medigraphic.com
Federación Mexicana de Ginecología y Obstetricia, A.C.

2007, Number 08

<< Back Next >>

Ginecol Obstet Mex 2007; 75 (08)

Application of a technique to establish criteria for uterine length measurement

Acevedo GS, Guzmán HME, Velázquez TB, Gallardo GJM, Sarmiento SLA

Language: Spanish
References: 13
Page: 465-470
PDF size: 127.66 Kb.


ABSTRACT

Background: The uterine length measurement is a routine practice in the prenatal care of pregnant women. It has been attributed a sensibility of 86% to detect fetal grown restriction. The technique is easy to perform and reproducible between observers, although we have found variation between intra- and inter-observers measurements.
Objective: To evaluate the useful of a maneuver to improve the reliability of the uterine length measurement in a group of obstetrics residents.
Material and methods: The measurement was performed on pregnant women. The results were analyzed by intraclass correlation coefficient to evaluate the concordance between observers based in a variance analysis model (ANOVA) of repeated measurements.
Results: There were not differences between groups about demographic variables. All residents improve the reliability in their measurements. The intra-class correlation coefficient was 0.77 (confidence interval 0.63-0.88) before the maneuver, and after this one the intra-class correlation coefficient improved to 0.96 (confidence interval 0.92-0.98).
Conclusion: The uterine measurement following detailed indications improve the interobserver concordance. We think it is advisable to evaluate the use of this maneuver in a routine way in our institute and in other places that bring prenatal care.


REFERENCES

  1. Villar J, Carrioli G, Khan-Neelofur, Piaggio G, Gulmezoglu M. Patterns of routine antenatal care for low-risk pregnancy. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2001;(4):CD000934.

  2. Gardosi J, Francis A. Controlled trial of fundal height measurement plotter on customized antenatal growth charts. Br J Obstet Gynecol 1999;106:309-17.

  3. Degani S. Fetal biometric: clinical, pathological and technical considerations. Obstet Gynecol Surv 2001;56:159-67.

  4. Sherman DJ, Arielli S, Tovbin J, Siegel G, et al. A comparison of clinical and ultrasound estimation of fetal weight. Obstet Gyneco1 1998;91:212-7.

  5. Niswander K, Capraro V, Van Coevering R. Estimation of birth weight by quantified external uterine measurement. Obstet Gynecol 1970;66(2):294-8.

  6. Mehdizadeh A, Alaghehbandan R, Horsan H. Comparison of clinical versus ultrasound estimation of fetal weight. Am J Perinat 2000;17(5):233-6.

  7. Westin B. Gravidogram and fetal growth. Act Obstet Gynecol Scand 1977;56:273-82.

  8. Hernández M, Vargas C, Vera D, y cols. Evaluación del método clínico de Johnson y Toshach para calcular peso fetal. Ginec Obstet Méx 1985;53(335):63-67.

  9. Quaranta P, Currell R. Prediction of small for dates infants by measurement of sinfisis-fundal height. Br J Obstet Gynecol 1981;88:115-9.

  10. Mongelli M. Fetal weight estimation by sinfisis fundus height and gestational age. Gynecol Obstet Inv 1997;43:20-24.

  11. Belizan J, Villar J, Nardin J, Malamud J, De Vicurna LS. Diagnosis of intrauterine growth retardation by a simple clinical method: measurement of uterine height. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1978;131:643-6.

  12. Bailey S, Sarmandal P, Grant J. A comparison of three methods of assesing interobserver variation applied to measurement of the sinfisis-fundal height. Br J Obstet Gynecol 1989;96:1266-71.

  13. Worthen N, Bustillo M. Effect of urinary bladder fullnes on fundal height measurement. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1980;138:759-62.




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com