Tayfur ÇİFT, Muzaffer TEMÜR, Mehtap YILDIZBAKAN, Ülkü Ayşe TÜRKER, Sonay ÖZTAŞ, Yeliz ACAR, Sibel ÜSTÜNEL, Emin ÜSTÜNYURT

Determination of error level of ultrasonographic fetal weight estimation according to the seniority of residents in obstetrics and gynecology

Objectives: We consider the difference between estimated fetal weight and birth weight through the measurement according to the seniority of the residents in obstetrics and gynecology. In this study, we aimed to determine the fallibility of the residents according to their seniority years.Methods: This research was planned as a prospective and approved by the Ethics Committee Ultrasonographic measurements were performed with ultrasound device and the estimated fetal weight was calculated with Hadlock 4 (BPD, HC, AC, FL) formula. Measurements were performed by the residents in the first, second, third and fourth year of training and repeated by the same specialist for each patient. Only those who gave birth within 48 hours of the ultrasonographic measurements were included in the study.Results: A total of 392 pregnant women were included in the study. Ninety-eight pregnant women were examined by 1st year resident, 100 pregnant by 2nd year resident, 93 pregnant by 3rd year resident and 101 pregnant by 4th resident. Largest difference between the estimated fetal weight and birth weight was performed by the fourth year resident with 125.06 ± 247.40 grams.Conclusions: The estimated fetal weight by ultrasonography has an important place in obstetric practice and it may vary according to the years of seniority of the resident. For this reason, ultrasonography should be used effectively and accurately during the training of the residents in the centers of education in obstetrics and gynecology and it is essential that the residents learn the ultrasound examination properly and completely.

Keywords:

fetal weight, ultrasonography, resident, training, estimation,

PDF

___

4. Monier I, Ego A, Benachi A, Ancel PY, Goffinet F, Zeitlin J. Comparison of the Hadlock and INTERGROWTH formulas for calculating estimated fetal weight in a preterm population in France. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2018;219:476.e1-12.
5. Energin H. [Factors affecting fetal weight measured by ultrasonography]. Dicle Med J 2016;43:294-8.[Article in Turkish]
6. Özen S, Demirkıran F, İşçi H, Kavuzlu C. Fetal ağırlığın ultrasonografîk tahmini: 11 fetal ağırlık tahmin modelinin değerlendirilmes. Perinatoloji Dergisi 1993;1:150-4.
1. Pretscher J, Schwenke E, Baier F, Kehl S, Schneider M, Stumpfe FM, et al. Can sonographic fetal biometry predict adverse perinatal outcome? Ultraschall Med 2019;40:230-6.
7. Ahn MO, Cha KY, Phelan JP. The low birth weight infant: is there a preferred route of delivery? Clin Perinatol 1992;19:411-23.
8. Görgen H, Kuyumcuoğlu U, Ergün B, Api M. Fundus-pubis ölçümü ile fetal ağırlık tahmini. Perinatoloji Dergisi 1994;2:85-8.
2. Özçam H, Çimen G, Atakul N, Uzunçakmak C, Güldas A, Kesmezacar Ö. [The effect of parity, maternal BMI (Body Mass Index), weight gain in pregnancy, stage of birth and amniotic fluid on ultrasonographic fetal weight estimation]. İstanbul Med J 2015;16:105-10. [Article in Turkish]
9. Blue NR, Savabi M, Beddow ME, Katukuri V, Fritts CM, Izquierdo LA, et al. The Hadlock method is superior to newer methods for the prediction of the birth weight percentile. J Ultrasound Med 2019;38:587-96.
3. Alper T, Yanık A, Malatyalıoğlu E, Dabak Ş. Fetal biyometri persantil değerlerimiz II: Femur uzunluğu. Perinatoloji Dergisi 1996;4:113-6.
10. Energin H, Yapar Eyi EG. [Comparison of the estimated fetal weight measurements in 2 and 3 dimensional ultrasound at term pregnant women]. Jinekoloji Obstetrik ve Neonatoloji Tıp Dergisi 2012;9:1472-7. [Article in Turkish]
11. Blue NR, Beddow ME, Savabi M, Katukuri V, Chao CR. Comparing the Hadlock fetal growth standard to the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development racial/ethnic standard for the prediction of neonatal morbidity and small for gestational age. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2018;219:474.e1-12.