Performance de l’échographie dans l’estimation du poids fœtal à terme

M. Lafont, P. Dellinger, W. Mutumba, C. Bernard, T. Hoyek
{"title":"Performance de l’échographie dans l’estimation du poids fœtal à terme","authors":"M. Lafont,&nbsp;P. Dellinger,&nbsp;W. Mutumba,&nbsp;C. Bernard,&nbsp;T. Hoyek","doi":"10.1016/j.gyobfe.2016.05.005","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Objectives</h3><p>Our aim was to evaluate the accuracy of estimated fetal weight (EFW) by ultrasound at due date and the factors that could affect it.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>We performed a retrospective study of 233 patients in 2014. An ultrasound was performed at due date consultation around 41 weeks of amenorrhea by midwives sonographer. EFW was calculated using the Hadlock's formula with 3 parameters (biparietal diameter, abdominal circumference and femur length) and then adjusted including the growth from the due date consultation to the day of delivery (25<!--> <!-->g/day) and finally compared to birth weight (BW).</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>The mean absolute weight difference between EFW adjusted and BW was 256<!--> <!-->g [0; 910]. The mean absolute percentage error was 7.2 % [0; 24.5] and the proportion of the EFW adjusted within 10 % of BW was 69.1 %. There was a strong correlation between EFW adjusted and BW (R<!--> <!-->=<!--> <!-->0.79). Obesity in early pregnancy or childbirth, excessive weight gain, the presence of oligoanamnios and fetal macrosomia had no influence on the estimated fetal weight. Indeed, the mean absolute percentage error of child who were macrosome and those were not, was similars (7.9 % vs 7.1 %, <em>P</em> <!-->=<!--> <!-->0.407).</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>EFW by ultrasound at due date is performant. However, the adjustment by the effect growth does not improve accuracy. Fetal macrosomia do not decrease the accuracy of ultrasound to estimate the fetal weight at term.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":55077,"journal":{"name":"Gynecologie Obstetrique & Fertilite","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2016-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1016/j.gyobfe.2016.05.005","citationCount":"12","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Gynecologie Obstetrique & Fertilite","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1297958916301540","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 12

Abstract

Objectives

Our aim was to evaluate the accuracy of estimated fetal weight (EFW) by ultrasound at due date and the factors that could affect it.

Methods

We performed a retrospective study of 233 patients in 2014. An ultrasound was performed at due date consultation around 41 weeks of amenorrhea by midwives sonographer. EFW was calculated using the Hadlock's formula with 3 parameters (biparietal diameter, abdominal circumference and femur length) and then adjusted including the growth from the due date consultation to the day of delivery (25 g/day) and finally compared to birth weight (BW).

Results

The mean absolute weight difference between EFW adjusted and BW was 256 g [0; 910]. The mean absolute percentage error was 7.2 % [0; 24.5] and the proportion of the EFW adjusted within 10 % of BW was 69.1 %. There was a strong correlation between EFW adjusted and BW (R = 0.79). Obesity in early pregnancy or childbirth, excessive weight gain, the presence of oligoanamnios and fetal macrosomia had no influence on the estimated fetal weight. Indeed, the mean absolute percentage error of child who were macrosome and those were not, was similars (7.9 % vs 7.1 %, P = 0.407).

Conclusions

EFW by ultrasound at due date is performant. However, the adjustment by the effect growth does not improve accuracy. Fetal macrosomia do not decrease the accuracy of ultrasound to estimate the fetal weight at term.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
超声在估计足月胎儿体重方面的表现
目的探讨预产期超声预估胎儿体重(EFW)的准确性及影响因素。方法对2014年233例患者进行回顾性研究。在闭经41周左右由助产士超声医师进行预产期咨询。EFW采用Hadlock公式计算,包括3个参数(双顶骨直径、腹围和股骨长度),然后根据预产期会诊至分娩当天(25 g/天)的生长情况进行调整,最后与出生体重(BW)进行比较。结果调整后EFW与BW的平均绝对体重差为256 g [0;910]。平均绝对百分比误差为7.2% [0;[24.5], EFW调整在体重10%以内的比例为69.1%。调整后的EFW与体重有很强的相关性(R = 0.79)。妊娠早期或分娩时的肥胖、体重过度增加、羊水过少和胎儿巨大儿的存在对估计的胎儿体重没有影响。确实,巨体儿童和非巨体儿童的平均绝对百分比误差相似(7.9% vs 7.1%, P = 0.407)。结论超声预产期妊娠妊娠是有效的。然而,通过效应增长进行调整并不能提高精度。胎儿巨大不降低准确性超声估计胎儿体重足月。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊最新文献
[Hysterosonography]. Editorial Board Cancer du sein et diabète de type 2 : des interactions complexes [Does the use of deodorant cause breast cancer? It remains to be proved]. Tumors in recent Prehistory. Contributions from Cova des Pas (Menorca Island).
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1