A Comparative Study of Fetal Weight Estimation by Symphysiofundal Height and Ultrasound Biometry in Women at Term

Le résumé fourni par la source

Introduction: Accurate fetal weight estimation is crucial for managing labor and delivery, influencing outcomes for both mothers and infants. Accurate fetal weight estimation aids in the identification of macrosomia, helping prevent complications such as shoulder dystocia, brachial plexus injuries, and postpartum hemorrhage (PPH). Aim & Objective: To compare the estimated fetal weight by Symphysiofundal height and ultrasound biometry and to compare both with actual birth weight. Methods: A prospective observational study was conducted at the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, SMS Medical College, Jaipur, involving 300 women at term (?37 weeks gestation). Inclusion criteria comprised women with singleton, cephalic pregnancies, while those with obesity, fetal malformations, or abnormal amniotic fluid were excluded. Fetal weight was estimated using Johnson's formula and ultrasound biometry with Hadlock?s formula. The estimated weights were compared to actual birth weights. Results: The mean age of participants was 26.34 years, with the most common estimated fetal weight range being 2501 - 3000 grams. A significant correlation was found between actual birth weight and estimated weight using both methods, with correlation coefficients of 0.114 (p = 0.048) for ultrasound and 0.129 (p = 0.025) for Johnson?s formula. The mean differences in weight estimation were 104.97 grams (Johnson?s formula) and 119.47 grams (USG), both statistically significant (p < 0.001). Conclusion: This study indicates that advanced techniques like ultrasound do not necessarily provide a significant advantage over simpler clinical methods for fetal weight estimation. Given the cost and resource constraints associated with ultrasound, the reliability and ease of clinical methods can facilitate effective decision - making in resource - limited settings, ensuring maternal and fetal well - being.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.