Download PDF
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · Indian J Radiol Imaging 2020; 30(02): 149-155
DOI: 10.4103/ijri.IJRI_287_19
Fetal Imaging

Fetal ultrasound parameters: Reference values for a local perspective

Navita Aggarwal
Department of Anatomy, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Bathinda, Punjab, India
,
G L Sharma
Department of Radiodiagnosis and Imaging, Adesh Institute of Medical Sciences and Research, Bathinda, Punjab, India
› Author Affiliations Financial support and sponsorship Nil.
› Further Information
Also available at
   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Background: Fetal biometry, with the help of ultrasonography (USG) provides the most reliable and important information about fetal growth and well-being. Frequently used parameters for fetal measurements by this method are the biparietal diameter (BPD), head circumference (HC), abdominal circumference (AC), and femur length (FL). These fetal dimensions depend upon the racial demographic characteristics, nutrition, genetics and many more environmental factors of a particular population. Aims: The purpose of the present investigation was to define and analyze these fetal biometric parameters in our local population and to compare them with the given norms. Methods: This cross-sectional study with convenience sampling was conducted on a total of 425 fetuses with a period of gestation between 18 to 38 weeks. Descriptive statistics was used to calculate the mean with standard deviation and 95% confidence interval (CI) for each fetal parameter in each gestational week. Results: Mean of BPD and FL in our population are similar to the mean values given by Hadlock throughout the pregnancy, except near the end of the third trimester where our population shows a slightly lower range of mean values. HC and AC fall below the lower range of Hadlock as early as 24 weeks of pregnancy. Conclusions: Fetal biometric parameters in the studied population are at the lower range of established nomograms by Hadlock on white fetuses, more so with the progression of pregnancy.

Keywords

Fetal-biometry - gestational age - Hadlock standard reference charts - ultrasound


Publication History

Received: 08 July 2019

Accepted: 09 April 2020

Article published online:
19 July 2021

© 2020. Indian Radiological Association. This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial-License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commercial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

Thieme Medical and Scientific Publishers Private Ltd.
A-12, Second Floor, Sector -2, NOIDA -201301, India

 

  • References

  • 1 Hadlock FP, Deter RL, Harrist RB, Park SK. Estimating fetal age: Computer-assisted analysis of multiple fetal growth parameters. Radiology 1984; 152 Suppl (02) 497-501
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Babuta S, Chauhan S, Garg R, Bagarhatta M. Assessment of fetal gestational age in different trimesters from ultrasonographic measurements of various fetal biometric parameters. J Anat Soc India 2013; 62 Suppl (01) 40-6
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Hadlock FP, Deter RL, Harrist RB, Park SK. Fetal biparietal diameter: A critical re-evaluation of the relation to menstrual age by means of real time ultrasound. J Ultrasound Med 1982; 1 Suppl (03) 97-104
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Hadlock FP, Deter RL, Harrist RB. Fetal head circumference: Accuracy of real time ultrasound measurements at term. Perinat Neonatol 1982; 6: 97-100
    Google Scholar
  • 5 Hadlock FP, Deter RL, Harrist RB, Park SK. Fetal abdominal circumference as a predictor of menstrual age. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1982; 139 Suppl (02) 367-70
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Hadlock FP, Harrist RB, Deter RL, Park SK. Fetal femur length as a predictor of menstrual age: Sonographically measured. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1982; 138 Suppl (05) 875-8
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Altman DG, Chitty LS. New charts for ultrasound dating of pregnancy. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 1997; 10 Suppl (03) 174-91
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Sabbagha RE, Hughey M. Standardization of sonar cephalometry and gestational age. Obstet Gynecol 1978; 52 Suppl (04) 402-6
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Kurmanavicius J, Wright EM, Royston P, Wisser J, Huch R, Huch A. et al. Fetal ultrasound biometry: 1. Head reference values. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1999; 106 (02) 126-35
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Shepard M, Filly RA. A standardized plane for biparietal diameter measurement. J Ultrasound Med 1982; 1: 145-50
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 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. J Clin Ultrasound 1980; 8 (04) 319-26
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Demircan A, Berkol Y. Growth curves derıved from ultrasonographıc fetal parameters in a Turkısh populatıon. Marmara Med J 1988; 1: 6-16
    Google Scholar
  • 13 Madan A, Holland S, Humbert JE, Benitz WE. Racial differences in birth weight of term infants in a northern California population. J Perinat 2002; 22 Suppl (03) 230-5
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Kinare AS, Chinchwadkar MC, Natekar AS, Coyaji KJ, Wills AK, Joglekar CV. et al. Patterns of fetal growth in a rural Indian cohort and comparison with a Western European population: Data from the Pune maternal nutrition study. J Ultrasound Med 2010; 29 (02) 215-23
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Shipp TD, Bromley B, Mascola M, Benacerraf B. Variation in fetal femur length with respect to maternal race. J Ultrasound Med 2001; 20: 141-4
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Yeo GS, Chan WB, Lun KC, Lai FM. Racial differences in fetal morphometry in Singapore. Ann Acad Med Singapore 1994; 23 Suppl (03) 371-6
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Lachman Y, Shen B. Sonographic evaluation of the fetal femur length in the Chinese population: Are the established charts reliable for the prediction of gestational age?. J Diagn Med Sonogr 1996; 12: 127-32
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Ruvolo KA, Filly RA, Callen PW. Evaluation of fetal femur length for prediction of gestational age in a racially mixed obstetric population. J Ultrasound Med 1987; 6 Suppl (08) 417-9
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Hill Lynedon. Fetal Long Bones. In: Goldberg BB, McGahan JP. editors Atlas of Ultrasound Measurements. 2nd ed. Philadelphia: Elsevier; 2009: 72-83
    Google Scholar
  • 20 Rahim MK. Fetal biometry in the population of Southern Punjab, Pakistan. Pak J Med Res 2017; 56 Suppl (01) 30-6
    Google Scholar
  • 21 Hadlock FP, Harrist RB, Shah YP, King DE, Park SK, Sharman RS. Estimating fetal age using multiple parameters: A prospective evaluation in a racially mixed population. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1987; 156 Suppl (04) 955-7
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Garg A, Pathak N, Gorea RK, Mohan P. Ultrasonographical age estimation from fetal bi-parietal diameter. J Indian Acad Forensic Med 2010; 32: 308-10
    Google Scholar
  • 23 Tarca AL, Hernandez-Andrade E, Ahn H, Garcia M, Xu Z, Korzeniewski SJ. et al. Single and serial fetal biometry to detect preterm and term small-and large-for-gestational-age neonates: A longitudinal cohort study. PLoS One 2016; 1 (11) e0164161
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Kiserud T, Piaggio G, Carroli G, Widmer M, Carvalho J, Jensen LN. 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 (01) e1002220
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Žaliūnas B, Bartkevičienė D, Drąsutienė G, Utkus A, Kurmanavičius J. Fetal biometry: Relevance in obstetrical practice. Medicina 2017; 53 Suppl (06) 357-64
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar