DIAGNOSIS AND PROGNOSIS OF FETAL MACROSOMIA (LITERATURE REVIEW)
Main Article Content
Abstract
The aim of the research – based on scientific literature data, analyze the issues of diagnosis and prediction of fetal macrosomia.
Material and methods. The scientific literature was analyzed using the Web of Science, Scopus, PubMed, and eLibrary.ru databases for keywords in Russian and English. The search depth was 50 years.
Results. When analyzing various ultrasound formulas proposed for determining fetal weight, the variability of the assessment was generally 20%. It was found that ultrasound examination had the lowest sensitivity in predicting macrosomia in pregnancies complicated by gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) and obesity, as well as in fetuses weighing 4500 g or more. The sensitivity of physical formulas in diagnosing macrosomia was 20-70%. In combined models for predicting fetal macrosomia, the anthropometric parameters of the mother and the centile assessment of fetometry had the greatest predictive value.
Conclusion. The use of ultrasound in the prenatal diagnosis of macrosomia has no advantage over physical examination. Ultrasound can be most effectively used as a tool to exclude macrosomia due to its low sensitivity and high specificity.
Keywords
Article Details
Information about financing and conflict of interests
The author declares that there are no apparent or potential conflicts of interest related to the publication of this article.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
How to Cite
References
1. Goto E. Diagnostic value of sonographic fetal anthropometries and anthropometric formulas to identify macrosomia: a meta-analysis. Minerva Ginecol. 2020; 72(3): 157-164: doi: 10.23736/S0026-4784.20.04535-9
2. Mazzone E, Dall'Asta A, Kiener AJO, Carpano MG, Suprani A, Ghi T, Frusca T. Prediction of fetal macrosomia using two–dimensional and three–dimensional ultrasound. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2019; 243: 26-31: doi: 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2019.10.003
3. Duryea EL, Casey BM, McIntire DD, Twicler DM. The FL/AC ratio for prediction of shoulder dystociain women with gestational diabetes. J Matern Fetal Neonat Med. 2017; 30(19): 2378-2381: doi: 10.1080/14767058.2016.1249842
4. Drassinower D, Timofeev J, Huang CC, Benson J, Driggers R, Landy HJ. Accuracy of clinically estimated fetal weight in pregnancies complicated by diabetes mellitus and obesity. Am J Perinatol. 2014; 31(1): 31-37: doi: 10.1055/s-0033-1334450
5. Milner J, Arezina J. The accuracy of ultrasound estimation of fetal weight in comparison to birth weight: A systematic review. Utrasound. 2018; 26(1): 32-41: doi: 10.1177/1742271X17732807
6. Elessawy М, Harders С, Kleinwechter H, Demandt N, Sheasha GA, Maass N, et al. Measurement and evaluation of fetal fat layer in the prediction of fetal macrosomia in pregnancies complicated by gestational diabetes. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2017; 296(3): 445-453. doi: 10.1007/s00404-017-4433-6
7. Harlev A, Walfisch А, Bar-David J, Hershkovitz R, Friger M, Hal-lak M. Maternal estimation of fetal weight as a complementary method of fetal weight assessment: a prospective clinical trial. J Reprod Med. 2006; 51(7): 515-520.
8. Derkach EA, Guseva OI. The possibilities of echography in determining the weight of an extremely large fetus. Obstetrics and Gynecology. 2019; 5: 133-136. Russian (Деркач ЕА, Гусева ОИ. Возможности эхографии в определении массы экстремально крупного плода //Акушерство и гинекология. 2019. № 5. С. 133-136.) doi: 10.18565/aig.2019.5.133-136
9. Hoopmann M, Abele H, Wagner N, Wallwiener D, Kagan KO. Performance of 36 different weight estimation formulae in fetuses with macrosomia. Fetal Diagn Ther. 2010; 27(4): 204-213. doi: 10.1159/000299475
10. Goto E. Ultrasound fetal anthropometry to identify large-for-gestational-age: a meta-analysis. Minerva Ginecol. 2019; 71(6): 467-474: doi: 10.23736/S0026-4784.19.04460-5
11. Bennini JR, Murussi EF, Barini RW, Faro C, Peralta CFA. Birth-weight prediction by two- and three-dimensional ultrasound imaging. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2010; 35(4): 426-433. doi: 10.1002/uog.7518
12. Zahran M, Tohma YA, Erkaya S, Evliyaoğlu Ö, Çolak E, Coşkun B. Analysis of the effectiveness of ultrasound and clinical examination methods in fetal weightestimation for term pregnancies. Turk J Obstet Gynecol. 2015; 12(4): 220-225: doi: 10.4274/tjod.28044
13. Stubert J, Peschel A, Bolz M, Glass Ä, Gerber B. Accuracy of immediate antepartum ultrasound estimated fetal weight and its impact on mode of delivery and outcome a cohort analysis. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2018; 18(1): 11-17: doi: 10.1186/s12884-018-1772-7
14. Hasenoehrl G, Pohlhammer A, Gruber R, Staudach A, Steiner H. Fetal weight estimation by 2D and 3D ultrasound: comparison of six formulas. Ultraschall Med. 2009; 30(06): 585-590: doi: 10.1055/s 0028-1109185
15. Youssef AEA, Amin AF, Khalaf M, Khalaf MS, Ali MK, Abbas AM. Fetal biacromial diameter as a new ultrasound measure for prediction of macrosomia in term pregnancy: a prospective observational study. The Journal of Maternal-Fetal & Neonatal Medicine. 2019; 32: 2674-2679: doi: 10.1080/14767058.2018.1445714
16. Chaabane K, Trigui K, Louati D, Kebaili S, Gassara H, Dammak A, et al. Antenatal macrosomia prediction using sonographic fetal abdominal circumference in South Tunisia. Pan Afr Med J. 2013; 21(14): 111. doi: 10.11604/pamj.2013.14.111.1979
17. Nesbitt-Hawes EM, Testall E, Gee K, Welsh AW. Ultrasound in accuracy it is in the formulae not in technique – assessment of accuracy of abdominal circumference measurement in term pregnancies. Australas J Ultrasound Med. 2015; 17(1): 38-44. doi: 10.1002/j.2205-0140.2014.tb00083.x
18. Schwartz N, Quant HS, Sammel MD, Parry S. Macrosomia has its roots in early placental development. Placentа. 2014; 35(9): 684-690. doi: 10.1016/j.placenta. 2014.06.373
19. Lebedeva MA, Gagaev CH. The thickness of subcutaneous fat as a predictor of macrosomia. Bulletin of Roentgenology and Radiology. 2019; 1: 27-31. Russian (Лебедева МА, Гагаев ЧГ. Толщина подкожно-жировой клетчатки как предиктор макросомии //Вестник рентгенологии и радиологии. 2019. № 1. С. 27-31.) doi: 10.20862/0042-4676-2019-100-1-27-31
20. Matthews KC, Williamson J, Gupta S, Lam-Rachlin J, Saltzman DH, Rebarber A, Fox NS. The effect of a sonographic estimated fetal weight on the risk of cesarean delivery in macrosomic and small for gestational-age infants. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2017; 30(10): 1172-1176. doi: 10.1080/14767058.2016.1208744
21. Zafman KB, Bergh E, Fox NS. Accuracy of sonographic estimated fetal weight in suspected macrosomia: the likelihood of overestimating and underestimating the true birthweight. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2020; 33(6): 967-972. doi: 10.1080/14767058.2018.1511697
22. Parry S, Severs CP, Sehdev HM, Macones GA, White LM, Morgan MA. Ultrasonographic prediction of fetal macrosomia. Association with cesarean delivery. J Reprod Med. 2000; 45(1): 17-22.
23. Lanowski ОS, Lanowski G, Schippert C, Drinkut K, Hillemanns P, Staboulidou I. Ultrasound versus clinical examination to estimate fetal weight at term. Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd. 2017; 77(3): 276-283. doi: 10.1055/s-0043-102406
24. Porter B, Neely C, Szychowski J, Owen J. Ultrasonographic fetal weight estimation: should macrosomia-specific formulas be utilized? Am J Perinatol. 2015; 32: 968-672. doi: 10.1055/s-0035-1545664
25. Kadji С, Cannie MM, Resta S, Guez D, Abi-Khalil F, De Angelis R, Jani JC. Magnetic resonance imaging for prenatal estimation of birthweight in pregnancy: review of available data, techniques, and future perspectives. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2019; 220(5): 428-439. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2018.12.031
26. Zhang J, Kim S, Grewal J, Albert PS. Predicting large fetuses at birth: do multiple ultrasound examinations and longitudinal statistical modelling improve prediction? Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol. 2012; 26(3): 199-207. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-3016.2012.01261
27. Frick AP, Syngelaki A, Zheng M, Poon LC, Nicolaides KH. Prediction of large-for-gestational-age neonates screening by maternal factors and biomarkers in the three trimesters of pregnancy. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2016; 47(3): 332-339. doi: 10.1002/uog.15780