Home Medicine Estimation of fetal weight by ultrasonography after preterm premature rupture of membranes: comparison of different formulas
Article
Licensed
Unlicensed Requires Authentication

Estimation of fetal weight by ultrasonography after preterm premature rupture of membranes: comparison of different formulas

  • Sertac Esin EMAIL logo , Mutlu Hayran , Yusuf Aytac Tohma , Mahmut Guden , Ismail Alay , Deniz Esinler , Serdar Yalvac and Omer Kandemir
Published/Copyright: December 9, 2016

Abstract

Objective:

To compare different ultrasonographic fetal weight estimation formulas in predicting the fetal birth weight of preterm premature rupture of membrane (PPROM) fetuses.

Methods:

Based on the ultrasonographic measurements, the estimated fetal weight (EFW) was calculated according to the published formulas. The comparisons used estimated birth weight (EBW) and observed birth weight (OBW) to calculate the mean absolute percentage error [(EBW–OBW)/OBW×100], mean percentage error [(EBW–OBW)/OBW×100)] and their 95% confidence intervals.

Results:

There were 234 PPROM patients in the study period. The mean gestational age at which PPROM occured was 31.2±3.7 weeks and the mean gestational age of delivery was 32.4±3.2 weeks. The mean birth weight was 1892±610 g. The median absolute percentage error for 33 formulas was 11.7%. 87.9% and 21.2% of the formulas yielded inaccurate results when the cut-off values for median absolute percentage error were 10% and 15%, respectively. The Vintzileos’ formula was the only method which had less than or equal to 10% absolute percentage error in all age and weight groups.

Conclusions:

For PPROM patients, most of the formulas designed for sonographic fetal weight estimation had acceptable performance. The Vintzileos’ method was the only formula having less than 10% absolute percentage error in all gestational age and weight groups; therefore, it may be the preferred method in this cohort. Amniotic fluid index (AFI) before delivery had no impact on the performance of the formulas in terms of mean percentage errors.

  1. Author’s statement

  2. Conflict of interest: Authors state no conflict of interest.

  3. Material and Methods: Informed consent: Informed consent has been obtained from all individuals included in this study.

  4. Ethical approval: The research related to human use has been complied with all the relevant national regulations, institutional policies and in accordance the tenets of the Helsinki Declaration, and has been approved by the authors’ institutional review board or equivalent committee.

References

[1] Campbell S, Wilkin D. Ultrasonic measurement of fetal abdomen circumference in the estimation of fetal weight. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1975;82:689–97.10.1111/j.1471-0528.1975.tb00708.xSearch in Google Scholar

[2] Eik-Nes SH, Grøttum P. Estimation of fetal weight by ultrasound measurement. I. Development of a new formula. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 1982;61:299–305.Search in Google Scholar

[3] Schild RL, Sachs C, Fimmers R, Gembruch U, Hansmann M. Sex-specific fetal weight prediction by ultrasound. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2004;23:30–5.10.1002/uog.942Search in Google Scholar

[4] 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;151:333–7.10.1016/0002-9378(85)90298-4Search in Google Scholar

[5] Hadlock FP, Deter RL, Harrist RB, Park SK. Estimating fetal age: computer-assisted analysis of multiple fetal growth parameters. Radiology. 1984;152:497–501.10.1148/radiology.152.2.6739822Search in Google Scholar

[6] Hansmann M. Ultraschallbiometrie im II und III. Trimester der Schwangerschaft. Gynakologe 1976;9:133.Search in Google Scholar

[7] Higginbottom J, Slater J, Porter G, Whitfield CR. Estimation of fetal weight from ultrasonic measurement of trunk circumference. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1975;82:698–701.10.1111/j.1471-0528.1975.tb00709.xSearch in Google Scholar

[8] Merz E, Lieser H, Schicketanz KH, Härle J. [Intrauterine fetal weight assessment using ultrasound. A comparison of several weight assessment methods and development of a new formula for the determination of fetal weight]. Ultraschall Med. 1988;9:15–24.10.1055/s-2007-1011588Search in Google Scholar

[9] Ott WJ, Doyle S, Flamm S, Wittman J. Accurate ultrasonic estimation of fetal weight. Prospective analysis of new ultrasonic formulas. Am J Perinatol. 1986;3:307–10.10.1055/s-2007-999885Search in Google Scholar

[10] Hansmann M, Schuhmacher H, Voigt U. In: Kratochwil A, Reinold E, editors. Mehrparametrische nicht lineare Gewichtsschatzung mittels Ultraschall unter Berucksichtigung des Gestationsalters. Ultraschalldiagnostik, Stuttgart: Georg Thieme Verlag; 1978. p. 69–71.Search in Google Scholar

[11] 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;142:47–54.10.1016/S0002-9378(16)32283-9Search in Google Scholar

[12] Thurnau GR, Tamura RK, Sabbagha R, Depp OR, Dyer A, Larkin R, et al. A simple estimated fetal weight equation based on real-time ultrasound measurements of fetuses less than thirty-four weeks’ gestation. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1983;145:557–61.10.1016/0002-9378(83)91195-XSearch in Google Scholar

[13] Warsof SL, Gohari P, Berkowitz RL, Hobbins JC. The estimation of fetal weight by computer-assisted analysis. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1977;128:881–92.10.1016/0002-9378(77)90058-8Search in Google Scholar

[14] Vintzileos AM, Campbell WA, Rodis JF, Bors-Koefoed R, Nochimson DJ. Fetal weight estimation formulas with head, abdominal, femur, and thigh circumference measurements. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1987;157:410–4.10.1016/S0002-9378(87)80182-5Search in Google Scholar

[15] Combs CA, Jaekle RK, Rosenn B, Pope M, Miodovnik M, Siddiqi TA. Sonographic estimation of fetal weight based on a model of fetal volume. Obstet Gynecol. 1993;82:365–70.Search in Google Scholar

[16] Weiner CP, Sabbagha RE, Vaisrub N, Socol ML. Ultrasonic fetal weight prediction: role of head circumference and femur length. Obstet Gynecol. 1985;65:812–7.Search in Google Scholar

[17] Rose BI, McCallum WD. A simplified method for estimating fetal weight using ultrasound measurements. Obstet Gynecol. 1987;69:671–5.Search in Google Scholar

[18] Birnholz JC. An algorithmic approach to accurate ultrasonic fetal weight estimation. Invest Radiol. 1986;21:571–6.10.1097/00004424-198607000-00010Search in Google Scholar

[19] Ferrero A, Maggi E, Giancotti A, Torcia F, Pachì A. Regression formula for estimation of fetal weight with use of abdominal circumference and femur length: a prospective study. J Ultrasound Med. 1994;13:823–33.10.7863/jum.1994.13.11.823Search in Google Scholar

[20] Halaska MG, Vlk R, Feldmar P, Hrehorcak M, Krcmar M, Mlcochova H, et al. Predicting term birth weight using ultrasound and maternal characteristics. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2006;128:231–5.10.1016/j.ejogrb.2006.01.020Search in Google Scholar

[21] Jordaan HV. Estimation of fetal weight by ultrasound. J Clin Ultrasound. 1983;11:59–66.10.1002/jcu.1870110202Search in Google Scholar

[22] Sabbagha RE, Minogue J, Tamura RK, Hungerford SA. Estimation of birth weight by use of ultrasonographic formulas targeted to large-, appropriate-, and small-for-gestational-age fetuses. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1989;160:854–60; discussion 60–2.10.1016/0002-9378(89)90301-3Search in Google Scholar

[23] Woo JS, Ngan HY, Au KK, Fung KP, Wong VC. Estimation of fetal weight in utero from symphysis-fundal height and abdominal girth measurements. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 1985;25:268–71.10.1111/j.1479-828X.1985.tb00742.xSearch in Google Scholar PubMed

[24] Hadlock FP, Harrist RB, Carpenter RJ, Deter RL, Park SK. Sonographic estimation of fetal weight. The value of femur length in addition to head and abdomen measurements. Radiology. 1984;150:535–40.10.1148/radiology.150.2.6691115Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[25] Scott F, Beeby P, Abbott J, Edelman D, Boogert A. New formula for estimating fetal weight below 1000 g: comparison with existing formulas. J Ultrasound Med. 1996;15:669–72.10.7863/jum.1996.15.10.669Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[26] Siemer J, Hilbert A, Hart N, Meurer B, Goecke T, Schild RL. A new sonographic weight formula for fetuses <or= 2500 g. Ultraschall Med. 2009;30:47–51.10.1055/s-2007-963645Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[27] Slattery MM, Morrison JJ. Preterm delivery. Lancet. 2002;360:1489–97.10.1016/S0140-6736(02)11476-0Search in Google Scholar

[28] Ott WJ. Clinical application of fetal weight determination by real-time ultrasound measurements. Obstet Gynecol. 1981;57:758–62.Search in Google Scholar

[29] Dudley NJ. A systematic review of the ultrasound estimation of fetal weight. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2005;25:80–9.10.1002/uog.1751Search in Google Scholar

[30] Filly R, Feldstein V. Ultrasonography in obstetric and gynecology. Philadelphia, PA: Saunders; 2000.Search in Google Scholar

[31] Blann DW, Prien SD. Estimation of fetal weight before and after amniotomy in the laboring gravid woman. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2000;182:1117–20.10.1067/mob.2000.105390Search in Google Scholar

[32] Benacerraf BR, Gelman R, Frigoletto FD. Sonographically estimated fetal weights: accuracy and limitation. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1988;159:1118–21.10.1016/0002-9378(88)90425-5Search in Google Scholar

[33] Meyer WJ, Font GE, Gauthier DW, Myles TD, Bieniarz A, Rodriguez A. Effect of amniotic fluid volume on ultrasonic fetal weight estimation. J Ultrasound Med. 1995;14:193–7.10.7863/jum.1995.14.3.193Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[34] Owen P, Osman I, Farrell T. Is there a relationship between fetal weight and amniotic fluid index? Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2002;20:61–3.10.1046/j.1469-0705.2002.00732.xSearch in Google Scholar PubMed

[35] Edwards A, Goff J, Baker L. Accuracy and modifying factors of the sonographic estimation of fetal weight in a high-risk population. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 2001;41:187–90.10.1111/j.1479-828X.2001.tb01206.xSearch in Google Scholar PubMed

[36] Perni SC, Predanic M, Cho JE, Kalish RB, Chasen ST. Association of amniotic fluid index with estimated fetal weight. J Ultrasound Med. 2004;23:1449–52; quiz 53.10.7863/jum.2004.23.11.1449Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[37] Barnhard Y, Bar-Hava I, Divon MY. Accuracy of intrapartum estimates of fetal weight. Effect of oligohydramnios. J Reprod Med. 1996;41:907–10.Search in Google Scholar

[38] Shamley KT, Landon MB. Accuracy and modifying factors for ultrasonographic determination of fetal weight at term. Obstet Gynecol. 1994;84:926–30.Search in Google Scholar

[39] Ashwal E, Hiersch L, Melamed N, Bardin R, Wiznitzer A, Yogev Y. Does the level of amniotic fluid have an effect on the accuracy of sonographic estimated fetal weight at term? J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2015;28:638–42.10.3109/14767058.2014.929113Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[40] Townsend RR, Filly RA, Callen PW, Laros RK. Factors affecting prenatal sonographic estimation of weight in extremely low birthweight infants. J Ultrasound Med. 1988;7:183–7.10.7863/jum.1988.7.4.183Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[41] Ethridge JK, Louis JM, Mercer BM. Accuracy of fetal weight estimation by ultrasound in periviable deliveries. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2014;27:557–60.10.3109/14767058.2013.834324Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[42] Blumenfeld YJ, Lee HC, Pullen KM, Wong AE, Pettit K, Taslimi MM. Ultrasound estimation of fetal weight in small for gestational age pregnancies. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2010;23:790–3.10.3109/14767050903387052Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[43] Abele H, Hoopmann M, Wagner N, Hahn M, Wallwiener D, Kagan KO. Accuracy of sonographic fetal weight estimation of fetuses with a birth weight of 1500 g or less. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2010;153:131–7.10.1016/j.ejogrb.2010.07.007Search in Google Scholar PubMed

Received: 2016-8-2
Accepted: 2016-10-27
Published Online: 2016-12-9
Published in Print: 2017-2-1

©2017 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston

Articles in the same Issue

  1. Frontmatter
  2. Editorial
  3. Fetal diagnosis and therapy: a continously evolving discipline
  4. Highlight articles
  5. Prenatally diagnosed fetal tumors of the head and neck: a systematic review with antenatal and postnatal outcomes over the past 20 years
  6. Prenatal screening for microcephaly: an update after three decades
  7. Fetal echocardiography: reference values for the Chinese population
  8. Multi-fetal pregnancy reduction (MFPR) to twins or singleton – medical justification and ethical slippery slope
  9. Combined screening test for trisomy 21 – is it as efficient as we believe?
  10. Fetal loss following invasive prenatal testing: a comparison of transabdominal chorionic villus sampling, transcervical chorionic villus sampling and amniocentesis
  11. Comparison of adverse perinatal outcomes after single-needle and double-needle CVS techniques
  12. Prenatal decision-making in the second and third trimester in trisomy 21-affected pregnancies
  13. Role of collagen type IV in the pathogenesis of increased prenasal thickness in Down syndrome fetuses: sonographic and immunohistological findings
  14. Congenital diaphragmatic hernia: endotracheal fluid phospholipidic profile following tracheal occlusion in an experimental model
  15. Original articles
  16. The effect of intraumbilical fetal nutrition via a subcutaneously implanted port system on amino acid concentration by severe IUGR human fetuses
  17. Anti-inflammatory Elafin in human fetal membranes
  18. Recombinant vascular endothelial growth factor 121 injection for the prevention of fetal growth restriction in a preeclampsia mouse model
  19. Estimation of fetal weight by ultrasonography after preterm premature rupture of membranes: comparison of different formulas
  20. Congress Calendar
  21. Congress Calendar
Downloaded on 31.12.2025 from https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.1515/jpm-2016-0258/pdf
Scroll to top button