الفهرس 
IntroductionOnly 14 pages are availabe for public view
 |  | from | 126 |  |  |
| | | from | 126 | | |
Abstract
Summary and conclusion
According to the sample size the 110 patient there different fetal diameters HC, BPD, AC, FL, were empolyed in this two formula.
1-Hadllock 4be1985 [BPD-FL-HC-AC]
Log10EFW=1.3596+0.0064(HC)+0.0424(AC)+0.174(FL)+0.000 1(BPD)(AC)-0.00386(AC)(FL)
2-Siemerr2009 [BPD – FL - AC]
EFW=-5948.336+2101.261(AC)+15.613(FL)² +0.577(BPD) ³
The 110 studied patient group was selected according to inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Serial ultrasound were done with remark that the time between the last one ultrasound and termination of pregnancy is less than 7 days.
The two formula were applied on the patients with sever preterm pre-eclampsia in order to get the fetal weight by each formula where the first formula (Hadllock 4be1985) was depending on four fetal parameters (HC- AC – FL – BPD).
The second formula was depending on three fetal parameters (AC – FL – BPD) and comparing the EFW with the ABW.
According to the results the range of gestational age was running between (25 – 37 weeks). and the large perent of patient was between (30 – 35 weeks) about (47,3%).
About (46.4%). Of patients were primgravida. By the different statistical methods the EFW by each formula was compared with the ABW.
EFW by each formula was compared with the ABW showing the following results Hadllock 4be1985 [BPD-FL-HC-AC] and Siemerr2009[BPD-FL-AC]EFW are near in range of EFW weight while Mean of EFW by Hadllock ( 4be1985) is more near to that of ABW but the S.D of Hadllock 4be1985 is lessthan that of Siemerr2009.
This show that Hadllock 4be1985 is more accurate than Siemerr2009.
When the difference between the EFW and ABW by 5% (+ 50 gm difference from the ABW) the percent of cases where the difference between the EFW and ABW was 0 – 5% was 2.7% of cases the sensitivity of Hadllock was 65.0% but for siemers was 64.0% and PPV for Hadlock was 60.5% and for siemers 59.5%.
When the difference between the EFW and ABW by 10%
(+ 100 gm difference from the ABW) the percent of cases where the difference between the EFW and ABW was 5 – 10% was 8.2% of the cases.
The sensitivity of Hadllock was 73.3% but for siemers was 72.3% and PPV for Hadllock was 74.0% and for siemers 72.0%..it was remarked that the sensitivity. speecificty. PPV. NPV when the difference between the EFW and ABW increase these equations increasing.
The large percent of studied patients group show a difference between the EFW and ABW was between 15- 25% and were acting 35.5% of the sample size.
Also from the results where the sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV showing that Hadlock 4be is more accurate than Siemer2009 especially when the difference between the EFW and ABW increase the sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV suggest that Hadllock 4be1985 is more accurate than Siemer2009.Especially in VLBW .
from the previous finding and results early dating of pregnancy by LMP and confirmation of this pregnancy by ultra sound, early detection of patients at risk of pre-eclampsia, use of multiple fetal parameters in detection of gestational age, fetal weight is more helpful.
The sonographic estimation which is based on measurement of various fetal dimensions particularly BPD, HC, AC and FL is superior to clinical estimation but still needs instruments and well trained physicians.