Relationship between the thickness of the placenta with gestational age and biometric indicators on ultrasound at T am Anh General Hospital 2019 - 2020
Main Article Content
Abstract
Placenta thickness (PT) is an indicator that can evaluate placenta function, but there is little knowledge about normal placenta thickness. The purpose of this study is to determine placental thickness andis to find out the relationship between the thickness of the placenta with gestational age as well as biometric indicators measured on ultrasound in the second trimester. Data was collected on 385 patients, at the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology of Tam Anh General Hospital from June 2019 to September 2020. We found that the average placental thickness measured on ultrasound in the second trimester is: 21.15 ± 4.11 mm (13-33 mm) and that there is a linear relationship between placental thickness and mean gestational age. The thickness of placenta increases proportionally with gestational age, with RR = 0.387. When gestational age increases by 1 unit (1 week), the thickness of placenta increases approximately 1mm (= 1.013 mm). The study also showed a strong positive correlation between placental thickness and fetal biometric indicators comprising dipole diameter, abdominal circumference, and femoral length.
Article Details
Keywords
Placenta thickness, fetal biometric indicators.
References
2. Morin L., Lim K., Morin L., et al. (2011). Ultrasound in Twin Pregnancies. Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Canada, 33(6), 643–656.
3. van Oppenraaij R.H.F., Eilers P.H.C., Willemsen S.P., et al. (2015). Determinants of number-specific recall error of last menstrual period: a retrospective cohort study. BJOG, 122(6), 835–841.
4. Wilcox A.J., Weinberg C.R., and Baird D.D. (1995). Timing of sexual intercourse in relation to ovulation. Effects on the probability of conception, survival of the pregnancy, and sex of the baby. N Engl J Med, 333(23), 1517–1521.
5. Grisolia G., Milano K., Pilu G., et al. (1993). Biometry of early pregnancy with transvaginal sonography. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol, 3(6), 403–411.
6. Whitworth M., Bricker L., and Mullan C. (2015). Ultrasound for fetal assessment in early pregnancy. Cochrane Database Syst Rev, (7), CD007058.
7. (2017). Committee Opinion No 700: Methods for Estimating the Due Date. Obstet Gynecol, 129(5), e150–e154.
8. Kalish R.B., Thaler H.T., Chasen S.T., et al. (2004). First- and second-trimester ultrasound assessment of gestational age. Am J Obstet Gynecol, 191(3), 975–978.
9. Caughey A.B., Nicholson J.M., and Washington A.E. (2008). First- vs second-trimester ultrasound: the effect on pregnancy dating and perinatal outcomes. Am J Obstet Gynecol, 198(6), 703.e1–5; discussion 703.e5-6.
10. Butt K., Lim K., and DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING COMMITTEE (2014). Determination of gestational age by ultrasound. J Obstet Gynaecol Can, 36(2), 171–181.
11. Salomon L.J., Alfirevic Z., Bilardo C.M., et al. (2013). ISUOG practice guidelines: performance of first-trimester fetal ultrasound scan. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol, 41(1), 102–113.
12. Salomon L.J., Alfirevic Z., Da Silva Costa F., et al. (2019). ISUOG Practice Guidelines: ultrasound assessment of fetal biometry and growth. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol, 53(6), 715–723.
13. Hadlock F.P. (1990). Sonographic estimation of fetal age and weight. Radiol Clin North Am, 28(1), 39–50.