RESUMO
Objectives: To investigate the factors which might influence the sonographic fetal weight estimation [SFWE] accuracy
Methods: This prospective study was conducted among 949 singleton term pregnant women who delivered at a tertiary center, from January 2017 to December 2017. All participants' maternal [i.e. parity, age, body mass index and gestational weight gain during pregnancy], fetal sonographic [i.e. fetal presentation, amniotic fluid index, localization of placenta and estimated fetal weight] and neonatal [birth weight and gender] characteristics were recorded. A p<0.05 was considered significant
Results: The mean absolute percent error [APE] values of SFWE was 8.2+/-6.5 percent, and overall failure ratio [APE >10%] was 33%. In failure group, primiparous woman and cephalic presentation fetus were significantly more common compared to accuracy group [55.9% vs.44.8%; p=0.001 and 98% vs. 95.2%; p=0.03, respectively]. In contrast, the mean neonatal birth weight [NBW] value was significantly lower in failure group compared to success group [3250+/-565 gr vs. 3404+/-410 gr; p=0.001]. The correlation between SFWE and NBW was linear, however negative, and significant [p=0.001]. Logistic regression analysis revealed that primiparous woman, cephalic presentation fetus and <3300 gr NBW were independent risk factors for the SFWE failure [relative risks were 1.6, 2.8 and 2.4 respectively, p<0.05]
Conclusion: SFWE has a high correlation with NBW, however it's accuracy is still unsatisfactory, and depend on many unpredictable and inconsistent factors
RESUMO
Objective: To determine the usefulness of single-layer, ultrasonographic measurement of endometrial fluid collection [EFC] volume to predict endometrial pathology in asymptomatic postmenopausal patients
Methods: One hundred fifty asymptomatic postmenopausal women were analysed retrospectively from January 2012 to December 2016. After patients with endometrial hyperplasia/neoplasia were included in Group-I, and those with insufficient tissue, endometrial atrophy, or endometritis were included in Group-II; Groups one and two were compared with respect to primary [correlations between endometrial thickness and EFC volume] and secondary [correlations between demographic characteristics and EFC volume] outcomes
Results: There was no correlation between EFC volume and single-layer endometrial thickness [P = 0.36]. Likewise, demographic characteristics were not related to EFC [P > 0.05]. However, both EFC volume and single-layer endometrial thickness were thicker in Group-I compared to Group-II [4.8 +/- 1.9 mm vs. 3.7 +/- 2.5 mm; and 5.7 +/- 9.4 mm vs. 2.7 +/- 2.5 mm, respectively] [P values were < 0.05]
Conclusion: Although a cutoff value for endometrial thickness and EFC volume could not be recommended based on our study findings, it should be noted that 2% is a clinically significant rate of malignancy. Thus, postmenopausal patients with EFC should be evaluated for endometrial sampling