Clinical significance of prenatal diagnosis of macrosomia by ultrasound

Cover Page
Open Access Open Access
Restricted Access Access granted
Restricted Access Subscription or Fee Access


Оbjective: Establish the diagnostic value of ultrasound examination in prenatal diagnosis of macrosomia among the women without diabetes and to determine its effect on birth outcomes. Мethods: This is a retrospective cohort study done at the Orenburg municipal perinatal center and maternity hospital № 2 since 2006 to 2012. In this study 3760 pregnant women were analyzed who delivered term, singleton, live born infants. The estimated fetal sonographic weight by the formula Hadlock’s was obtained within the last week prior to delivery. The study population was divided into 4 groups (true positive, true negative, false positive, false negative) according to the estimated fetal weight (EFW) and regarding the birth weight (BW). Receiver-operating characteristics (ROC) curves were generated to compare the prediction of macrosomia when using different observation methods. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV) and accuracy were calculated. The mean value of two groups were compared using two sample t test and χ² test for comparison of proportions. Results: In order to assess the accuracy of the ultrasound in prenatal diagnosis of macrosomia the study population was divided into 4 groups according to the estimated fetal weight (EFW) and regarding the birth weight (BW): true positive (n-147), false negative (n-229 ), false positive (n-353), true negative (n-3031). Results of the study showed no statistically significant differences between the birth weight and estimated fetal weifht by ultrasound alone only in the macrosomia group with true-positive results (p = 0.9). In applying the ROC (Receiver Operating Characteristic curve) performance analysis sensitivity and spesificity in the prediction of the macrosomia by ultrasound revealed the average predictive power of the method. Area under the curve (Area under ROC curve, AUC) made 0.7295 (95 % CI: 0.695-0.781), which corresponds to a predetermined average accuracy. The accuracy of macrosomia prediction by ultrasound methods was 90 %, sensitivity - 35 %, specificity - 93,5 %. Сesarian sections were performed for 40 % of the pregnant women, where fetal macrosomia was truly ruled in (true positive) and 16% of the women who delivered normal weight infants (true negative). Overestimation of fetal weight (false positive) has led to the 30 % rate of cesarean sections. Underestimation of fetal weight (false negative) has decreased to the 24% rate of cesarean sections but in this case perinatal complications have increased. Conclusion: Results showed an average accuracy in predicting macrosomia by the formula Hadlock’s. The results of the study have proved that the inappropriate prediction macrosomia of fetal weight has influence on the mode of delivery. Overestimation of fetal weight has led the proportion of cesarian sections. Underestimation of fetal macrosomia has increased perinatal complications.

Full Text

Restricted Access

About the authors

Irina Yuryevna Bayeva

Orenburg state medical academy

candidate of medical sciences, assistant to chair of obstetrics and gynecology


  1. Белоусов М. А., Титченко Л. И. Анализ ошибочных прогнозов массы плода по данным ультразвуковой фетометрии. Акушерство и гинекология. 1991; № 5: 19-21.
  2. Демидов В. Н., Бычков П. А., Логвиненко А. В., Воеводин С. М. Ультразвуковая биометрия (справочные таблицы и уравнения). М.;1990.
  3. Слабинская Т. В., Севостьянова О. Ю. Способ определения массы тела внутриутробного плода с макросомией в сроке доношенной беременности. Патент на изобретение № 2138200. М.; 1989.
  4. Медведев М. В. Ультразвуковая фетометрия: справочные таблицы и номограммы. М.: РАВУЗДПГ; 2002.
  5. Akinola S. S., Oluwafemi K., Ernest O. O., Niyi O. M., Solomon O. O., Oluwagbemiga O. A., Salami S. S. Clinical versus sonographic estimation of foetal weight in southwest Nigeria. J. Health. Popul. Nutr. 2007; 25 (1):14-23.
  6. Bricker L., Neilson J. P. Routine ultrasound in late pregnancy (after 24weeks gestation) (Cochrane Review). In: The Cochrane Library. Update Software. Level I. Oxford; 2000: Issue 2.
  7. Boulet S. L., Salihu H. M., Alexander G. R. Mode of delivery and birth outcomes of macrosomic infants. J. Obstet. Gynaecol. 2004; 24 (6): 622-9.
  8. Boulvain M., Stan C., Irion O. Elective delivery in diabetic pregnant women (Cochrane Review). In: The Cochrane Library. Update Software. Oxford; 2000: Issue 2.
  9. Campbell S., Thomas A. Ultrasound measurement of the fetal head to abdominal circumference ratio in the assessment of fetal growth retardation. Br. J. Obstet. Gynaecol. 1977; 84: 165-74.
  10. Chaabane K., Trigui K., Louati D., Kebaili S., Gassara H., Dammak A., Amouri H., Guermazi M. Antenatal macrosomia prediction using sonographic fetal abdominal circumference in South Tunisia. Pan. Afr. Med. J. 2013; 14: 111.
  11. Hadlock F. P., Harrist R. B., Carpenter R. J., Deter R. L., Park S. K. Sonographic estimation of fetal weight. The value of femur length in addition to head and abdominal measurements. Radiology. 1984;150: 535-40.
  12. Harlev A., Walfisch A., Bar-David J., Hershkovitz R., Friger M, Hallak M. Maternal estimation of fetal weight as a complementary method of fetal weight assessment: a prospective clinical trial. J Reprod Med. 2006; 51 (7): 515-20.
  13. Hillier C. E., Johanson R. B. Worldwide survey of assisted vaginal delivery. International journal of gynecology and obstetrics 1994;47 (2): 109-14.
  14. Lahmann P. H., Wills R. A., Coory M. Trends in birth size and macrosomia in Queensland Australia from 1988 to 2005. Pediatr. Perinat. Epidemiol. 2009; 23 (6): 533-41.
  15. Mazouni C., Rouzier К., Ledu К., Heckenroth H., Guidicelli B., Gamerre H. Development and internal validation of a nomogram to predict macrosomia. Ultrasound Obstet. Gynecol. 2007; 29 (5): 544-9.
  16. Neilson J. P. Symphysis-fundal height measurement in pregnancy (CochraneReview). In: The Cochrane Library. Update Software. Oxford; 2000: Issue 2.
  17. Parry S., Severs C. P., Sehdev H. M., Macones G. A., White L. M., Morgan M. A. Ultrasonographic prediction of fetal macrosomia. Association with cesarean delivery. J. Reprod. Med. 2000; 45 (1):17-22.
  18. Sandmire H. F., DeMott R. K. The Green Bay cesarean section study. IV. The physician factor as a determinant of cesarean birth rates for the large fetus. Am. Obstet. Gynecol. 1996; 74 (5): 1557-64.
  19. Shephard M. J., RichardV. A., Berkovitz R. K. et al. An evaluation of two equations for predicting fetal weigth by ultrasound. Amer. J. Obstet. Gynec. 1982;12 (1): 47-54.
  20. Walsh C. A., Mahony R. T., Foley M. E., Daly M., O, Herlihy C. Recurrence of fetal macrosomia in non-diabetic pregnancies. J. Obstet. Gynaecol. 2007; 27 (4): 374-8.



Abstract - 580

PDF (Russian) - 389


Article Metrics

Metrics Loading ...



Copyright (c) 2014 Bayeva I.Y.

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

This website uses cookies

You consent to our cookies if you continue to use our website.

About Cookies