Association of Fetal Abdominal–Head Circumference Size Difference With Shoulder Dystocia: A Multicenter Study

Abstract

Objective This study aims to determine if shoulder dystocia is associated with a difference in the fetal abdominal (AC) to head circumference (HC) of 50 mm or more noted on antenatal ultrasound.

Study Design A multicenter matched case–control study was performed comparing women who had shoulder dystocia to controls who did not. Women with vaginal births of live born nonanomalous singletons ≥ 36 weeks of gestation with an antenatal ultrasound within 4 weeks of delivery were included. Controls were matched for gestational age, route of delivery, and diabetes status.

Results We identified 181 matched pairs. Only 5% of the fetuses had an AC to HC of ≥ 50 mm. The proportion of AC to HC difference of ≥ 50 mm was significantly higher in shoulder dystocia cases (8%) than controls (1%, p = 0.002). With multivariate regression, the three significant factors associated with shoulder dystocia were AC to HC ≥ 50 mm (odds ratio [OR], 7.3; confidence interval [CI], 1.6–33.3; p = 0.010), femur length (OR, 1.1; CI, 1.0–1.2; p = 0.002), and induced labor (OR, 1.8; CI, 1.1–3.1; p = 0.027).

Conclusion A prenatal ultrasound finding of a difference in AC to HC of ≥ 50 mm while uncommon is associated with shoulder dystocia.

Keywords

ultrasound - abdominal circumference - head circumference - shoulder dystocia

Note

The study was an oral presentation at the Central Association of Obstetricians and Gynecologists 2013 Annual Meeting at Napa, California from October 16 to 19, 2013.

Reprints will not be available.

• References

• 1 American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. ACOG practice bulletin no 40: Shoulder dystocia. Washington, DC: The College; 2002
• 2 Dildy GA, Clark SL. Shoulder dystocia: risk identification. Clin Obstet Gynecol 2000; 43 (2) 265-282
• 3 Magann EF, Doherty DA, Chauhan SP, Klimpel JM, Huff SD, Morrison JC. Pregnancy, obesity, gestational weight gain, and parity as predictors of peripartum complications. Arch Gynecol Obstet 2011; 284 (4) 827-836
• 4 Nesbitt TS, Gilbert WM, Herrchen B. Shoulder dystocia and associated risk factors with macrosomic infants born in California. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1998; 179 (2) 476-480
• 5 Boulet SL, Alexander GR, Salihu HM, Pass M. Macrosomic births in the united states: determinants, outcomes, and proposed grades of risk. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2003; 188 (5) 1372-1378
• 6 Zhang X, Decker A, Platt RW, Kramer MS. How big is too big? The perinatal consequences of fetal macrosomia. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2008; 198 (5) 517.e1-517.e6
• 7 Ventura SJ, Bachrach CA. Nonmarital childbearing in the United States, 1940-99. Natl Vital Stat Rep 2000; 48 (16) 1-40
• 8 Overland EA, Spydslaug A, Nielsen CS, Eskild A. Risk of shoulder dystocia in second delivery: does a history of shoulder dystocia matter?. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2009; 200 (5) 506.e1-506.e6
• 9 Langer O, Berkus MD, Huff RW, Samueloff A. Shoulder dystocia: should the fetus weighing greater than or equal to 4000 grams be delivered by cesarean section?. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1991; 165 (4 Pt 1) 831-837
• 10 Chauhan SP, Grobman WA, Gherman RA , et al. Suspicion and treatment of the macrosomic fetus: a review. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2005; 193 (2) 332-346
• 11 McFarland MB, Trylovich CG, Langer O. Anthropometric differences in macrosomic infants of diabetic and nondiabetic mothers. J Matern Fetal Med 1998; 7 (6) 292-295
• 12 Bofill JA, Rust OA, Devidas M, Roberts WE, Morrison JC, Martin Jr JN. Shoulder dystocia and operative vaginal delivery. J Matern Fetal Med 1997; 6 (4) 220-224
• 13 Geary M, McParland P, Johnson H, Stronge J. Shoulder dystocia—is it predictable?. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 1995; 62 (1) 15-18
• 14 Bingham J, Chauhan SP, Hayes E, Gherman R, Lewis D. Recurrent shoulder dystocia: a review. Obstet Gynecol Surv 2010; 65 (3) 183-188
• 15 Acker DB, Sachs BP, Friedman EA. Risk factors for shoulder dystocia. Obstet Gynecol 1985; 66 (6) 762-768
• 16 Ouzounian JG, Gherman RB. Shoulder dystocia: are historic risk factors reliable predictors?. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2005; 192 (6) 1933-1935 , discussion 1935–1938
• 17 Elliott JP, Garite TJ, Freeman RK, McQuown DS, Patel JM. Ultrasonic prediction of fetal macrosomia in diabetic patients. Obstet Gynecol 1982; 60 (2) 159-162
• 18 Cohen B, Penning S, Major C, Ansley D, Porto M, Garite T. Sonographic prediction of shoulder dystocia in infants of diabetic mothers. Obstet Gynecol 1996; 88 (1) 10-13
• 19 Chauhan SP, Lynn NN, Sanderson M, Humphries J, Cole JH, Scardo JA. A scoring system for detection of macrosomia and prediction of shoulder dystocia: a disappointment. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 2006; 19 (11) 699-705
• 20 Miller RS, Devine PC, Johnson EB. Sonographic fetal asymmetry predicts shoulder dystocia. J Ultrasound Med 2007; 26 (11) 1523-1528
• 21 Rajan PV, Chung JH, Porto M, Wing DA. Correlation of increased fetal asymmetry with shoulder dystocia in the nondiabetic woman with suspected macrosomia. J Reprod Med 2009; 54 (8) 478-482
• 22 Belfort MA, White GL, Vermeulen FM. Association of fetal cranial shape with shoulder dystocia. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2012; 39 (3) 304-309
• 23 Burkhardt T, Schmidt M, Kurmanavicius J, Zimmermann R, Schäffer L. Evaluation of fetal anthropometric measures to predict the risk for shoulder dystocia. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2014; 43 (1) 77-82
• 24 Coomarasamy A, Connock M, Thornton J, Khan KS. Accuracy of ultrasound biometry in the prediction of macrosomia: a systematic quantitative review. BJOG 2005; 112 (11) 1461-1466
• 25 Bahar AM. Risk factors and fetal outcome in cases of shoulder dystocia compared with normal deliveries of a similar birthweight. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1996; 103 (9) 868-872
• 26 Jazayeri A, Heffron JA, Phillips R, Spellacy WN. Macrosomia prediction using ultrasound fetal abdominal circumference of 35 centimeters or more. Obstet Gynecol 1999; 93 (4) 523-526
• 27 Larson A, Mandelbaum DE. Association of head circumference and shoulder dystocia in macrosomic neonates. Matern Child Health J 2013; 17 (3) 501-504
• 28 American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. ACOG practice bulletin no 107: Induction of labor. Washington, DC: The College; 2009
• 29 Gregory KD, Jackson S, Korst L, Fridman M. Cesarean versus vaginal delivery: whose risks? Whose benefits?. Am J Perinatol 2012; 29 (1) 7-18
• 30 Arikan I, Barut A, Harma M, Harma IM, Gezer S, Ulubasoglu H. Cesarean section with relative indications versus spontaneous vaginal delivery: short-term outcomes of maternofetal health. Clin Exp Obstet Gynecol 2012; 39 (3) 288-292
• 31 Gonen O, Rosen DJ, Dolfin Z, Tepper R, Markov S, Fejgin MD. Induction of labor versus expectant management in macrosomia: a randomized study. Obstet Gynecol 1997; 89 (6) 913-917
• 32 Chauhan SP, Rose CH, Gherman RB, Magann EF, Holland MW, Morrison JC. Brachial plexus injury: a 23-year experience from a tertiary center. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2005; 192 (6) 1795-1800 , discussion 1800–1802
• 33 American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. ACOG practice bulletin no 22: Fetal macrosomia. Washington, DC: The College; 2000
• 34 Gherman RB, Chauhan SP, Lewis DF. A survey of central association members about the definition, management, and complications of shoulder dystocia. Obstet Gynecol 2012; 119 (4) 830-837
• 35 Chauhan SP, Cole J, Laye MR , et al. Shoulder dystocia with and without brachial plexus injury: experience from three centers. Am J Perinatol 2007; 24 (6) 365-371
• 36 Gherman RB, Chauhan S, Ouzounian JG, Lerner H, Gonik B, Goodwin TM. Shoulder dystocia: the unpreventable obstetric emergency with empiric management guidelines. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2006; 195 (3) 657-672
• 37 American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. ACOG practice bulletin no 101: Ultrasonography in pregnancy. Washington, DC: The College; 2011
• 38 Brauer CA, Waters PM. An economic analysis of the timing of microsurgical reconstruction in brachial plexus birth palsy. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2007; 89 (5) 970-978
• 39 Chauhan SP, Chauhan VB, Cowan BD, Hendrix NW, Magann EF, Morrison JC. Professional liability claims and Central Association of Obstetricians and Gynecologists members: myth versus reality. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2005; 192 (6) 1820-1826 , discussion 1826–1828
• 40 Ouzounian JG, Korst LM, Miller DA, Lee RH. Brachial plexus palsy and shoulder dystocia: obstetric risk factors remain elusive. Am J Perinatol 2013; 30 (4) 303-307
• 41 Backe B, Magnussen EB, Johansen OJ, Sellaeg G, Russwurm H. Obstetric brachial plexus palsy: a birth injury not explained by the known risk factors. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2008; 87 (10) 1027-1032
• 42 Chauhan SP, Christian B, Gherman RB, Magann EF, Kaluser CK, Morrison JC. Shoulder dystocia without versus with brachial plexus injury: a case-control study. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 2007; 20 (4) 313-317
• 43 Mehta SH, Blackwell SC, Bujold E, Sokol RJ. What factors are associated with neonatal injury following shoulder dystocia?. J Perinatol 2006; 26 (2) 85-88
• 44 Grimes DA, Schulz KF. False alarms and pseudo-epidemics: the limitations of observational epidemiology. Obstet Gynecol 2012; 120 (4) 920-927