Hostname: page-component-5c6d5d7d68-wpx84 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-08-08T01:55:07.351Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Detection of the Small-for-Gestational Age Twin Fetus by a Two-Stage Ultrasound Examination Schedule

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 August 2014

J.P. Neilson
J.P. Neilson*
Affiliation:
Queen Mother's Hospital, Glasgow, Scotland
*
Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Harare Central Hospital, P.O. Box ST 14, Southerton, Harare, Zimbabwe

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Serial ultrasonic measurement of the biparietal diameter is an unsatisfactory means of detecting the small-for-gestational age (SGA) fetus in twin pregnancies. A new two-stage ultrasound examination schedule, highly effective in detecting the SGA singleton fetus, has been evaluated prospectively in 31 twin pregnancies. The schedule comprises ultrasonic assessment of gestational age in early pregnancy, followed by measurement of the product of the crown–rump length and trunk area of both fetuses at 34–36 weeks. All Nineteen SGA twin fetuses were detected using this schedule; the technique offers several other advantages over serial biparietal cephalometry.

Keywords

Twin pregnancyIntrauterine growth retardationUltrasoundFetal measurementScreening
Type
Research Article
Information
Acta geneticae medicae et gemellologiae: twin research , Volume 31 , Issue 3-4: Special Issue on Twin Pregnancies , July 1982 , pp. 235 - 240
Copyright
Copyright © The International Society for Twin Studies 1982

References

REFERENCES

1. Campbell, S (1974): Physical methods of assessing size at birth. In Elliot, K, Knight, J (eds): Ciba Foundation Symposium 27, “Size at Birth.” Amsterdam: Associated Scientific Publishers, pp 275–293.Google Scholar
2. Campbell, S (1976): Fetal growth. In Beard, RW, Nathanielsz, P (eds): “Fetal Physiology and Medicine.” London: Saunders, pp 271–301.Google Scholar
3. Campbell, S, Dewhurst, CJ (1971): Diagnosis of the small-for-dates fetus by serial ultrasonic cephalometry. Lancet 2:1002–1006.Google Scholar
4. Campbell, S, Newman, GB (1971): Growth of the fetal biparietal diameter during normal pregnancy. J Obstet Gynaecol Br Commw 78:513–519.Google Scholar
5. Divers, WA, Hemsell, DL (1979): The use of ultrasound in multiple gestations. Obstet Gynecol 53:500–504.Google Scholar
6. Dorros, G (1975): The prenatal diagnosis of intrauterine growth retardation in one fetus of a twin gestation. Obstet Gynecol 48:46S–48S.Google Scholar
7. Duff, GB, Brown, JB. (1974): Urinary oestriol excretion in twin pregnancies. J Obstet Gynaecol Br Commw 81:695–700.Google Scholar
8. Duncan, SLB, Ginz, B, Wahab, H (1979): Use of ultrasound and hormone assays in the diagnosis, management and outcome of twin pregnancy. Obstet Gynecol 53:367–372.Google Scholar
9. Fleming, JEE, Hall, AJ, Robinson, HP, Wittmann, BK (1978): Electronic area and perimeter measurement of ultrasonic images. J Clin Ultrasound 6:379–384.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
10. Gruenwald, P (1974): Pathology of the deprived fetus and its supply line. In Elliot, K, Knight, J (eds): Ciba Foundation Symposium 27, “Size at Birth.” Amsterdam: Associated Scientific Publishers, pp 3–19.Google Scholar
11. Haney, AF, Carlyle Crenshaw, M, Dempsey, PJ (1978): Significance of biparietal diameter differences between twins. Obstet Gynecol 51:609–613.Google Scholar
12. Houlton, MCC (1977): Divergent biparietal diameter growth rates in twin pregnancies. Obstet Gynecol 49:541–545.Google ScholarPubMed
13. Houlton, MCC, Marivate, M, Philpott, RH (1981): The prediction of fetal growth retardation in twin pregnancy. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 88:264–273.Google Scholar
14. Leveno, KJ, Santos-Ramos, R, Duenholter, JH, Reisch, JS, Whalley, PJ (1979): Sonar cephalometry in twins: A table of biparietal diameters for normal twin fetuses and a comparison with singletons. Am J Obstet Gynecol 135:727–730.Google Scholar
15. McIlwaine, GM, Howat, RCL, Dunn, F, Macnaughton, MC (1979): “Scotland 1977 Perinatal Mortality Survey.” Glasgow: University of Glasgow, pp 79–84.Google Scholar
16. Manlan, G, Scott, KE (1978): Contribution of twin pregnancy to perinatal mortality and fetal growth retardation. Can Med Assoc J 118:365–368.Google Scholar
17. Neilson, JP (1981): Detection of the small-for-dates twin fetus by ultrasound. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 88:27–32.Google Scholar
18. Neilson, JP, Whitfield, CR, Aitchison, TC (1980): Screening for the small-for-dates fetus: A two-stage ultrasound examination schedule. Br Med J 280:1203–1206.Google Scholar
19. Neilson, JP, Hood, VD (1980): Ultrasound in obstetrics and gynaecology: Recent developments. Br Med Bull 36:249–255.Google Scholar
20. Neilson, JP, Hood, VD, Whitfield, CR (1982): The present status of ultrasound in obstetrics. Br J Hosp Med 27:236–241.Google Scholar
21. Persson, P-H, Grennert, L, Gennser, G, Kullander, S (1979): On improved outcome of twin pregnancies. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 58:3–7.Google Scholar
22. Robinson, HP (1973): Sonar measurement of fetal crown–rump length as means of assessing maturity in first trimester of pregnancy. Br Med J 4:28–31.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
23. Schneider, L, Bessis, R, Tabaste, J-L, Sarramond, M-F, Papiernik, E, Baudet, J, Pontonnier, G (1978): Echographic survey of twin fetal growth: A plea for specific charts for twins. In Nance, WE, Allen, G, Parisi, P (eds): “Twin Research: Clinical Studies.” New York: Alan R. Liss, pp 137–141.Google Scholar
24. Thomson, AM, Billewicz, WZ, Hytten, FE (1968): The assessment of fetal growth. J Obstet Gynaecol Br Commw 75:903–916.Google Scholar
25. Weinstein, H, Spirt, BA (1979): Sonographic diagnosis of intrauterine growth retardation in a dichorionic diamniotic twin. J Clin Ultrasound 7:219–221.Google Scholar
26. Wittmann, BK, Robinson, HP, Aitchison, T, Fleming, JEE (1979): The value of diagnostic ultrasound as a screening test for intrauterine growth retardation: Comparison of nine parameters. Am J Obstet Gynecol 134:30–35.Google Scholar