Fetal ultrasound parameters: Reference values for a local perspective

Abstract

Background: Fetal biometry, with the help of ultrasonography (USG) provides the most reliable and important information about fetal growth and well-being. Frequently used parameters for fetal measurements by this method are the biparietal diameter (BPD), head circumference (HC), abdominal circumference (AC), and femur length (FL). These fetal dimensions depend upon the racial demographic characteristics, nutrition, genetics and many more environmental factors of a particular population. Aims: The purpose of the present investigation was to define and analyze these fetal biometric parameters in our local population and to compare them with the given norms. Methods: This cross-sectional study with convenience sampling was conducted on a total of 425 fetuses with a period of gestation between 18 to 38 weeks. Descriptive statistics was used to calculate the mean with standard deviation and 95% confidence interval (CI) for each fetal parameter in each gestational week. Results: Mean of BPD and FL in our population are similar to the mean values given by Hadlock throughout the pregnancy, except near the end of the third trimester where our population shows a slightly lower range of mean values. HC and AC fall below the lower range of Hadlock as early as 24 weeks of pregnancy. Conclusions: Fetal biometric parameters in the studied population are at the lower range of established nomograms by Hadlock on white fetuses, more so with the progression of pregnancy.

Keywords

Fetal-biometry - gestational age - Hadlock standard reference charts - ultrasound

Publication History

Received: 08 July 2019

Accepted: 09 April 2020

Article published online:
19 July 2021

• References

• 1 Hadlock FP, Deter RL, Harrist RB, Park SK. Estimating fetal age: Computer-assisted analysis of multiple fetal growth parameters. Radiology 1984; 152 Suppl [phone]
• 2 Babuta S, Chauhan S, Garg R, Bagarhatta M. Assessment of fetal gestational age in different trimesters from ultrasonographic measurements of various fetal biometric parameters. J Anat Soc India 2013; 62 Suppl (01) 40-6
• 3 Hadlock FP, Deter RL, Harrist RB, Park SK. Fetal biparietal diameter: A critical re-evaluation of the relation to menstrual age by means of real time ultrasound. J Ultrasound Med 1982; 1 Suppl (03) 97-104
• 4 Hadlock FP, Deter RL, Harrist RB. Fetal head circumference: Accuracy of real time ultrasound measurements at term. Perinat Neonatol 1982; 6: 97-100
• 5 Hadlock FP, Deter RL, Harrist RB, Park SK. Fetal abdominal circumference as a predictor of menstrual age. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1982; 139 Suppl (02) 367-70
• 6 Hadlock FP, Harrist RB, Deter RL, Park SK. Fetal femur length as a predictor of menstrual age: Sonographically measured. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1982; 138 Suppl (05) 875-8
• 7 Altman DG, Chitty LS. New charts for ultrasound dating of pregnancy. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 1997; 10 Suppl (03) 174-91
• 8 Sabbagha RE, Hughey M. Standardization of sonar cephalometry and gestational age. Obstet Gynecol 1978; 52 Suppl (04) 402-6
• 9 Kurmanavicius J, Wright EM, Royston P, Wisser J, Huch R, Huch A. et al. Fetal ultrasound biometry: 1. Head reference values. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1999; 106 (02) 126-35
• 10 Shepard M, Filly RA. A standardized plane for biparietal diameter measurement. J Ultrasound Med 1982; 1: 145-50
• 11 Kurtz AB, Wapner RJ, Kurtz RJ, Dershaw DD, Rubin CS, Cole Beuglet C. et al. Analysis of biparietal diameter as an accurate indicator of gestational age. J Clin Ultrasound 1980; 8 (04) 319-26
• 12 Demircan A, Berkol Y. Growth curves derıved from ultrasonographıc fetal parameters in a Turkısh populatıon. Marmara Med J 1988; 1: 6-16
• 13 Madan A, Holland S, Humbert JE, Benitz WE. Racial differences in birth weight of term infants in a northern California population. J Perinat 2002; 22 Suppl (03) 230-5
• 14 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 (02) 215-23
• 15 Shipp TD, Bromley B, Mascola M, Benacerraf B. Variation in fetal femur length with respect to maternal race. J Ultrasound Med 2001; 20: 141-4
• 16 Yeo GS, Chan WB, Lun KC, Lai FM. Racial differences in fetal morphometry in Singapore. Ann Acad Med Singapore 1994; 23 Suppl (03) 371-6
• 17 Lachman Y, Shen B. Sonographic evaluation of the fetal femur length in the Chinese population: Are the established charts reliable for the prediction of gestational age?. J Diagn Med Sonogr 1996; 12: 127-32
• 18 Ruvolo KA, Filly RA, Callen PW. Evaluation of fetal femur length for prediction of gestational age in a racially mixed obstetric population. J Ultrasound Med 1987; 6 Suppl (08) 417-9
• 19 Hill Lynedon. Fetal Long Bones. In: Goldberg BB, McGahan JP. editors Atlas of Ultrasound Measurements. 2nd ed. Philadelphia: Elsevier; 2009: 72-83
• 20 Rahim MK. Fetal biometry in the population of Southern Punjab, Pakistan. Pak J Med Res 2017; 56 Suppl (01) 30-6
• 21 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 Suppl (04) 955-7
• 22 Garg A, Pathak N, Gorea RK, Mohan P. Ultrasonographical age estimation from fetal bi-parietal diameter. J Indian Acad Forensic Med 2010; 32: 308-10
• 23 Tarca AL, Hernandez-Andrade E, Ahn H, Garcia M, Xu Z, Korzeniewski SJ. et al. Single and serial fetal biometry to detect preterm and term small-and large-for-gestational-age neonates: A longitudinal cohort study. PLoS One 2016; 1 (11) e0164161
• 24 Kiserud T, Piaggio G, Carroli G, Widmer M, Carvalho J, Jensen LN. et al. The World Health Organization fetal growth charts: A multinational longitudinal study of ultrasound biometric measurements and estimated fetal weight. PLoS Med 2017; 14 (01) e1002220
• 25 Žaliūnas B, Bartkevičienė D, Drąsutienė G, Utkus A, Kurmanavičius J. Fetal biometry: Relevance in obstetrical practice. Medicina 2017; 53 Suppl (06) 357-64