ﺑﺎﺯﮔﺸﺖ ﺑﻪ ﺻﻔﺤﻪ ﻗﺒﻠﯽ
خرید پکیج
تعداد آیتم قابل مشاهده باقیمانده : 3 مورد
نسخه الکترونیک
medimedia.ir

Fetal growth restriction: Screening and diagnosis

Fetal growth restriction: Screening and diagnosis
Literature review current through: Jan 2024.
This topic last updated: Apr 17, 2023.

INTRODUCTION — Normal fetal growth is determined by the fetal genetic growth potential and influenced by maternal, fetal, and/or placental factors [1]. Fetal growth restriction (FGR) occurs when the genetic growth potential is not achieved due to an abnormality of any of these factors. It occurs in up to 10 percent of pregnancies and is a major contributor to perinatal morbidity and mortality [2-4].

Identification of FGR is an integral component of prenatal care. Although antenatal treatment is not available, fetal surveillance can be initiated upon diagnosis and birth timing optimized to decrease stillbirth [4-6]. However, FGR detection rates are low, the risk for stillbirth is increased eightfold when FGR is not detected, and the most severe cases of FGR are associated with the most adverse perinatal outcomes even when detected [7-10].

FGR also has long-term impacts, including neurodevelopmental delay in childhood and increased risks for cardiovascular disease, dyslipidemia, and diabetes mellitus in adulthood [11,12]. (See "Infants with fetal (intrauterine) growth restriction" and "Possible role of low birth weight in the pathogenesis of primary (essential) hypertension".)

This topic will address the screening and diagnosis of FGR. Postdiagnostic evaluation and management are reviewed separately. (See "Fetal growth restriction: Evaluation" and "Fetal growth restriction: Pregnancy management and outcome".)

ASSESSMENT OF FETAL GROWTH — Assessment of normal versus abnormal fetal growth requires accurate determination of both gestational age and fetal size.

Assessment of gestational age – Verification of pregnancy dating is based on the combination of menstrual history and ultrasound biometry, ideally the crown-rump length in the first trimester. The methods for and accuracy of prenatal assessment of gestational age are reviewed in detail separately. (See "Prenatal assessment of gestational age, date of delivery, and fetal weight".)

Assessment of fetal size – Ultrasound is the accepted standard to assess fetal size. The estimated fetal weight (EFW) is calculated using a formula incorporating ultrasound measurements of the biparietal diameter (BPD), head circumference (HC), abdominal circumference (AC), and femur length (FL), typically in pregnancies ≥24 weeks of gestation [13]. The most commonly used nomogram for EFW in the United States is based on the Hadlock formula, which was developed based on observations at a single institution [14]. The inherent error between the calculated EFW and actual birth weight at the 95% confidence interval was greater than 14 percent across studies in which ultrasound EFW was documented within seven days of birth, and had both intraobserver and interobserver variability. This limitation contributes to both under- and overdiagnosis of fetal growth abnormalities [15,16]. (See "Prenatal assessment of gestational age, date of delivery, and fetal weight", section on 'Sonographic assessment of fetal weight'.)

Since the diagnostic performance of prenatal ultrasound for detecting FGR is limited, the threshold for diagnosing FGR must sufficiently balance sensitivity and specificity to identify as many true-positive cases as possible while limiting the false-positive diagnoses. Although high sensitivity enables a greater proportion of fetuses at risk for adverse outcome and stillbirth to be monitored and delivered early when indicated, it may also lead to increased surveillance, cost, and possibly unnecessary intervention for normally grown fetuses [15].

Growth standards – The calculated EFW is compared with a reference growth standard to determine the percentile for gestational age. A growth standard can be programmed into the ultrasound machine at the clinical site so that EFW percentiles are automatically calculated in real-time.

Growth standards vary because some are based on ultrasound assessments of EFW across gestation (fetal growth standards) while others are based on birth weights of preterm, term, and postterm newborns (newborn growth standards) [17]. They also vary based on the population used for their development. Several population-based studies have developed specific fetal growth nomograms for specific populations [18-20]. In 2022, a fetal growth standard reflecting the US population was created that accounts for racial and ethnic variation; future studies are necessary to determine if this new US fetal standard improves outcomes [21].

A study that compared fetal and birthweight-derived standards concluded that neither accurately predicted neonatal morbidity and mortality, but intrauterine standards performed slightly better than birth weight standards [22]. A large multinational prospective observational longitudinal study conducted by the World Health Organization (WHO) to evaluate the trajectory of normal fetal growth showed significant variation in fetal growth among countries and that growth is impacted by maternal factors including parity, height, and weight, and by fetal sex [18]. In recognition of these observations, customized growth curves have been developed that adjust the reference curve based on these characteristics and thus potentially improve the accuracy of assessment of fetal size and growth over time [1]. However, comparative studies have reported conflicting data about use of customized growth curves compared with the Hadlock formula to increase the detection of small fetuses at higher risk for postnatal morbidities, thus continued use of population-based standards (such as Hadlock in the United States) is appropriate [2,21,23-26]. Regardless of the growth standard used, a proportion of fetuses will be mislabeled as being normally grown or having FGR due to the limitations of sonographic diagnosis.

DEFINITIONS

FGR is broadly defined as an estimated fetal weight (EFW) or abdominal circumference (AC) <10th percentile for gestational age [27]. There is variation among international society guidelines, with some including AC thresholds <10th or ≤5th percentile alone as a diagnostic criteria [28,29].

Severe FGR is defined as an EFW or AC <3rd percentile for gestational age. Fetuses in this category are at higher risk for perinatal morbidity and mortality regardless of gestational age at birth.

The presence of umbilical artery Doppler abnormalities also suggests that FGR is severe because these abnormalities (eg, pulsatility index >95th percentile, absent or reversed end-diastolic flow) are associated with an increased risk of adverse perinatal outcome [30].

Early-onset FGR (in the absence of congenital anomalies) defines FGR identified before 32 weeks gestation [31]. It is considered at the severe end of the FGR spectrum since it is commonly associated with abnormal placental function and earlier fetal deterioration, leading to preterm birth. Pregnancies with early-onset FGR are at higher risk for preeclampsia and perinatal morbidity and mortality [32].

Late-onset FGR (in the absence of congenital anomalies) defines FGR identified at ≥32 weeks of gestation [31]. It is more common than early-onset FGR and it is associated with lower risks for perinatal morbidity and mortality, but neurodevelopment may be impaired [33].

Small for gestational age (SGA) is defined as a newborn <10th percentile for birth weight for gestational age [27]. This definition does not make a distinction among newborns who are constitutionally small and not at risk for additional morbidity from those who are small because of growth-restriction. Of note, not all fetuses classified as FGR during pregnancy will be SGA at birth and not all newborns classified as SGA at birth will be identified as FGR during pregnancy.

RISK FACTORS — Maternal, fetal, and placental factors (table 1) can impact fetal growth potential, and are not necessarily independent. For example, maternal vascular disease can result in placental changes leading to placental insufficiency.

Placental – Placental insufficiency is the most common risk factor for FGR. Other placental abnormalities, including velamentous cord insertion, circumvallate placenta, and single umbilical artery, have also been associated with FGR.

Prenatally, placental insufficiency cannot be directly measured and is a diagnosis of exclusion. FGR is usually attributed to placental insufficiency when EFW is <10th percentile and other causes of FGR have been excluded (fetal genetic abnormalities, fetal structural anomalies, fetal infections, maternal substance use or use of some medications), particularly if umbilical or maternal uterine artery Doppler velocimetry is abnormal.

Maternal – Maternal vascular disease (such as chronic hypertension), renal disease, diabetes, collagen vascular disease, and antiphospholipid syndrome are common risk factors for FGR. Tobacco and substance use, including cocaine, alcohol, and opioids, are modifiable risk factors. Medication exposures, such as certain anti-seizure and chemotherapeutic medications and warfarin, can also negatively impact fetal growth [27].

Fetal – Fetuses with genetic abnormalities, syndromes, and congenital anomalies are at higher risk for FGR. Fetal infection with malaria, cytomegalovirus, syphilis, rubella, varicella, and toxoplasmosis are responsible for about 5 to 10 percent of cases.

SCREENING

Benefits and harms — Prenatal detection of FGR enables initiation of formal fetal surveillance with the goal to maintain the pregnancy as long as safely possible while decreasing the risk for adverse outcome or stillbirth (see "Infants with fetal (intrauterine) growth restriction"). Harms of screening include overdiagnosis of FGR, leading to parental anxiety and unnecessary, costly, and/or potentially harmful interventions (eg, antenatal fetal testing, induction of labor, iatrogenic preterm birth).

Screening strategies — Screening strategies differ among countries, with some using a risk-based approach to select pregnancies for ultrasound assessment of fetal growth whereas others routinely assess fetal growth sonographically in all pregnancies. The optimum strategy is unclear. Regardless of the strategy used, the majority of small for gestational age (SGA) newborns remain undetected prior to birth (ie, FGR was probably present in utero but not diagnosed) [7,34,35]. Indeed, 75 to 80 percent of SGA newborns may not be detected antenatally [35].

In a meta-analysis of randomized trials, compared with selective use, routine ultrasound examination in late pregnancy (after 24 weeks of gestation) did not significantly reduce perinatal mortality (relative risk [RR] 1.01, 95% CI 0.67-1.54), preterm birth (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.85-1.08), or induction of labor (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.81-1.07) [36]. Routine use was not clearly harmful as it did not increase cesarean birth rates (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.97-1.09); however, potential maternal psychological effects and other neonatal outcomes could not be assessed. In another meta-analysis of randomized trials, compared with serial fundal height measurements, routine ultrasound examination in the third trimester did not reduce perinatal death in low-risk pregnancies (0.4 versus 0.3 percent, RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.68-1.89) [37].

Our approach — Our approach to screening for FGR is described in the algorithm (algorithm 1). This approach is consistent with several international guidelines, which recommend a risk-based assessment to select pregnancies warranting ultrasound surveillance of fetal growth and using fundal height measurements after 24 weeks in all pregnancies to detect those with a possible lag in fetal growth warranting ultrasound examination [2,27].

For low-risk pregnancies, if there is a ≥4 cm lag in the fundal height measurement or fundal height cannot be adequately assessed, an ultrasound is performed to assess fetal size, determine EFW, assess amniotic fluid volume, and evaluate the placenta.

For pregnancies with risk factors for FGR, a growth scan to determine EFW and assess amniotic fluid volume is performed as early as 28 weeks. Additional follow-up examinations are performed as frequently as up to every three to four weeks based on the clinician's assessment of the pregnant individual's risk profile. Scans are not performed at intervals of ≤2 weeks because interobserver and intraobserver variability in fetal biometric measurements in such scans can account for abnormalities in biometric and EFW percentiles; this is less of a problem with longer duration between scans.

Maternal history-based approach — A detailed medical and obstetric history is taken at the first prenatal visit to identify any maternal medical conditions that are known to increase the risk for FGR. Patients with historic risk factors are candidates for ultrasound surveillance of fetal growth. In addition:

If tobacco or substance use is reported, cessation should be encouraged. (See "Tobacco and nicotine use in pregnancy: Cessation strategies and treatment options" and "Alcohol intake and pregnancy", section on 'Management of screen-positive pregnant persons' and "Substance use during pregnancy: Screening and prenatal care".)

For individuals at increased risk for preeclampsia, low-dose aspirin prophylaxis should be started prior to 16 weeks of gestation to decrease the risks of preeclampsia and FGR. These data are reviewed separately. (See "Preeclampsia: Prevention", section on 'Low-dose aspirin'.)

Fundal height measurement-based approach — Assessing fundal height is a routine component of prenatal care and is a simple and inexpensive tool to screen for abnormal fetal growth. By 12 weeks of gestation, the uterine fundus can be palpated at the level of the pubic symphysis. At 16 weeks, the fundus is approximately midway between the symphysis and the umbilicus. The fundus reaches the umbilicus at about 20 weeks of gestation. Beyond 24 weeks, the measurement in centimeters (+/- 3 cm) approximates gestational age in weeks [38]. Therefore, a fundal height measurement ≥4 cm discordant with the expected size for dates is considered a potential marker for FGR and ultrasound examination.

Fundal height is measured using the unmarked side of a tape measure to reduce clinician bias [39,40]. The distance between the upper border of the pubic symphysis to the top of the uterus is recorded. Several factors may impact the fundal height assessment, including maternal obesity, fibroids, bladder filling, and extremes of amniotic fluid volume (oligohydramnios and polyhydramnios) [41,42].

The sensitivity of fundal height to detect FGR ranges from 17 to 86 percent, so it is not a sufficient screening tool in isolation [43-47]. Serial measurements by the same provider plotted on an individualized chart improves performance of fundal height to detect abnormal fetal growth [41,44].

Routine ultrasound screening at 32 and/or 36 weeks — An anatomic survey at 18 to 22 weeks of gestation is standard practice in resource-abundant countries, but ultrasound examinations after this point in gestation, although common, are not routinely performed worldwide. In low-risk populations, use of routine ultrasound screening is not advocated by international guidelines [48] because it has not been proven to decrease perinatal mortality. In a meta-analysis of randomized trials comparing routine third trimester ultrasound(s) with serial fundal height measurements, perinatal mortality was similar in both groups (0.4 versus 0.3 percent; RR 1.1, 95% CI 0.68-1.89) [37]. Another meta-analysis of cohort studies found that EFW or AC <3rd percentile at ≥32 weeks of gestation was associated with an increased risk of perinatal complications; however, as standalone parameters they performed poorly in predicting adverse perinatal outcome [49].

Because available evidence is inconclusive and larger trials are needed to improve the precision of these outcome results, practice varies among clinicians, and some perform sonographic screening. If a single third-trimester screening examination is performed, it should be done close to 36 weeks, as ultrasound estimated fetal weight (EFW) <10th percentile at 36 weeks of gestation detects SGA neonates better than a sonogram at 32 weeks [50]. If two screening examinations are to be performed, then it is reasonable to time them for 32 and 36 weeks.

DIAGNOSIS

Criteria — In the United States, the diagnosis of a small fetus is based on sonographic estimation of fetal weight (EFW) <10th percentile or fetal abdominal circumference (AC) <10th percentile on population-based or customized growth curves [2,27]. AC performs similarly to EFW for predicting small size at birth [51,52]. Based on expert consensus, FGR is highly likely in nonanomalous fetuses with EFW or AC <3rd percentile, regardless of gestational age [29,31]. When EFW or AC are between the 3rd and 10th percentile, abnormal Doppler parameters and decreasing growth trajectory of the EFW or AC support the diagnosis of placenta-based pathologic FGR and reduce the likelihood of a constitutionally small fetus.

By comparison, the International Society of Obstetricians and Gynecologists criteria include Doppler parameters for diagnosis of FGR (table 2). In a comparative study, the SMFM-ACOG-AIUM criteria used in the United States had a higher sensitivity for the prediction of a SGA neonate (birth weight <10th percentile) than the ISUOG criteria (55 versus 29 percent) but lower specificity (93 versus 98 percent) [53]. Both approaches performed poorly in predicting composite adverse neonatal outcome (sensitivity 10 to 15 percent). Similar findings were reported in a subsequent study comparing SMFM and ISUOG/Delphi criteria for detecting late-onset fetal growth restriction (SGA: sensitivity 32 versus 16 percent and specificity 98.9 versus 99.4 percent; severe neonatal morbidity: sensitivity 8.4 versus 4.9 percent) [54].

Supporting characteristics — Differentiating the constitutionally small from the pathologically small FGR fetus remains a clinical challenge [55]. Making a correct diagnosis of FGR versus constitutional smallness is important because the former is associated with adverse outcome and the latter is not.

EFW or AC <3rd percentile identifies a group of fetuses at higher risk for adverse perinatal morbidity and stillbirth [10,56]. Even if amniotic fluid and Dopplers are normal, the risk for stillbirth is threefold higher than in fetuses in the 3rd to 5th percentile range and four- to sevenfold higher than those in the 5th to 10th percentile range [56]. In a large retrospective cohort of newborns, the incidence of an umbilical artery pH <7 at birth, intubation, seizures in the first day of life, sepsis, and perinatal death were also significantly higher at <3rd percentile, even with term birth [9]. In another study, neurodevelopment was negatively impacted in children born at <3rd percentile even when Doppler studies were normal [57].

Oligohydramnios can narrow the differential diagnosis for underlying causes of FGR. Oligohydramnios is presumably due to decreased fetal urination as a result of blood flow redistribution away from the kidneys to more vital organs in the setting of fetal hypoxemia [58,59]. It is associated with adverse outcome when the EFW is <3rd percentile for gestational age [60]. Polyhydramnios in the setting of FGR or structural malformation increases the risk for aneuploidy (particularly trisomy 18) or genetic syndromes [61]. For these cases, genetic counseling and diagnostic testing with chromosomal microarray are advised [2,27,28,61,62]. (See "Oligohydramnios: Etiology, diagnosis, and management in singleton gestations" and "Polyhydramnios: Etiology, diagnosis, and management in singleton gestations".)

Abnormal Doppler velocimetry of the uterine arteries and fetal vessels (eg, umbilical, middle cerebral, ductus venosus) suggests reduced perfusion of the placental villous vasculature from both the maternal and fetal compartments.

Uterine arteries – Flow in the uterine arteries increases beginning in the first trimester as remodeling of the spiral arteries allows transition from a high resistance to a high-flow, low-impedance circulation [63]. If this process does not occur normally, then a high-resistance state persists, which can impair placental function [64]. Some guidelines use uterine artery Doppler as an adjunct to screening for FGR [2,27], while others recommend it only for moderate or high-risk individuals in the second trimester [48]. A meta-analysis of 61 studies including over 41,000 patients revealed that second-trimester abnormal uterine artery Doppler pulsatility index with notching of the waveform predicted overall FGR with a likelihood ratio of 9.1 (95% CI 5.0-16.7) and severe FGR with a likelihood ratio of 14.6 (95% CI 7.8-26.3) [65]. However, a subsequent multi-center randomized trial of uterine artery Doppler in an unselected population failed to show either maternal or neonatal benefit [66].

Fetal vessels – In pregnancies in which a small fetus is diagnosed, abnormal umbilical artery Doppler findings can help to differentiate between constitutionally small fetuses and those with FGR who are pathologically small [60,67]. Although deterioration of fetal Dopplers does not always follow a predictable pattern, appropriate fetal Doppler and biophysical monitoring and intervention can decrease perinatal mortality in these cases [68,69]. Fetal Doppler evaluation (umbilical artery, middle cerebral artery [including the cerebroplacental ratio and umbilicocerebral ratio], ductus venosus) in FGR and pregnancy management based on these findings are reviewed in detail separately. (See "Fetal growth restriction: Evaluation", section on 'Doppler velocimetry' and "Fetal growth restriction: Pregnancy management and outcome", section on 'Fetal surveillance'.)

Doppler changes have been used as the basis of staging systems to describe the severity of FGR, but such systems are not widely used [70,71].

Diagnosis in special populations

Uncertain gestational age — When pregnancy dating is unknown, a single ultrasound examination may not be able to distinguish a fetus that is FGR from an earlier gestational age fetus. In these cases, serial ultrasounds performed at least two weeks apart are required and should include measurement of fetal biometry, assessment of amniotic fluid, and umbilical artery Doppler assessment.

Normal growth in singletons increases from approximately 5 g/day at 14 to 15 weeks of gestation to 10 g/day at 20 weeks and 30 to 35 g/day at 32 to 34 weeks, after which there is less daily increase in weight [72]. If interval growth is appropriate and the other parameters are normal, FGR is less likely and outcomes are favorable [73,74]. Poor interval growth, oligohydramnios, or abnormal umbilical artery Dopplers are more likely encountered in cases of FGR [75].

The head circumference to abdominal circumference ratio (HC/AC) decreases linearly throughout pregnancy; a ratio >2 standard deviations (SDs) above the mean for gestational age is considered abnormal and a possible sign of asymmetric FGR. However, this ratio is not independent predictor of adverse pregnancy outcome or childhood growth and development, and an increased HC/AC can be due to causes other than FGR, so it is not useful diagnostically or prognostically [76-79].

Multiple gestation — The growth curve for multiple gestations is similar to singleton pregnancies until approximately 32 weeks when the growth velocity slows [80]. In dichorionic twins, each fetus has an independent risk for FGR based on the risk factors described above (see 'Risk factors' above). Monochorionic twins have a higher risk for FGR based on discordant placental sharing, which is reviewed separately. (See "Selective fetal growth restriction in monochorionic twin pregnancies" and "Twin pregnancy: Routine prenatal care", section on 'Screening for fetal growth restriction and discordance'.)

SOCIETY GUIDELINE LINKS — Links to society and government-sponsored guidelines from selected countries and regions around the world are provided separately. (See "Society guideline links: Fetal growth restriction" and "Society guideline links: Ultrasound imaging in pregnancy".)

SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Diagnosis – The diagnosis of a small fetus is based on sonographic estimation of fetal weight (EFW) <10th percentile or fetal abdominal circumference (AC) <10th percentile on population-based or customized growth curves. Fetal growth restriction (FGR) is highly likely in nonanomalous well-dated fetuses with EFW or AC <3rd percentile, regardless of gestational age. When EFW or AC are between the 3rd and 10th percentile, supporting characteristics, such as abnormal Doppler parameters and decreasing growth trajectory of the EFW or AC, support the diagnosis of placenta-based pathologic FGR and reduce the likelihood of a constitutionally small fetus. (See 'Definitions' above and 'Criteria' above and 'Supporting characteristics' above.)

Screening – Our approach to identifying pregnancies with FGR is described in the algorithm (algorithm 1) and aligns with several international guidelines. Pregnancies at high risk of FGR (table 1) are monitored with periodic ultrasound examinations to assess fetal size. Pregnancies not at high risk are monitored with fundal height measurements beginning at 24 weeks to detect those with size less than expected for gestational age, which would warrant ultrasound examination. (See 'Our approach' above.)

Benefits and harms – Prenatal detection of FGR enables initiation of formal fetal surveillance with the goal to maintain the pregnancy as long as safely possible while decreasing the risk for adverse outcome or stillbirth. Harms of screening include overdiagnosis of FGR, leading to parental anxiety and unnecessary, costly, and/or potentially harmful interventions (eg, antenatal fetal testing, induction of labor, iatrogenic preterm birth). (See 'Benefits and harms' above.)

ACKNOWLEDGMENT — The UpToDate editorial staff acknowledges Michael Y Divon, MD, who contributed to earlier versions of this topic review.

  1. Gardosi J, Chang A, Kalyan B, et al. Customised antenatal growth charts. Lancet 1992; 339:283.
  2. Martins JG, Biggio JR, Abuhamad A. Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine Consult Series #52: Diagnosis and management of fetal growth restriction: (Replaces Clinical Guideline Number 3, April 2012). Am J Obstet Gynecol 2020; 223:B2.
  3. Bernstein IM, Horbar JD, Badger GJ, et al. Morbidity and mortality among very-low-birth-weight neonates with intrauterine growth restriction. The Vermont Oxford Network. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2000; 182:198.
  4. Unterscheider J, O'Donoghue K, Daly S, et al. Fetal growth restriction and the risk of perinatal mortality-case studies from the multicentre PORTO study. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 2014; 14:63.
  5. Lindqvist PG, Molin J. Does antenatal identification of small-for-gestational age fetuses significantly improve their outcome? Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2005; 25:258.
  6. Verlijsdonk JW, Winkens B, Boers K, et al. Suspected versus non-suspected small-for-gestational age fetuses at term: perinatal outcomes. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 2012; 25:938.
  7. Chauhan SP, Beydoun H, Chang E, et al. Prenatal detection of fetal growth restriction in newborns classified as small for gestational age: correlates and risk of neonatal morbidity. Am J Perinatol 2014; 31:187.
  8. Gardosi J, Madurasinghe V, Williams M, et al. Maternal and fetal risk factors for stillbirth: population based study. BMJ 2013; 346:f108.
  9. McIntire DD, Bloom SL, Casey BM, Leveno KJ. Birth weight in relation to morbidity and mortality among newborn infants. N Engl J Med 1999; 340:1234.
  10. Savchev S, Figueras F, Cruz-Martinez R, et al. Estimated weight centile as a predictor of perinatal outcome in small-for-gestational-age pregnancies with normal fetal and maternal Doppler indices. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2012; 39:299.
  11. de Boo HA, Harding JE. The developmental origins of adult disease (Barker) hypothesis. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol 2006; 46:4.
  12. Leitner Y, Fattal-Valevski A, Geva R, et al. Neurodevelopmental outcome of children with intrauterine growth retardation: a longitudinal, 10-year prospective study. J Child Neurol 2007; 22:580.
  13. Hadlock FP, Harrist RB, Sharman RS, et al. Estimation of fetal weight with the use of head, body, and femur measurements--a prospective study. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1985; 151:333.
  14. Hadlock FP, Harrist RB, Martinez-Poyer J. In utero analysis of fetal growth: a sonographic weight standard. Radiology 1991; 181:129.
  15. Lappen JR, Myers SA. The systematic error in the estimation of fetal weight and the underestimation of fetal growth restriction. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2017; 216:477.
  16. Dudley NJ. A systematic review of the ultrasound estimation of fetal weight. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2005; 25:80.
  17. Williams RL, Creasy RK, Cunningham GC, et al. Fetal growth and perinatal viability in California. Obstet Gynecol 1982; 59:624.
  18. Kiserud T, Piaggio G, Carroli G, et al. The World Health Organization Fetal Growth Charts: A Multinational Longitudinal Study of Ultrasound Biometric Measurements and Estimated Fetal Weight. PLoS Med 2017; 14:e1002220.
  19. Villar J, Cheikh Ismail L, Victora CG, et al. International standards for newborn weight, length, and head circumference by gestational age and sex: the Newborn Cross-Sectional Study of the INTERGROWTH-21st Project. Lancet 2014; 384:857.
  20. Buck Louis GM, Grewal J, Albert PS, et al. Racial/ethnic standards for fetal growth: the NICHD Fetal Growth Studies. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2015; 213:449.e1.
  21. Grantz KL, Grewal J, Kim S, et al. Unified standard for fetal growth: the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Fetal Growth Studies. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2022; 226:576.
  22. Blue NR, Mele L, Grobman WA, et al. Predictive performance of newborn small for gestational age by a United States intrauterine vs birthweight-derived standard for short-term neonatal morbidity and mortality. Am J Obstet Gynecol MFM 2022; 4:100599.
  23. Blue NR, Savabi M, Beddow ME, et al. The Hadlock Method Is Superior to Newer Methods for the Prediction of the Birth Weight Percentile. J Ultrasound Med 2019; 38:587.
  24. Blue NR, Beddow ME, Savabi M, et al. 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.
  25. Monier I, Ego A, Benachi A, et al. 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.
  26. De Jong CL, Francis A, Van Geijn HP, Gardosi J. Customized fetal weight limits for antenatal detection of fetal growth restriction. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2000; 15:36.
  27. Fetal Growth Restriction: ACOG Practice Bulletin, Number 227. Obstet Gynecol 2021; 137:e16.
  28. The Investigation and Management of the Small–for–Gestational–Age Fetus. Green top guideline No 31. Available at: https://www.rcog.org.uk/globalassets/documents/guidelines/gtg_31.pdf (Accessed on May 04, 2022).
  29. Lees CC, Stampalija T, Baschat A, et al. ISUOG Practice Guidelines: diagnosis and management of small-for-gestational-age fetus and fetal growth restriction. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2020; 56:298.
  30. Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine (SMFM). Electronic address: [email protected], Martins JG, Biggio JR, Abuhamad A. Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine Consult Series #52: Diagnosis and management of fetal growth restriction: (Replaces Clinical Guideline Number 3, April 2012). Am J Obstet Gynecol 2020; 223:B2.
  31. Gordijn SJ, Beune IM, Thilaganathan B, et al. Consensus definition of fetal growth restriction: a Delphi procedure. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2016; 48:333.
  32. Savchev S, Figueras F, Sanz-Cortes M, et al. Evaluation of an optimal gestational age cut-off for the definition of early- and late-onset fetal growth restriction. Fetal Diagn Ther 2014; 36:99.
  33. Eixarch E, Meler E, Iraola A, et al. Neurodevelopmental outcome in 2-year-old infants who were small-for-gestational age term fetuses with cerebral blood flow redistribution. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2008; 32:894.
  34. Mattioli KP, Sanderson M, Chauhan SP. Inadequate identification of small-for-gestational-age fetuses at an urban teaching hospital. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2010; 109:140.
  35. Vieira MC, Relph S, Muruet-Gutierrez W, et al. Evaluation of the Growth Assessment Protocol (GAP) for antenatal detection of small for gestational age: The DESiGN cluster randomised trial. PLoS Med 2022; 19:e1004004.
  36. Bricker L, Medley N, Pratt JJ. Routine ultrasound in late pregnancy (after 24 weeks' gestation). Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2015; :CD001451.
  37. Al-Hafez L, Chauhan SP, Riegel M, et al. Routine third-trimester ultrasound in low-risk pregnancies and perinatal death: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Obstet Gynecol MFM 2020; 2:100242.
  38. Knox AJ, Sadler L, Pattison NS, et al. An obstetric scoring system: its development and application in obstetric management. Obstet Gynecol 1993; 81:195.
  39. Papageorghiou AT, Ohuma EO, Gravett MG, et al. International standards for symphysis-fundal height based on serial measurements from the Fetal Growth Longitudinal Study of the INTERGROWTH-21st Project: prospective cohort study in eight countries. BMJ 2016; 355:i5662.
  40. Jelks A, Cifuentes R, Ross MG. Clinician bias in fundal height measurement. Obstet Gynecol 2007; 110:892.
  41. Mongelli M, Gardosi J. Symphysis-fundus height and pregnancy characteristics in ultrasound-dated pregnancies. Obstet Gynecol 1999; 94:591.
  42. Engstrom JL, Ostrenga KG, Plass RV, Work BA. The effect of maternal bladder volume on fundal height measurements. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1989; 96:987.
  43. Belizán JM, Villar J, Nardin JC, et al. Diagnosis of intrauterine growth retardation by a simple clinical method: measurement of uterine height. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1978; 131:643.
  44. Pay ASD, Frøen JF, Staff AC, et al. Symphysis-fundus measurement - the predictive value of a new reference curve. Tidsskr Nor Laegeforen 2017; 137:717.
  45. Sparks TN, Cheng YW, McLaughlin B, et al. Fundal height: a useful screening tool for fetal growth? J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 2011; 24:708.
  46. Robert Peter J, Ho JJ, Valliapan J, Sivasangari S. Symphysial fundal height (SFH) measurement in pregnancy for detecting abnormal fetal growth. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2015; :CD008136.
  47. Calvert JP, Crean EE, Newcombe RG, Pearson JF. Antenatal screening by measurement of symphysis-fundus height. Br Med J (Clin Res Ed) 1982; 285:846.
  48. McCowan LM, Figueras F, Anderson NH. Evidence-based national guidelines for the management of suspected fetal growth restriction: comparison, consensus, and controversy. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2018; 218:S855.
  49. Meler E, Martinez-Portilla RJ, Caradeux J, et al. Severe smallness as predictor of adverse perinatal outcome in suspected late small-for-gestational-age fetuses: systematic review and meta-analysis. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2022; 60:328.
  50. Ciobanu A, Khan N, Syngelaki A, et al. Routine ultrasound at 32 vs 36 weeks' gestation: prediction of small-for-gestational-age neonates. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2019; 53:761.
  51. David C, Tagliavini G, Pilu G, et al. Receiver-operator characteristic curves for the ultrasonographic prediction of small-for-gestational-age fetuses in low-risk pregnancies. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1996; 174:1037.
  52. Caradeux J, Martinez-Portilla RJ, Peguero A, et al. Diagnostic performance of third-trimester ultrasound for the prediction of late-onset fetal growth restriction: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2019; 220:449.
  53. Roeckner JT, Pressman K, Odibo L, et al. Outcome-based comparison of SMFM and ISUOG definitions of fetal growth restriction. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2021; 57:925.
  54. Schreiber V, Hurst C, da Silva Costa F, et al. Definitions matter: detection rates and perinatal outcome for infants classified prenatally as having late fetal growth restriction using SMFM biometric vs ISUOG/Delphi consensus criteria. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2023; 61:377.
  55. Ananth CV, Vintzileos AM. Distinguishing pathological from constitutional small for gestational age births in population-based studies. Early Hum Dev 2009; 85:653.
  56. Pilliod RA, Cheng YW, Snowden JM, et al. The risk of intrauterine fetal death in the small-for-gestational-age fetus. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2012; 207:318.e1.
  57. Figueras F, Eixarch E, Meler E, et al. Small-for-gestational-age fetuses with normal umbilical artery Doppler have suboptimal perinatal and neurodevelopmental outcome. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2008; 136:34.
  58. Nicolaides KH, Peters MT, Vyas S, et al. Relation of rate of urine production to oxygen tension in small-for-gestational-age fetuses. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1990; 162:387.
  59. Veille JC, Kanaan C. Duplex Doppler ultrasonographic evaluation of the fetal renal artery in normal and abnormal fetuses. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1989; 161:1502.
  60. Unterscheider J, Daly S, Geary MP, et al. Optimizing the definition of intrauterine growth restriction: the multicenter prospective PORTO Study. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2013; 208:290.e1.
  61. Walter A, Calite E, Berg C, et al. Prenatal diagnosis of fetal growth restriction with polyhydramnios, etiology and impact on postnatal outcome. Sci Rep 2022; 12:415.
  62. Borrell A, Grande M, Pauta M, et al. Chromosomal Microarray Analysis in Fetuses with Growth Restriction and Normal Karyotype: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Fetal Diagn Ther 2018; 44:1.
  63. Schulman H, Fleischer A, Farmakides G, et al. Development of uterine artery compliance in pregnancy as detected by Doppler ultrasound. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1986; 155:1031.
  64. Levytska K, Higgins M, Keating S, et al. Placental Pathology in Relation to Uterine Artery Doppler Findings in Pregnancies with Severe Intrauterine Growth Restriction and Abnormal Umbilical Artery Doppler Changes. Am J Perinatol 2017; 34:451.
  65. Cnossen JS, Morris RK, ter Riet G, et al. Use of uterine artery Doppler ultrasonography to predict pre-eclampsia and intrauterine growth restriction: a systematic review and bivariable meta-analysis. CMAJ 2008; 178:701.
  66. García B, Llurba E, Valle L, et al. Do knowledge of uterine artery resistance in the second trimester and targeted surveillance improve maternal and perinatal outcome? UTOPIA study: a randomized controlled trial. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2016; 47:680.
  67. Baschat AA, Weiner CP. Umbilical artery doppler screening for detection of the small fetus in need of antepartum surveillance. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2000; 182:154.
  68. Unterscheider J, Daly S, Geary MP, et al. Predictable progressive Doppler deterioration in IUGR: does it really exist? Am J Obstet Gynecol 2013; 209:539.e1.
  69. Lees C, Marlow N, Arabin B, et al. Perinatal morbidity and mortality in early-onset fetal growth restriction: cohort outcomes of the trial of randomized umbilical and fetal flow in Europe (TRUFFLE). Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2013; 42:400.
  70. Figueras F, Gratacós E. Update on the diagnosis and classification of fetal growth restriction and proposal of a stage-based management protocol. Fetal Diagn Ther 2014; 36:86.
  71. Mari G, Deter RL. Middle cerebral artery flow velocity waveforms in normal and small-for-gestational-age fetuses. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1992; 166:1262.
  72. Resnik R. Intrauterine growth restriction. Obstet Gynecol 2002; 99:490.
  73. Divon MY, Chamberlain PF, Sipos L, et al. Identification of the small for gestational age fetus with the use of gestational age-independent indices of fetal growth. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1986; 155:1197.
  74. Dubinsky TJ, Sonneborn R. Trouble With the Curve: Pearls and Pitfalls in the Evaluation of Fetal Growth. J Ultrasound Med 2020; 39:1839.
  75. de Jong CL, Francis A, van Geijn HP, Gardosi J. Fetal growth rate and adverse perinatal events. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 1999; 13:86.
  76. Bocca-Tjeertes I, Bos A, Kerstjens J, et al. Symmetrical and asymmetrical growth restriction in preterm-born children. Pediatrics 2014; 133:e650.
  77. David C, Gabrielli S, Pilu G, Bovicelli L. The head-to-abdomen circumference ratio: a reappraisal. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 1995; 5:256.
  78. Crane JP, Kopta MM. Prediction of intrauterine growth retardation via ultrasonically measured head/abdominal circumference ratios. Obstet Gynecol 1979; 54:597.
  79. Divon MY, Guidetti DA, Braverman JJ, et al. Intrauterine growth retardation--a prospective study of the diagnostic value of real-time sonography combined with umbilical artery flow velocimetry. Obstet Gynecol 1988; 72:611.
  80. Ananth CV, Vintzileos AM, Shen-Schwarz S, et al. Standards of birth weight in twin gestations stratified by placental chorionicity. Obstet Gynecol 1998; 91:917.
Topic 6752 Version 65.0

References

آیا می خواهید مدیلیب را به صفحه اصلی خود اضافه کنید؟