İkinci trimesterde seri fetal abdominal çapın ölçümü gebelik haftasına göre düşük doğum ağırlığını ve fetal gelişim geriliğini öngörebilir mi?

Year 2020, Volume: 45 Issue: 1, 102 - 106, 31.03.2020

Mefkure Eraslan Şahin , İlknur Col Madendag

https://doi.org/10.17826/cumj.628747

Abstract

Amaç: Bu çalışmanın amacı ikinci trimesterde seri olarak ölçülen ultrasonografik fetal abdominal çapın gebelik haftasına göre düşük doğum ağırlığı ve geç başlangıçlı fetal gelişim geriliğini öngörebilirliğini araştırmaktır.
Gereç ve Yöntem: Toplam 440 gebe retrospektif olarak analiz edilmiş olup 200 gebe gebelik haftasına göre düşük doğum ağırlığı, 40 gebe geç başlangıçlı fetal gelişim geriliği ve 200 gebe sağlıklı kontrol grubu olarak sınıflandırıldı. Fetal büyümenin taranması ultrasonografi ile 18±2, 22±2, ve 26±2 gebelik haftalarında yapıldı ve fetal biyometrik ölçümler gruplar arasında karşılaştırıldı.
Bulgular: Maternal yaş, vucut kitle indeksi, nulliparite ve önceki sezaryen doğum oranları gruplar arasında benzer olarak saptandı. Doğum sırasındaki gebelik haftası, doğum indüksiyonu oranları ve fetal doğum ağırlığı gruplar arasında anlamlı farklılık gösterdi. 18, 22 ve 26. haftalardaki fetal abdominal çap gruplar arasında benzerdi; anlamlı farklılık saptanmadı.
Sonuç: Sonuçlarımız, ikinci trimesterdeki seri fetal abdominal çapın ölçümünün düşük riskli gebeliklerde gebelik haftasına göre düşük doğum ağırlığı ve geç başlangıçlı fetal gelişim geriliğini öngörmede düşük bir kapasiteye sahip olduğunu göstermektedir.

Keywords

SGA, fetal gelişim geriliği, ikinci trimester, fetal abdominl çevre, seri AC ölçümü

Can serial measurements of fetal abdominal circumference in the second trimester predict small for gestational age and late fetal-growth restrictions?

Abstract

Purpose: The aim of the present study was to evaluate whether serial measurements of the ultrasonographic abdominal circumference of the fetus in the second trimester is a predictor for a fetus that is small for gestational age and for late fetal–growth restrictions.
Materials and Methods: Of the 440 pregnant women were analyzed retrospectively, 200 were in the small for gestational age group, 40 were in the late fetal–growth restrictions group, and 200 were in the healthy control group. For screening fetal growth, ultrasound scans were performed at 18±2, 22±2, and 26±2 weeks of gestation and fetal biometric results were compared among groups.
Results: The maternal age, body mass index, nulliparity, and rates of previous cesarean deliveries were similar among the groups. Gestational age at delivery, rates of induced delivery and fetal birth weight were significantly different among the groups. The abdominal circumference diameter at 18, 22, and 26 weeks were similar among the groups; the differences were not significant.
Conclusion: Our results suggest that the serial abdominal circumference measurement in the second trimester has a low capacity for predicting small for gestational age and late fetal–growth restrictions in low-risk pregnancies.

Keywords

SGA, fetal growth restriction, second trimester, fetal abdominal circumference, Serial AC measurements

References

• 1. Gratacos E, Figueras F. Fetal growth restriction as a perinatal and long-term health problem: clinical challenges and opportunities for future (4P) fetal medicine. Fetal diagnosis and therapy. 2014;36(2):85. Epub 2014/08/21. doi: 10.1159/000365556. PubMed PMID: 25139654.
• 2. Figueras F, Savchev S, Triunfo S, Crovetto F, Gratacos E. An integrated model with classification criteria to predict small-for-gestational-age fetuses at risk of adverse perinatal outcome. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2015;45(3):279-85. Epub 2014/11/02. doi: 10.1002/uog.14714. PubMed PMID: 25358519.
• 3. Figueras F, Gratacos E. Stage-based approach to the management of fetal growth restriction. Prenat Diagn. 2014;34(7):655-9. Epub 2014/05/20. doi: 10.1002/pd.4412. PubMed PMID: 24839087.
• 4. Lindqvist PG, Molin J. Does antenatal identification of small-for-gestational age fetuses significantly improve their outcome? Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2005;25(3):258-64. Epub 2005/02/18. doi: 10.1002/uog.1806. PubMed PMID: 15717289.
• 5. Gardosi J, Madurasinghe V, Williams M, Malik A, Francis A. Maternal and fetal risk factors for stillbirth: population based study. BMJ. 2013;346:f108. Epub 2013/01/26. doi: 10.1136/bmj.f108. PubMed PMID: 23349424; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPMC3554866.
• 6. Papageorghiou AT, Ohuma EO, Altman DG, Todros T, Cheikh Ismail L, Lambert A, et al. International standards for fetal growth based on serial ultrasound measurements: the Fetal Growth Longitudinal Study of the INTERGROWTH-21st Project. Lancet (London, England). 2014;384(9946):869-79. Epub 2014/09/12. doi: 10.1016/s0140-6736(14)61490-2. PubMed PMID: 25209488.
• 7. Papageorghiou AT, Ohuma EO, Gravett MG, Hirst J, da Silveira MF, Lambert A, et al. International standards for symphysis-fundal height based on serial measurements from the Fetal Growth Longitudinal Study of the INTERGROWTH-21st Project: prospective cohort study in eight countries. BMJ. 2016;355:i5662. Epub 2016/11/09. doi: 10.1136/bmj.i5662. PubMed PMID: 27821614; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPMC5098415 www.icmje.org/coi_disclosure.pdf and declare: support from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation for the submitted work; no financial relationships with any organisations that might have an interest in the submitted work in the previous three years; no other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work.
• 8. Robert Peter J, Ho JJ, Valliapan J, Sivasangari S. Symphysial fundal height (SFH) measurement in pregnancy for detecting abnormal fetal growth. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015(9):CD008136. Epub 2015/09/09. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD008136.pub3. PubMed PMID: 26346107; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPMC6465049.
• 9. Deter RL, Lee W, Yeo L, Erez O, Ramamurthy U, Naik M, et al. Individualized growth assessment: conceptual framework and practical implementation for the evaluation of fetal growth and neonatal growth outcome. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2018;218(2S):S656-S78. Epub 2018/02/10. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2017.12.210. PubMed PMID: 29422206; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPMC5882201.
• 10. Haugen G, Hanson M, Kiserud T, Crozier S, Inskip H, Godfrey KM. Fetal liver-sparing cardiovascular adaptations linked to mother's slimness and diet. Circ Res. 2005;96(1):12-4. Epub 2004/12/04. doi: 10.1161/01.RES.0000152391.45273.A2. PubMed PMID: 15576647.
• 11. Ebbing C, Rasmussen S, Godfrey KM, Hanson MA, Kiserud T. Redistribution pattern of fetal liver circulation in intrauterine growth restriction. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2009;88(10):1118-23. Epub 2009/08/27. doi: 10.1080/00016340903214924. PubMed PMID: 19707895.
• 12. Boito SM, Struijk PC, Ursem NT, Stijnen T, Wladimiroff JW. Assessment of fetal liver volume and umbilical venous volume flow in pregnancies complicated by insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus. BJOG. 2003;110(11):1007-13. Epub 2003/11/01. PubMed PMID: 14592586.
• 13. Alexander GR, Kogan MD, Himes JH. 1994-1996 U.S. singleton birth weight percentiles for gestational age by race, Hispanic origin, and gender. Matern Child Health J. 1999;3(4):225-31. Epub 2000/05/03. PubMed PMID: 10791363.
• 14. Gomez O, Figueras F, Fernandez S, Bennasar M, Martinez JM, Puerto B, et al. Reference ranges for uterine artery mean pulsatility index at 11-41 weeks of gestation. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2008;32(2):128-32. Epub 2008/05/07. doi: 10.1002/uog.5315. PubMed PMID: 18457355.
• 15. Baschat AA, Gembruch U. The cerebroplacental Doppler ratio revisited. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2003;21(2):124-7. Epub 2003/02/26. doi: 10.1002/uog.20. PubMed PMID: 12601831.
• 16. Tayyar AT, Karakus R, Eraslan Sahin M, Topbas NF, Sahin E, Karakus S, et al. Wnt signaling pathway in early- and late-onset preeclampsia: evaluation with Dickkopf-1 and R-Spondin-3 glycoproteins. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2019;299(6):1551-6. Epub 2019/03/25. doi: 10.1007/s00404-019-05126-8. PubMed PMID: 30905002.
• 17. Barker ED, McAuliffe FM, Alderdice F, Unterscheider J, Daly S, Geary MP, et al. The role of growth trajectories in classifying fetal growth restriction. Obstet Gynecol. 2013;122(2 Pt 1):248-54. Epub 2013/08/24. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0b013e31829ca9a7. PubMed PMID: 23969791.
• 18. Sovio U, White IR, Dacey A, Pasupathy D, Smith GCS. Screening for fetal growth restriction with universal third trimester ultrasonography in nulliparous women in the Pregnancy Outcome Prediction (POP) study: a prospective cohort study. Lancet (London, England). 2015;386(10008):2089-97. Epub 2015/09/12. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(15)00131-2. PubMed PMID: 26360240; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPMC4655320.
• 19. Karlsen HO, Johnsen SL, Rasmussen S, Kiserud T. Prediction of adverse perinatal outcome of small-for-gestational-age pregnancy using size centiles and conditional growth centiles. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2016;48(2):217-23. Epub 2015/12/15. doi: 10.1002/uog.15835. PubMed PMID: 26663402.
• 20. Caradeux J, Eixarch E, Mazarico E, Basuki TR, Gratacos E, Figueras F. Second- to third-trimester longitudinal growth assessment for prediction of small-for-gestational age and late fetal growth restriction. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2018;51(2):219-24. Epub 2017/03/24. doi: 10.1002/uog.17471. PubMed PMID: 28332335.
• 21. Hutcheon JA, Egeland GM, Morin L, Meltzer SJ, Jacobsen G, Platt RW. The predictive ability of conditional fetal growth percentiles. Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol. 2010;24(2):131-9. Epub 2010/04/27. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-3016.2010.01101.x. PubMed PMID: 20415768.
• 22. Melamed N. Re: Prediction of adverse perinatal outcome of small-for-gestational-age pregnancy using size centiles and conditional growth centiles. H. O. Karlsen, S. L. Johnsen, S. Rasmussen and T. Kiserud. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2016; 48: 217-223. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2016;48(2):148-9. Epub 2016/08/04. doi: 10.1002/uog.16003. PubMed PMID: 27485587.