Advertisement

Choice of standards for sonographic fetal abdominal circumference percentile

      BACKGROUND

      The diagnosis of abnormal fetal abdominal circumference is based on values >90th or <10th percentile. There are dozens of established norms that can be used to determine the percentile of a given abdominal circumference measurement, but there is no established method to determine which norms should be used.

      OBJECTIVE

      This study aimed to evaluate the applicability of 5 established abdominal circumference norms to our measurements and to determine which, if any, should be used for the diagnosis of abnormal fetal abdominal circumference.

      STUDY DESIGN

      Data were pooled from 6 maternal-fetal medicine practices to conduct a cross-sectional study. The inclusion criteria were a singleton fetus at 22.0 to 39.9 weeks of gestation with cardiac activity present, complete fetal biometry measured, and examination from 2019 or 2020. For patients with >1 eligible examination during the study period, a single examination was chosen at random for inclusion. Five norms of abdominal circumference were studied: the Hadlock formula, the World Health Organization Fetal Growth Curves, the International Fetal and Newborn Growth Consortium for the 21st-Century Project; and the National Institutes of Child Health and Human Development Fetal Growth Studies (fetuses of White patients and unified standard). Using formulas relating abdominal circumference to gestational age, we calculated the z scores of abdominal circumference (standard deviations from the mean), standard deviation of the z score, Kolmogorov-Smirnov D statistic, and relative mean squared error. The 5 norms were assessed for fit to our data based on 6 criteria: mean z score close to 0, standard deviation of the z score close to 1, low D statistic, low mean squared error, fraction of values >90th percentile close to 10%, and fraction of values <10th percentile close to 10%.

      RESULTS

      The inclusion criteria were met in 40,684 ultrasound examinations in 15,042 patients. Considering the 6 evaluation criteria, observed abdominal circumferences had the best fit to the World Health Organization standard (mean z score of 0.11±1.05, D statistic of 0.041, mean squared error of 0.84±1.46, 13% of examinations >90th percentile, and 7% of examinations <10th percentile). The Hadlock reference had an anomaly in its assumption of a constant standard deviation, resulting in the underdiagnosis of abnormal values at early gestational ages and overdiagnosis at late gestational ages. The International Fetal and Newborn Growth Consortium for the 21st-Century Project standard had a mean circumference smaller than all the other norms, resulting in the underdiagnosis of small circumferences and the overdiagnosis of large circumferences. Similar results were observed when restricting the analyses to a low-risk subgroup of 5487 examinations without identified risk factors for large for gestational age or small for gestational age.

      CONCLUSION

      The diagnosis of abnormal abdominal circumference depends on the norms used to define abdominal circumference percentiles. The World Health Organization standard had the best fit for our data.

      Keywords

      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'

      Subscribe:

      Subscribe to American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology MFM
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

        • Strassberg ER
        • Schuster M
        • Rajaram AM
        • et al.
        Comparing diagnosis of fetal growth restriction and the potential impact on management and outcomes using different growth curves.
        J Ultrasound Med. 2019; 38: 3273-3281
        • Blue NR
        • Savabi M
        • Beddow ME
        • et al.
        The Hadlock method is superior to newer methods for the prediction of the birth weight percentile.
        J Ultrasound Med. 2019; 38: 587-596
        • Marien M
        • Perron S
        • Bergeron AM
        • Singbo N
        • Demers S.
        Comparison of the accuracy of INTERGROWTH-21 and Hadlock ultrasound formulae for fetal weight prediction.
        J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2021; 43: 1254-1259
        • Fay E
        • Hugh O
        • Francis A
        • et al.
        Customized GROW vs INTERGROWTH-21st birthweight standards to identify small for gestational age associated perinatal outcomes at term.
        Am J Obstet Gynecol MFM. 2022; 4100545
        • Bhatti G
        • Romero R
        • Cherukuri K
        • et al.
        Fetal growth percentile software: a tool to calculate estimated fetal weight percentiles for 6 standards.
        Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2020; 222: 625-628
        • Monier I
        • Ego A
        • Benachi A
        • et al.
        Unisex vs sex-specific estimated fetal weight charts for fetal growth monitoring: a population-based study.
        Am J Obstet Gynecol MFM. 2022; 4100527
        • Copel JA
        • Bahtiyar MO.
        A practical approach to fetal growth restriction.
        Obstet Gynecol. 2014; 123: 1057-1069
      1. Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine (SMFM), Martins JG, Biggio JR, Abuhamad A. Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine Consult Series #52: diagnosis and management of fetal growth restriction: (replaces Clinical Guideline Number 3, April 2012).
        Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2020; 223: B2-17
        • Hadlock FP
        • Harrist RB
        • Martinez-Poyer J.
        In utero analysis of fetal growth: a sonographic weight standard.
        Radiology. 1991; 181: 129-133
      2. Fetal growth restriction: ACOG Practice Bulletin, Number 227.
        Obstet Gynecol. 2021; 137: e16-e28
        • Sananes N
        • Guigue V
        • Kohler M
        • et al.
        Use of Z-scores to select a fetal biometric reference curve.
        Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2009; 34: 404-409
        • Salomon LJ
        • Bernard JP
        • Duyme M
        • Buvat I
        • Ville Y.
        The impact of choice of reference charts and equations on the assessment of fetal biometry.
        Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2005; 25: 559-565
        • Hutcheon JA
        • Liauw J.
        Should fetal growth charts be references or standards?.
        Epidemiology. 2021; 32: 14-17
        • Hadlock FP
        • Deter RL
        • Harrist RB
        • Park SK.
        Estimating fetal age: computer-assisted analysis of multiple fetal growth parameters.
        Radiology. 1984; 152: 497-501
        • Papageorghiou AT
        • Ohuma EO
        • Altman DG
        • et al.
        International standards for fetal growth based on serial ultrasound measurements: the Fetal Growth Longitudinal Study of the INTERGROWTH-21st Project.
        Lancet. 2014; 384: 869-879
        • Kiserud T
        • Piaggio G
        • Carroli G
        • et al.
        The World Health Organization Fetal Growth Charts: a multinational longitudinal study of ultrasound biometric measurements and estimated fetal weight.
        PLoS Med. 2017; 14e1002220
        • Buck Louis GM
        • Grewal J
        • Albert PS
        • et al.
        Racial/ethnic standards for fetal growth: the NICHD Fetal Growth Studies.
        Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2015; 213 (449.e1–41)
        • Grantz KL
        • Grewal J
        • Kim S
        • et al.
        Unified standard for fetal growth velocity: the NICHD Fetal Growth Studies.
        Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2022; ([Epub ahead of print])
        • Kehl S
        • Zaiss I
        • Freiburg F
        • Speierer A
        • Sütterlin M
        • Siemer J.
        Comparison of different sonographic methods to determine fetal abdominal circumference.
        Fetal Diagn Ther. 2010; 28: 201-206
      3. Committee Opinion No 700: methods for estimating the due date.
        Obstet Gynecol. 2017; 129: e150-e154
        • Combs CA
        • Castillo R
        • Webb GW
        • del Rosario A.
        Impact of adding abdominal circumference to the definition of fetal growth restriction.
        Am J Obstet Gynecol MFM. 2021; 3100382
        • Snijders RJ
        • Nicolaides KH.
        Fetal biometry at 14-40 weeks’ gestation.
        Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 1994; 4: 34-48
        • Chitty LS
        • Altman DG
        • Henderson A
        • Campbell S.
        Charts of fetal size: 3. Abdominal measurements.
        Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1994; 101: 125-131
        • Kurmanavicius J
        • Wright EM
        • Royston P
        • et al.
        Fetal ultrasound biometry: 2. Abdomen and femur length reference values.
        Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1999; 106: 136-143