首页> 外文期刊>Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica: Official Publication of the Nordisk Forening for Obstetrik och Gynekologi >Comparing the relation between ultrasound‐estimated fetal weight and birthweight in cohort of small‐for‐gestational‐age fetuses
【24h】

Comparing the relation between ultrasound‐estimated fetal weight and birthweight in cohort of small‐for‐gestational‐age fetuses

机译:比较超声估计的胎儿体重与胎儿胎队队列群体的关系

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
获取外文期刊封面目录资料

摘要

Abstract Introduction Small‐for‐gestational‐age ( SGA ) confers a higher perinatal risk of adverse outcomes. Birthweight cannot be accurately measured until delivery, therefore accurate estimated fetal weight ( EFW ) based on ultrasonography is important in identifying this high‐risk population. We aimed to establish the sensitivity of detecting SGA infants antenatally in a unit with a selective third‐trimester ultrasound policy and to investigate the association between EFW and birthweight in these babies. Material and methods A retrospective cohort study was conducted on non‐anomalous singleton pregnancies delivered after 36?weeks of gestation where SGA (10th percentile) was diagnosed at delivery. The EFW at the time of the third‐trimester ultrasound scan was recorded using standard Hadlock formulae. Results In 2017, there were 8392 non‐anomalous singleton pregnancies live born after 36?weeks, excluding late bookers. 797 were live‐born SGA 10th percentile for birthweight and 464 5th percentile, who met our inclusion criteria. The antenatal detection rate of SGA was 19.6% for babies with birthweight 10th percentile and 24.1% 5th percentile. There was a significant correlation between the EFW and birthweight of fetuses undergoing ultrasound assessment within 2?weeks of delivery ( P? ? .001, r ?=?0.73 (Pearson correlation). For these cases, EFW was greater than the birthweight in 65% of cases. After adjusting all EFW s using the discrepancy between EFW and actual birthweight for those babies born within 48?hours of the scan, the mean difference between the birthweight and adjusted EFW 7?days before delivery was 111?g (95% CI 87‐136?g) and at 14?days was 200?g (95% CI 153‐248?g). Despite adjusting the EFW , 61/213 cases (28.6%) apparently lost weight between the ultrasound scan and delivery. Conclusions Small‐for‐gestational‐age infants with a birthweight 10th percentile are poorly identified antenatally with little improvement for those 5th percentile. In SGA babies, ultrasound EFW overestimated birthweight. Discrepancies between birthweight and EFW are not explicable only by the limitations of third‐trimester sonography, a reduction in fetal weight close to delivery in a proportion of liveborn SGA babies is plausible.
机译:摘要引言小胎龄(SGA)赋予了更高的不良结果的围产期风险。在递送之前,不能准确测量出生重量,因此基于超声检查的准确估计胎儿重量(EFW)对于识别这种高风险群体是重要的。我们旨在建立在具有选择性三个三个月超声政策的单位中检测SGA婴儿的敏感性,并调查这些婴儿的EFW和出生之间的关联。材料和方法在36〜36次妊娠期后递送的非异常单身妊娠上进行了回顾性队列研究,其中SGA(&lt 19百分位数)在递送时被诊断出来。使用标准的HADLOCK公式记录第三春季超声扫描时的EFW。结果2017年,共有8392个非异常单身妊娠,36岁以后诞生于36岁?周,不包括延迟预订。 797年出生的SGA&出生的&出生体重和464岁百分率,达到了我们的纳入标准。 SGA的产前检测率为婴儿的婴儿的生育婴儿19.6%。第10位和24.1%百分位数。胎儿的EFW和出生体重之间存在显着的相关性,其在递送2周内进行超声评估(p?α.001,r?= 0.73(Pearson Contelation)。对于这些情况,EFW大于出生重量在65%的病例中使用EFW和实际出生在48内的婴儿之间使用EFW和实际分娩之间的差异进行调整后,出生重量和调整的EFW 7的平均差异为111?G( 95%CI 87-136?g)和14天是200?g(95%CI 153-248?G)。尽管调整EFW,61/213例(28.6%)显然损失了超声扫描之间的重量结论患有出生重量级的小胎龄婴儿患有较少的婴儿,对于那些第5个百分点的改善很差。在SGA婴儿中,超声波EFW过度估计的出生。出生体重和EFW之间的差异仅脱颖而出通过第三个三个月的局限性超声波检查,胎儿重量的减少接近速度的胎儿婴儿的比例是合理的。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号