Accuracy of Estimated Fetal Weight by Ultrasound Versus Leopold Maneuver.

IF 0.7 4区 医学 Q4 RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING Ultrasound Quarterly Pub Date : 2024-03-01 DOI:10.1097/RUQ.0000000000000670
Alicia Lunardhi, Kimberly Huynh, Derek Lee, Trevor A Pickering, Kristina D Galyon, Hindi E Stohl
{"title":"Accuracy of Estimated Fetal Weight by Ultrasound Versus Leopold Maneuver.","authors":"Alicia Lunardhi, Kimberly Huynh, Derek Lee, Trevor A Pickering, Kristina D Galyon, Hindi E Stohl","doi":"10.1097/RUQ.0000000000000670","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Abstract: </strong>Estimated fetal weight (EFW) is frequently used for clinical decision-making in obstetrics. The goals of this study were to determine the accuracy of EFW assessments by Leopold and ultrasound and to investigate any associations with maternal characteristics. Postgraduate years 1 and 2 obstetrics and gynecology resident physicians from Harbor-UCLA Medical Center from 2014 to 2020 performed EFW assessments on 10 preterm (<37 weeks' gestational age) fetuses by ultrasound biometry and 10 full-term (≥37 weeks' gestational age) fetuses by ultrasound biometry and Leopold maneuver. Assessments were included if the patients delivered within 2 weeks of the assessments. One thousand six hundred ninety-seven EFW assessments on 1183 patients performed by 33 residents were analyzed; 72.6% of sonographic full-term EFWs, 69% of Leopold full-term EFWs, and 61.5% of sonographic preterm EFWs were within 10% of the neonatal birth weight (BW). The lowest estimation error in our study occurred when actual BW was 3600 to 3700 g. After adjusting for BW, residents were found to have lower accuracy when the mother had a higher body mass index (BMI) for full-term estimation methods (Leopold and ultrasound, β = 0.13 and 0.12, P = 0.001 and 0.002, respectively). Maternal BMI was not related to estimation error for preterm fetuses ( β = 0.01, P = 0.75). Clinical and sonographic EFW assessments performed by obstetrics and gynecology junior residents are within 10% of neonatal BW much of the time. In our cohort, they tended to overestimate EFWs of lower-BW infants and underestimate EFWs of higher-BW infants. Accuracy of full-term EFW assessments seems to decrease with increasing maternal BMI.</p>","PeriodicalId":49116,"journal":{"name":"Ultrasound Quarterly","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10922333/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ultrasound Quarterly","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/RUQ.0000000000000670","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Abstract: Estimated fetal weight (EFW) is frequently used for clinical decision-making in obstetrics. The goals of this study were to determine the accuracy of EFW assessments by Leopold and ultrasound and to investigate any associations with maternal characteristics. Postgraduate years 1 and 2 obstetrics and gynecology resident physicians from Harbor-UCLA Medical Center from 2014 to 2020 performed EFW assessments on 10 preterm (<37 weeks' gestational age) fetuses by ultrasound biometry and 10 full-term (≥37 weeks' gestational age) fetuses by ultrasound biometry and Leopold maneuver. Assessments were included if the patients delivered within 2 weeks of the assessments. One thousand six hundred ninety-seven EFW assessments on 1183 patients performed by 33 residents were analyzed; 72.6% of sonographic full-term EFWs, 69% of Leopold full-term EFWs, and 61.5% of sonographic preterm EFWs were within 10% of the neonatal birth weight (BW). The lowest estimation error in our study occurred when actual BW was 3600 to 3700 g. After adjusting for BW, residents were found to have lower accuracy when the mother had a higher body mass index (BMI) for full-term estimation methods (Leopold and ultrasound, β = 0.13 and 0.12, P = 0.001 and 0.002, respectively). Maternal BMI was not related to estimation error for preterm fetuses ( β = 0.01, P = 0.75). Clinical and sonographic EFW assessments performed by obstetrics and gynecology junior residents are within 10% of neonatal BW much of the time. In our cohort, they tended to overestimate EFWs of lower-BW infants and underestimate EFWs of higher-BW infants. Accuracy of full-term EFW assessments seems to decrease with increasing maternal BMI.

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
超声与Leopold手法估算胎儿体重的准确性。
摘要:估计胎儿体重(EFW)是产科临床决策的常用方法。本研究的目的是确定Leopold和超声波评估EFW的准确性,并调查与母体特征的任何关联。2014年至2020年,加州大学洛杉矶分校海港医学中心研究生一年级和二年级妇产科住院医师对10名早产儿进行了EFW评估(
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
Ultrasound Quarterly
Ultrasound Quarterly RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING-
CiteScore
2.50
自引率
7.70%
发文量
105
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Ultrasound Quarterly provides coverage of the newest, most sophisticated ultrasound techniques as well as in-depth analysis of important developments in this dynamic field. The journal publishes reviews of a wide variety of topics including trans-vaginal ultrasonography, detection of fetal anomalies, color Doppler flow imaging, pediatric ultrasonography, and breast sonography. Official Journal of the Society of Radiologists in Ultrasound
期刊最新文献
CEUS Is Possible Where MRI Is Impossible! Review of Clinical Applications of Sonazoid Ultrasound Contrast for Liver Evaluation. Cerebral, Splanchnic, and Renal Transit Time Measurement and Blood Volume Estimation Using Contrast-Enhanced Ultrasonography. Residual Ultrasound-Enhancing Agents Mimicking Portal Venous Gas. Objective Analysis of Predictive Value of Ultrasound Quantitative Scoring System for Treatment Method Selection in Cesarean Scar Pregnancy.
×
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