The Diagnostic Value of Applying Regional Ultrasound Fetometry Reference Standards for Confirming Intrauterine Growth Restriction in the Fetus
https://doi.org/10.18499/2225-7357-2025-14-2-46-52
Abstract
The aim is to assess the diagnostic value of applying regional ultrasound fetometry standards for verifying intrauterine growth restriction (IUGR) in the pregnant population of the Kirov region. Material and methods. The analysis included data from 320 full-term newborns diagnosed with IUGR, delivered at the Kirov Regional Clinical Perinatal Center between 2021 and 2023. Three IUGR subtypes were distinguished among the newborns: hypotrophic, hypoplastic, and dysplastic. The hypotrophic subtype is characterized by low birth weight with normal body length and head circumference, which corresponds to asymmetric fetal growth restriction on prenatal ultrasound fetometry. The hypoplastic subtype, consistent with symmetric fetal growth restriction on prenatal ultrasound, demonstrates proportionate deficits in birth weight, length, and head circumference compared to expected gestational age standards. The dysplastic subtype combines growth restriction with fetal malformations. We also performed a retrospective analysis of 374 maternal ultrasound scans, applying both national reference standards and our institutionally developed regional fetal growth parameters. Results. The sensitivity of ultrasound fetometry using regional norms reached 82.3% (asymmetric form) and 88.2% (symmetric form), substantially exceeding the sensitivity achieved with federal standards (30.9% and 71.1%, respectively). Meanwhile, the specificity of the method demonstrated a modest reduction with regional standards yet maintained high diagnostic performance. Conclusion. Regional ultrasound biometry standards significantly increase IUGR detection sensitivity by incorporating local population characteristics. Their clinical adoption in the Kirov region is recommended for improved fetal growth restriction diagnosis.
About the Authors
E. M. IutinskiiRussian Federation
Eduard M. Iutinskii – Cand. Sci. (Med.), Associate Professor at the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology
ul. K. Marksa, 112, Kirov, 610027
L. M. Zheleznov
Russian Federation
Lev M. Zheleznov – Doct. Sci. (Med.), Professor, Rector
Kirov
S. A. Dvoryanskii
Russian Federation
Sergei A. Dvoryanskii – Doct. Sci. (Med.), Professor, Head of Obstetrics and Gynecology Department
Kirov
D. I. Emel'yanova
Russian Federation
Dar'ya I. Emel'yanova – Cand. Sci. (Med.), Associate Professor at the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology
Kirov
References
1. Demidov VN, Bychkov PA, Logvinenko AV, Voevodin SM. Ul'trazvukovaya biometriya. Spravochnye tablitsy i uravneniya. Klinicheskie lektsii po ul'trazvukovoi diagnostike v perinatologii. Pod red. Medvedeva M.V., Zykina B.I. M.; 1990: 83–92. (In Russ.).
2. Klinicheskie rekomendatsii – Nedostatochnyi rost ploda, trebuyushchii predostavleniya meditsinskoi pomoshchi materi (zaderzhka rosta ploda) – 2022-2023-2024 (14.02.2022). Utverzhdeny Minzdravom RF. URL: http://disuria.ru/_ld/11/1152_kr22O36p5MZ.pdf. (accessed 16.05.2025). (In Russ.).
3. Prenatal'naya ekhografiya pod red. M.V. Medvedeva, 1-e izd. M.: Real'noe Vremya, 2005. 560. (In Russ.).
4. Ali S, Byamugisha J, Kawooya MG, Kakibogo IM, Ainembabazi I, Biira EA, Kagimu AN, Migisa A, Munyakazi M, Kuniha S, Scheele C, Papageorghiou AT, Klipstein-Grobusch K, Rijken MJ. Standardization and quality control of Doppler and fetal biometric ultrasound measurements in low-income settings. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2023 Apr;61(4):481-487. doi: 10.1002/uog.26051.
5. Barker DJ, Thornburg KL. Placental programming of chronic diseases, cancer and lifespan: a review. Placenta. 2013 Oct;34(10):841-5. doi: 10.1016/j.placenta.2013.07.063.
6. Crovetto F, Crispi F, Scazzocchio E, Mercade I, Meler E, Figueras F, Gratacos E. First-trimester screening for early and late small-for-gestationalage neonates using maternal serum biochemistry, blood pressure and uterine artery Doppler. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2014 Jan;43(1):34-40. doi: 10.1002/uog.12537.
7. Dhombres F, Massoud M. A pragmatic comparison of fetal biometry curves. Gynecol Obstet Fertil Senol. 2023 Nov-Dec;51(11-12):524-530. doi: 10.1016/j.gofs.2023.09.003.
8. Figueras F, Gratacós E. Update on the diagnosis and classification of fetal growth restriction and proposal of a stage-based management protocol. Fetal Diagn Ther. 2014;36(2):86-98. doi: 10.1159/000357592.
9. Gómez O, Figueras F, Fernández S, Bennasar M, Martínez JM, Puerto B, Gratacós E. Reference ranges for uterine artery mean pulsatility index at 11-41 weeks of gestation. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2008 Aug;32(2):128-32. doi: 10.1002/uog.5315.
10. Gordijn SJ, Beune IM, Thilaganathan B, Papageorghiou A, Baschat AA, Baker PN, Silver RM, Wynia K, Ganzevoort W. Consensus definition of fetal growth restriction: a Delphi procedure. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2016 Sep;48(3):333-9. doi: 10.1002/uog.15884.
11. Horgan R, Nehme L, Abuhamad A. Artificial intelligence in obstetric ultrasound: A scoping review. Prenat Diagn. 2023 Aug;43(9):1176-1219. doi: 10.1002/pd.6411.
12. Huang TM, Tsai CH, Hung FY, Huang MC. A novel reference chart and growth standard of fetal biometry in the Taiwanese population. Taiwan J Obstet Gynecol. 2022 Sep;61(5):794-799. doi: 10.1016/j.tjog.2022.06.003.
13. Lees CC, Romero R, Stampalija T, Dall'Asta A, DeVore GA, Prefumo F, et al. Clinical Opinion: The diagnosis and management of suspected fetal growth restriction: an evidence-based approach. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2022 Mar;226(3):366-378. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2021.11.1357.
14. Nardozza LM, Caetano AC, Zamarian AC, Mazzola JB, Silva CP, Marçal VM, Lobo TF, Peixoto AB, Araujo Júnior E. Fetal growth restriction: current knowledge. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2017 May;295(5):1061-1077. doi: 10.1007/s00404-017-4341-9.
15. Ordás P, Rodríguez R, Herrero B, Deiros L, Gómez E, Llurba E, Bartha JL, Antolín E. Longitudinal changes in fetal head biometry and fetoplacental circulation in fetuses with congenital heart defects. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2022 Sep;101(9):987-995. doi: 10.1111/aogs.14401.
16. Slimani S, Hounka S, Mahmoudi A, Rehah T, Laoudiyi D, Saadi H, Bouziyane A, Lamrissi A, Jalal M, Bouhya S, Akiki M, Bouyakhf Y, Badaoui B, Radgui A, Mhlanga M, Bouyakhf EH. Fetal biometry and amniotic fluid volume assessment end-to-end automation using Deep Learning. Nat Commun. 2023 Nov 3;14(1):7047. doi: 10.1038/s41467-023-42438-5.
17. Zhao J, Yuan Y, Tao J, Chen C, Wu X, Liao Y, Wu L, Zeng Q, Chen Y, Wang K, Li X, Liu Z, Zhou J, Zhou Y, Li S, Zhu J. Which fetal growth charts should be used? A retrospective observational study in China. Chin Med J (Engl). 2022 Aug 20;135(16):1969-1977. doi: 10.1097/CM9.0000000000002335
Review
For citations:
Iutinskii E.M., Zheleznov L.M., Dvoryanskii S.A., Emel'yanova D.I. The Diagnostic Value of Applying Regional Ultrasound Fetometry Reference Standards for Confirming Intrauterine Growth Restriction in the Fetus. Journal of Anatomy and Histopathology. 2025;14(2):46-52. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.18499/2225-7357-2025-14-2-46-52