Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Influence of fetal birth weight on perinatal outcome in planned vaginal births

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

Abstract

Objective

The aim of this study was to provide information for better obstetric counseling by analyzing the impact of fetal birth weight (BW) on fetal and maternal outcome when vaginal birth is planned in a university hospital.

Methods

In this retrospective study from January 1st 2006 to December 31st 2011, 5,177 singleton, alive deliveries at or >37 gestational weeks were assessed with regard to the fetal BW when vaginal birth was attempted. The normal BW group was defined as ≥2,500 <4,500 g. For comparison, further BW groups were defined as: group 1 <2,500 g, group 2 ≥4,000 <4,250 g, group 3 ≥4,250 <4,500 g and group 4 ≥4,500 g. Outcome criteria were mode of delivery and perineal lacerations as well as the pH and base excess of the umbilical cord artery, the Apgar score after 5 min and occurrence of shoulder dystocia. The set of controlling variables included maternal height, maternal weight, maternal age, gestational age, neonatal sex and parity.

Results

Second stage caesarean section is significantly more likely when fetal BW is under 2,500 g (30.7 vs. 15.5 % in the normal BW group, odds ratio 3.01, 95 % confidence interval 2.03–4.46, p value < 0.001). Shoulder dystocia occurred significantly more often when fetal BW was over 4,250 g (group 3: odds ratio 4.95, 95 % confidence interval 1.74–14.10, p value 0.003, group 4: odds ratio 19.96, 95 % confidence interval 7.61–52.38, p value < 0.001). The risk of an Apgar score after 5 min below 7 increased, when fetal BW was below 2,500 g (odds ratio 9.28, 95 % confidence interval 3.15–27.35, p value < 0.001) or above 4,500 g (odds ratio 5.65, 95 % confidence interval 1.22–26.24, p value 0.027). All groups were comparable to the normal group regarding pH and base excess of the umbilical cord artery as well as the risk for severe (third and fourth degree) perineal lacerations.

Conclusion

Although a fetal birth weight under 2,500 g and a birth weight over 4,250 g are associated with some risks, there is no general contraindication for an attempt to deliver vaginally in a university hospital with regard to fetal birth weight.

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. Raio L, Ghezzi F, Di Naro E, Buttarelli M, Franchi M, Dürig P et al (2003) Perinatal outcome of fetuses with a birth weight greater than 4500 g: an analysis of 3356 cases. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 109(2):160–165

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Henriksen T (2008) The macrosomic fetus: a challenge in current obstetrics. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 87(2):134–145

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Siggelkow W, Boehm D, Skala C, Grosslercher M, Schmidt M, Koelbl H (2008) The influence of macrosomia on the duration of labor, the mode of delivery and intrapartum complications. Arch Gynecol Obstet 278(6):547–553

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Esakoff TF, Cheng YW, Sparks TN, Caughey AB (2009) The association between birthweight 4000 g or greater and perinatal outcomes in patients with and without gestational diabetes mellitus. Am J Obstet Gynecol 200(6): 672.e1–672.e4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Larkin JC, Speer PD, Simhan HN (2011) A customized standard of large size for gestational age to predict intrapartum morbidity. Am J Obstet Gynecol 204(6): 499.e1–10

    Google Scholar 

  6. Alsammani MA, Ahmed SR (2012) Fetal and maternal outcomes in pregnancies complicated with fetal macrosomia. N Am J Med Sci 4(6):283–286

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Weissmann-Brenner A, Simchen MJ, Zilberberg E, Kalter A, Weisz B, Achiron R et al (2012) Maternal and neonatal outcomes of large for gestational age pregnancies. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 91(7):844–849

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. McIntire DD, Bloom SL, Casey BM, Leveno KJ (1999) Birth weight in relation to morbidity and mortality among newborn infants. N Engl J Med 340(16):1234–1238

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Arcangeli T, Thilaganathan B, Hooper R, Khan KS, Bhide A (2012) Neurodevelopmental delay in small babies at term: a systematic review. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 40(3):267–275

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Von Beckerath AK, Kollmann M, Rotky-Fast C, Karpf E, Lang U, Klaritsch P (2013) Perinatal complications and long-term neurodevelopmental outcome of infants with intrauterine growth restriction. Am J Obstet Gynecol 208(2): 130.e1–6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 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  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Kurmanavicius J, Burkhardt T, Wisser J, Huch R (2004) Ultrasonographic fetal weight estimation: accuracy of formulas and accuracy of examiners by birth weight from 500 to 5000 g. J Perinat Med 32(2):155–161

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Kehl S, Körber C, Hart N, Goecke TW, Schild RL, Siemer J (2012) New sonographic method for fetuses with a large abdominal circumference improves fetal weight estimation. Ultraschall Med 33(3):265–269

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Faschingbauer F, Voigt F, Goecke TW, Siemer J, Beckmann MW, Yazdi B et al (2012) Fetal weight estimation in extreme macrosomia (≥4,500 g): comparison of 10 formulas. Ultraschall Med 33(7):E62–E67

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Langer O, Berkus MD, Huff RW, Samueloff A (1991) Shoulder dystocia: should the fetus weighing greater than or equal to 4000 grams be delivered by cesarean section? Am J Obstet Gynecol 165(4 Pt 1):831–837

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Conway DL (2002) Delivery of the macrosomic infant: cesarean section versus vaginal delivery. Semin Perinatol 26(3):225–231

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Hankins GDV, Clark SM, Munn MB (2006) Cesarean section on request at 39 weeks: impact on shoulder dystocia, fetal trauma, neonatal encephalopathy, and intrauterine fetal demise. Semin Perinatol 30(5):276–287

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Boers KE, Van der Post JAM, Mol BWJ, Van Lith JMM, Scherjon SA (2011) Labour and neonatal outcome in small for gestational age babies delivered beyond 36 + 0 weeks: a retrospective cohort study. J Pregnancy 2011:293516

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Bhide A (2011) Fetal growth restriction and developmental delay: current understanding and future possibilities. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 38(3):243–245

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Gonen R, Spiegel D, Abend M (1996) Is macrosomia predictable, and are shoulder dystocia and birth trauma preventable? Obstet Gynecol 88(4 Pt 1):526–529

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Chauhan SP, Grobman WA, Gherman RA, Chauhan VB, Chang G, Magann EF et al (2005) Suspicion and treatment of the macrosomic fetus: a review. Am J Obstet Gynecol 193(2):332–346

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Lim JH, Tan BC, Jammal AE, Symonds EM (2002) Delivery of macrosomic babies: management and outcomes of 330 cases. J Obstet Gynaecol 22(4):370–374

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Boulet SL, Salihu HM, Alexander GR (2004) Mode of delivery and birth outcomes of macrosomic infants. J Obstet Gynaecol 24(6):622–629

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (2000) Fetal macrosomia. ACOG practice bulletin clinical management guidelines for obstetrician-gynecologists. Number 22. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, Washington, DC

  25. Sokol RJ, Blackwell SC (2003) ACOG practice bulletin: shoulder dystocia. Number 40, November 2002. (replaces practice pattern number 7, October 1997). Int J Gynaecol Obstet 80(1):87–92

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gynäkologie und Geburtshilfe (DGGG), Arbeits- gemeinschaft Medizinrecht (AGMedR) (2010) S1 Leitlinie: Empfehlungen zur Schulterdystokie—Erkennung, Prävention und Management aus Leitlinien der Gynäkologie und Geburtshilfe Band IV. S. Kramarz, Berlin, pp 143–148

Download references

Conflict of interest

None.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University Medical Centre Mannheim, Heidelberg University, Theodor-Kutzer-Ufer 1-3, 68167, Mannheim, Germany

    Dunja Temerinac, Marc Sütterlin & Sven Kehl

  2. BETA, University of Strasbourg, Strasbourg, France

    Xi Chen

  3. Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Erlangen University Hospital, Erlangen, Germany

    Sven Kehl

Authors
  1. Dunja Temerinac
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Xi Chen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Marc Sütterlin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Sven Kehl
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sven Kehl.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Temerinac, D., Chen, X., Sütterlin, M. et al. Influence of fetal birth weight on perinatal outcome in planned vaginal births. Arch Gynecol Obstet 289, 313–318 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-013-2973-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-013-2973-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation