الفهرس 
IntroductionOnly 14 pages are availabe for public view
 |  | from | 115 |  |  |
| | | from | 115 | | |
Abstract
The evaluation of fetal weight through the utilization of ultrasound parameters such as biparietal diameter (BPD), abdominal circumference (AC), head circumference (HC), and femur length (FL) holds significant importance within the field of obstetrics. The estimation in question is intricately linked to the gestational age and holds significant importance in the determination of the optimal delivery method and the management of labor. This resource offers information regarding intrauterine growth restriction (IUGR) and its possible efficacy in the prevention of preterm delivery. Furthermore, it contributes to the decrease in perinatal morbidity and mortality.
There are two primary methods commonly utilized for evaluating birth weight, namely sonographic or ultrasound examinations and clinical techniques. The assessment of uterine height and girth at the umbilicus is frequently utilized from a clinical standpoint. Nevertheless, it is crucial to acknowledge that this specific methodology is susceptible to a considerable amount of inaccuracies and is not suitable for instances involving polyhydramnios, oligohydramnios, maternal obesity, malpresentation, and multifetal pregnancy.
The current approach for determining fetal weight is utilizing a mathematical equation that integrates multiple factors, such as head circumference (HC), abdominal circumference (AC), femur length (FL), and bi-parietal diameter (BPD).
Moreover, an additional sonographic biometric indication, namely fetal thigh circumference (TC), was incorporated alongside the preexisting parameters. The application of thigh circumference as a predictive measure for newborn birth weight is seen as a more reliable approach. Moreover, this technology possesses the capability to identify modifications in soft tissue masses.
The utilization of fetal thigh circumference, along with other parameters including biparietal diameter (BPD), head circumference (HC), abdominal circumference (AC), and femur length (FL), resulted in enhanced accuracy when determining baby weight. The methodology described above demonstrates an average error rate of 6% and an average divergence of 0.3%. The presence of intrauterine growth restriction (IUGR) in a fetus is associated with an increased vulnerability to hypoxia and a higher risk of perinatal mortality. Likewise, it is more probable that a macrosomic fetus will necessitate the implementation of a cesarean section. Hence, the establishment of a strong link between the circumference of the fetal thigh and birth weight would significantly enhance the ability to promptly detect these growth problems in the prenatal period.
Moreover, the application of this technique would result in significant benefits in the pre-induction evaluation of pelvic disproportion. By employing this collected knowledge, it becomes feasible to make timely decisions regarding the mode of delivery, hence decreasing the occurrence of infant sickness and mortality.
The objective of this study was to investigate the precision of fetal thigh circumference measurements as a sonographic marker for predicting fetal weight. The researchers have arrived at the determination that the incorporation of thigh circumference, together with prenatal indicators, enhances the accuracy of predicting birth weight. A robust positive correlation has been observed between prenatal and postnatal estimations of thigh circumference, suggesting a noteworthy association between these variables. Moreover, ultrasonography has been shown to be effective in properly reconstructing the actual circumference of the thigh.
Researchers have established an association between the circumference of the fetal thigh during the gestational period of 36-40 weeks and the matching birth weight through the application of ultrasonography. Recent research has indicated that thigh circumference can be utilized as a viable substitute for biparietal diameter in the assessment of birth weight during or near term. This is particularly relevant in cases when the measurement of biparietal diameter is hindered by the fetal head’s placement in close proximity to the pelvic bone. The aforementioned observation can be attributed to the heightened correlation between thigh circumference and birth weight.
The main results of the study revealed that:
Details regarding the fetuses encompassed within the research cohort. The gestational age (GA) of the study population varied between 36 and 40, with a mean of 38.02 and a standard deviation of 0.94. A total of 455 individuals, accounting for 45.50% of the whole sample, were pregnant women who participated in the study.
The characteristics and attributes of the studied population in the United States. The biparietal diameter (cm) of the research population varied from 2.3 to 15.2, with a mean value of 7.25 ± 3.56. The study population exhibited a range of head circumferences spanning from 8.6 to 53 cm, with a mean value of 25.25 cm and a standard deviation of 12.36 cm. Within the examined sample, the abdominal circumference (expressed in centimeters) exhibited a range spanning from 7.9 to 59.3. The calculated mean value for this variable was 26.32, with a standard deviation of 13.58. The femur lengths (cm) within the research group exhibited a range of 1.9 to 12.5, with a mean value of 5.75 ± 2.91. The study group exhibited a variety of mid-thigh circumference measurements, varying from 3.6 to 29.9 cm. The study concluded that the mean circumference around the mid-thigh was 12.96 cm, with a standard deviation of 6.86.
An investigation was conducted by Hadlock and Vintzileos to ascertain the estimated birth weight (BW) and compare it with the actual birth weight within the study population. The study sample included a range of actual body weights (BW) from 2.25 to 4.18. The mean and standard deviation (SD) of the body weights were calculated to be 3.1 and 0.59, respectively. Based on Hadlock’s methodology, the study population exhibited a range of estimated birth weights between 2.03 and 4.08, with a mean value of 3.05, accompanied by a standard deviation of 0.62. The birth weight estimates in Vintzileos’ research sample varied between 2.29 and 4.66, with a mean of 3.16 ± 0.64.
The categorization of the research population was based on the estimated and actual birth weights as calculated by Hadlock and Vintzileos. A total of 70 pregnant women, including 7% of the research population, were identified as having high Actual Birth Weights (BW). Out of the total study population, 58 pregnant women, accounting for 5.80% of the sample, were selected and identified as having a high anticipated birth weight according to Hadlock’s method. A total of 148 pregnant women, or 14.80% of the study sample, were classified as having high Vintzileos’ estimated birth weight.The objective of this study is to evaluate the diagnostic effectiveness of ultrasonography (US) in predicting high birth weight, utilizing Hadlock’s and Vintzileos’ formulas. The research findings revealed that Hadlock’s Formula exhibited a prediction accuracy of 75.7% in identifying cases of low birth weight. The research findings indicated that Vintzileos’s Formula exhibited a prediction rate of 85.4% for low birth weight.