Fetal Ci̇nsi̇yeti̇n Ultrasonografi̇k Fetal Bi̇yometri̇k Parametreler Üzeri̇ne Etkisi (The Impact of the Fetal Gender on Ultrasonographic Fetal Biometric Parameters)

Year 2014, Volume: 45 Issue: 2, 55 - 60, 10.07.2014

Murat Muhcu , Özkan Özdamar İsmet Gün , Okan Özden Ercüment Müngen Vedat Atay

Abstract

ÖZET

Giriş ve Amaç: Fetal iyilik halinin değerlendirilmesinde en önemli parametrelerden biri fetal ağırlıktır. Fetal ağırlığın, maternal ağırlık, boy, sigara kullanımı, parite ve etnisite gibi özelliklerin yanında fetal cinsiyetten de etkilendiği bilinmektedir. Bu çalışmada amacımız düşük riskli tekil gebeliklerde, fetus cinsiyetinin gebeliğin değişik haftalarında ölçülen BPD, HC, FL, AC ve EFW ultrason ölçümleri üzerine etkili olup olmadığını araştırmaktır.

Gereç ve Yöntem: Gebeliğin 15-22, 23-26, 27-30, 31-34, 35-38 ve 39-40’ncı gebelik haftalarında fetal ultrasonografik ölçümler yapıldı ve EFW ölçüldü. İki cinsiyet arasında bu haftalarda istatistiksel farklılık olup olmadığı incelendi. İstatistiksel analizler chi-square testi, student-t test ve Mann Whitney U testi kullanılarak yapıldı.

Bulgular: Gerçek doğum tartısı açısından erkek yenidoğanlar istatistiksel olarak anlamlı düzeyde daha ağır bulundu. Ultrasonografik ölçümlerde sadece 35-40’ıncı gebelik haftalarında HC değeri erkek fetuslarda anlamlı olarak daha büyük bulunmuştur. Erkek fetuslarda doğum ağırlığı ile AC ve EFW arasında iyi-çok iyi korelasyon vardı.

Sonuçlar: Çalışmamızda 35-40’ncı gebelik haftalarında HC’nin erkek fetuslarda daha büyük ölçülmesi dışında, fetal cinsiyetin antenatal ultrasonografik ölçüm parametreleri üzerine herhangi bir etkisinin olmadığı görüldü.  Ayrıca fetal ultrasonografik parametrelerin gerçek doğum kilosu ile anlamlı düzeyde korele olduğu; EFW ve gerçek doğum kilosu arasında ise cinsiyet ayrımı olmadan iyi korelasyon olduğu görüldü.

Anahtar Kelimeler: fetal cinsiyet, gerçek doğum ağırlığı, tahmini fetal ağırlık, ultrasonografi

ABSTRACT

Aim: One of the most important parameters to assess the fetal well-being status is fetal weight. It has been known that fetal weight is effected by many characteristics such as maternal weight, stature, smoking habit, parity and ethnicity in addition to fetal gender. In the present study our aim was to assess whether fetal gender had any impact on ultrasonographic BPD, HC, AC, FL and EFW measurements in low-risk singleton pregnancies.

Material and Methods: Fetal ultrasonographic measurements were made on the 15-22, 23-26, 27-30, 31-34, 35-38 and 39-40th weeks of gestation seperately and EFWs were calculated. It was evaluated whether any significant difference existed between the two genders on these gestational weeks. Statistical analyses were made using chi-square, student’s t and Mann-Whitney U tests where appropriate.

Results: In terms of actual birth weight, male newborns were significantly heavier. Of the sonographic measurements, only HC on 39-40th gestational weeks were significantly greater in male fetuses. In male fetuses there was a good-very good correlation between actual birth weight and AC and EFW.

Conclusions: In our study, we determined that fetal gender does not have any impact on antenatal sonographic measurements except for HC was measured greater in male fetuses on the 39-40th gestational weeks. Moreover, it was observed that fetal sonographic parameters were significantly correlated with the actual birth weights and that there was a good correlation between EFW and actual birth weight irrespective of the fetal gender.

Key Words: fetal gender, actual birth weight, estimated fetal weight, ultrasonography.

Keywords

fetal cinsiyet, gerçek doğum ağırlığı, tahmini fetal ağırlık, ultrasonografi

References

• Hadlock FP, Harrist RB, Sharman RS, Deter RL, Park SK: Estimation of fetal weight with the use of head, body, and femur measurements - A prospective study. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1985; 151: 333-7.
• Campbell S, Wilkin D: Ultrasonic measurement of fetal abdomen circumference in the estimation of fetal weight. Br Obstet Gynecol 1975; 82: 689.
• Shepard MJ, Richards VA, Bercowitz RL, Warsof SL, et al: An evaluation of two equations for predicting fetal weight by ultrasound. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1982; 142: 47.
• Gardosi J, Chang A, Kalyan B, Sahota D, Symonds EM. Customized antenatal growth charts. Lancet 1992; 339: 283-7.
• Hindmarsh PC, Geary MP, Rodeck CH, Kingdom JC, Cole TJ. Intrauterine growth and its relationship to size and shape at birth. Pediatr Res 2002; 52: 263-8.
• Copper RL, Goldenberg RL, Cliver SP, DuBard MB, Hoffman HJ, Davis RO. Anthropometric assessment of body size differences of full-term male and female infants. Obstet Gynecol 1993; 81: 161-4.
• Cogswell ME, Yip R. The influence of fetal and maternal factors on the distribution of birth weight. Semin Perinatol 1995; 19: 222-40.
• Schild RL, Sachs C, Fimmers R, Gembruch U, Hansmann M. Sex-specific fetal weight prediction by ultrasound. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2004; 23: 30-5.
• Lampl M, Jeanty P. Timing is everything: a reconsideration of fetal growth velocity patterns identifies the importance of individual and sex differences. Am J Hum Biol 2003; 15(5): 667-80.
• American Academy of Pediatrics, American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Guidelines for Perinatal Care, 6th edn. Elk Grove Village, IL: 2007, American Academy of Pediatrics.
• Chang TC, Robson SC, Spencer JA, Gallivan S. Identification of fetal growth retardation: comparison of doppler waveform indices and serial ultrasound measurements of abdominal circumference and fetal weight. Obstet Gynecol 1993; 82: 230-6.
• Gardosi J, Mognelli M, Wilcox M, Chang A. An adjustable fetal weight standart. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 1995; 6: 168-74.
• Pedersen JF. Ultrasound evidence of sexual difference in fetal size in first trimester. BMJ 1980; 281:1253.
• Wald N, Cuckle H, Nanchahal K, Turnbull AC. Sex differences in fetal size early in pregnancy. BMJ (Clin Res Ed) 1986; 292: 137.
• Thomson AM, Billewicz WZ, Hytten FE. The assessment of fetal growth. J Obstet Gynaecol Br Commonw 1968; 75: 903-16.
• Austad SN, Sunquist ME. Sex-ratio manipulation in the common opossum. Nature 1986; 324: 58–60.
• Ounsted C, Ounsted M. Effect of Y chromosome on fetal growth rate. Lancet 1970; 2: 857-8.
• de Jong CL, Gardosi J, Baldwin C, Francis A, Dekker GA, van Geijn HP. Fetal weight gain in a serially scanned high-risk population. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 1998; 11: 39-43.
• Davis RO, Cutter GR, Goldenberg RL, Hoffman HJ, Cliver SP, Brumfield CG. Fetal biparietal diameter, head circumference, abdominal circumference and femur length. A comparison by race and sex. J Reprod Med 1993; 38: 201-6.
• Moore WMO,Ward BS, Jones VP, Bamford FN. Sex difference in fetal head growth. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1988; 95: 238–242.
• Schwarzler P, Bland JM, Holden D, Campbell S, Ville Y. Sex-specific antenatal reference growth charts for uncomplicated singleton pregnancies at 15-40 weeks of gestation. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2004; 23: 23-9.
• Nasrat H, Bondagji NS. Ultrasound biometry of Arabian fetuses. Int J Gynecol Obstet 2005; 88: 173-8.