Die fetale Biometrie im 2. und 3. Trimenon – einfach oder doch kompliziert?

Prenatal ultrasound is essential for identifying abnormal fetal growth. Since the introduction of ultrasound in prenatal care, attempts have been made to help improve the detection of small-for-gestational age (SGA) fetuses, large-for-gestational age (LGA) fetuses, and cases of intrauterine growth restriction (IUGR). Abnormal fetal growth can increase the risk for obstetric complications and can also be the result of a fetal disease requiring further prenatal or postnatal diagnostic testing.

An essential requirement for the correct interpretation of measured values in fetuses is the exact determination of the gestational age in the 1^st trimester, which is one of the main purposes of the 1^st-trimester ultrasound examination.

Correct selection of the measurement planes needed for biometry and exact placement of the measurement points are some of the first things taught and practiced in ultrasound education.

Fetal biometry is primarily used to calculate fetal weight, even though the individual biometric parameters are also used in diagnostic prenatal ultrasound. By comparing measured values to corresponding reference values, it is possible to determine whether the fetal mass and weight correspond to the gestational age. Serial measurements provide information about fetal growth.

Even though fetal biometry is part of almost every prenatal ultrasound examination and the correct measurement planes for head circumference, abdominal circumference, and femur length are clearly defined and globally standardized [1], there are various aspects that are not uniformly defined or are handled differently.

Publikationsverlauf

Artikel online veröffentlicht:
06. Juni 2025

• References

• 1 Salomon LJ, Alfirevic Z, Da Silva Costa F. et al. ISUOG Practice Guidelines: ultrasound assessment of fetal biometry and growth. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2019; 53: 715-723
• 2 Chitty LS, Altman DG, Henderson A. et al. Charts of fetal size: 2. Head measurements. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1994; 101: 35-43
• 3 John Dudley N. Are ultrasound foetal circumference measurement methods interchangeable?. Ultrasound 2019; 27: 176-182
• 4 Kurmanavicius J, Wright EM, Royston P. et al. Fetal ultrasound biometry: 1. Head reference values. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1999; 106: 126-135
• 5 Drukker L, Droste R, Chatelain P. et al. Expected-value bias in routine third-trimester growth scans. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2020; 55: 375-382
• 6 Hadlock FP, Harrist RB, Sharman RS. et al. Estimation of fetal weight with the use of head, body, and femur measurements – a prospective study. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1985; 151: 333-337
• 7 Kurmanavicius J, Burkhardt T, Wisser J. et al. Ultrasonographic fetal weight estimation: Accuracy of formulas and accuracy of examiners by birth weight from 500 to 5000 g. J Perinat Med 2004; 32: 155-161
• 8 Gleason JL, Reddy UM, Chen Z. et al. Comparing population-based fetal growth standards in a US cohort. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2024; 231: 338.e1-338.e18
• 9 Melamed N, Hiersch L, Aviram A. et al. Diagnostic accuracy of fetal growth charts for placenta-related fetal growth restriction. Placenta 2021; 105: 70-77
• 10 Sovio U, White IR, Dacey A. et al. Screening for fetal growth restriction with universal third trimester ultrasonography in nulliparous women in the Pregnancy Outcome Prediction (POP) study: a prospective cohort study. Lancet 2015; 386: 2089-2097