-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: Gunjan (drgap@iqara.net) Tue Sep 3 03:28:00 2002 Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ] Next message: Marilyn Ringstaff: "One-Hour Fetus Photo" Previous message: Feruza Hamdam: "(no subject)" This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. Thanks Terry I use Hadlock 3 and Hadlock 5 Shephard is there in my machine and I shall be using it hence forward. Regards Gunjan -------Original Message------- From: ultrasound@obgyn.net Date: Saturday, August 31, 2002 05:21:08 PM To: Multiple recipients of list ULTRASOUND Subject: Re: EFW Dear Gunjan, Warsof, et al table is about 9-11 pages long and we would need permission to reprint it here. At this moment I do not have time to do that however, it is a fairly common chart in many textbooks... The original publication is: -- Warsof SL, Gohari P, Berkowitz RL, et al: The estimation of fetal weight by computer-assisted analysis. AM J Obstet Gynecol 1977; 128:881-892. Some believe the Shepard et al variation on the Warsof method (BPS & AC) is slightly better... Shepard MJ, Richards VA, Berkowitz RL, et al: An evaluation of two equations for predicting fetal weight by ultrasound. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1982; 147-47-54. It is in my book on pages 128-138 (DuBose, Fetal Sonography, W. B. Saunders, 1996). Also, Hadlock et al published an AC & Femur length weight estimate that is also good.. Hadlock, Harrist, & Carpenter, Radiology 1984, 150:535-540. I hope this helps. Perhaps a good undertaking for the Ultrasound section of OBGYN.net would be to agree upon some of the better charts & tables and request permission to reprint here... Peace, Terry J DuBose Little Rock, Arkansas USA ----------------------------------------------------- =0D ----------------------------------------------------- On Fri, 30 Aug 2002 23:02:43 -0500 "Gunjan" <drgap@iqara.net> writes:=0D ----------------------------------------------------- > Warsof et al > Can we have that chart please. > > Gunjan >> ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Sue Davies" <sue@aiu.edu.au> > To: "Multiple recipients of list ULTRASOUND" > <ultrasound@mail.medispecialty.com> > Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2002 4:39 AM > Subject: 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: Marilyn Ringstaff: "One-Hour Fetus Photo" Previous message: Feruza Hamdam: "(no subject)"

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: Wed Dec 2 05:31:51 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.