Acta Scientific Medical Sciences (ASMS)(ISSN: 2582-0931)

Research Article Volume 5 Issue 2

A Comparative Study of the Exactness of Certain Last Menstrual Period and Ultrasonography in Forecasting the Date of Delivery

Peter Waibode Alabrah1*, Dennis Oju Allagoa1, Anthony Okeoghene Eguvbe2, Bassey Offiong Porbeni-Fumudoh1 and Spencer Ebobrah3

1Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Federal Medical Centre, Yenagoa, Nigeria
2Department of Community Medicine, Federal Medical Centre, Yenagoa, Nigeria
3Department of Radiology Federal Medical Centre, Yenagoa, Nigeria

*Corresponding Author: Peter Waibode Alabrah, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Federal Medical Centre, Yenagoa, Nigeria.

Received: December 22, 2020; Published: January 28, 2021

×

Abstract

The study aimed to determine between last menstrual period and ultrasonography which is more exact in predicting the delivery date.

This prospective comparative study utilized 311 participants with certain last menstrual period at between 8 to less than 24 week gestation. The participants were scanned and followed up to delivery. The date of birth as forecasted by the crown-rump length (CRL), biparietal diameter (BPD), and femur length (FL) were analyzed and compared with estimates derived from the last menstrual period (LMP).

The results showed that ultrasound biometry was better than certain LMP in estimating the day of delivery by a minimum of 0.7 days. Less than 10% of the subjects delivered on the day predicted altogether by the methods employed in calculating the date of delivery. The BPD was the best predictor of the date of delivery and the length of the pregnancy (mean and median duration being 279.2 and 279 days respectively) while the FL performed slightly more exact than the CRL. Combination of any two or three ultrasonic variables statistically did not improve the accuracy of prediction. When ultrasound was used instead of certain LMP, the number of post term pregnancies reduced from 4% to 0.4%. All predictions by CRL fell within term.

Ultrasound biometry was more exact than certain last menstrual period in dating, and its utilization, reduced the number of post term deliveries. A second trimester biparietal diameter was the best parameter in dating pregnancy. Combining more than one ultrasonic measurements did not result in improved dating accuracy.

Keywords: First Trimester; Second Trimester; Ultrasound; Gestational Age; Pregnancy Duration; Pregnancy Dating

×

References

  1. Campbell S., et al. “Routine ultrasound screening for the prediction of gestational age”. Obstetrics and Gynecology5 (1985): 613-620.
  2. Baerwald Angela R., et al. “A new model for ovarian follicular development during the human menstrual cycle”. Fertility and Sterility1 (2003): 116-122.
  3. Baerwald Angela R., et al. “Characterization of ovarian follicular wave dynamics in women”. Biology of Reproduction3 (2003): 1023-1031.
  4. Grieger Jessica A and Robert J Norman. “Menstrual Cycle Length and Patterns in a Global Cohort of Women Using a Mobile Phone App: Retrospective Cohort Study”. Journal of Medical Internet Research6 (2020): e17109.
  5. Jehan Imtiaz., et al. “Dating gestational age by last menstrual period, symphysis-fundal height, and ultrasound in urban Pakistan”. International Journal of Gynaecology and Obstetrics 3 (2010): 231-234.
  6. Delpachitra Pavitra., et al. “Ultrasound Reference Chart Based on IVF Dates to Estimate Gestational Age at 6-9 weeks' Gestation”. ISRN Obstetrics and Gynecology 2012 (2012): 938583.
  7. Salomon L J., et al. “Revisiting first-trimester fetal biometry”. Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology 1 (2003): 63-66.
  8. Butt K and Lim K. “Determination of gestational age by ultrasound”. SOGC clinical practice guidelines (2014): 171-181.
  9. Butt Kimberly., et al. “Determination of gestational age by ultrasound”. Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Canada2 (2014): 171-181.
  10. Whitworth Melissa., et al. “Ultrasound for fetal assessment in early pregnancy”. The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (2015).
  11. Savitz David A., et al. “Comparison of pregnancy dating by last menstrual period, ultrasound scanning, and their combination”. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology6 (2002): 1660-1666.
  12. Khambalia Amina Z., et al. “Predicting date of birth and examining the best time to date a pregnancy”. International Journal of Gynaecology and Obstetrics:2 (2013): 105-109.
  13. Knight Bridget., et al. “Assessing the accuracy of ultrasound estimation of gestational age during routine antenatal care in in vitro fertilization (IVF) pregnancies”. Ultrasound (Leeds, England)1 (2018): 49-53.
  14. Benson C B and P M Doubilet. “Sonographic prediction of gestational age: accuracy of second- and third-trimester fetal measurements”. American journal of roentgenology6 (1991): 1275-1277.
  15. Hill L M., et al. “Composite assessment of gestational age: a comparison of institutionally derived and published regression equations”. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology2 (1992): 551-555.
  16. Reynir T Geirsson and Grethe Have. “Comparison of actual and ultrasound estimated second trimester gestational length in in-vitro fertilized pregnancies”. Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica5 (1993): 344-346.
  17. Hadlock F P., et al. “Estimating fetal age using multiple parameters: a prospective evaluation in a racially mixed population”. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology4 (1987): 955-957.
  18. Chudleigh Trish and Thalaganathan Basky. “Routine second trimester screening ‘’obstetric ultrasound: How, Why and When”. Edited by Chudleigh Trish and Thalaganathan Basky. Elsevier Churchill livingstone (2004): 113.
  19. Salomon L J., et al. “ISUOG practice guidelines: performance of first-trimester fetal ultrasound scan”. Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology 1 (2013): 102-113.
  20. Taipale P and V Hiilesmaa. “Predicting delivery date by ultrasound and last menstrual period in early gestation”. Obstetrics and Gynecology2 (2001): 189-194.
  21. Mongelli M., et al. “Estimating the date of confinement: ultrasonographic biometry versus certain menstrual dates”. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology1 (1996): 278-281.
  22. Gardosi, J. “Dating of pregnancy: time to forget the last menstrual period”. Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology: The Official Journal of the International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology6 (1997): 367-368.
  23. Olesen A W and S G Thomsen. “Prediction of delivery date by sonography in the first and second trimesters”. Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology 3 (2006): 292-297.
  24. Tunón K., et al. “A comparison between ultrasound and a reliable last menstrual period as predictors of the day of delivery in 15,000 examinations”. Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology: The Official Journal of the International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology3 (1996): 178-185.
×

Citation

Citation: Peter Waibode Alabrah., et al. “A Comparative Study of the Exactness of Certain Last Menstrual Period and Ultrasonography in Forecasting the Date of Delivery”.Acta Scientific Medical Sciences 5.2 (2021): 92-98.




Metrics

Acceptance rate30%
Acceptance to publication20-30 days
Impact Factor0.851

Indexed In





News and Events


  • Certification for Review
    Acta Scientific certifies the Editors/reviewers for their review done towards the assigned articles of the respective journals.
  • Submission Timeline for Upcoming Issue
    The last date for submission of articles for regular Issues is March 10, 2021.
  • Publication Certificate
    Authors will be issued a "Publication Certificate" as a mark of appreciation for publishing their work.
  • Best Article of the Issue
    The Editors will elect one Best Article after each issue release. The authors of this article will be provided with a certificate of “Best Article of the Issue”.
  • Welcoming Article Submission
    Acta Scientific delightfully welcomes active researchers for submission of articles towards the upcoming issue of respective journals.
  • Contact US