Rate of Re-dating after Determination of Gestational Age using Ultrasonography in Clinically Reliable and Clinically Non-reliable Pregnant Women during the First Trimester
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
Objectives: The primary outcome was to compare the rate of gestational age (GA) re-dating after determination of GA using ultrasonography (US) in clinically reliable (non-indicated US) and clinically non-reliable (indicated US) pregnant women during the first trimester. The secondary objective was to present the incidence of accidentally diagnosed abnormal pregnancy and identify the clinical factors influencing the need for GA re-dating.
Materials and Methods: This is an analytic cross-sectional study comparing the rate of GA re-dating after determination of GA using US in clinically reliable and clinically non-reliable pregnant women, as well as presenting the incidence of GA re-dating among pregnant women overall and incidence of accidentally diagnosed abnormal pregnancy, comparing the discrepancy in duration of pregnancy between clinically reliable and clinically non-reliable
groups.
Results: A total of 119 participants were enrolled. After US, 11 (11/119, 9.24%) participants received an abnormal or complicated pregnancy diagnosis. The rate of participants who needed GA re-dating and had an abnormal pregnancy diagnosis in the clinically non-reliable and clinically reliable groups were similar. 23 in 51 (45.1%) participants in clinically non-reliable were needed GA re-dating and 25 in 57 (52.1%) participants in clinically reliable were needed GA re-dating, (p = 0.995). If GA re-dating was needed, there was no statistically significant difference in the median number of days of GA re-dating between the clinically non-reliable and clinically reliable groups [10 (interquartile range (IQR) 07.00-21.00) vs 12 (IQR 8.00-15.00) days, p = 0.872).
Conclusion: Nearly half of the pregnant women needed GA re-dating when undergoing US in the first trimester of pregnancy. The rate of GA re-dating was similar in the clinically reliable and clinically non-reliable groups without any hint of clinical factor influence. Approximately 10% of participants found an abnormal pregnancy diagnosis. Eight percent found abnormal pregnancy in clinically reliable groups.
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
References
Cunningham FG, Leveno KJ, Dashe JS, Hoffman BL, Spong CY, Casey BM, eds. Williams Obstetrics. 26th ed. New York; Mc Graw Hill 2022:247-52.
RTCOG Clinical Practice Guideline. Prenatal care. Available from:https://www.rtcog.or.th/files/ 1685345623_d8d75aab0a3f9b6bc66a.pdf. (accessed Oct 1, 2023).
Sritippayawan S, Chareonvej S, Tongsong T. Gestational age estimation in pregnant women: comparison of various ultrasound parameters. J Obstet Gynaecol Res 2007;33:195-200.
ACOG Committee on Practice Bulletins. ACOG Practice Bulletin No. 58. Ultrasonography in pregnancy. Obstet Gynecol 2004;104:1449-58.
Committee Opinion No 700: Methods for estimating the due date. Obstet Gynecol 2017;129:e150-e154.
Tunon K, Eik-Nes SH, Grottum P. A comparison between ultrasound and a reliable last menstrual period as predictors of the day of delivery in 15000 examinations. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 1996;8: 178-85.
Dias T. Pregnancy dating –why, when and how. Sri Lanka J Obstet Gynaecol 2011;33:33-7.
Reuss ML, Hatch MC, Susser M. Early ultrasound dating of pregnancy: selection and measurement biases. J Clin Epidemiol 1995;48:667-74.
Savitz DA, Terry JW Jr, Dole N, Thorp JM Jr, Siega-Riz AM, Herring AH. Comparison of pregnancy dating by last menstrual period, ultrasound scanning, and their combination. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2002;187: 1660-6.
Moncrieff G, Finlayson K, Cordey S, McCrimmon R, Harris C, Barreix M, et al. First and second trimester ultrasound in pregnancy: A systematic review and metasynthesis of the views and experiences of pregnant women, partners, and health workers. PLoS One 2021;16: e0261096.
Efrat A, Akinfenwa OO, Nicolaides KH. First-trimester determination of fetal gender by ultrasound. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 1999;13:305-7.
Gharekhanloo F. The ultrasound identification of fetal gender at the gestational age of 11-12 weeks. J Family Med Prim Care 2018;7:210-2.
Bowman-Smart H, Savulescu J, Gyngell C, Mand C, Delatycki MB. Sex selection and non-invasive prenatal testing: A review of current practices, evidence, and ethical issues. Prenat Diagn 2020;40:398-407.
Angela Rose S, Ashley B, Ashley Z, Ann L, Monique M, Shivani P. The impact of first trimester sonography on pregnancy dating [36S]. Obstet Gynecol 2019;133:211S-212S.
Reis ZSN, Gasper JS, Vitral GLN, Abrantes VB, de-Souza IMF, Moreira MTS, et al. Quality of pregnancy dating and obstetric intervention during labor: retrospective database analysis. JMIR Pediatr Parent 2020;3:e14109.
Whitworth M, Bricker L, Neilson JP, Dowswell T. Ultrasound for fetal assessment in early pregnancy. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2015;7:CD007058.
Khalil A, Rodgers M, Baschat A, Bhide A, Gratacos E, Hecher K, et al. ISUOG practice guidelines: role of ultrasound in twin pregnancy. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2016;47:247-63.
Majola L, Budhram S, Govender V, Naidoo M, Godlwana Z, Lombard C, et al. Reliability of last menstrual peroid recall, an early ultrasound and a smartphone App in predicting date of delivery and classification preterm and postterm births. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 2021;21:493.
Deputy NP, Nguyen PH, Pham H, Nguyen S, Neufeld L, Martorell R, et al. Validity of gestational age estimates by last menstrual peroid and neonatal examination compared to ultrasound in Vietnam. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 2017;17:25.