INTRAUTERINE GROWTH CHARTS FOR FETAL BIPARIETAL DIAMETER BETWEEN 12 AND 40 WEEKS OF PREGNANCY AND ITS CORRELATION WITH GESTATIONAL AGE

Shripad Hebbar; Tracy Khuraijam

doi:10.22159/ajpcr.2018.v11i4.24090

Authors

Shripad Hebbar Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Kasturba Medical College, Manipal, Karnataka, India
Tracy Khuraijam Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Kasturba Medical College, Manipal, Karnataka, India

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.22159/ajpcr.2018.v11i4.24090

Keywords:

Biparietal diameter, Gestational age, Intrauterine growth chart

Abstract

Â Objective: The objective of this study is to derive intrauterine growth charts for fetal biparietal diameter (BPD) at weekly intervals between 12 and 40 weeks of gestation and to correlate BPD with the gestational age (GA).

Methods: In a prospective observational study, a total of 100 women underwent periodic ultrasound examination between 12 and 40 weeks of gestation. Using Microsoft Excel trend line feature, polynomial regression was performed for each of this patient and weekly BPD values were extrapolated. For each week of gestation, we obtained 100 data points, and these were entered into SPSS software to obtain means, standard deviations (SD), and percentile charts for BPD. Relationship between GA and BPD was also established using curvilinear regression. Z scores were used to compare the findings of the present study with Indian, Asian, and non-Asian regions. The incremental growth of BPD per week was also established for the same GA range.

Results: The mean Â± SD of BPD value at 12 weeks was 20.4Â±0.94 mm, which gradually increased to 92.5Â±2.89 mm at full term. There was a strong relationship between BPD and GA as indicated by polynomial regression analysis. As gestation advanced, BPD growth rate slowed down from 3.5 mm from mid-pregnancy to around 1 mm at term. Our BPD charts resembled closely Chinese and US growth charts.

Conclusion: There was a good mathematical relationship between fetal BPD and GA. The BPD charts and percentile tables derived from the present study help to establish customized growth charts for the local population.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Author Biography

Shripad Hebbar, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Kasturba Medical College, Manipal, Karnataka, India

Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology

KMC Manipal

References

Campbell S. The prediction of fetal maturity by ultrasonic measurement of the biparietal diameter. J Obstet Gynaecol Br Commonw 1969;76:603-9.

Ugwu EO, Odoh GU, Dim CC, Obi SN, Ezugwu EC, Okafor II, et al. Womenâ€™s perception of accuracy of ultrasound dating in late pregnancy: A challenge to prevention of prolonged pregnancy in a resource-poor Nigerian setting. Int J Womens Health 2014;6:195-200.

Hadlock FP, Deter RL, Harrist RB, Park SK. Fetal head biparietal diameter: A critical reevaluation to menstrual age by means of real time ultrasound. J Ultrasound Med 1982;1:97-104.

Bacak SJ, Olson-Chen C, Pressman E. Timing of induction of labor. Semin Perinatol 2015;39:450-8.

Chervenak FA, Jeanty P, Cantraine F, Chitkara U, Venus I, Berkowitz RL, et al. The diagnosis of fetal microcephaly. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1984;149:512-7.

Hohler CW, Lea J, Collins H. Screening for intrauterine growth retardation using the ultrasound biparietal diameter. J Clin Ultrasound 1976;4:187-91.

Jaiswal P, Masih WF, Jaiswal S, Chowdhary DS. Assessment of fetal gestational age by ultrasonic measurement of bi-parietal diameter in the southern part of Rajasthan. Med J DY Patil Univ 2015;8:27-30.

Shepard M, Filly RA. A standardized plane for biparietal diameter measurement. J Ultrasound Med 1982;1:145-50.

Hebbar S, Khuraijam T. An experimental design to obtain nonlinear model for fitting intrauterine growth curve using Microsoft Excel spread sheet program. Int J Med Health Res 2016;2:1-4.

Lai FM, Yeo GS. Reference charts of foetal biometry in Asians. Singapore Med J 1995;36:628-36.

Donald I, Abdulla U. Further advances in ultrasonic diagnosis. Ultrasonics 1967;5:8-12.

Campbell S. An improved method of fetal cephalometry by ultrasound. J Obstet Gynaecol Br Commonw 1968;75:568-76.

Griffith JM, Henry WL. A sector scanner for real time two-dimensional echocardiography. Circulation 1974;49:1147-52.

Varma TR. Prediction of delivery date by ultrasound cephalometery. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1978;80:316.

Beigi A, ZarrinKoub F. Ultrasound assessment of fetal biparietal diameter and femur length during normal pregnancy in Iranian women. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2000;69:237-42.

Suresh S, Thangavel G. Mathemetical modeling of fetal growth, Part I: Data collection and descrtiptive statistics. Internet J Med Update 2003;3:35-41.

Acharya P, Acharya A. Evaluation of applicability of standard growth curves to Indian women by fetal biometry. South Asian Fed Obstet Gynaecol 2009;3:55-61.

Kinare AS, Chinchwadkar MC, Natekar AS, Coyaji KJ, Wills AK, Joglekar CV, et al. Patterns of fetal growth in a rural Indian cohort and comparison with a western European population: Data from the pune maternal nutrition study. J Ultrasound Med 2010;29:215-23.

Saksiriwuttho P, Ratanasiri T, Komwilaisak R. Fetal biometry charts for normal pregnant women in North Eastern Thailand. J Med Assoc Thai 2007;90:1963-9.

Leung TN, Pang MW, Daljit SS, Leung TY, Poon CF, Wong SM, et al. Fetal biometry in ethnic Chinese: Biparietal diameter, head circumference, abdominal circumference and femur length. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2008;31:321-7.

Akhtar W, Ali A, Arain MA, Saeed F, Siddiqui S, Memon A, et al. Sonographic fetal biometry charts for a Pakistani cohort. East Mediterr Health J 2011;17:969-75.

Kwon JY, Park IY, Wie JH, Choe S, Kim CJ, Shin JC, et al. Fetal biometry in the Korean population: Reference charts and comparison with charts from other populations. Prenat Diagn 2014;34:927-34.

Salomon LJ, Duyme M, Crequat J, Brodaty G, Talmant C, Fries N, et al. French fetal biometry: Reference equations and comparison with other charts. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2006;28:193-8.

Verburg BO, Steegers EA, De Ridder M, Snijders RJ, Smith E, Hofman A, et al. New charts for ultrasound dating of pregnancy and assessment of fetal growth: Longitudinal data from a population-based cohort study. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2008;31:388-96.

Giorlandino M, Padula F, Cignini P, Mastrandrea M, Vigna R, Buscicchio G, et al. Reference interval for fetal biometry in Italian population. J Prenat Med 2009;3:62-5.

BriceÃ±o F, Restrepo H, Paredes R, Cifuentes R. Fetal size charts for a population from Cali, Colombia: Sonographic measurements of biparietal diameter, head circumference, abdominal circumference, and femur length. J Ultrasound Med 2013;32:1215-25.

Morsy MM, El Ashtokhy MA, Diab AE, Mansoor MA. Different measurements of ultrasonic biometry of the egyptian fetuses. Zagazig Univ Med J 2012;18:861-73.

Araujo JÃºnior E, Martins Santana EF, Martins WP, JÃºnior JE, Ruano R, Pires CR, et al. Reference charts of fetal biometric parameters in 31,476 Brazilian singleton pregnancies. J Ultrasound Med 2014;33:1185-91.

Yeomans ER. Clinical pelvimetry. Clin Obstet Gynecol 2006;49:140-6.

Pattinson RC, Cuthbert A, Vannevel V. Pelvimetry for fetal cephalic presentations at or near term for deciding on mode of delivery. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2017;3:CD000161.

Venkateswaramurthy N, John C, Perumal P. Study on antihypertensives in preeclampsia. Asian J Pharm Clin Res 2012;5:126-8.

Hebbar S, Kumar S, Amin S, Doizode S. Subclinical hypothyroidism in pregnancy; is there a need for pharmacological intervention? Int J Pharm Pharm Sci 2017;9:186-91.