Correlation between prenatal fractional upper arm volume and neonatal birth weight

doi:10.3877/cma.j.issn.1672-6448.2022.01.005

Abstract

Abstract:

Objective

To explore the application value of fetal fractional upper arm volume (AVol) measured by three-dimensional ultrasound 5D Limb technique within 7 days before delivery in the normal third trimester of pregnancy in neonatal birth weight (BW) estimation.

Methods

From July 2018 to June 2019, 115 fetuses within 7 days before delivery at the Ultrasound Department of Wuzhong People's Hospital in Suzhou City were selected as the research subjects. Two-dimensional and three-dimensional ultrasound technology was used for maternity examination. The measured values mainly included double parietal diameter (BPD), femoral length (FL), head circumference (HC), abdominal circumference (AC), and AVol. The correlations between each parameter and newborn BW were analyzed and a multi-factor linear regression equation was established to generate a new weight estimation formula. With BW as the gold standard and Hadlock classic formula as a control, the Chi-square test was used to analyze the absolute error and relative error coincidence rate of the new formula. Then, the fetuses were divided into a low BW group, a normal BW group, and a macrosomia group according to BW. Paired t-test was used to estimate the systematic and random errors of BW of different groups of fetuses.

Results

BW had significant correlations with BPD, HC, AC, FL, and AVol (r=0.477, P＜0.001; r=0.515, P＜0.001; r=0.506, P＜0.001; r=0.404, P＜0.001; r=0.827, P＜0.001). The regression equation generated was EFW(AVol)=-2470.985+56.547×BPD+33.225×HC+50.142×AC+169.806×FL+47.203×AVol. The new formula had significantly higher absolute and relative error compliance rates for BW estimation than the Hadlock classical formula (65.2% vs 48.7%, P=0.011; 84.3% vs 64.3%, P＜0.001). The relative errors of the new formula and the Hadlock classical formula for fetal BW estimation in the low BW group, normal BW group, and macrosomia group were (19.5%±7.2%) vs (44.8%±29.6%), (5.5%±4.3%) vs (7.8%±5.5%), and (5.3%±3.4%) vs (8.5%±4.4%), respectively, with statistically significant differences between the two formulas (P＜0.001).

Conclusion

AVol has a significant correlation with BW, and can be used as a new parameter for estimating neonatal BW in clinical practice.

Key words: Ultrasonography, Fractional upper arm volume, Neonates, Birth weight

Qing Zhang, Guihua Wu, Guoyan Zhu. Correlation between prenatal fractional upper arm volume and neonatal birth weight[J]. Chinese Journal of Medical Ultrasound (Electronic Edition), 2022, 19(01): 23-30.

/ / Recommend

Add to citation manager EndNote|Ris|BibTeX

URL: https://chaosheng.cma-cmc.com.cn/EN/10.3877/cma.j.issn.1672-6448.2022.01.005

https://chaosheng.cma-cmc.com.cn/EN/Y2022/V19/I01/23

Figures/Tables 8

References 25

1	World Health O, United Nations Children's F. Low birthweight: country, regional and global estimates [M]. Geneva: World Health Organization, 2004: 8.
2	Simeone S, Marchi L, Canarutto R, et al. Doppler velocimetry and adverse outcome in labor induction for late IUGR [J]. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med, 2017, 30(3): 323-328.
3	张金华, 伍啸青, 牛建军, 等. 厦门市巨大儿发生现状及影响因素研究 [J]. 国外医学: 医学地理分册, 2017, 38(4): 325-327.
4	Macrosomia: ACOG Practice Bulletin, Number 216 [J]. Obstet Gynecol, 2020, 135(1): e18-e35.
5	Melamed N, Yogev Y, Meizner I, et al. Sonographic fetal weight estimation: which model should be used? [J]. J Ultrasound Med, 2009, 28(5): 617-629.
6	Moyer-Mileur LJ, Slater H, Thomson JA, et al. Newborn adiposity measured by plethysmography is not predicted by late gestation two-dimensional ultrasound measures of fetal growth [J]. J Nutr, 2009, 139(9): 1772-1778.
7	Deter R, Nazar R, Milner L. Modified neonatal growth assessment score: a multivariate approach to the detection of intrauterine growth retardation in the neonate [J]. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol, 1995, 6(6): 400-410.
8	Lee W, Balasubramaniam M, Deter R, et al. Fractional limb volume-a soft tissue parameter of fetal body composition: validation, technical considerations and normal ranges during pregnancy [J]. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol, 2009, 33(4): 427-440.
9	Khoury FR, Stetzer B, Myers SA, et al. Comparison of estimated fetal weights using volume and 2-dimensional sonography and their relationship to neonatal markers of fat [J]. J Ultrasound Med, 2009, 28(3): 309-315.
10	Pagani G, Palai N, Zatti S, et al. Fetal weight estimation in gestational diabetic pregnancies: comparison between conventional and three-dimensional fractional thigh volume methods using gestation-adjusted projection [J]. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol, 2014, 43(1): 72-76.
11	Hadlock F, Shah Y, Kanon D, et al. Fetal crown-rump length: reevaluation of relation to menstrual age (5-18 weeks) with high-resolution real-time US [J]. Radiology, 1992, 182(2): 501-505.
12	中国医师协会超声医师分会. 中国产科超声检查指南 [M]. 北京: 人民卫生出版社, 2019.
13	Hur H, Kim YH, Cho HY, et al. Feasibility of three-dimensional reconstruction and automated measurement of fetal long bones using 5D Long Bone [J]. Obstet Gynecol Sci, 2015, 58(4): 268-276.
14	Mgbafulu CC, Ajah LO, Umeora OUJ, et al. Estimation of fetal weight: a comparison of clinical and sonographic methods [J]. J Obstet Gynaecol, 2019, 39(5): 639-646.
15	Balsyte D, Schäffer L, Burkhardt T, et al. Sonographic prediction of macrosomia cannot be improved by combination with pregnancy-specific characteristics [J]. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol, 2009, 33(4): 453-458.
16	Liao S, Wang Y, Xiao S, et al. A new model for birth weight prediction using 2- and 3-dimensional ultrasonography by principal component analysis: a Chinese population study [J]. J Ultrasound Med, 2018, 37(11): 2553-2563.
17	Landon MB, Mintz MC, Gabbe SG. Sonographic evaluation of fetal abdominal growth: predictor of the large-for-gestational-age infant in pregnancies complicated by diabetes mellitus [J]. Am J Obstet Gynecol, 1989, 160(1): 115-121.
18	Cromi A, Ghezzi F, Di Naro E, et al. Large cross‐sectional area of the umbilical cord as a predictor of fetal macrosomia [J]. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol, 2007, 30(6): 861-866.
19	Mongelli M, Chew S, Yuxin N, et al. Third‐trimester ultrasound dating algorithms derived from pregnancies conceived with artificial reproductive techniques [J]. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol, 2005, 26(2): 129-131.
20	Kayem G, Grangé G, Bréart G, et al. Comparison of fundal height measurement and sonographically measured fetal abdominal circumference in the prediction of high and low birth weight at term [J]. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol, 2009, 34(5): 566-571.
21	Xu Y, Lek N, Cheung YB, et al. Unconditional and conditional standards for fetal abdominal circumference and estimated fetal weight in an ethnic Chinese population: a birth cohort study [J]. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth, 2015, 15(1): 1-11.
22	Johnsen SL, Wilsgaard T, Rasmussen S, et al. Longitudinal reference charts for growth of the fetal head, abdomen and femur [J]. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol, 2006, 127(2): 172-185.
23	Mohsen L, Amin MF. 3D and 2D ultrasound-based fetal weight estimation: a single center experience [J]. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med, 2017, 30(7): 818-825.
24	Lee W, Mack L, Sangi-haghpeykar H, et al. Fetal weight estimation using automated fractional limb volume with 2-dimensional size parameters [J]. J Ultrasound Med, 2020, 39(7): 1317-1324.
25	Simcox L, Myers J, Cole T, et al. Fractional fetal thigh volume in the prediction of normal and abnormal fetal growth during the third trimester of pregnancy [J]. Am J Obstet Gynecol, 2017, 217(4): 453.e1-453.e12.

因素	B值	B值的标准误差	t值	P值	B值的95%可信区间
双顶径	56.547	105.239	0.537	0.592	-152.033~265.126
头围	33.225	31.436	1.057	0.293	-29.081~95.530
腹围	50.142	18.397	2.725	0.007	13.678~86.605
股骨长度	169.806	186.133	0.912	0.364	-199.104~538.717
AVol	47.203	4.049	11.657	＜0.001	39.177~55.228

因素	B值	B值的标准误差	t值	P值	B值的95%可信区间
双顶径	56.547	105.239	0.537	0.592	-152.033~265.126
头围	33.225	31.436	1.057	0.293	-29.081~95.530
腹围	50.142	18.397	2.725	0.007	13.678~86.605
股骨长度	169.806	186.133	0.912	0.364	-199.104~538.717
AVol	47.203	4.049	11.657	＜0.001	39.177~55.228

公式	例数	绝对误差		相对误差
公式	例数	符合	不符合	符合	不符合
Hadlokc经典公式	115	56（48.7）	59（51.3）	74（64.3）	41（35.7）
EFW（AVol）公式	115	75（65.2）	40（34.8）	97（84.3）	18（15.7）
χ²值		6.402		12.060
P值		0.011		0.001

公式	例数	绝对误差		相对误差
公式	例数	符合	不符合	符合	不符合
Hadlokc经典公式	115	56（48.7）	59（51.3）	74（64.3）	41（35.7）
EFW（AVol）公式	115	75（65.2）	40（34.8）	97（84.3）	18（15.7）
χ²值		6.402		12.060
P值		0.011		0.001

公式	低BW组	正常BW组	巨大儿组
Hadlock经典公式	44.8%±29.6%	7.8%±5.5%	8.5%±4.5%
EFW（AVol）公式	19.5%±7.2%	5.5%±4.3%	5.3%±3.4%
差值及95%可信区间	25.0（-6.3~57.0）	2.3（1.1~3.4）	3.1（2.9~6.4）
t值	2.222	3.897	1.974
P值	0.090	＜0.001	0.700

Please choose a citation manager

Content to export