Relationship between fetal and neonatal bicromial diameter measurements and shoulder dystocia, a systematic review

Abstract

This article aims to systematically review prior studies on the relationship between fetal and neonatal biacromial diameter measurements and shoulder dystocia and to guide further studies on this subject. The literature was reviewed by searching the keywords 'fetal biacromial', 'fetal bisacromial', 'fetal bis-acromial', 'neonatal biacromial', 'neonatal bisacromial', 'neonatal bis-acromial', 'shoulder dystocia' on the Pubmed, Embase, Cochrane Library search engines with the 'All Fields' option enabled and year ranges left blank. Randomized controlled trials, case-control studies and cohort studies written in English were included. 30 articles were found. Eight of these met the inclusion criteria. The articles were examined by both Dr. XX and Dr. XX separately. Discrepancies regarding the articles were solved by the arbitration of Dr. XX. Eight articles including a total of 3669 patients were included in the review. It was observed that the articles used no common standardized measurement technique or measurement material to assess fetal and neonatal biacromial distance. The review revealed that the cutoff value for fetal biacromial diameter was between 13.8-15.4 mm and that this measurement reliably predicted shoulder dystocia. When the cutoff value for neonatal biacromial diameter was 14 mm, a strong positive correlation between this measurement and shoulder dystocia was found. Both fetal and neonatal biacromial diameters are positively correlated with shoulder dystocia. Establishing standardized and easy-to-use measurement methods can make biacromial diameter measurements more useful for obstetricians in predicting shoulder dystocia.

Keywords

• Shoulder dystocia
• Anthropometry
• Prenatal ultrasonography
• Newborn

Fetal ve neonatal biacromial çap ölçümlerinin omuz distosisi ile ilişkisi, sistematik review

Abstract

Bu makale fetal ve neonatal biacromial çap ölçümlerinin omuz distosisi ile ilişkisini araştıran literatür çalışmalarını sistematik olarak derlemek ve bu konuda yapılacak diğer çalışmalara ışık tutmak amacıyla yazılmıştır. Yıl sınırlaması olmaksızın ‘fetal biacromial’, ‘fetal bisacromial’, ‘fetal bis-acromial’, ‘neonatal biacromial’, ‘neonatal bisacromial’, ‘neonatal bis-acromial’, ’shoulder dystocia’ anahtar sözcükleri ‘All Fields’ seçeneği kullanılarak, Pubmed, Embase, Cochrane Library arama motorları ile literatür tarandı. İngilizce dilinde olanlar ve randomize kontrollu çalışma, vaka kontrol çalışma, kohort çalışması niteliğinde olan çalışmalar dahil edildi. 30 sayıda yayına ulaşıldı. Bunların 8 tanesi seçim kriterlerini karşıladı. Yayınlar Dr XX ve Dr XX tarafından ayrı ayrı değerlendirildi. Hakkında çelişkiye düşülen yayınlar için Dr XX hakem olarak kararına uyuldu. 3669 sayıda hastayı içeren 8 yayın derleme kapsamına alındı. Fetal ve neonatal biacromial mesafeyi değerlendirmek için standart bir ölçüm tekniği ve ölçüm materyali olmadığı izlendi. Yayınların incelenmesi sonucunda fetal biacromial ölçümün cutoff değerinin 13,8-15,4 arasında olduğu ve bu ölçümün omuz distosisini güvenilir şekilde öngördüğü bulundu. Neonatal biacromial ölçüm için cutoff değeri 14 mm alındığında omuz distosisi ile kuvvetli pozitif korelasyon tespit edilmiştir. Sonuç olarak hem fetal hem de neonatal biacromial ölçüm ile omuz distosisi arasında pozitif korelasyon vardır. Ölçüm metodlarının standart ve kolay kullanılabilir olması biacromial çap ölçümünün omuz distosisi prediksiyonu için obstetrisyenler tarafından daha fazla tercih edilmesini sağlayacaktır.

Keywords

• Omuz distosisi
• Antropometri
• Prenatal ultrasonografi
• Yenidoğan

References

1. 1. Kim J, Ayabe A. Obesity in Pregnancy. 2023 Aug 8. In: StatPearls [Internet]. Treasure Island (FL): StatPearls Publishing; 2024 Jan–. PMID: 34283479
2. 2. Davis DD, Roshan A, Canela CD, et al. Shoulder Dystocia. 2022 Sep 4. In: StatPearls [Internet]. Treasure Island (FL): StatPearls Publishing; 2023 Jan–. PMID: 29261950.
3. 3. Habek D. Forensic expertise in obstetrics and gynecology- Forensic expert experience. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2021;256:1-5. doi:10.1016/j.ejogrb.2020.10.046
4. 4. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Shoulder dystocia. ACOG Practice Bulletin Obstet Gynecol. Number 178, May 2017;129(5):123-133. Available from: https://journals.lww.com/greenjournal /Abstract/2017/ 05000/Practice_Bulletin_No_178__Shoulder_Dystocia.47.aspx.
5. 5. Milner J, Arezina J. The accuracy of ultrasound estimation of fetal weight in comparison to birth weight: A systematic review. Ultrasound. 2018;26(1):32-41. doi:10.1177/1742271X17732807
6. 6. Hill DA, Lense J, Roepcke F. Shoulder Dystocia: Managing an Obstetric Emergency. Am Fam Physician. 2020 Jul 15;102(2):84-90. PMID: 32667171.
7. 7. Levin G, Meyer R, Cahan T, et al. Shoulder dystocia in deliveries of neonates <3500 grams. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2023 Oct 21. doi: 10.1002/ijgo.15204. Epub ahead of print. PMID: 37864450.
8. 8. Youssef AEA, Amin AF, Khalaf M,et al. Fetal biacromial diameter as a new ultrasound measure for prediction of macrosomia in term pregnancy: a prospective observational study. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2019;32(16):2674-9. doi:10.1080/14767058.2018.1445714

9. 9. La Verde M, De Franciscis P, Torre C, et al. Accuracy of Fetal Biacromial Diameter and Derived Ultrasonographic Parameters to Predict Shoulder Dystocia: A Prospective Observational Study. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2022;19(9):5747. Published 2022 May 9. doi:10.3390/ijerph19095747
10. 10. Winn HN, Holcomb W, Shumway JB, et al. The neonatal bisacromial diameter: a prenatal sonographic evaluation. J Perinat Med. 1997;25(6):484-7. doi:10.1515/jpme.1997.25.6.484
11. 11. Terzi E. A new approach to predicting shoulder dystocia: fetal clavicle measurement. Turk J Med Sci. 2021;51(4):1932-39. Published 2021 Aug 30. doi:10.3906/sag-2011-145
12. 12. Verspyck E, Goffinet F, Hellot MF, et al. Newborn shoulder width: a prospective study of 2222 consecutive measurements. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1999;106(6):589-93. doi:10.1111/j.1471-0528.1999.tb08329.x
13. 13. Salim R, Hasanein J, Nachum Z, et al. Anthropometric parameters in infants of gestational diabetic women with strict glycemic control. Obstet Gynecol. 2004;104(5 Pt 1):1021-24. doi:10.1097/01.AOG.0000143821.00194.ad
14. 14. Terzi E, Demir P. The effect of biacromial and bideltoid distance on shoulder dystocia and birth weight in newborns. J Turk Ger Gynecol Assoc. 2022;23(4):241-48. doi:10.4274/jtgga.galenos.2022.2022-6-10
15. 15. Bahar AM. Risk factors and fetal outcome in cases of shoulder dystocia compared with normal deliveries of a similar birthweight. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1996;103(9):868-72. doi:10.1111/j.1471-0528.1996.tb09904.x
16. 16. Guzman-de la Garza FJ, Cerino Peñaloza MS, García Leal M, et al. Anthropometric parameters to estimate body frame size in children and adolescents: A systematic review. Am J Hum Biol. 2022;34(6):e23720. doi:10.1002/ajhb.23720
17. 17. McGuinness, LA, Higgins, JPT. Risk-of-bias VISualization (robvis): An R package and Shiny web app for visualizing risk-of-bias assessments. Res Syn Meth. 2020; 1- 7. https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.1411