Clinical Versus Echographic Estimation of Fetal Weight at Term in A Selected Caucasian Milieu: A Comparative Analysis of The Kongnyuy – Mbu’s Clinical Estimation

Background: Estimation of fetal weight is essential in contemporary obstetrics. Clinical estimations using maternal and fetal characteristics and ultrasound methods exist. We compared a simple clinical estimation that is in use in low resourced facilities in Cameroon and ultrasound in a completely Caucasian environment. <div>Methodology: In this cross –sectional study, consented pregnant women with singleton pregnancies were carefully selected and enrolled. Those with adjuvant pathologies that increased uterine volumes were eliminated. We measured fundal heights and applied the Kornyuy – Mbu’s formula for birth weights and compared these with echographic estimations and actual birth weights. We calculated the percentage error between estimated birth weights (EBW) and actual birth weights (ABW) for accuracy and the ratio by percentage of estimation within 10% of actual birth weights. Results: The average birth weight was 3,529 + 0.35g. We did not have any baby who weighed <2500g, 89.6% weighed between 2,500 - < 4000g, and 10.4% had BW > 4,000g. The mean maternal age was 29, 2 + 4 years. The median gravidity and parity were 2 and1 respectively. The mean gestational age at delivery was 40.8 + 0.6 weeks. Clinical method underestimated and echographic method overestimated birth weights slightly but with no significance difference (P=0.130). Clinical method was able to estimate birth-weights within 10% of actual birth weight in all the subjects as against only 50% of the subjects with ultrasound. </div><div>Conclusion: Clinical estimation of birth weight as described by Kornyuy and Mbu is as accurate as routine echographic estimation in cases that are well selected.