EVALUATION OF FETAL THIGH CIRCUMFERENCE AS AN ADDITIONAL MARKER FOR FOETAL BIOMETRY

Authors

  • SARYU GUPTA Department of Radiodiagnosis, Government Medical College and Rajindra Hospital Patiala, Patiala, Punjab, India.
  • BHARDWAJ Department of Radiodiagnosis, Government Medical College and Rajindra Hospital Patiala, Patiala, Punjab, India.
  • PARAMJEET KAUR Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Government Medical College and Rajindra Hospital Patiala, Patiala, Punjab, India.
  • PUNEET GAMBHIR Department of Community, Medicine Government Medical College and Rajindra Hospital Patiala, Patiala, Punjab, India.

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.22159/ajpcr.2021.v14i9.42646

Keywords:

Fetal biometry, Fetal thigh circumference, Ultrasound, Gestational age

Abstract

Objective: Accurate determination of gestational age is the sine qua non of optimal management and hence prognostication of all pregnancies.A meticulous biometry ensures timely interventions resulting in favorable maternal and fetal outcomes. Traditionally, the parameters of Biparietal diameter (BPD), Femur length (FL), Head circumference (HC), and Abdominal circumference (AC) have been utilized for routine fetal biometry. The present study aims to assess the utility of Fetal Thigh Circumference (ThC) as an additional marker for fetal biometry.

Methods: The present retrospective, observational, and cross-sectional study was done in the Departments of Radiodiagnosis and Obstetrics and Gynaecology in an ethically and socio-economically diverse group of pregnant females. All pregnant females with singleton pregnancies between 22 and 40 weeks of gestation and fulfilling the inclusion and exclusion criteria were subjected to ultrasound examination. Subsequently analysis was done for the data collected.

Results: There were a total of 287 participants in present study group with mean age of 23±3.4 years. The strength of agreement almost perfect (>0.99) between the mean observed ThC to ThC values by Deter et al. taken as standard. There was a highly significant positive correlation between gestational period and standard biometry parameters and ThC. ThC model for prediction will be better than standard biometry parameters of BPD, HC and AC but not as good as FL model according to the regression analysis of the present study.

Conclusions: There is concordance of fetal ThC as an accurate predictor of period of gestation only after FL. It can be combined with standard biometry parameters to give a better estimation of period of gestation.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Deter RL, Warda A, Rossavik IK, Duncan G, Hadlock FP. Fetal thigh circumference: A critical evaluation of its relationship to menstrual age. J Clin Ultrasound 1986;14:105-10.

Deter RL, Rossavik IK, Cortissoz C, Hill RM, Hadlock FP. Longitudinal studies of thigh circumference growth in normal fetuses. J Clin Ultrasound 1987;15:388-93.

Egley CC, Seeds JW, Cefalo RC. Femur length versus biparietal diameter for estimating gestational age in the third trimester. Am J Perinatol 1986;3:77-9.

Chavez MR, Ananth CV, Smulian JC, Yeo L, Oyelese Y, Vintzileos AM. Fetal transcerebellar diameter measurement with particular emphasis in the third trimester: A reliable predictor of gestational age. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2004;191:979-84.

Ansari SM, Saha M, Paul AK, Mia SR, Sohel A, Karim R. Ultrasonographic study of 793 foetuses: Measurement of normal foetal kidney lengths in Bangladesh. Australas Radiol 1997;41:3-5.

Kumar K, Beg MR, Babu CS, Shrivastava RK. Estimation of fetal gestational age in second and third trimesters from ultrasonographic measurements of different fetal biometric parameters. Indian J Clin Anat Physiol 2015;2:111-6.

Konje JC, Abrams KR, Bell SC, Taylor DJ. Determination of gestational age after the 24th week of gestation from fetal kidney length measurements. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2002;19:592-7.

Dilmen G, Turhan NO, Toppare MF, Seçkin N, Oztürk M, Göksin E. Scapula length measurement for assessment of fetal growth and development. Ultrasound Med Biol 1995;21:139-42.

Hadlock FP, Harrist RB, Shah YP, King DE, Park SK, Sharman RS. Estimating fetal age using multiple parameters: A prospective evaluation in a racially mixed population. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1987;156:955-7.

Zaiontz C. Real Statistics Using Excel Real Statistics Resource Pack software (Release 7.6); 2013-2021. Available from: https://www.real-statistics.com 2020.

Dean AG, Arner TG, Sunki GG, Friedman R, Lantinga M, Sangam S, et al. Epi Info™, a Database and Statistics Program for Public Health Professionals. Atlanta, GA, USA: CDC; 2011.

MedCalc®. Statistical Software Version 20.006. Ostend, Belgium: MedCalc Software Ltd.; 2021. Available from: https://www.medcalc.org.

Warda A, Deter RL, Duncan G, Hadlock FP. Evaluation of fetal thigh circumference measurements: A comparative ultrasound and anatomical study. J Clin Ultrasound 1986;14:99-103.

Lawrence IK. A concordance correlation coefficient to evaluate reproducibility. Biometrics 1989;45:255-68.

Liao JJ, Lewis JW. A note on concordance correlation coefficient. PDA J Pharm Sci Technol 2000;54:23-6.

McBride GB. A Proposal for Strength-of-Agreement Criteria for Lin’s Concordance Correlation Coefficient, NIWA Client Report No. HAM2005-062; 2005. p. 1-10.

Kenton KK. Residual Standard Deviation; 2020. Available from: https://www.investopedia.com/terms/r/residual-standard-deviation.asp.

Campbell S, Warsof SL, Little D, Cooper DJ. Routine ultrasound screening for the prediction of gestational age. Obstet Gynecol 1985;65:613-20.

Butt K, Lim K. Determination of gestational age by ultrasound. J Obstet Gynaecol Can 2014;36:171-81.

Caughey AB, Nicholson JM, Washington AE. First-vs second-trimester ultrasound: The effect on pregnancy dating and perinatal outcomes. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2008;198:703.e1-5; discussion 703.e5-6.

Cinnusamy M, Shastri D, Martina J. Estimation of gestational age by ultrasound measurement of fetal transcerebellar diameter. J Anat Soc India 2021;70:19-24.

Chavez MR, Ananth CV, Smulian JC, Lashley S, Kontopoulos EV, Vintzileos AM. Fetal transcerebellar diameter nomogram in singleton gestations with special emphasis in the third trimester: A comparison with previously published nomograms. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2003;189:1021-5.

Meyer WJ, Gauthier DW, Goldenberg B, Santolaya J, Sipos J, Cattledge F. The fetal transverse cerebellar diameter/abdominal circumference ratio: A gestational age-independent method of assessing fetal size. J Ultrasound Med 1993;12:379-82.

Published

06-09-2021

How to Cite

GUPTA, S., BHARDWAJ, P. KAUR, and P. GAMBHIR. “EVALUATION OF FETAL THIGH CIRCUMFERENCE AS AN ADDITIONAL MARKER FOR FOETAL BIOMETRY”. Asian Journal of Pharmaceutical and Clinical Research, vol. 14, no. 9, Sept. 2021, pp. 97-101, doi:10.22159/ajpcr.2021.v14i9.42646.

Issue

Section

Original Article(s)