Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-dfsvx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T10:32:46.943Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Categories of intrauterine growth retardation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 October 2008

Roger A Fay  and
David A Ellwood
Roger A Fay*
Affiliation:
Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University of Sydney, Australia
David A Ellwood
Affiliation:
Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University of Sydney, Australia
*
Dr Roger A Fay FRACOG, PO Box 1015, Penrith 2751, NSW, Australia
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Originally all low birthweight infants were considered to be premature. When prematurity was redefined in terms of gestational age (SGA) and not preterm. With the large scale collection of obstetric data the distributions of birthweight at different gestational ages were described and from these, infants who were SGA could be defined. SGA became synonymous with terms such as growth retardation, but it soon became appearent that the two were not necessarily interchangeable. Scott and Usher found that it was the degree of soft tissue wasting rather than birthweight that related to poor perinatal outcome. Miller and Hassanein stated that: “birthweight by itself is not a valid measure of fetal growth impairment”. They used Rorher’s Ponderal Index (weight (g) × 100/length (cm)) to diagnose the malnourished or excessively wasted infants with reduced soft tissue mass. Most studies of intrauterine growth retardation (IUGR) still use low birthweight for gestational age centile as their only definition of IUGR or only study infants who have a low birthweight. Altman and Hytten expressed disquiet about this definition and stated: “There is now an urgent need to establish true measures of fetal growth from which deviations indicating genuine growth retardation can be derived” and that “it is particularly important that some reliable measures of outcome should be established”. In large series of term deliveries published recently, two groups of IUGR infants with different growth patterens have been identified. These studies confirm that birthweight alone is inadequate to define the different types of IUGR. They established that low Ponderal Index (PI) is a measure of IUGR associated with an increased incidence of perinatal problems and that it is time to re-evaluate IUGR in terms of the different types of aberrant fetal growth.

Type
Articles
Information
Fetal and Maternal Medicine Review , Volume 5 , Issue 4 , November 1993 , pp. 203 - 212
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1993

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1Lubchenco, LO, Hansman, C, Dressler, M, Boyd, E. Intrauterine growth as estimated from live born birthweight data at 24 to 42 weeks of gestation. J Pediatr 1963; 32: 793–800.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2Scott, KE, Usher, R. Fetal malnutrition: its incidence, causes and effects. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1966; 94: 951–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3Miller, HC, Hassanein, K. Diagnosis of impaired growth in newborn infants. Pediatrics 1971; 48: 511–22.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
4Lubchenco, LO, Hansman, C, Boyd, E. Intrauterine growth in length and head circumference as estimated from live births at gestational ages from 26 to 42 weeks. Pediatrics 1966; 37: 403–408.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
5Goldenburg, R, Cutter, G, Hoffman, H, Foster, L, Nelson, K, Hauth, J. Intrauterine growth retardation: standard for diagnosis. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1989; 161: 271–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6Kramer, MS, Sasportas, C. Determinants of intrauterine growth and gestational duration: a critical biography 1970–1984. Geneva: World Health Organisation, 1985: NUT/85–10.Google Scholar
7Altman, DG, Hytten, FE. Intrauterine growth retardation: let’s be clear about it. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1989; 96: 1127–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8Villar, J, de Onis, M, Kestler, E, Bolanos, F, Cerezo, R, Bernedes, H. The differential neonatal morbidity of the intrauterine growth retardation syndrome. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1990; 163: 151–57.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
9Fay, RA, Dey, PL, Saadie, CMJ, Buhl, JA, Gebski, VJ. Ponderal Index: a better definition of the ‘at risk’ group with intrauterine growth problems than birthweight for gestational age in terms infants. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynecol 1991; 31: 17–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10Gruenwald, P. Chronic fetal distress and placental insufficiency. Biol Neonate 1963; 5: 215–65.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
11Campbell, S. Fetal growth. Clin Obstet Gynaecol 1974; 1: 41–65.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
12Cook, LN. Intrauterine and extrauterine recognition and management of deviant fetal growth. Pediatr Clin North Am 1977; 24: 431–54.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
13Miller, HC. Intrauterine growth retardation: an unmet challenge. Am J Dis Child 1981; 135: 944–48.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
14Villar, J, Belizan, J. The timing factor in the pathophysiology of the intrauterine syndrome. Obstet Gynecol Surv 1982; 27: 499–506.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
15Kliegman, RM, Hulman, SE. Intrauterine growth retardation: determinants of aberrant fetal growth. In: Fanaroff, AA, Martin, RJ eds. Neonatal-perinatal medicine. St Louis: CV Mosby Co, 1987: 69–102.Google Scholar
16Brar, HS, Rutherford, SE. Classification of intrauterine growth retardation. Seminar Perinatol 1988; 12: 2–10.Google ScholarPubMed
17Tudehope, DI. Neonatal aspects of intrauterine growth retardation. Fetal Med Rev 1991; 3: 73–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
18Heinonen, K, Marilainen, R, Koski, H, Lauriala, K. Intrauterine growth retardation in preterm infants. J Perinat Med 1985; 13: 171–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
19Persson, PH. Fetal growth curves. In: Sharp, F, Fraser, RB, Miller, RDG eds. Fetal growth. London: Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, 1989: 13–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
20Naeye, RL. Pregnancy hypertension: placental evidences of low uteroplacental blood flow and spontaneous premature delivery. Hum Pathol 1989; 20: 441–44.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
21Widdowson, EM, Southgate, DAT, Hey, EN. Body composition of the fetus and infant. In: Visser, HKA ed. Nutrition and metabolism of the fetus and infant. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 1979: 169–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
22Wilcox, AJ. Intrauterine groeth retardation: beyond brithweight criteria. Early Hum Dev 1983; 8: 189–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
23Khoury, MJ, Erickson, JD, Cordero, JF, McCartny, BJ. Congenital malformations in intrauterine growth retardation: a population study. Pediatrics 1988; 82: 83–90.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
24Knox, GE. Influence of infection on fetal growth and development. J Reprod Med 1978; 21: 325–58.Google ScholarPubMed
25de Onis, M. Morbilidad y epidemiologia del sindrome del retardo del crecrimiento intrauterino. PhD dissertation, 1989. Madrid, Spain: Universidad Complutense de Madrid.Google Scholar
26Campbell, S, Wilkin, P. Ultrasonic measurement of the fetal abdominal circumference in the estimation of fetal weight. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1975; 82: 689–97.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
27Neilson, JP, Whitfield, CR, Aitchison, TC. Screening for the small for dates fetus: a two stage ultrasonic examination schedule. Br Med J 1980; 289: 1203–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
28Newnham, JP, Patterson, LL, James, IR, Diepeveen, DA, Reid, SE. An evaluation of the efficacy of Doppler flow velocity waveform analysis as a screening test in pregnancy. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1990; 162: 403–10.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
29Haas, JD, Balcazar, H, Caulfield, L. Variation in early neonatal mortality for different types of fetal growth retardation. Am J Phys Anthropol 1987; 73: 467–73.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
30Fancourt, R, Campbell, S, Harvey, D, Norman, AP. Follow-up study of small-for-dates babies. Br Med J 1976; 1: 1435–37.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
31Holmes, GE, Miller, HC, Hassanein, K, Lansky, SB, Goggin, JE. Postnatal somatic growth in infants with atypical fetal growth patterns. Am J Dis Child 1977; 131: 1078–83.Google ScholarPubMed
32Adair, LS. Low brithweight and intrauterine growth retardation in Filipino infants. Pediatrics 1989; 84: 613–22.Google Scholar
33Villar, J, Smeriglio, V, Martorell, R, Brown, CHKlein, RE. Heterogeneous growth and mental development of intrauterine growth retarded infants during the first 3 years of life. Pediatrics 1984; 74: 783–91.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
34Ounsted, M, Moar, VA, Scott, A. Proportionality of small-for-gestational age babies at birth: perinatal associations and postnatal sequelae. Early Hum Dev 1986; 14: 77–88.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
35Sheppard, BL, Bonnar, J. The ultrastructure of the arterial supply of the human placenta in pregnancy complicated by fetal growth retardation. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1976; 83: 948–56.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
36Althabe, O, Labarrere, C, Telenta, M. Maternal vascular lesions in placentae of small-for-gestational-age infants. Placenta 1985; 6: 265–76.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
37Campbell, S, Thomas, A. Ultrasound assessment of fetal head to abdomen circumference ratio in the assessment of growth retardation. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1977; 84: 165–74.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
38Weiner, CP, Robinson, D. Sonographic diagnosis of intrauterine growth retardation using postnatal ponderal index and crown-heel length as standards of diagnosis. Am J Perinatol 1989; 6: 380–83.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
39Vintzileos, AM, Lodeiro, JG, Feinstein, SJ, Campbell, WA, Weinbaum, PJ, Nochimson, DJ. Value of fetal ponderal index in predicting growth retardation. Obstet Gynecol 1986; 67: 584–88.Google ScholarPubMed
40Vilbergsson, G, Wennergren, M. Fetal ponderal index as an instrument for further classification of intrauterine growth retardation. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 1992; 17: 186–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
41Trudinger, BJ, Cook, CM, Giles, WB, Ng, S, Fong, E, Connelly, A et al. Fetal umbilical artery velocity waveforms and subsequent neonatal outcome. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1991; 98: 378–84.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
42Steel, SA, Pearce, JM, McPharland, P, Chamberlain, GVP. Early doppler ultrasound screening in prediction of hypertensive disorders of pregnancy. Lancet 1990; 335: 1548–51.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
43Walther, FJ, Ramaekers, LHJ. The Ponderal Index as a measure of the nutritional status at brith and its relation to some aspects of neonatal morbidity. J Perinat Med 1982; 10: 42–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
44Patterson, RM, Pouliot, MR. Neonatal morphometrics and perinatal outcome: who is growth retarded?. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1987; 157: 691–93.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
45Kramer, MS, Olivier, M, McLean, FH, Willis, DM, Usher, RH. Impact of intrauterine growth retardation and body proportionality on fetal and neonatal outcome. Pediatrics 1990; 85: 707–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
46Hoffman, HJ, Bakketeig, LS. Heterogeneity of intrauterine growth retardation and recurrence risks. Semin Perinatol 1984; 8: 15–24.Google ScholarPubMed
47Davies, DP, Platts, P, Pritchard, JM, Wilkinson, PW. Nutritional status of light for dates infants at brith and its influence on early postnatal growth. Arch Dis Child 1979; 54: 703–706.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
48Hill, RM, Verniaud, WM, Deter, RL, Tennyson, LM, Rettig, GM, Zion, TE et al. The effect of intrauterine malnutrition on the term infant. Acta Paediatr Scand 1984; 73: 482–87.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
49Larson, T, Larsen, JF, Petersen, S, Greisen, G. Detection of small-for-gestational-age fetus by ultrasound screening in a high risk population: a randomised controlled study. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1992; 99: 469–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
50Blair, E, Stanley, F. Intrauterine growth and cerebral palsy I. Association with brithweight for gestational age. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1990; 162: 229–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
51Blair, E, Stanley, F. Intrauterine growth and spastic cerebral palsy II. The association with morphology at brith. Early Hum Dev 1992; 28: 9191–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar