METHOD FOR EARLY DIAGNOSIS OF MACROSOMIA
Main Article Content
Abstract
The aim of the research – working-out and clinical approbation of a method of early diagnosis of macrosomia.
Material and methods. At the first stage the retrospective study was conducted of 3760 histories of term and delayed births that occurred in the city maternity hospital in Orenburg from January 1, 2010 to January 1, 2013. There were 376 birth histories of women who gave birth the children with a fetal weight of 4000 g or more, 3384 birth histories of women who gave birth the children with fetal weight of 3000-3999 g.
At the second stage due to the cohort prospective study 500 pregnant women were analyzed who delivered term, singleton, live born infants for 2015-2020 years. The study population was divided into 2 groups according to the assessment fetal weight (with fetal weight 3000-3995 g, 4000 g and more). Fetometry included measurement of the biparietal head diameter, fronto-occipital diameter, head circumference, abdominal circumference, femur length according to the generally accepted method using the centile scales of M.V. Medvedev (2010) and F.P. Hadlock [10].
Results. The first time on the basis of ultrasound scan one of the patterns of the growth rate development of macrosomic fetus was established, which consists in the maximum magnification of the growth rate of their skeleton at 27-28 weeks of intrauterine development. The practical significance of the results of the study lies in the development and implementation of a new method for early prediction of the macrosomic fetuses. The method consists in calculating the percentage increase in the main ultrasound parameters of the fetus in the gestational age of 27-28 weeks in relation to the screening period of the second trimester of pregnancy, with their value of 20 % or more with a sensitivity of 89.1 % and a specificity of 93.5 %, it is possible to predict the development of a large fetus (OR 7.1; 95% CI 4.67 – 10.87).
Conclusion. The growth rate of the skeleton of large fetuses represented by ultrasonic parameters significantly increases at 27-28 weeks of pregnancy and can be as a reliable sign for early diagnosis of macrosomia.
Keywords
Article Details
Information about financing and conflict of interests
The authors declare that they have 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
Dunbar DC, Vilensky JA, Suárez-Quian CA, Shen PYi, Metaizeau J. Risk factors for neonatal brachial plexus palsy attributed to anatomy, physiology, and evolution. Clin Anat. 2021; 34(6): 884-898. doi: 10.1002/ca.23739
Scifres CM. Short- and Long-Term Outcomes Associated with Large for Gestational Age Birth Weight. Obstet Gynecol Clin North Am. 2021; 48(2): 325-337. doi: 10.1016/j.ogc.2021.02.005
Aviram A, Yogev Y, Ashwal E, Hiersh L, Danon D, Halar E, Gabbay-Benziv R. Different formulas, different thresholds and different performance-the prediction of macrosomia by ultrasound. J Perinatol. 2017; 12: 1285-1291. doi: 10.1038/jp.2017.134
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
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
Francis А, Hugh O, Gardosi J. Customized vs intergrowth-21st standards for the assessment of birthweight and stillbirth risk at term. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2018; 218(2S): 692-699. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2017.12.013
Bartels HC, O'Connor C, Segurado R, Marson O, Mehegan J, Gerarhty A, et al. Fetal growth trajectories and their association with maternal and child characteristics. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2020; 33(14): 2427-2433. doi: 10.1080/14767058.2018.1554041
Papaccio M, Fichera A, Nava A, Zotti S, Geroso V, Ferrari F, et al. Obstetric consequences of a false-positive diagnosis of large-for-gestational-age fetus. Int J of Gynecology & Obstetrics. 2021; 158(3): 626-633. doi: 10.1002/ijgo.14047
Blinov AYu, Medvedev MV. Fundamentals of ultrasonic fetometry. Moscow: Real Time, 2016. 168 p. Russian (Блинов А.Ю., Медведев М.В. Основы ультразвуковой фетометрии. М.: Реальное время, 2016. 168 с.)
Hadlock FP, Deter RL, Harrist RB, Park SK. Estimating fetal age: computer-assisted analysis of multiple fetal growth parameters. Radiology. 1984; 152(2): 497-501. doi: 10.1148/radiology.152.2.6739822
Slabinskaya TV. Prenatal diagnostic criteria for fetal macrosomia in the modern population of pregnant women in the Middle Ural: Abstr. dis. … cand. med. scienses. Perm, 2003. 22 p. Russia (Слабинская Т.В. Пренатальные диагностические критерии макросомии плода в современной популяции беременных женщин Среднего Урала: Автореф. дис. … канд. мед. наук. Пермь, 2003. 22 с.
Zahran M, Tohma YA, Erkaya S, Evliyaoglu O, Golak E, Coskun 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
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. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2019; 32(16): 2674-2679. doi: 10.1080/14767058
Maruotti GM, Saccone G, Мartinelli P. Third trimester ultrasound soft-tissue measurements accurately predicts macrosomia. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2017; 30(8): 972-976. doi: 10.1080/14767058
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