--
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
>
