Relationship between in utero sonographic evaluation and subcutaneous plicometry after birth in infants with intrauterine growth restriction: an exploratory study

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Intrauterine growth restriction (IUGR) is associated with several medical complications before and after delivery. The aim of this study was to evaluate the concordance between the fetal ultrasonographic measurement of subcutaneous tissue thicknesses and the skinfold thicknesses assessment in intrauterine growth restricted newborns.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We designed an exploratory study. Fetal ultrasonographic measurement of subcutaneous tissue thicknesses, according to Bernstein's and Galan's method, and neonatal skinfold thicknesses were evaluated in 13 intrauterine growth restricted newborns within 4 hours before delivery and on the first day of life, respectively. Concordance between fetal and neonatal measurements was assessed using the Lin's correlation coefficient and the Bland-Altman method.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>The data obtained by the measurements of neonatal skinfold thicknesses was significantly correlated with the prenatal measurements (Lin's coefficients, arm: 0.60; subscapular: 0.72; abdomen: 0.51). Bland-Altman analysis showed moderate agreement between the fetal ultrasonographic measurement of subcutaneous tissue thicknesses and the neonatal skinfold thicknesses assessment.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>The present study provides preliminary evidence that fetal sonographic measurements may represent additional indices of intrauterine growth restriction.</p

Mean % of FM at term, 3 and 5 months of corrected age according to group categorization.

<p>*P<0.001 AGA (GR−) vs AGA (GR+) and SGA.</p

Mean length and head circumference z-scores at each study visit time point according to categorization.

<p>Data are presented as mean (SD).</p><p>HC¹ = head circumference.</p><p>*P<0.001 SGA vs AGA (GR−) and AGA (GR+).</p><p>°P<0.001 AGA (GR+) vs AGA (GR−).</p>#<p>P<0.001 SGA vs AGA (GR−).</p>∧<p>P = 0.003 SGA vs AGA (GR+).</p>§<p>P<0.001 AGA (GR−) vs SGA and AGA (GR+).</p>∞<p>P = 0.004 SGA vs AGA (GR+).</p

Basic subject characteristics according to categorization.

<p>Data are presented as mean (SD) or number of observations (%).</p><p>HC¹ = head circumference.</p><p>*SGA vs AGA (GR−) and AGA (GR+).</p><p>°SGA vs AGA (GR−).</p

Mean weight z-scores at term, 3 and 5 months of corrected age according to group categorization.

<p>⁺ P = 0.001 SGA vs AGA (GR+). * P<0.001 SGA vs AGA (GR−). ° P<0.001 AGA (GR+) vs AGA (GR−). ^# P<0.001 SGA vs AGA (GR−). ∧ P = 0.02 SGA vs AGA (GR+). ^Δ P = 0.01 AGA (GR+) vs AGA (GR−). ^∞P = 0.03 SGA vs AGA (GR−) and AGA (GR+).</p

Mean energy and protein intakes at each study point according to group categorization.

<p>Data are presented as mean (SD).</p

Change in weight and fat mass gain between each study point according to group categorization.

<p>Data are presented as mean (SD).</p><p>*P = 0.007 AGA (GR−) vs AGA (GR+).</p>∧<p>P = 0.004 AGA (GR−) vs SGA.</p>+<p>P<0.001 AGA (GR−) vs AGA (GR+) and SGA.</p>§<p>P = 0.01 SGA vs AGA (GR−) and AGA (GR+).</p><p>°P = 0.003 AGA (GR−) vs AGA (GR+).</p>#<p>P = 0.002 AGA (GR−) vs SGA.</p