Subject of the article

Authors

Rabiev Sanjar Nasritdinovich

Institution

Bukhara State Medical Institute

Abstract

Relevance. Modern visualization techniques allow us to obtain a sufficient amount of information about the anatomometric features of the fetus. However, systematic studies on the relationship between the mother's somatotype and fetometric parameters of the fetus at the stages of its development in women with different somatotypes have not been conducted. The purpose of the study was to establish the features of fetometric parameters in pregnant fetuses of different height and body type at the stages of ultrasound screening examinations. Material and research methods. This study was performed based on the analysis of pregnancy and childbirth histories of 205 pregnant women for the period 2017-2020. The study was conducted on the basis of the regional perinatal center of the Bukhara region. All pregnant women had a singleton pregnancy and were in the age group from 21 to 36 years, body weight from 58 kg to 95 kg and height from 150 to 171 cm. Conclusion. Extreme forms of individual anatomical variability of pelvic dimensions among the growth-somatotypic groups identified in the study are observed in short dolichomorphic pregnant women (minimum values) and tall brachymorphic pregnant women (maximum value).

Key words

fetometry, ultrasound, biparietal size, head circumference, frontal-occipital size.

Literature

1. Luchi C., Persico N., Rembouskos G., Nicolaides K.H. Practical approach to obtain the mid-sagittal plane of the fetal face at 11-13 weeks' gestation by two-dimensional ultrasound //Ultrasound Obstet. Gynecol.- 2014.-Vol. 44, N5.-P.617-618.
2. Khamdamova M. T., Rabiev S. N. Features of the course of pregnancy in women of different somatotypes // Academicia: An International Multidisciplinary Research Journal https://saarj.com.ISSN: 2249-7137 Vol. 11, Issue 3, March 2021.
3. Parikh L.I., Nolan J. 3., Tefera E., Driggers R. Fetal biometry: does patient ethnicity matter? // J. Matern. Fetal Neonatal Med. – 2014.- Vol. 27, N5.-P.500-504.
4. Phillips A.M., Galdamez A.B., Ounpraseuth S.T., Magann E.F. Estimate of fetal weight by ultrasound within two weeks of delivery in the detection of fetal macrosomia //Aust N. Z. J. Obstet. Gynaecol.- 2014.- Vol. 54, N5.- P. 441-444.
5. Pooh, R. K. Normal anatomy by three-dimensional ultrasound in the second and third trimesters //Semin. Fetal Neonatal Med. - 2012(a).- Vol.17, № 5.- P.269-277.
6. Sato M., Kanenishi K., Hanaoka U., Noguchi J., Marumo G., Hata T. 4D ultrasound study of fetal facial expressions at 20-24 weeks of gestation //Int. J. 7
7. Simon E.G., Perruche K., Arthuis C.J., Denais V. How many ultrasound examinations for low-risk pregnancies monitoring // Perrotin.Gynecol. Obstet. Fertil. -2014.- Vol.42, N1.- P. 8-13.
8. Su X.J., Yuan W., Tan H., Liu X.Y., Li D., Li D.K., Huang G.Y., Zhang L.W., Miao M.H. Correlation between exposure to magnetic fields and embryonic development in the first trimester //PLoS One.- 2014.- Vol. 9, N6- P.101-110.
9. Khamdamova M. T., Rabiev S. N. Somatometric characteristics of pregnant women with different body types // Europe's Journal of Psychology, 2021, Vol. 17(3), Р.215-220
10. Ville I., Mirlesse V. Prenatal diagnosis: From policy to practice. Two distinct ways of managing prognostic uncertainty and anticipating disability in Brazil and in France / I. Ville, //Soc. Sci Med.- 2015.- Vol.-141.- P.19-26.
11. Khamdamova M. T., Rabiev S. N. Рrenatal echography //New day for medicine 2021, №2 (30) .- P.59-63.
12. Öcal, D., Nas F. T., Güler I. The place of four-dimensional ultrasound in evaluating fetal anomalies //Ir. J. Med. Sci.- 2015.- Vol.184,N 3.-P.607-612.