Ultrasound biometry of the head in breech presented fetuses

Česká verzia

Authors: doc. MUDr. Marek Ľubušký; Ph.D. ^1,2; doc. MUDr. Martin Procházka; Ph.D. ¹; MUC. Martina Langová ¹; MUDr. Katherine Vomáčková ¹; Ing. Luděk Čížek ³
Authors place of work: Gynekologicko-porodnická klinika LF UP a FN Olomouc ¹; Ústav lékařské genetiky a fetální medicíny LF UP a FN Olomouc ²; Ústav preventivního lékařství LF UP Olomouc ³
Published in the journal: Prakt Gyn 2008; 12(1): 10-13

Summary

Background:
A comparison of fetal ultrasonographic biometric parameters of the head (head circumference- HC, biparietal diameter- BPD) in breech presented fetuses.

Methods:
Ultrasound biometry was performed in accordance with the method presented in the reference tables. In all breech presented fetuses, the HC, BPD and FL (femur length) were measured. High-risk and multiple pregnancies were excluded from the study.

Results:
A total of 111 ultrasonographic biometries were performed between the 31.-38. week of gestation. Fetuses in the breech position had a significantly lower BPD compared to HC and FL. The difference between BPD and HC was 16.2 days (95 % Cl 14.3-18.1; p = 0.001). Maternal age at delivery was 20-36 years (average 28.1; median 28.0).

Conclusions:
According to our results, fetuses in the breech position have a significantly lower BPD compared to HC or FL. HC and FL parameters correlate with gestational age. In cases of ultrasonographic biometric discrepancy between BPD and FL, the fetal position should be taken into account. Breech-presented fetuses have an elongated head shape and ultrasound biometrics should evaluate its circumference (HC). It is important to responsibly interpret the results so as not to stress the expecting mother with suspicions of fetal pathology.

Key words:
breech presentation, ultrasound, fetal head, biometry, breech head, dolichocephaly

Zdroje

1. Haberkern CM, Smith DW, Jones KL. The „breech head“ and its relevance. Am J Dis Child 1979; 133: 154-156.

2. Sunderland R. Fetal position and skull shape. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1981; 88: 246-249.

3. Hadlock FP, Deter RL, Harrist RB, Park SK. Estimating fetal age: computer-assisted analysis of multiple fetal growth parameters. Radiology 1984; 152: 497-501.

4. Bromley B, Frigoletto FD Jr, Harlow BL et al. Biometric measurements in fetuses of different race and gender. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 1993; 3: 395-402.

5. Lubusky M, Mickova I, Prochazka M et al. Discrepancy of ultrasound biometric parameters of the head (HC - head circumference, BPD - biparietal diameter) and femur length in relation to sex of the fetus and duration of pregnancy. Ces Gynek 2006; 71: 169-172.

6. Schwärzler P, Bland JM, Holden D et al. Sex-specific antenatal reference growth charts for uncomplicated singleton pregnancies at 15-40 weeks of gestation. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2004; 23: 23-29.

7. Kasby CB, Poll V. The breech head and its ultrasound significance. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1982; 89: 106-110.

8. Johnsen SL, Wilsgaard T, Rasmussen S et al. Longitudinal reference charts for growth of the fetal head, abdomen and femur. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2006; 127: 172-185.

9. Bader B, Graham D, Stinson S. Significance of ultrasound measurements of the head of the breech fetus. J Ultrasound Med 1987; 6: 437-439.