Çiğdem Yayla Abide, Ebru Çöğendez, Pınar Kumru, Murat Keskin, Evrim Bostancı Ergen, Çetin Kılıççı

Birinci trimester fetal baş popo mesafesi ile doğum ağırlığı arasındaki ilişki

Amaç: Çalışmamızda 11-14. gebelik haftaları arasında beklenen ve saptanan BPM değerleri arasındaki fark ile yenidoğanın doğum ağırlığı arasındaki ilişkiyi araştırmayı amaçladık.Gereç ve Yöntem: 2013 - 2016 yılları arasında, 11-14. Gebelik haftasına sahip olup ilk trimester tarama testi için başvuran 1361 gebe çalışmaya dahil edildi. Hastalar beklenen ve saptanan BPM boyutu arasındaki farka göre üç grupta incelendi. Son adet tarihine (SAT) göre hesaplanan gebelik haftası, BPM ölçümü ile saptanan gebelik haftasından 2-6 gün fazla ise Grup A (n:266), SAT’a göre gebelik haftası BPM’ye göre hesaplanan gebelik haftasından 1 gün az, eşit ya da 1 gün fazla ise Grup B (n:695), SAT’a göre hesaplanan gebelik haftası BPM ölçümü ile saptanan gebelik haftasından 2-6 gün az ise Grup C (n:400) olarak adlandırıldı. Saptanan BPM değerleri arasındaki fark ile anormal doğum ağırlığı ilişkisi değerlendirildi.Bulgular: Yenidoğanın doğum ağırlığının Grup A ile C ve Grup B ile C arasında istatistiksel anlamda farklılık gösterdiği tespit edildi. Buna göre Grup C olguların doğum ağırlığı (3534,57±461,76 g), Grup A olgulardan (3271,37±486,94 g) istatistiksel olarak daha fazla idi (p =0.0001). Grup C olguların doğum ağırlığı (3534,57±461,76 g) Grup B olgularından (3307,56±352,51 g) istatistiksel anlamda daha fazla idi (p =0.0001). Grup C de Grup B’den (p=0.0001) ve Grup C de Grup A dan istatistiksel anlamda daha fazla LGA bebek görüldü (p=0.014). Sonuç: Erken fetal büyüme döneminde BPM boyutunda beklenenden büyük ya da küçük değerlerin saptanması makrozomi ve düşük doğum ağırlığının (LBW) öngörülmesi açısından uyarıcı bir işaret olabilir ve bu gebeler daha sıkı antenatal takibe alınmalıdır.

Anahtar Kelimeler:

CRL, Anormal doğum ağırlığı, Düşük doğum ağırlığı, İlk trimester

Relationship between first trimester fetal crown-rump length and birth weight

Objective: We aimed to investigate the relationship between the difference between the expected and detected Crown-Rump Length (CRL) values at the 11th to 14th weeks of the gestation and the birth weight of the newborn.Material and Method: Our study was performed retrospectively with 1361 pregnancies who applied to our hospital for the first trimester screening test between 2013 and 2016 at their 11th to 14th gestational weeks. Patients were studied in three groups according to the difference between the expected and the determined CRL size. Group A (n: 266) was conducted if the CRL was smaller than expected (difference between expected and detected CRL size is 2 to 6 days), Group B (n: 695) was conducted if the CRL was normal (difference is 1 day less, equal or more than 1 day), Group C (n: 400) was conducted if the CRL was bigger than expected (the difference is 2-6 days less). The difference between the detected CRL values and the abnormal birth weight relation was assessed.Results: The birth weight of the newborn was detected statistically difference between only two groups (between Group A and C, between Group B and C). According to this, the birth weight of Group C cases (3534,57 ± 461,76 g) was statistically higher than Group A (3271,37 ± 486,94 g) (p = 0.0001). The birth weight of Group C cases (3534,57 ± 461,76 g) was significantly higher than Group B (3307,56 ± 352,51 g) (p = 0.0001). There were statistically significant LGA fetuses in Group C (p = 0.0001). The highest LGA ratio was found in Group C (14.5%); and the lowest LGA rate in Group B (2.6%). Conclusion: Detection of expected large or small values in CRL size during early gestation period should be a warning signal in terms of abnormal birth weight complications and these should be followed up more strictly by antenatal follow up.

Keywords:

Crown-Rump Length, newborn birth weight, perinatal outcomes,

PDF

___

1- Gluckman PD, Liggins GC. Regulation of Fetal Growth. In: Beard RW, Nathanielsz PW, editors. Fetal Physiology and Medicine: The Basis of Perinatology. 2nd ed.New York: M. Dekker; 1984. p. 511-58.
2- Smith GC. First trimester origins of fetal growth impairment. Semin Perinatol 2004;28(1):41-50.
3- Smith GC, Smith MF, McNay MB, et al. First-trimester growth and the risk of low birth weight. N Engl J Med 1998;339:1817–22.
4- Bukowski R, Smith GC, Malone FD, et al. Fetal growth in early pregnancy and risk of delivering low birth weight infant: prospective cohort study. Br Med J 2007;334:836.
5- Leung T, Sahota DS, Chan LW, et al. Prediction of birth weight by fetal crown–rump length and maternal serum levels of pregnancy-associated plasma protein-A in the first trimester. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2008;31:10–4.
6- Pedersen N, Figueras F, Wojdemann K,et al. Early fetal size and growth as predictors of adverse outcome. Obstet Gynecol 2008;112:765–71.
7- Olson IE, Groveman SA, Lawson ML, et al. New intrauterine growth curves based on United States data. Pediatrics 2010;125:e214-24.
8- Buck G, Cookfair DL, Michalek AM, et al. Intrauterine growth retardation and risk of sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS). Am J Epidemiol 1989;129:874–84.
9- Barker D, Martyn C. The maternal and fetal origins of cardiovascular disease. J Epidemiol Community Health 1992;46:8–11.
10- Baschat AA. Fetal growth restriction – from observation to intervention. J Perinat Med 2010;38:239–46.
11- Balcazar H, Haas J. Classification schemes of small-for-gestational age and type of intrauterine growth retardation and its implications to early neonatal mortality. Early Hum Dev 1990;24:219–30.
12- Kurtoğlu S, Akın MA, Sarıcı D. İntrauterin büyüme: Prenatal ve postnatal değerlendirilmesi. Turk Aile Hek Derg 2011;15(3):91-100.
13- Hadlock FP, Shah YP, Kanon DJ, et al. Fetal crown-rump length: reevaluation of relation to menstrual age (5–18 weeks) with highresolution real-time US. Radiology 1992;182:501–5.
14- Lawrence EJ. Part 1: a matter of size: evaluating the growth restricted neonate. Adv Neonatal Care 2006;6:313–22.
15- Miller HC, Hassanein K. Diagnosis of impaired fetal growth in newborn infants. Pediatrics 1971;48: 511-22.
16- Türkmen M, Aydoğan F, İnan G, et al. Aydın’da zamanında ve prematüre doğan bebeklerin ağırlık, boy, baş çevresi ölçümleri ve ponderal indeksleri. ADÜ Tıp Fakültesi Dergisi 2000;1:17-22
17- Jae-Yul Kang, Eun-Ju Park, Yun-Suk Yang, et al. Crown-Rump Length Measured in the Early First Trimester as a Predictor of Low Birth Weight. Yonsei Med J. 2013;54:1049–1052.
18- Pardo J, Peled Y, Yogev Y, et al. Association of Crown-Rump Length at 11 to 14 Weeks’ Gestation and Risk of a Large-for-Gestational-Age NeonateJ Ultrasound Med 2010;29:1315–1319
19- Thorsell M, Kaijser M, Almström H, et al. Large fetal size in early pregnancy associated with macrosomia. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2010;35:390–394.
20- Salomon LJ, Hourrier S, Fanchin R, et al. Is first trimester crown-rump length associated with birthweight? BJOG 2011;118:1223–1228.
21- Ustunyurt E, Simsek H, Korkmaz B, et al. First-trimester crown-rump length affects birth size symmetrically J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med, 2015; 28(17): 2070–2073
22- Vafaei H, Samsami A, Zolghadri J, et al. Correlation of first-trimester fetal crown-rump length with outcome of pregnancy and birth weight. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2012 Nov;119(2):141-4.
23- Mook-Kanamori D, Steegers EA, Eilers PH, et al. Risk factors and outcomes associated with first-trimester fetal growth restriction. JAMA 2010;303:527–34.