Advertisement
Journal Home
Search for

Volume 200, Issue 3, Pages 340.e1-340.e3 (March 2009)


View previous. 48 of 62 View next.

Articles in fullOverestimation of fetal weight by ultrasound: does it influence the likelihood of cesarean delivery for labor arrest?

Presented at the 75th Annual Meeting of the Central Association of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, New Orleans, LA, Oct. 22-25, 2008.

Sean C. Blackwell, MDa, Jerrie Refuerzo, MDa, Rati Chadha, MDb, Carlos A. Carreno, MDa

Received 29 July 2008; received in revised form 15 November 2008; accepted 22 December 2008.

Objective

We sought to determine whether the overestimation of ultrasound-derived estimated fetal weight (EFW) is associated with increased diagnosis of labor arrest.

Study Design

This is a historical cohort study of nulliparous women with term pregnancies who underwent bedside ultrasound examination for EFW before labor induction. Labor outcomes of women with EFW overestimation > 15% the actual birthweight were compared with those with EFW not overestimated.

Results

Overestimation of EFW occurred in 9.5% of cases (23/241). The rate of cesarean delivery (CD) for labor arrest was higher for those with EFW overestimation (34.8% vs 13.3%; P = .01) even though there were no differences in length of the induction duration. After adjusting for confounding factors, EFW overestimation remained associated with CD for labor arrest (odds ratio, 4.8; 95% confidence interval, 1.5-15.2).

Conclusion

Our finding suggests that an overestimation of EFW may be associated with a lower threshold for CD for labor arrest.

a Division of Maternal Fetal Medicine, Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Sciences, University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, Houston, TX

b Foothills Medical Center, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada

 Cite this article as: Blackwell SC, Refuerzo J, Chadha R, et al. Overestimation of fetal weight by ultrasound: does it influence the likelihood of cesarean delivery for labor arrest? Am J Obstet Gynecol 2009;200:340.e1-340.e3.

 Reprints not available from the authors.

PII: S0002-9378(08)02449-6

doi:10.1016/j.ajog.2008.12.043


View previous. 48 of 62 View next.

Advertisement