Search Results (2)

Objectives: Congenital diaphragmatic hernia (CDH) is defined as organ protrusion from the abdominal to the thoracic cavity. The Hadlock formula is the most commonly used tool for calculating estimated fetal weight (EFW). The anatomical nature of CDH usually leads to underestimation of the abdominal circumference, resulting in underestimation of fetal weight. Accurate weight estimation is essential before birth for counselling, preparation before surgery and ECMO. The research is made to compare the accuracy of Hadlock’s formula and Faschingbauer’s formula for fetal weight estimation in CDH fetuses population. Methods: In our study, we investigated differences between EFW and actual birthweight in 42 fetuses with CDH as compared to 80 healthy matched controls. EFW was calculated using the Hadlock formula and a recently introduced formula described by Faschingbauer et al., which was tailored for fetuses with CDH. Additionally, both of the formulas were adjusted for the interval between the ultrasound and delivery for both of the groups. Results: The majority of hernias were left-sided (92.8% vs. 7.2%). EFW adjusted for the interval between the ultrasound and delivery had the highest correlation with the actual birthweight in both, study group and controls. We compared the results for both tools and found the Hadlock formula to predict birthweight in CDH children with a 7.8 ± 5.5% error as compared to 7.9 ± 6.5% error for the Faschingbauer’s formula. Conclusions: The Hadlock formula adjusted for the interval between the ultrasound and delivery is a more precise method of calculating EFW in fetuses with CDH. Routine biometry scan using Hadlock’s formula remains reliable for predicting birthweight. Full article

Clinical estimation of fetal weight is an integral component of obstetric care that might dictate the timing and mode of delivery. Inaccurate fetal weight estimation might result in unnecessary interventions or in underestimating potential risks, resulting in inappropriate intrapartum care. This retrospective study assessed factors associated with under- or overestimation of birthweight and evaluated the obstetric implications. It included singleton births ≥24 w with clinically estimated fetal weight (EFW) up to 1 week before delivery, during 2014–2020. Estimates >±10% of the actual birthweight were considered inaccurate and categorized as overestimation (>10% heavier than the actual birthweight) or underestimation (>10% smaller than the birthweight). Multivariable logistic regression was performed to reveal factors associated with inaccurate EFW. Maternal characteristics and obstetric outcomes were compared. The primary outcomes for the overestimation group were the neonatal composite adverse outcome, induction of labor and cesarean delivery rates. The primary outcomes for the underestimation group were rates of shoulder dystocia, 3rd- or 4th-degree perineal lacerations, and failed vacuum extraction. Among 38,615 EFW, 5172 (13.4%) were underestimated, 6695 (17.3%) were overestimated and 27,648 (69.3%) accurate. Multivariable logistic regression found increasing gestational age as an independent risk-factor for underestimation (odds ratio (OR) 1.15 for every additional week, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.12–1.2). Major factors independently associated with overestimation were nulliparity (OR 1.95, CI 1.76–2.16), maternal obesity (OR 1.52, CI 1.33–1.74), smoking (OR 1.6, CI 1.33–1.93), and oligohydramnios (OR 1.92, CI 1.47–2.5). Underestimation was an independent risk-factor for shoulder dystocia (OR 1.61, CI 1.05–2.46) and 3rd- or 4th-degree perineal lacerations (OR 1.59, CI 1.05–2.43). Overestimation was an independent risk-factor for neonatal composite adverse outcome (OR 1.15, CI 1.02–1.3), induced labor (OR 1.30, CI 1.21–1.40) and cesarean delivery (OR 1.59, CI 1.41–1.79). Clinicians should be aware of factors and adverse obstetric implications associated with over- or underestimation of birthweight. Full article