SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Zeynep Kamil medical journal (Online) / 2022 / Cilt: 53 - Sayı: 2

Factors influencing intrapartum fetal weight estimation

Masum KAYAPINAR
Enis ÖZKAYA
Gökhan ÜNVER
Zafer BÜTÜN
Pages
58–62
Publication Date
2022-10-12
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Conclusion: Gestational week and BMI were determined to be significant for deviation from estimated fetal weight and professional seniority differences; engagement and AFI were determined to be ineffective.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Objective: The aim of this study was to investigate the factors that influence intrapartum fetal weight estimation.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Material and Methods: A total of 173 pregnant women who were under follow-up at the Zeynep Kamil Maternity Hospital between May 2015 and April 2016 and who had singleton, live-term pregnancy between the gestational weeks of 37 and 42 with the head presentation were included in the study.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Conclusion: Gestational week and BMI were determined to be significant for deviation from estimated fetal weight and professional seniority differences; engagement and AFI were determined to be ineffective.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:2015 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

Objective: The aim of this study was to investigate the factors that influence intrapartum fetal weight estimation. Material and Methods: A total of 173 pregnant women who were under follow-up at the Zeynep Kamil Maternity Hospital between May 2015 and April 2016 and who had singleton, live-term pregnancy between the gestational weeks of 37 and 42 with the head presentation were included in the study. Biometric measurements were made with ultrasonography. The amniotic fluid index (AFI) was measured and recorded. Newborn fetal weight measurements recorded in the birth registration book were compared with estimated fetal weight measurements. The effects of biometric measurements, AFI, gestational week, body mass index (BMI), engagement, and clinical experience on fetal weight estimation were compared. Results: A positive statistically significant association at the 32.3% level was determined between the birth weight and gestational week (p=0.001 and p 0.05). When the professional seniority between physicians was evaluated, the rate of deviation from fetal weight was estimated to be 8.7%, and the difference was not found to be statistically significant (p>0.05). Conclusion: Gestational week and BMI were determined to be significant for deviation from estimated fetal weight and professional seniority differences; engagement and AFI were determined to be ineffective.

🔖

Cite This Article

KAYAPINAR, M., ÖZKAYA, E., ÜNVER, G., BÜTÜN, Z. (2022). Factors influencing intrapartum fetal weight estimation. Zeynep Kamil medical journal (Online), Cilt: 53 - Sayı: 2, 58–62. https://ajindex.com/articles/426123

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (13)

  1. Papageorghiou AT, Kennedy SH, Salomon LJ, Altman DG, Ohuma EO, Stones W, et al. The INTERGROWTH-21st fetal growth standards: Toward the global integration of pregnancy and pediatric care. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2018;218:S630–40
  2. Mehta SH, Sokol RJ. Shoulder dystocia: Risk factors, predictability, and preventability. Semin Perinatol 2014;38:189–93
  3. Koyanagi A, Zhang J, Dagvadorj A, Hirayama F, Shibuya K, Souza JP, et al. Macrosomia in 23 developing countries: An analysis of a multicountry, facility-based, cross-sectional survey. Lancet 2013;381:476–83
  4. Monier I, Ego A, Benachi A, Ancel PY, Goffinet F, Zeitlin J. Comparison of the Hadlock and INTERGROWTH formulas for calculating estimated fetal weight in a preterm population in France. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2018;219:476.e1–e12
  5. Zhu C, Ren YY, Wu JN, Zhou QJ. A comparison of prediction of adverse perinatal outcomes between hadlock and INTERGROWTH-21st standards at the third trimester. Biomed Res Int 2019;2019:7698038
  6. Huber C, Zdanowicz JA, Mueller M, Surbek D. Factors influencing the accuracy of fetal weight estimation with a focus on preterm birth at the limit of viability: A systematic literature review. Fetal Diagn Ther 2014;36:1–8
  7. 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;91:72–7
  8. Dudley NJ. A systematic review of the ultrasound estimation of fetal weight. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2005;25:80–9
  9. Krispin E, Dreyfuss E, Fischer O, Wiznitzer A, Hadar E, Bardin R. Significant deviations in sonographic fetal weight estimation: Causes and implications. Arch Gynecol Obstet 2020;302:1339–44
  10. Ashwal E, Hiersch L, Melamed N, Bardin R, Wiznitzer A, Yogev Y. Does the level of amniotic fluid have an effect on the accuracy of sonographic estimated fetal weight at term? J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 2015;28:638–42
  11. Janas P, Radoń-Pokracka M, Nowak M, Staroń A, Wilczyńska G, Brzozowska M, et al. Effect of oligohydramnios on the accuracy of sonographic foetal weight estimation in at term pregnancies. Taiwan J Obstet Gynecol 2019;58:278–81
  12. Gonzalez MG, Reed KL, Center KE, Hill MG. Does maternal body mass index have an effect on the accuracy of ultrasound-derived estimated birth weight?: A retrospective study. J Ultrasound Med 2017;36:1009– 14
  13. Thornburg LL, Barnes C, Glantz JC, Pressman EK. Sonographic birthweight prediction in obe