Fetal biometric parameters: Reference charts for a non-selected risk population from Uberaba, Brazil

• Authors: Alberto Borges Peixoto , Taciana Mara Rodrigues da Cunha Caldas , Fernando Felix Dulgheroff , Wellington P. Martins , Edward Araujo Júnior

Title variants

PL

Parametry biometryczne płodu: wykresy odniesienia dla nieselektywnej populacji ryzyka z Uberaby w Brazylii

• Languages of publication: EN

Abstracts

EN

Objective: To establish reference charts for fetal biometric parameters in a non-selected risk population from Uberaba, Southeast of Brazil. Methods: A retrospective cross-sectional study was performed among 5656 non-selected risk singleton pregnant women between 14 and 41 weeks of gestation. The ultrasound exams were performed during routine visits of second and third trimesters. Biparietal diameter (BPD) was measured at the level of the thalami and cavum septi pellucidi. Head circumference (HC) was calculated by the following formula: HC = 1.62*(BPD + occipital frontal diameter, OFD). Abdominal circumference (AC) was measured using the following formula: AC = (anteroposterior diameter + transverse abdominal diameter) × 1.57. Femur diaphysis length (FDL) was obtained in the longest axis of femur without including the distal femoral epiphysis. The estimated fetal weight (EFW) was obtained by the Hadlock formula. Polynomial regressions were performed to obtain the best-fit model for each fetal biometric parameter as the function of gestational age (GA). Results: The mean, standard deviations (SD), minimum and maximum of BPD (cm), HC (cm), AC (cm), FDL (cm) and EFW (g) were 6.9 ± 1.9 (2.3 – 10.5), 24.51 ± 6.61 (9.1 – 36.4), 22.8 ± 7.3 (7.5 – 41.1), 4.9 ± 1.6 (1.2 – 8.1) and 1365 ± 1019 (103 – 4777), respectively. Second-degree polynomial regressions between the evaluated parameters and GA resulted in the following formulas: BPD = –4.044 + 0.540 × GA – 0.0049 × GA² (R² = 0.97); HC= –15.420 + 2.024 GA – 0.0199 × GA² (R² = 0.98); AC = –9.579 + 1.329 × GA – 0.0055 × GA² (R² = 0.97); FDL = –3.778 + 0.416 × GA – 0.0035 × GA² (R² = 0.98) and EFW = 916 – 123 × GA + 4.70 × GA² (R² = 0.96); respectively. Conclusion: Reference charts for the fetal biometric parameters in a non-selected risk population from Uberaba, Southeast of Brazil, were established.

PL

Rozmiar płodu oraz trajektorie jego rozwoju są waż- nymi wskaźnikami zdrowia płodu, a najważniejszym standardem jest prenatalne badanie ultrasonograficzne. Zaburzenia rozwoju płodu zazwyczaj identyfikuje się na podstawie rozbieżności pomiędzy faktycznymi a oczekiwanymi miarami biometrycznymi dla określonego wieku ciążowego(1). Rutynowe badanie USG, bez opcji dopplerowskiej, w 3. trymestrze zwiększa stopień wykrywalności zarodków ma- łych jak na wiek ciążowy (small for gestational age, SGA) z 46 do 80% oraz zarodków dużych jak na wiek ciążowy (large for gestational age, LGA) z 36 do 91%, jak udowodniono w badaniach randomizowanych(2). W późnym 3. trymestrze (34.–37. tydzień) USG znacznie zwiększa stopień wykrywalności SGA i LGA (odpowiednio do 75,2% i 63,2%)(3). Krótkoterminowe wyniki płodu SGA i LGA kojarzone są z porażeniem mózgowym, hipoglikemią, hiperbilirubinemią, nadkrwistością lub dystocją(4,5). Wyniki długoterminowe u tych płodów kojarzone są z wysokim ryzykiem ciśnienia tętniczego, cukrzycy i choroby wieńcowej(6). Artykuł w wersji polskojęzycznej jest dostępny na stronie http://jultrason.pl/wydawnictwa/volume-17-no-68

Keywords

EN

abdominalcircumference; biparietal diameter; estimated fetal weight; femur diaphysis length; reference charts

Discipline

• MEDICINE: MEDICINE

• Publisher: Medical Communications
• Journal: Journal of Ultrasonography
• Year: 2017
• Volume: 17
• Issue: 68
• Pages: 23–29

Contributors

author

Alberto Borges Peixoto

• Mario Palmério University Hospital – University of Uberaba (Uniube), Uberaba-MG, Brazil; Radiologic Clinic of Uberaba (CRU), Uberaba-MG, Brazil

author

Taciana Mara Rodrigues da Cunha Caldas

• Mario Palmério University Hospital – University of Uberaba (Uniube), Uberaba-MG, Brazil; Radiologic Clinic of Uberaba (CRU), Uberaba-MG, Brazil

author

Fernando Felix Dulgheroff

• Mario Palmério University Hospital – University of Uberaba (Uniube), Uberaba-MG, Brazil

author

Wellington P. Martins

• Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Ribeirão Preto Medical School, University of São Paulo (DGO-FMRP-USP), Ribeirão Preto-SP, Brazil

author

Edward Araujo Júnior

• Department of Obstetrics, Paulista School of Medicine – Federal University of São Paulo (EPM-UNIFESP), São Paulo-SP, Brazil

References

• 1. Mayer C, Joseph KS: Fetal growth: a review of terms, concepts and issues relevant to obstetrics. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2013; 41: 136–145.
• 2. Skråstad RB, Eik-Nes SH, Sviggum O, Johansen OJ, Salvesen KÅ, Romundstad PR et al.: A randomized controlled trial of third-trimester routine ultrasound in a non-selected population. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2013; 92: 1353–1360.
• 3. Souka AP, Papastefanou I, Pilalis A, Michalitsi V, Panagopoulos P, Kassanos D: Performance of the ultrasound examination in the early and late third trimester for the prediction of birth weight deviations. Prenat Diagn 2013; 33: 915–920.
• 4. Jarvis S, Glinianaia SV, Torrioli MG, Platt MJ, Miceli M, Jouk PS et al.: Cerebral palsy and intrauterine growth in single births: European collaborative study. Lancet 2003; 362: 1106–1111.
• 5. Gherman RB, Ouzounian JG, Goodwin TM: Brachial plexus palsy: an in utero injury? Am J Obstet Gynecol 1999; 180: 1303–1307.
• 6. Bonamy AK, Parikh NI, Cnattingius S, Ludvigsson JF, Ingelsson E: Birth characteristics and subsequent risks of maternal cardiovascular disease: effects of gestational age and fetal growth. Circulation 2011; 124: 2839–2846.
• 7. Parikh LI, Nolan J 3rd, Tefera E, Driggers R: Fetal biometry: does patient ethnicity matter? J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 2014; 27: 500–504.
• 8. Salomon LJ, Duyme M, Crequat J, Brodaty G, Talmant C, Fries N et al.: French fetal biometry: reference equations and comparison with other charts. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2006; 28: 193–198.
• 9. Dubiel M, Krajewski M, Pietryga M, Tretyn A, Breborowicz G, Lindquist P et al.: Fetal biometry between 20–42 weeks of gestation for Polish population. Ginekol Pol 2008; 79: 746–753.
• 10. Adiri CO, Anyanwu GE, Agwuna KK, Obikili EN, Ezugworie OJ, Agu AU et al.: Use of fetal biometry in the assessment of gestational age in South East Nigeria: Femur length and biparietal diameter. Niger J Clin Pract 2015; 18: 477–482.
• 11. Leung TN, Pang MW, Daljit SS, Leung TY, Poon CF, Wong SM et al.: Fetal biometry in ethnic Chinese: biparietal diameter, head circumference, abdominal circumference and femur length. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2008; 31: 321–327.
• 12. Kwon JY, Park IY, Wie JH, Choe S, Kim CJ, Shin JC: Fetal biometry in the Korean population: reference charts and comparison with charts from other populations. Prenat Diagn 2014; 34: 927–934.
• 13. Barrios-Prieto E, Martínez-Ceccopieri DA, Torres-Mercado AJ, Fajardo- -Dueñas S, Panduro-Barón JG: [Reference tables of fetal biometry for people in the West of Mexico]. Ginecol Obstet Mex 2013; 81: 310–320.
• 14. Briceño F, Restrepo H, Paredes R, Cifuentes R: Fetal size charts for a population from Cali, Colombia: sonographic measurements of biparietal diameter, head circumference, abdominal circumference, and femur length. J Ultrasound Med 2013; 32: 1215–1225.
• 15. Royston P, Altman DG: Design and analysis of longitudinal studies of fetal size. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 1995; 6: 307–312.
• 16. Araujo Júnior E, Martins Santana EF, Martins WP, Júnior JE, Ruano R, Pires CR et al.: Reference charts of fetal biometric parameters in 31,476 Brazilian singleton pregnancies. J Ultrasound Med 2014; 33: 1185–1191.
• 17. Salomon LJ, Alfirevic Z, Berghella V, Bilardo C, Hernandez-Andrade E, Johnsen SL et al.: Practice guidelines for performance of the routine mid-trimester fetal ultrasound scan. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2011; 37: 116–126.
• 18. 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: 535–540.
• 19. Altman DG, Chitty LS: Charts of fetal size: 1. Methodology. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1994; 101: 29–34.
• 20. Landis SH, Ananth CV, Lokomba V, Hartmann KE, Thorp JM Jr, Horton A et al.: Ultrasound-derived fetal size nomogram for a subSaharan African population: a longitudinal study. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2009; 34: 379–386.
• 21. Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística: Censo 2010 (updated 29th June 2012). Available from: http://www.censo2010.ibge.gov.br/painel/.
• 22. Frančišković V, Zaputović S, Krajina R, Petrović O: Fetal ultrasound biometry for pregnant population in the County of Primorje-Gorski Kotar (Croatia). J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 2011; 24: 1277–1282.
• 23. Lobmaier SM, Cruz-Lemini M, Valenzuela-Alcaraz B, Ortiz JU, Martinez JM, Gratacos E et al.: Influence of equipment and settings on myocardial performance index repeatability and definition of settings to achieve optimal reproducibility. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2014; 43: 632–639.
• 24. Novaes JY, Zamith MM, Araujo Júnior E, de Sá Barreto EQ, Barros FS, Moron AF: Screening of Congenital Heart Diseases by ThreeDimensional Ultrasound Using Spatiotemporal Image Correlation: Influence of Professional Experience. Echocardiography 2016; 33: 99–104
• 25. Tahmasebpour AR, Pirjani R, Rahimi-Foroushani A, Ghaffari SR, Rahimi-Sharbaf F, Masrour FF: Normal ranges for fetal femur and humerus diaphysis length during the second trimester in an Iranian population. J Ultrasound Med 2012; 31: 991–995.
• 26. Merialdi M, Caulfield LE, Zavaleta N, Figueroa A, Costigan KA, Dominici F et al.: Fetal growth in Peru: comparisons with international fetal size charts and implications for fetal growth assessment. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2005; 26: 123–128.
• 27. de la Vega A, Ruiz-Febo N, Roberts ZC: Fetal ultrasound biometry: normative charts for a Puerto Rican population. P R Health Sci J 2008; 27: 81–84.

• Document Type: article