P-H. Fetal blood flow in pregnancies complicated by intrauterine growth retardation. Obstet Gynecol 1987;69:895–902.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  105. Gill RW, Trudinger BJ, Garrett WJ, Kossoff G, Warren PS. Fetal umbilical venous flow measured in utero by pulsed Doppler and B-mode ultrasound. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1981;139:720–5.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  106. Eik-Nes SH, Marsál K, Brubakk AO, Kristoffersen K, Ulstein M. Ultrasonic measurement of human fetal blood flow. J Biomed Engng 1982;4:28–36.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  107. Giles WB, Lingman G, Marsál K, Trudinger BJ. Fetal volume blood flow and umbilical artery flow velocity waveform analysis; a comparison. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1986;93:461–5.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  108. Laurin J, Marsál K, Persson P-H, Lingman G. Ultrasound measurement of fetal blood flow in predicting fetal outcome. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1987;94:940–8.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  109. Laurin J. Intra-uterine growth retardation. Thesis. University of Lund, Sweden, 1987.

    Google Scholar 

  110. Kiserud T, Rasmussen S. How repeat measurements affect mean diameter of the umbilical vein and the ductus venosus. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 1998;11:419–25.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  111. Kiserud T, Rasmussen S, Skulstad SM. Distribution of umbilical blood through the ductus venosus. J Soc Gynecol Invest 1998;5(Suppl 1):156–7A.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  112. Sindberg Eriksen P, Gennser G, Lindström K. Physiological characteristics of diameter pulses in the fetal descending aorta. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 1984;63:355–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  113. Stale H, Gennser G, Maršál K. Blood flow velocity and pulsatile diameter changes in the fetal descending aorta: A longitudinal study. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1990;163:26–9.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  114. Stuart B, Drumm J, FitzGerald D, Duignan N. Fetal blood velocity waveforms in normal pregnancies. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1980;87:780–5.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  115. Gosling RG, King DH. Ultrasonic angiology. In: Harcus AW, Adamson L, editor. Arteries and veins. Edinburgh: Churchill-Livingstone, 1975:61–98.

    Google Scholar 

  116. Pourcelot L. Aplications cliniques de l’examen Doppler transcutane. In: Peronneau P, editor. Velocimetric ultrasonore Doppler. Paris: INSERM, 1974:213–40.

    Google Scholar 

  117. Jouppila P, Kirkinen P. Increased vascular resistance in the descending aorta of the human fetus in hypoxia. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1984;91:853–6.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  118. Lingman G, Laurin J, Marsál K, Persson P-H. Circulatory changes in fetuses with imminent asphyxia. Biol Neonate 1986;49:66–73.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  119. Gudmundsson S, Maršál K. Blood flow velocity waveforms in the fetal aorta and umbilical artery as predictors of fetal outcome — a comparison. Am J Perinatology 1991;8:1–6.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  120. Chang TC, Robson SC, Spencer JAD, Gallivan S. Prediction of perinatal morbidity at term in small fetuses: comparison of fetal growth and Doppler ultrasound. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1994;101:422–7.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  121. Chang TC, Robson SC, Spencer JAD, Gallivan S. Identification of fetal growth retardation: comparison of Doppler waveform indices and serial ultrasound measurements of abdominal circumference and fetal weight. Obstet Gynecol 1993;82:230–6.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  122. Ley D, Laurin J, Bjerre I, Maršál K. Abnormal fetal aortic velocity waveform and minor neurological dysfunction at 7 years of age. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 1996;8:152–9.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  123. Ley D, Tideman E, Laurin J, Bjerre I, Marsál K. Abnormal fetal aortic velocity waveform and intellectual function at 7 years of age. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 1996;8:1605.

    Google Scholar 

  124. Trudinger BJ, Stevens D, Connelly A, Hales JRS, Alexander G. Umbilical artery flow velocity waveforms and placental resistance: The effects of embolization of the umbilical circulation. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1987;157:1443–9.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  125. Nimrod C, Clapp JI, Larrow R, D’Alton M, Persaud D. Simultaneous use of Doppler ultrasound and electromagnetic flow probes in fetal flow assessment. J Ultrasound Med 1989;8:201–5.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  126. Adamson SL, Langille BL. Factors determining aortic and umbilical blood flow pulsatility in fetal sheep. Ultrasound Med Biol 1992;18:255–66.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  127. Giussani DA, Moore PJ, Spencer JAD, Hanson MA. Changes in frequency and in compliance affect the Pulsatility Index in an in vitro pulsatile flow model. J Maternal Fetal Invest 1995;5:78–82.

    Google Scholar 

  128. Hackett GA, Campbell S, Gamsu H, Cohen-Overbeek T, Pearce JMF. Doppler studies in the growth retarded fetus and prediction of neonatal necrotising enterocolitis, intracranial haemorrhage and neonatal morbidity. BMJ 1987;294:13–16.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  129. Gudmundsson S, Marsál K. Umbilical and uteroplacental blood flow velocity waveforms in pregnancies with fetal growth retardation. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 1988;27:187–96.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  130. Hawton JM, Platt MPW, McPhail S, Cameron H, Walkinshaw SA. Prediction of impaired metabolic adaptation by antenatal Doppler studies in small for gestational age fetuses. Arch Dis Child 1992;67:789–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  131. Wilson DC, Harper A, McLure G, Halliday HL, Reid M. Long term predictive value of Doppler studies in high risk fetuses. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1992;99:575–8.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  132. Arabin B, Becker R, Mohnhaupt A, Entezami M, Weitzel HK. Prediction of fetal distress and poor outcome in intrauterine growth retardation — A comparison of fetal heart rate monitoring combined with stress tests and doppler ultrasound. Fetal Diagn Ther 1993;8:234–40.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  133. Kiserud T, Eik-Nes SH, Blaas H-G, Hellevik LR, Simensen B. Ductus venosus blood velocity and the umbilical circulation in the seriously growth retarded fetus. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 1994;4:109–14.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  134. Neilson JP, Alfirevic Z. Doppler ultrasound in high risk pregnancies. 1997 Cochrane Library; Issue 4.

    Google Scholar 

  135. Tyrrell S, Obaid AH, Lilford RJ. Umbilical artery Doppler velocimetry as a predictor of fetal hypoxia and acidosis at birth. Obstet Gynecol 1989;74:332–6.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  136. Goffinet F, Paris-Llado J, Nisand I, Bréart G. Umbilical artery Doppler velocimetry in unselected and low risk pregnancies: a review of randomised trials. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1997;104:425–30.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  137. Alfirevic Z, Neilson JP. Doppler ultrasonography in high-risk pregnancies: Systematic review with meta-analysis. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1995;172:1379–87.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  138. Divon MY. Randomized controlled trials of umbilical artery Doppler velocimetry: how many are too many. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 1995;6:377–9.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  139. Wood CE. Local and endocrine factors in the control of the circulation. In: Hanson MA, Spencer JAD, Rodeck CH, editors. Fetus and neonate. Physiology and clinical application, vol 1 Circulation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993; 100–15.

    Google Scholar 

  140. Wladimiroff JW, Tongue HM, Stewart PA. Doppler ultrasound assessment of cerebral blood flow in the human. Br J Obstet 1986;93:471–5.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  141. Mari G, Deter RL. Middle cerebral artery flow velocity waveforms in normal and small-for gestational-age fetuses. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1992;166:1262–70.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  142. Rizzo G, Arduini D, Luciano R, et al. Prenatal cerebral Doppler ultrasonography and neonatal neurologic outcome. J Ultrasound Med 1989;8:237–40.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  143. Gramellini D, Folli MC, Raboni S, Vadora E, Merialdi A. Cerebral-umbilical Doppler ratio as a predictor of adverse perinatal outcome. Obstet Gynecol 1992;79:416–20.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  144. Arias F. Accuracy of the middle-cerebral-to-umbilical-artery resistance index ratio in the prediction of neonatal outcome in patients at high risk for fetal and neonatal complications. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1994;171:1541–5.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  145. Arbeille P, Leguyader P, Fignon A, Carles G, Locatelli H, Maulik D. Doppler ultrasonographic investigation of fetal cerebral circulation. In: Maulik D, editor. Doppler ultrasound in obstetrics and gynecology. New York: Springer-Verlag, 1996:161–80.

    Google Scholar 

  146. Campbell S, Diaz-Racasens J, Griffin D, Cohen-Overbeek RE, Pearce JM, Wilson K. New Doppler technique for assessing uteroplacental blood flow. Lancet 1983;1:675–9.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  147. Arduini D, Rizzo G, Romanini C. Doppler ultrasonography in early pregnancy does not predict adverse pregnancy outcome. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 1991;1:180–5.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  148. Jacobson S-L, Imhof R, Manning N, et al. The value of Doppler assessment of the uteroplacental circulation in predicting preeclampsia or intrauterine growth retardation. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1990;162:110–14.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  149. Bewley S, Cooper D, Campbell S. Doppler investigation of uteroplacental blood flow resistance in the second trimester: a screening study for pre-eclampsia and intrauterine growth retardation. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1991;98:871–9.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  150. Hanretty KP, Primrose MH, Neilson JP, Whittle MJ. Pregnancy screening by Doppler uteroplacental and umbilical artery waveforms. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1989;96:1163–7.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  151. Harrington K, Cooper DCL, Hecher K, Campbell S. Doppler ultrasound of the uterine arteries: the importance of bilateral notching in the prediction of pre-eclampsia, placental abruption or delivery of a small-for-gestational-age baby. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 1996;7:182–8.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  152. Irion 0, Massé J, Forest JC, Moutquin JM. Prediction of pre-eclampsia, low birthweight for gestation and prematurity by uterine artery velocity waveforms analysis in low risk nulliparous women. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1998;105:422–9.

    Google Scholar 

  153. Bower S, Kingdom J, Campbell S. Objective and subjective assessment of abnormal uterine artery Doppler flow velocity waveforms. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 1998;12:260–4.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  154. Chappell L, Bewley S. Pre-eclamptic toxaemia: the role of uterine artery Doppler. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1998;105:379–82.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  155. Valensise H. Uterine artery Doppler velocimetry as a screening test: where we are and where we go. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 1998;12:81–3.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Authors
  1. Torvid Kiserud
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Karel Maršál
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Maternal-Fetal Medicine, Mount Sinai Hospital, Suite 775B, University of Toronto, 600 University Avenue, M5G 1X5, Toronto, Ontario, Canada

    John Kingdom MD FRCS MRCP MRCOG

  2. School of Human Development, City Hospital, Nottingham University, Hucknall Road, NG5 1PB, Nottingham, UK

    Philip Baker BM BS MRCOG

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2000 Springer-Verlag London Limited

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Kiserud, T., Maršál, K. (2000). Ultrasound Assessment. In: Kingdom, J., Baker, P. (eds) Intrauterine Growth Restriction. Springer, London. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4471-0735-4_11

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4471-0735-4_11

  • Publisher Name: Springer, London

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-4471-1191-7

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-4471-0735-4

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation