Download PDF
Am J Perinatol 2012; 29(05): 353-360
DOI: 10.1055/s-0031-1295662
Original Article
Thieme Medical Publishers 333 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10001, USA.

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

Jennifer M. McNamara
1   Division of Maternal Fetal Medicine, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, Missouri.
,
Anthony O. Odibo
1   Division of Maternal Fetal Medicine, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, Missouri.
,
George A. Macones
1   Division of Maternal Fetal Medicine, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, Missouri.
,
Alison G. Cahill
1   Division of Maternal Fetal Medicine, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, Missouri.
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

06 September 2011

21 September 2011

Publication Date:
30 November 2011 (online)

    Permissions and Reprints

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
    Google Scholar
  • 2 American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Fetal Macrosomia. Washington, DC: American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists; 2000
    Google Scholar
  • 3 American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Perinatal Care at the Threshold of Viability. Washington, DC: American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists; 2002
    Google Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Dudley NJ. A systematic review of the ultrasound estimation of fetal weight. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2005; 25 (1) 80-89
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Hill LM. Prevalence of breech presentation by gestational age. Am J Perinatol 1990; 7 (1) 92-93
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Kasby CB, Poll V. The breech head and its ultrasound significance. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1982; 89 (2) 106-110
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    Google Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Benacerraf BR, Gelman R, Frigoletto Jr FD. Sonographically estimated fetal weights: accuracy and limitation. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1988; 159 (5) 1118-1121
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Snijders RJM, Nicolaides KH. Fetal biometry at 14-40 weeks’ gestation. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 1994; 4 (1) 34-48
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Bobrow CS, Soothill PW. Fetal growth velocity: a cautionary tale. Lancet 1999; 353 (9163) 1460
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar