Optimization of fetal weight estimates using MRI: Comparison of acquisitions

Sam Hassibi, Nabeel Farhataziz, Michael Zaretsk, Donald McIntire, Diane M. Twickler

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

21 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

OBJECTIVE. The purpose of this study was to determine whether differences are seen in calculation of fetal weight using 5-mm sagittal, 3-mm coronal, and 8-mm axial MRI acquisitions compared with term birth weight and contemporaneous sonography. MATERIALS AND METHODS. Fetal volume measurements were obtained from MRI acquisitions as follows: 5-mm sagittal (2 acquisitions), 3-mm coronal (2 acquisitions), and 8-mm axial (1 acquisition). A 90-sec single-shot fast spin-echo sequence was used. MRI and sonographic studies for fetal weight estimates were performed within 3 hr of term delivery. MRI calculation was based on the equation 0.12 + 1.031 × fetal volume (fetal area x slice thickness) (mL) = MRI fetal weight (kg). The sonographic fetal weight estimate was calculated using the Hadlock formula. MRI and sonographic calculations were compared with birth weight. Concordance coefficient analysis was performed. RESULTS. Thirty-five retrospective fetal calculations were performed. Concordance coefficients, gram weight means and standard deviations (mean ± SD) between birth weight and MRI acquisitions were as follows: 8-mm axial, 0.91 (3,554 ± 431 g); 3-mm coronal, 0.84 (3,752 ± 578 g); and 5-mm sagittal, 0.83 (3,685 ± 567 g), compared with 0.78 (3,518 ± 332 g) for sonography. The MRI axial concordance coefficient was significantly different from that of the sonographic estimates (p = 0.05). MRI axial concordance coefficient was not statistically different from that of the MRI coronal concordance coefficient (p = 0.22) or the MRI sagittal concordance coefficient (p = 0.19). CONCLUSION. Calculated weights from a 90-sec single-shot fast spin-echo sequence MR acquisition with 8-mm-thick slices in the axial plane at term are better than sonographic estimates.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)487-492
Number of pages6
JournalAmerican Journal of Roentgenology
Volume183
Issue number2
StatePublished - Aug 2004

Fingerprint

Fetal Weight
Birth Weight
Ultrasonography
Term Birth
Weights and Measures

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Radiology Nuclear Medicine and imaging
  • Radiological and Ultrasound Technology

Cite this

Optimization of fetal weight estimates using MRI : Comparison of acquisitions. / Hassibi, Sam; Farhataziz, Nabeel; Zaretsk, Michael; McIntire, Donald; Twickler, Diane M.

In: American Journal of Roentgenology, Vol. 183, No. 2, 08.2004, p. 487-492.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{72af3ee9de6c4676a12fa6b508500e2f,
title = "Optimization of fetal weight estimates using MRI: Comparison of acquisitions",
abstract = "OBJECTIVE. The purpose of this study was to determine whether differences are seen in calculation of fetal weight using 5-mm sagittal, 3-mm coronal, and 8-mm axial MRI acquisitions compared with term birth weight and contemporaneous sonography. MATERIALS AND METHODS. Fetal volume measurements were obtained from MRI acquisitions as follows: 5-mm sagittal (2 acquisitions), 3-mm coronal (2 acquisitions), and 8-mm axial (1 acquisition). A 90-sec single-shot fast spin-echo sequence was used. MRI and sonographic studies for fetal weight estimates were performed within 3 hr of term delivery. MRI calculation was based on the equation 0.12 + 1.031 × fetal volume (fetal area x slice thickness) (mL) = MRI fetal weight (kg). The sonographic fetal weight estimate was calculated using the Hadlock formula. MRI and sonographic calculations were compared with birth weight. Concordance coefficient analysis was performed. RESULTS. Thirty-five retrospective fetal calculations were performed. Concordance coefficients, gram weight means and standard deviations (mean ± SD) between birth weight and MRI acquisitions were as follows: 8-mm axial, 0.91 (3,554 ± 431 g); 3-mm coronal, 0.84 (3,752 ± 578 g); and 5-mm sagittal, 0.83 (3,685 ± 567 g), compared with 0.78 (3,518 ± 332 g) for sonography. The MRI axial concordance coefficient was significantly different from that of the sonographic estimates (p = 0.05). MRI axial concordance coefficient was not statistically different from that of the MRI coronal concordance coefficient (p = 0.22) or the MRI sagittal concordance coefficient (p = 0.19). CONCLUSION. Calculated weights from a 90-sec single-shot fast spin-echo sequence MR acquisition with 8-mm-thick slices in the axial plane at term are better than sonographic estimates.",
author = "Sam Hassibi and Nabeel Farhataziz and Michael Zaretsk and Donald McIntire and Twickler, {Diane M.}",
year = "2004",
month = "8",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "183",
pages = "487--492",
journal = "American Journal of Roentgenology",
issn = "0361-803X",
publisher = "American Roentgen Ray Society",
number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Optimization of fetal weight estimates using MRI

T2 - Comparison of acquisitions

AU - Hassibi, Sam

AU - Farhataziz, Nabeel

AU - Zaretsk, Michael

AU - McIntire, Donald

AU - Twickler, Diane M.

PY - 2004/8

Y1 - 2004/8

N2 - OBJECTIVE. The purpose of this study was to determine whether differences are seen in calculation of fetal weight using 5-mm sagittal, 3-mm coronal, and 8-mm axial MRI acquisitions compared with term birth weight and contemporaneous sonography. MATERIALS AND METHODS. Fetal volume measurements were obtained from MRI acquisitions as follows: 5-mm sagittal (2 acquisitions), 3-mm coronal (2 acquisitions), and 8-mm axial (1 acquisition). A 90-sec single-shot fast spin-echo sequence was used. MRI and sonographic studies for fetal weight estimates were performed within 3 hr of term delivery. MRI calculation was based on the equation 0.12 + 1.031 × fetal volume (fetal area x slice thickness) (mL) = MRI fetal weight (kg). The sonographic fetal weight estimate was calculated using the Hadlock formula. MRI and sonographic calculations were compared with birth weight. Concordance coefficient analysis was performed. RESULTS. Thirty-five retrospective fetal calculations were performed. Concordance coefficients, gram weight means and standard deviations (mean ± SD) between birth weight and MRI acquisitions were as follows: 8-mm axial, 0.91 (3,554 ± 431 g); 3-mm coronal, 0.84 (3,752 ± 578 g); and 5-mm sagittal, 0.83 (3,685 ± 567 g), compared with 0.78 (3,518 ± 332 g) for sonography. The MRI axial concordance coefficient was significantly different from that of the sonographic estimates (p = 0.05). MRI axial concordance coefficient was not statistically different from that of the MRI coronal concordance coefficient (p = 0.22) or the MRI sagittal concordance coefficient (p = 0.19). CONCLUSION. Calculated weights from a 90-sec single-shot fast spin-echo sequence MR acquisition with 8-mm-thick slices in the axial plane at term are better than sonographic estimates.

AB - OBJECTIVE. The purpose of this study was to determine whether differences are seen in calculation of fetal weight using 5-mm sagittal, 3-mm coronal, and 8-mm axial MRI acquisitions compared with term birth weight and contemporaneous sonography. MATERIALS AND METHODS. Fetal volume measurements were obtained from MRI acquisitions as follows: 5-mm sagittal (2 acquisitions), 3-mm coronal (2 acquisitions), and 8-mm axial (1 acquisition). A 90-sec single-shot fast spin-echo sequence was used. MRI and sonographic studies for fetal weight estimates were performed within 3 hr of term delivery. MRI calculation was based on the equation 0.12 + 1.031 × fetal volume (fetal area x slice thickness) (mL) = MRI fetal weight (kg). The sonographic fetal weight estimate was calculated using the Hadlock formula. MRI and sonographic calculations were compared with birth weight. Concordance coefficient analysis was performed. RESULTS. Thirty-five retrospective fetal calculations were performed. Concordance coefficients, gram weight means and standard deviations (mean ± SD) between birth weight and MRI acquisitions were as follows: 8-mm axial, 0.91 (3,554 ± 431 g); 3-mm coronal, 0.84 (3,752 ± 578 g); and 5-mm sagittal, 0.83 (3,685 ± 567 g), compared with 0.78 (3,518 ± 332 g) for sonography. The MRI axial concordance coefficient was significantly different from that of the sonographic estimates (p = 0.05). MRI axial concordance coefficient was not statistically different from that of the MRI coronal concordance coefficient (p = 0.22) or the MRI sagittal concordance coefficient (p = 0.19). CONCLUSION. Calculated weights from a 90-sec single-shot fast spin-echo sequence MR acquisition with 8-mm-thick slices in the axial plane at term are better than sonographic estimates.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=3242762959&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=3242762959&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Article

C2 - 15269045

AN - SCOPUS:3242762959

VL - 183

SP - 487

EP - 492

JO - American Journal of Roentgenology

JF - American Journal of Roentgenology

SN - 0361-803X

IS - 2

ER -