-VISIT OUR OTHER FORUMS- OB-GYN-L Ultrasound Ultrasound History Fibroid Forum Physicians-in-Training Tech Talk OBSTET-L (portuguese) OBGIN-L (spanish) Nursing

Re: EFW From: Sue Davies (sue@aiu.edu.au) Wed Aug 28 18:07:56 2002 Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ] Next message: jessRn: "endometrial mass" Previous message: Allen Worrall: "Re: EFW" In reply to: Allen Worrall: "Re: EFW" Next in thread: Gunjan: "Re: EFW" Many moons ago (too many to be mentioned!) we did a prospective study on EFW using a scientific planimeter and mean diameters to estimate circumference and then using three different charts to estimate weight. All 800 babies in the study were delivered and measured within 48hrs of ultrasound EFW. Our results showed: 1. There was no significant difference between methods of measuring circumference. 2. Most accurate of the charts which we used was Warsof et al 3. Confidence rates were +/-10% 4. Operators need to be exacting in their selection of sections for measurement. It was a long time ago but these types of measurements should only get better with improved equipment. Cheers Sue -- Sue Davies Program Director Australian Institute of Ultrasound -----Original Message----- From: ultrasound@obgyn.net [mailto:ultrasound@obgyn.net] On Behalf Of Allen Worrall Sent: Thursday, 29 August 2002 2:15 AM To: Multiple recipients of list ULTRASOUND Subject: Re: EFW I presume these were patients who delivered within a few days of your examination. I find that doing ultrasound measurements that late in pregnancy can be difficult if the position of the fetus is not favorable. Particularly the AC: you will be lucky if you can see the entire periphery of the abdomen outlined by amniotic fluid. If the baby is prone, it may be difficult or impossible to obtain a lateral axial view of the head for the BPD/HC, or you may have to obtain the BPD/HC from a posterior or anterior axial view. And the femur might be buried under the baby, etc, etc. My machine gives a +/- with the EFW. I am not sure what the latest thoughts are, but I understood EFW could be +/- 20%. I have had 1 or 2 cases that delivered shortly after I did an ultrasound exam, but I did not bother to check the delivery weight against my EFW. Allen >----- Original Message ----- From: "art fougner, md" <evsono@pipeline.com> To: "Multiple recipients of list ULTRASOUND" <ultrasound@mail.medispecialty.com> Sent: Wednesday, August 28, 2002 5:23 AM Subject: EFW > ok new topic - what's the largest error of weight estimation by > ultrasound you've made? mine so far was 1200 gm - estimated 4500 and > actual weight was 5700g. also had one the other direction - EFW was > 4000 actual weight 4550. we use the hadlock formula built into machine > - any thoughts, experiences, etc? > > art > > -- > art fougner, md > ich bin ein New Yorker Next message: jessRn: "endometrial mass" Previous message: Allen Worrall: "Re: EFW" In reply to: Allen Worrall: "Re: EFW" Next in thread: Gunjan: "Re: EFW"

recommended search...
OBGYN.net forums endometriosis zone Web

Return to

Mail a New Message to the Forum: ultrasound@obgyn.net Forum Administrator: terry.dubose@obgyn.net Report Technical Problems: webmaster@obgyn.net Last Updated: Mon Nov 2 05:35:25 2009

The American Medical Association is no longer designating CME hours for AMA Category II CME credit. However, physicians themselves may self designate learning activities as Category II CME credit hours if they feel it is of sufficient educational merit and meets the formal definitions of continuing medical education. OBGYN.net believes these interaction in this forum meets these criteria. For further information see the AMA web site.