A PROSPECTIVE STUDY ON BIPARIETAL DIAMETER AND FEMUR LENGTH UTILISING ULTRASONOGRAPHIC TECHNIQUES, ALONG WITH ITS CORRELATION TO FOETAL GESTATIONAL AGE.

Sidharth Sankar  Maharana; Shradha Suman  Ghanto

doi:10.51168/sjhrafrica.v6i3.1586

Authors

Sidharth Sankar Maharana Assistant Professor, Department of Anatomy, SRM MCH, Bhawanipatna, Kalahandi, Odisha, India
Shradha Suman Ghanto Assistant Professor, Department of Anatomy, SRM MCH, Bhawanipatna, Kalahandi, Odisha, India

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.51168/sjhrafrica.v6i3.1586

Keywords:

Gestational Age, Ultrasonography, Biparietal Diameter, Femur

Abstract

Background

The prenatal evaluation is crucial during pregnancy for evaluating the growth and development of the fetus. Ultrasonography is an accessible screening method for monitoring prenatal growth using fetal parameters and gestational age (GA). Femur length (FL) and biparietal diameter (BPD) are frequently utilized in the second trimester to evaluate fetal growth and ascertain precise gestational age. Studies indicated discrepancies in the reliability of FL and BPD for determining gestational age and fetal growth by ultrasonography. The purpose of the current study was to compare biparietal diameter and femur length with gestational age.

Materials and Methods

The study included 190 pregnant women in total. The participants ranged in age from 18 to 35 years, and their gestational ages ranged from 20 to 38 weeks.

Results

This investigation examined 79 cases in the second trimester, specifically between 20 and 27 weeks, and 110 instances in the 3rd trimester of pregnancy. The observed means of FL and BPD were 56.19 and 73.09, respectively. The standard error (SE) and the standard deviation (SD) of the mean for BPD and FL were 0.629, 0.569, and 12.79 and 11.59, respectively.

Conclusion

The study demonstrates a significant link between FL and BPD, with FL exhibiting good accuracy in assessing gestational age, while the correlation diminishes from 20 to 38 weeks.

Recommendation

Analyzing the growth patterns of FL and BPD by sonography will lead to better results.

References

Dietz PM, England LJ, Callaghan WM, Pearl M, Wier ML, Kharrazi M. A comparison of LMP‐ based and ultrasound-based estimates of gestational age using linked California livebirth and prenatal screening records. Pediatric and perinatal epidemiology. 2007 Sep;21:62-71. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-3016.2007.00862.x

Honarvar M, Allahyari M. Assessment of gestational age based on ultrasonic femur length of the fetus. Acta Medica Iranica, 1999, 134-8.

Yeh MN, Bracero L, Reilly KB, Murtha L, Aboulafia M, Barron BA. Ultrasonic measurement of the femur length as an index of fetal gestational age. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology. 1982 Nov;144(5):519-22. https://doi.org/10.1016/0002-9378(82)90219-8

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. Journal of clinical ultrasound. 1980 Aug;8(4):319-26. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcu.1870080406

Campbell S. 3.8 The prediction of fetal maturity by ultra-sonic measurement of the biparietal diameter. Classic Papers in Modern Diagnostic Radiology, 2004 Nov, 236.

Egley CC, Seeds JW, Cefalo RC. Femur length versus biparietal diameter for estimating gestational age in the third trimester. American journal of perinatology. 1986 Apr;3(02):77-9. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-2007-999837

Persson PH, Grennert L, Gennser G, Kullander S. Impact of fetal and maternal factors on the normal growth of the biparietal diameter. Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica. 1978 Jan;57(78):21-7. https://doi.org/10.3109/00016347809162698

Hadlock FP, Deter RL, Carpenter RJ, Park SK. Estimating fetal age: effect of head shape on BPD. American Journal of Roentgenology. 1981 Jul;137(1):83-5. https://doi.org/10.2214/ajr.137.1.83

Goldstein RB, Filly RA, Simpson G. Pitfalls in femur length measurements. Journal of ultrasound in medicine. 1987 Apr;6(4):203-7. https://doi.org/10.7863/jum.1987.6.4.203

O'Brien GD, Queenan JT. Growth of the ultrasound fetal femur length during normal pregnancy: part I. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology. 1981 Dec;141(7):833-7. https://doi.org/10.1016/0002-9378(81)90713-4

Hohler CW, Quetel TA. Comparison of ultrasound femur length and biparietal diameter in late pregnancy. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology. 1981 Dec;141(7):759-62. https://doi.org/10.1016/0002-9378(81)90700-6

Hadlock FP, Harrist RB, Deter RL, Park SK. A prospective evaluation of fetal femur length as a predictor of gestational age. Journal of ultrasound in medicine. 1983 Mar;2(3):111-2. https://doi.org/10.7863/jum.1983.2.3.111

Cohen HL, Cooper J, Eisenberg P, Mandel FS, Gross BR, Goldman MA, et al. The normal length of fetal kidneys: Sonographic study in 397 Obstetrics patients. Am J Roentol. 1991;157(3):545-8. https://doi.org/10.2214/ajr.157.3.1872242

Schlesinger A, Hedlund G, Pierson WP, Null DM. Normal standards for kidney length in premature infants. Determination with the US. Radiology. 1987;164:127-9. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiology.164.1.3295985

Gloor JM, Breekle RJ, Gehrking WC, Rosenquist RG, Mulhelland TA, Bergstrakh EJ, et al. Fetal renal growth was evaluated by prenatal ultrasound examination. Mayo Clin Proc. 1997;72(2):124-9. doi:10.4065/72.2.124. https://doi.org/10.4065/72.2.124

Sagi J, Vagman I, David MP, Dongen LGV, Gondie E, Butterworth A, et al. Fetal kidney size related to gestational age. Gynecol Obstet Invest. 1987;23(1):1-4. https://doi.org/10.1159/000298825

Mete G, Ugur, Md A, Mustafa, Md HC, Ozcan, et al. MD Fetal kidney length as a useful adjunct parameter for better determination of gestational age. Saudi Med J. 2016;37(5):533-537. https://doi.org/10.15537/smj.2016.5.14225