The Effect of Breech Presentation on the Accuracy of Estimated Fetal Weight

Abstract

To determine whether fetal presentation affects the accuracy of ultrasonographic estimated fetal weight (EFW). This is a retrospective cohort study of singleton pregnancies that underwent ultrasonographic EFW within 3 weeks of delivery at a single institution from 1993 to 2008. Breech presenting fetuses were compared with those presenting cephalic. EFW using the Hadlock formula was compared with actual birth weight (ABW) and reported as mean difference and mean percentage difference. Differences were also considered categorically. Subgroup analyses were performed of women who delivered within 4 days of scan and excluding women with comorbidities. Ability to detect small and large for gestational age infants was compared. Evaluation of 3770 patients, 183 (4.9%) breech presenting and 3587 (95.1%) cephalic presenting revealed no difference in mean gram difference (−222.1 g ± 312.6 vs. −210.7 g ± 793.2, p = 0.084), respectively, or ability to accurately predict within 10% of ABW (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] 1.23; 95% CI, 0.89,1.69; p = 0.208). Subgroup analyses revealed similar results. There was no difference in the ability to detect small and large for gestational age infants. Presentation does not demonstrably affect the accuracy of ultrasonographic EFW when utilizing the Hadlock formula.

Keywords

breech - estimated fetal weight - accuracy - small for gestational age - large for gestational age

• References

• 1 American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Intrauterine Growth Restriction. Washington, DC: American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists; 2000
• 2 American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Fetal Macrosomia. Washington, DC: American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists; 2000
• 3 American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Perinatal Care at the Threshold of Viability. Washington, DC: American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists; 2002
• 4 Chauhan SP, Hendrix NW, Magann EF, Morrison JC, Kenney SP, Devoe LD. Limitations of clinical and sonographic estimates of birth weight: experience with 1034 parturients. Obstet Gynecol 1998; 91 (1) 72-77
• 5 Dudley NJ. A systematic review of the ultrasound estimation of fetal weight. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2005; 25 (1) 80-89
• 6 Ben-Haroush A, Yogev Y, Bar J , et al. Accuracy of sonographically estimated fetal weight in 840 women with different pregnancy complications prior to induction of labor. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2004; 23 (2) 172-176
• 7 Anderson NG, Jolley IJ, Wells JE. Sonographic estimation of fetal weight: comparison of bias, precision and consistency using 12 different formulae. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2007; 30 (2) 173-179
• 8 Burd I, Srinivas S, Paré E, Dharan V, Wang E. Is sonographic assessment of fetal weight influenced by formula selection?. J Ultrasound Med 2009; 28 (8) 1019-1024
• 9 Hill LM. Prevalence of breech presentation by gestational age. Am J Perinatol 1990; 7 (1) 92-93
• 10 Hannah ME, Hannah WJ, Hewson SA, Hodnett ED, Saigal S, Willan AR ; Term Breech Trial Collaborative Group. Planned caesarean section versus planned vaginal birth for breech presentation at term: a randomised multicentre trial. Lancet 2000; 356 (9239) 1375-1383
• 11 Hutton EK, Hannah ME, Ross SJ , et al; Early ECV2 Trial Collaborative Group. The Early External Cephalic Version (ECV) 2 Trial: an international multicentre randomised controlled trial of timing of ECV for breech pregnancies. BJOG 2011; 118 (5) 564-577
• 12 Kok M, van der Steeg JW, van der Post JAM, Mol BWJ. Prediction of success of external cephalic version after 36 weeks. Am J Perinatol 2011; 28 (2) 103-110
• 13 Roman H, Carayol M, Watier L, Le Ray C, Breart G, Goffinet F. Planned vaginal delivery of fetuses in breech presentation at term: prenatal determinants predictive of elevated risk of cesarean delivery during labor. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2008; 138 (1) 14-22
• 14 Newman RB, Peacock BS, VanDorsten JP, Hunt HH. Predicting success of external cephalic version. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1993; 169 (2 Pt 1) 245-249, discussion 249–250
• 15 Shalev E, Battino S, Giladi Y, Edelstein S. External cephalic version at term—using tocolysis. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 1993; 72 (6) 455-457
• 16 Kasby CB, Poll V. The breech head and its ultrasound significance. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1982; 89 (2) 106-110
• 17 Chauhan SP, Magann EF, Naef III RW, Martin Jr JN, Morrison JC. Sonographic assessment of birth weight among breech presentations. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 1995; 6 (1) 54-57
• 18 Melamed N, Ben-Haroush A, Meizner I, Mashiach R, Yogev Y, Pardo J. Accuracy of sonographic fetal weight estimation: a matter of presentation. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2011; 38 (4) 418-424
• 19 Cohen JM, Hutcheon JA, Kramer MS, Joseph KS, Abenhaim H, Platt RW. Influence of ultrasound-to-delivery interval and maternal-fetal characteristics on validity of estimated fetal weight. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2010; 35 (4) 434-441
• 20 American Academy of Pediatrics and American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Guidelines for Perinatal Care. 6th ed. Washington, DC: American Academy of Pediatrics and American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists; 2007
• 21 Hadlock FP, Harrist RB, Sharman RS, Deter RL, Park SK. Estimation of fetal weight with the use of head, body, and femur measurements—a prospective study. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1985; 151 (3) 333-337
• 22 Benacerraf BR, Gelman R, Frigoletto Jr FD. Sonographically estimated fetal weights: accuracy and limitation. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1988; 159 (5) 1118-1121
• 23 Diaz-Garcia C, Bernard JP, Ville Y, Salomon LJ. Validity of sonographic prediction of fetal weight and weight discordance in twin pregnancies. Prenat Diagn 2010; 30 (4) 361-367
• 24 Snijders RJM, Nicolaides KH. Fetal biometry at 14-40 weeks’ gestation. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 1994; 4 (1) 34-48
• 25 Mongelli M, Ek S, Tambyrajia R. Screening for fetal growth restriction: a mathematical model of the effect of time interval and ultrasound error. Obstet Gynecol 1998; 92 (6) 908-912
• 26 Bobrow CS, Soothill PW. Fetal growth velocity: a cautionary tale. Lancet 1999; 353 (9163) 1460
• 27 Owen P, Donnet ML, Ogston SA, Christie AD, Howie PW, Patel NB. Standards for ultrasound fetal growth velocity. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1996; 103 (1) 60-69
• 28 Alexander GR, Himes JH, Kaufman RB, Mor J, Kogan M. A United States national reference for fetal growth. Obstet Gynecol 1996; 87 (2) 163-168