TY - JOUR

T1 - Three-dimensional ultrasound-assessed fetal thigh volumetry in predicting birth weight

AU - Chang, Fong Ming

AU - Liang, Ren Ing

AU - Ko, Huei Chen

AU - Yao, Bor Lin

AU - Chang, Chiung Hsin

AU - Yu, Chen Hsiang

N1 - Funding Information:
This study is supported in part by a grant from the National Science Council, Taiwan, Republic of China. Original Articles

PY - 1997/9

Y1 - 1997/9

N2 - Objective: To compare the accuracy of three-dimensional ultrasound- assessed fetal thigh volumetry in predicting birth weight with that of other commonly used formulas composed of biparietal diameter (BPD), abdominal circumference (AC), and femur length (FL) by two-dimensional ultrasound. Methods: We assessed the thigh volume of 100 fetuses using three-dimensional ultrasound. Meanwhile, their BPD, AC, and FL were measured by two-dimensional ultrasound. All infants were delivered within 48 hours after the ultrasound examinations. From polynomial regression analysis, we generated a best-fit formula for the thigh volume to predict birth weight. The accuracy of this thigh-volume formula was compared with those of three formulas commonly used in the United States. In addition, another group of 50 fetuses was measured for prospective validation. Results: The thigh volume assessed by three- dimensional ultrasound was highly correlated with birth weight (r = 0.89, n = 100, P < .0001). The best-fit formula for thigh volume to predict birth weight was linear, and it was superior to the other commonly used two- dimensional formulas in predicting birth weight. The predicting error (0 g), percent error (0.7%), absolute error (176.1 g), and absolute percent error (5.8%) of the thigh-volume formula were all smaller than those of the other formulas (n = 100, all P < .05). In addition, the thigh-volume formula predicted birth weight more accurately than the other two-dimensional formulas in the prospective-validation group. The three-dimensional formula had smaller mean values of predicting error (38.6 g), percent error (1.5%), absolute error (160.0 g), and absolute percent error (5.1%) than the two- dimensional formulas (n = 30, all P ≤ .001), as well as the smallest variances of the above errors (178.1 g, 5.6%, 84.3 g, and 2.9%, respectively). Conclusion: The three-dimensional ultrasound-assessed thigh volume has better accuracy in predicting birth weight than the commonly used formulas by two-dimensional ultrasound, and it may improve fetal weight prediction in clinical practice. However, a large-scale prospective validation study may be needed to confirm our conclusions.

AB - Objective: To compare the accuracy of three-dimensional ultrasound- assessed fetal thigh volumetry in predicting birth weight with that of other commonly used formulas composed of biparietal diameter (BPD), abdominal circumference (AC), and femur length (FL) by two-dimensional ultrasound. Methods: We assessed the thigh volume of 100 fetuses using three-dimensional ultrasound. Meanwhile, their BPD, AC, and FL were measured by two-dimensional ultrasound. All infants were delivered within 48 hours after the ultrasound examinations. From polynomial regression analysis, we generated a best-fit formula for the thigh volume to predict birth weight. The accuracy of this thigh-volume formula was compared with those of three formulas commonly used in the United States. In addition, another group of 50 fetuses was measured for prospective validation. Results: The thigh volume assessed by three- dimensional ultrasound was highly correlated with birth weight (r = 0.89, n = 100, P < .0001). The best-fit formula for thigh volume to predict birth weight was linear, and it was superior to the other commonly used two- dimensional formulas in predicting birth weight. The predicting error (0 g), percent error (0.7%), absolute error (176.1 g), and absolute percent error (5.8%) of the thigh-volume formula were all smaller than those of the other formulas (n = 100, all P < .05). In addition, the thigh-volume formula predicted birth weight more accurately than the other two-dimensional formulas in the prospective-validation group. The three-dimensional formula had smaller mean values of predicting error (38.6 g), percent error (1.5%), absolute error (160.0 g), and absolute percent error (5.1%) than the two- dimensional formulas (n = 30, all P ≤ .001), as well as the smallest variances of the above errors (178.1 g, 5.6%, 84.3 g, and 2.9%, respectively). Conclusion: The three-dimensional ultrasound-assessed thigh volume has better accuracy in predicting birth weight than the commonly used formulas by two-dimensional ultrasound, and it may improve fetal weight prediction in clinical practice. However, a large-scale prospective validation study may be needed to confirm our conclusions.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0030829383&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0030829383&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/S0029-7844(97)00280-9

DO - 10.1016/S0029-7844(97)00280-9

M3 - Article

C2 - 9277639

AN - SCOPUS:0030829383

SN - 0029-7844

VL - 90

SP - 331

EP - 339

JO - Obstetrics and Gynecology

JF - Obstetrics and Gynecology

IS - 3

ER -