Carranza LS, Haro GLM, Biruete CB

Language: Spanish
References: 11
Page: 582-587
PDF size: 189.36 Kb.

ABSTRACT

Background: Fetal weight estimation is an important parameter in decision making during labor to avoid delivery complications.
Objectives: To evaluate the reliability of clinical and ultrasonographic measurements in fetal weight estimation during active delivery, as well as to define which is the best method for calculate it.
Material and methods: Study of 115 healthy pregnant women during labor. Uterine fundus height, uterus wide and adipose panicle thickness, if it were so, were obtained. Fetal weight was calculated by means of Johnson’s formula and a new one proposed (Carranza’s formula). Also ultrasonographic estimation was done according to Hadlock 1. At birth, newborn’s weight was documented and three groups were created according to newborn weight: ‹; 2,500 g, 2,500 to 3,500 g and ›; 3,500 g. Differences among methods and real weight real were calculated by Student t test, and correlation between methods by Pearson’s correlation analysis.
Results: There was a difference between real weight and Johnson’s estimation (-104.8 ± 289.4 g), Carranza’s formula (+124.7 ± 304.7 g), and ultrasonography (-102.0 ± 299.6 g). Correlation between Carranza’s and Johnson’s formula was r = 0.796, between Carranza’s formula and ultrasonography, r = 0.765, and between Johnson’s formula and ultrasonography: r = 0.729 (p ‹ 0.001). Carranza’s formula has the lower variation regarding real weight.
Conclusions: Clinical methods as well as ultrasonography were reliable methods to predict fetal weight with the advantage that clinical methods are more economic.

REFERENCES

1. Bavone S, Pernoll ML. Embarazo normal y cuidados prenatales. En: DeCherney AH, Nathan L, editores. Diagnóstico y tratamiento ginecoobstétricos. 8a ed. México: El Manual Moderno, 2003;pp:211-31.

2. Mongelli M, Gardosi J. Estimation of fetal weight by symphysis-fundus height measurement. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2004;85:50-51.

3. Nahum G, Stanislaw H. Ultrasonographic prediction of term birth weight: how accurate is it? Am J Obstet Gynecol 2003;188:566-74.

4. Nahum GG, Pham KQ, Stanislaw H. Prediction of term birth weight in Hispanic women using an equation based on maternal characteristics. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2004;112:145-50.

5. Shittu AS, Kuti O, Orji EO. Comparison of clinical and ultrasonographic estimation of fetal weight. Int J Gynecol Obstet 2005;90:140-1.

6. Sherman J, Arieli S, Tovbin J, Siegel G, et al. A comparison of clinical and ultrasonic estimation of fetal weight. Obstet Gynecol 1998;91:212-7.

7. Weiner Z, Ben-Shlomo I, Beck-Fruchter R, Goldberg Y, Shalev E. Clinical and ultrasonographic weight estimation in large for gestational age fetus. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2002;105:20-24.

8. Ocer F, Kaleli S, Budak E, Oral E. Fetal weight estimation and prediction of fetal macrosomia in non-diabetic pregnant women. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 1999;83:47-52.

9. Noumi G, Collado-Khoury F, Bombard A, Julliard K, Weiner Z. Clinical and sonographic estimation of fetal weight performed during labor by residents. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2005;192:1407-9.

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

11. Chauhan SP, West DJ, Scardo JA, Boyd JM, et al. Antepartum detection of macrosomic fetus: clinical versus sonographic, including soft-tissue measurements. Obstet Gynecol 2000;95:639-42.