Growth charts and prediction of abnormal growth — what is known, what is not known and what is misunderstood

Objectives: Assessment of fetal growth has an important effect on perinatal morbidity and mortality. To understand what tool to choose best for a given population a basic knowledge of how growth charts are developed and used has to be acquired. For this reason, this literature review was performed. Material and methods: An extensive literature review aimed at identifying articles related to the development of growth assessment in both spectrums of abnormal fetal growth — large and small. The analyzed articles were chosen and presented to show both the historical aspects of growth assessment, current trends and future considerations. Results: Identification of both large and small fetuses and neonates is equally crucial. Definitions and methodology vary worldwide and there is an ongoing discussion on the best tool to choose for a given population. An important part of the debate is how to differentiate between the physiologically small fetus and the truly growth restricted fetus who is at risk of perinatal complication. Similarly, the diagnosis of a large fetus is important in prevention of perinatal complications and surgical deliveries. Many clinical settings still lack growth standards. Conclusions: Birthweight for gestational age charts are biased for weight in preterm birth. Prediction and management of outcome cannot be based solely on fetal size. Small is not the only problem, we have to think large as well. A common misunderstanding in clinical practice is not using uniform charts in defining growth

Compliance with gestational weight gain recommendations in a cross-sectional study of term pregnancies — how far reality falls from the standard?

Objectives: During pregnancy, two aspects are critical in the context of adverse perinatal outcomes (APO): preconception obesity and gestational weight gain. This study aimed to assess compliance with the 2009 IOM guidelines, compare GWG with and without correcting for gestation duration, and observe the relationship between pre-pregnancy BMI and GWG and neonatal birth weight. Material and methods: This is a cross-sectional study conducted from 2015-2018 at the St. Sophia's Specialist Hospital in Warsaw, Poland. Self-reported pre-pregnancy and predelivery weight were collected. Results: The presented data set amounts to 7820 records. Analysis of weight gain compliance with IOM recommendations showed that only 41–44% (depending on the calculation method) of women had weight gain in accordance with IOM guidelines (22–23% — below; 33–37% — above). Overweight and obese women with diabetes are more likely to comply with IOM than women without diabetes. In contrast, women with normal-weight and underweight with diabetes are less likely to achieve IOM weight gain in pregnancy than women without diabetes. Women who have GWG below recommendations significantly more often gave birth to SGA neonates, and women who exceeded GWG standards significantly more often gave birth to LGA neonates. Conclusions: Less than half of women had GWG within the recommended norms. Statistically significant differences were found in methods of calculation of GWG, but it was not found clinically significant. Correction for pregnancy duration when calculating GWG reclassifies two percent of patients. We underestimate the risk of crossing the line between overweight and obesity during pregnancy