American journal of obstetrics and gynecology · 2011
A customized standard of large size for gestational age to predict intrapartum morbidity.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Larkin Jacob C, Speer Paul D, Simhan Hyagriv N
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to determine whether a customized standard of large-for-gestational age (LGA) identifies pregnancies with increased perinatal risk.
STUDY DESIGN: We evaluated 7510 estimates of fetal weight to generate a fetal growth curve. Next, we analyzed the gestational age at delivery, physiologic and pathological variables from 5072 pregnancies to predict birthweight, and calculated a customized ideal birthweight and cutoff for LGA. In a separate analysis of 32,271 pregnancies, rates of macrosomia-related adverse outcomes were compared in pregnancies that had been identified as LGA by a customized standard (LGA(cust)) and those pregnancies that had been identified as LGA or macrosomic by conventional standards.
RESULTS: LGA(cust) pregnancies carried increased risk of shoulder dystocia, third- or fourth-degree laceration, and cephalopelvic disproportion. LGA(cust) pregnancies that did not meet conventional criteria for LGA/macrosomia were at increased risk of all measured outcomes.
CONCLUSION: A customized standard of LGA identifies a previously unrecognized population that is at increased risk of perinatal morbidity.
STUDY DESIGN: We evaluated 7510 estimates of fetal weight to generate a fetal growth curve. Next, we analyzed the gestational age at delivery, physiologic and pathological variables from 5072 pregnancies to predict birthweight, and calculated a customized ideal birthweight and cutoff for LGA. In a separate analysis of 32,271 pregnancies, rates of macrosomia-related adverse outcomes were compared in pregnancies that had been identified as LGA by a customized standard (LGA(cust)) and those pregnancies that had been identified as LGA or macrosomic by conventional standards.
RESULTS: LGA(cust) pregnancies carried increased risk of shoulder dystocia, third- or fourth-degree laceration, and cephalopelvic disproportion. LGA(cust) pregnancies that did not meet conventional criteria for LGA/macrosomia were at increased risk of all measured outcomes.
CONCLUSION: A customized standard of LGA identifies a previously unrecognized population that is at increased risk of perinatal morbidity.