Online ISSN 2313-1519
Print    ISSN 1812-2892
Abstract - Effects of body mass index in pregnant women on fundal height charts
[PDF]            [Full text/HTML]           
Anar Kystaubayeva, Gulyash Tanysheva, Yuliya Semenova, Ion Bologan, Zhanar Kaliyeva, Meruert Sharipova

ABSTRACT

Aim: To evaluate the effects of body mass index on fundal height charts.
Methods: Design: Cross-sectional study. The study complies with the principles of the Helsinki Declaration. Approved by the Ethics Committee of The Semey State Medical University protocol No.2 of 14.11.2014. Study was conducted in Semey and in the region within January-December, 2014. We identifed 2387 cases of uncomplicated pregnancy ended in childbirth of full-term fetus in cephalic presentation, with a weight between 2,500 and 4,000 grams. Depending on the body mass index, the cases were divided into 3 groups. The frst group included pregnant women with a body mass index of less than 18.5. The second group included cases with body mass index of 18.5-24.9 while the third group included pregnant women with an index greater than 24, which corresponds to overweight and obesity. Statistical analysis was performed with SPSS package, version 20. We used descriptive statistics and nonparametric tests for unpaired samples (Kruskal Wallis and Mann-Whitney).
Results: Statistically signifcant differences were identifed between the average fundal height indexes in all stages of gestation (p = 0.001), except for 22 weeks (p = 0347) and 28 weeks (p = 0.14). Pairwise comparisons with MannWhitney test between “defcit weight – normal weight” and “defcit weight – overweight, obesity” and “normal weight – overweight, obesity” groups showed no statistically signifcant difference in fundal height of pregnant women with underweight and normal weight at pregnancy terms of 24, 25, 34, and 35 weeks. At 26 and 31 weeks of pregnancy there were no statistically signifcant difference in pregnant women with normal weight and overweight. In other cases, the differences between study groups in fundal height were statistically signifcant.
Conclusions: Body mass index is a variable that affects the character of fundal height curve. To enable high-quality antenatal carem we need to use the curves tailored to anthropometric indicators
.
Keywords:
Body mass index - intrauterine growth restriction - fundal height.

 

REFERENCES

1. Gardosi J, Figueras F, Clausson B, Francis A. The customised growth potential: an international research tool to study the epidemiology of fetal growth. Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol. 2011; 25(1):2–10.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-3016.2010.01166.x

2. Carberry AE, Gordon A, Bond DM, Hyett J, Raynes-Greenow CH, Jeffery HE. Customised versus population-based growth charts as a screening tool for detecting small for gestational age infants in low-risk pregnant w ichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd; 2011 [cited 2017 Jan 23]. p. CD008549.
https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD008549.pub2

3. Imdad A, Yakoob MY, Siddiqui S, Bhutta ZA. Screening and triage of intrauterine growth restriction (IUGR) in general population and high risk pregnancies: a systematic review with a focus on reduction of IUGR related stillbirths. BMC Public Health. 2011;11 Suppl 3(Suppl 3):S1. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-11-S3-S1

4. Man J, Hutchinson JC, Heazell AE, Ashworth M, Levine S, Sebire NJ. Stillbirth and intrauterine fetal death: factors affecting determination of cause of death at autopsy. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol John Wiley & Sons, Ltd; 2016;48(5):566–73.
https://doi.org/10.1002/uog.16016

5. Shamawama K, Goonewardene I, Perera Y. Customised symphysio fundal height charts. Ceylon Med J [Internet]. The Sri Lanka Medical Association; 2013; 4;57(4). https://doi.org/10.4038/cmj.v57i4.5084

6. Chard T, Macintosh M, Yoong A, Chang TC, Robson SC, Spencer JAD, et al. Customised antenatal growth charts [21]. Lancet. 1992. p. 878–9.
https://doi.org/10.1016/0140-6736(92)90327-Y

7. Pölzlberger E, Hartmann B, Hafner E, Stümpflein I, Kirchengast S, Abdella RMA, et al. Maternal height and pre-pregnancy weight status are associated with fetal growth patterns and newborn size. J Biosoc Sci. Cambridge University Press; 2016 Oct 3;19(1):1–16. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0021932016000493

8. Meštrović Z, Roje D, Vulić M, Zec M. Calculation of optimal gestation weight gain in pre-pregnancy underweight women due to body mass index change in relation to mother's height. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2017 Jan 14;295(1):81–6.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-016-4218-3

9. Challis K, Osman NB, Nyström L, Nordahl G, Bergström S. Symphysis-fundal height growth chart of an obstetric cohort of 817 Mozambican women with ultrasound-dated singleton pregnancies. Trop Med Int Health. 2002 Aug; 7(8):678–84.
https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-3156.2002.00907.x

10. Harita N, Kariya M, Hayashi T, Sato KK, Aoki T, Nakamura K, et al. Gestational bodyweight gain among underweight Japanese women related to small-for-gestational-age birth. J Obstet Gynaecol Res. Blackwell Publishing Asia; 2012 Sep; 38(9):1137–44. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1447-0756.2012.01848.x

11. Global'naja baza dannyh po Indeksu Massy tela - Vsemirnaja organizacija zdravoohranenija (Global Database on Body Mass Index - World Health Organization). 2006-11-17. [cited 2017 Jan 27]. Available from: http://www.assessmentpsychology.com/icbmi.htm

12. Grzhibovskij A.M. Analiz treh i bolee nezavisimyh grupp kolichestvennyh dannyh (Analysis of three or more independent groups of quantitative data). Jekologija cheloveka. 2008; 3:50–8.

13. Grzhibovskij A.M., Ivanov S. V. Sravnenie kolichestvennyh dannyh dvuh nezavisimyh vyborok s ispol'zovaniem programmnogo obespechenija STATISTICA i SPSS: parametricheskie i neparametricheskie kriterii (Comparison of quantitative data of two independent samples using STATISTICA and SPSS software: parametric and nonparametric criteria). Nauka i Zdravoohranenie Recenziruemyj medicinskij nauchno-prakticheskij zhurnal. 2016;2.

14. Morse K, Williams A, Gardosi J. Fetal growth screening by fundal height measurement. Best Practice and Research: Clinical Obstetrics and Gynaecology. 2009. p. 809–18.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bpobgyn.2009.09.004

15. Buhmann L, Elder WG, Hendricks B, Rahn K. A comparison of Caucasian and Southeast Asian Hmong uterine fundal height during pregnancy. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 1998;77(5):521–6.
https://doi.org/10.1080/j.1600-0412.1998.770509.x

16. Walraven GEL, Mkanje RJB, van Dongen PWJ, van Roosmalen J, Dolmans WM V. The development of a local symphysis-fundal height chart in a rural area of Tanzania. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 1995;60(2):149–52.
https://doi.org/10.1016/0028-2243(95)02097-C

17. Blair EM, Liu Y, de Klerk NH, Lawrence DM. Optimal fetal growth for the Caucasian singleton and assessment of appropriateness of fetal growth: an analysis of a total population perinatal database. BMC Pediatr. 2005;5(1):13.
https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2431-5-13

 

Volume 1, Number 43 (2017)