Secondary Logo

Journal Logo

Online ACOG Publications

Macrosomia

ACOG Practice Bulletin, Number 216

Author Information
doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000003606
  • Free
  • ABOG MOC II

Abstract

Background

Definition

Two terms are applied to excessive fetal growth: “large for gestational age” (LGA) and “macrosomia.” Large for gestational age generally implies a birth weight equal to or more than the 90th percentile for a given gestational age. The term “macrosomia” implies growth beyond an absolute birth weight, historically 4,000 g or 4,500 g, regardless of the gestational age, although establishing a universally accepted definition for macrosomia is challenging. A study using the 2011 U.S. Live Birth File of the National Center for Health Statistics provides a national reference for birth weight based on the best obstetric estimate of gestational age for more than 3.2 million births (1). The 50th, 90th, and 95th percentiles for birth weight from 37 completed weeks of gestation to 42 completed weeks of gestation are shown in Table 1.

Table 1.
Table 1.:
Birth Weight Percentiles for Gestational Age: U.S. 2011 Single Live Births to Resident Women Between 37 Completed Weeks of Pregnancy and 42 Completed Weeks of Pregnancy (Based on Best Obstetric Estimate of Gestational Age)

The risk of morbidity for infants and women when birth weight is either LGA or between 4,000 g and 4,500 g is more than that of the general obstetric population, and it increases sharply when the birth weight is more than 4,500 g (2–5). A retrospective cohort study using U.S. Vital Statistics from 2011 to 2013 noted that delivery at 37–39 weeks of gestation of a newborn with a birth weight that is 90% or more for gestational age but less than 4,000 g was associated with increased composite maternal and infant morbidity (5). A large cohort study of 8.3 million births in the National Center for Health Statistics analyzed live-birth and infant death files for the United States and demonstrated that labor abnormalities and newborn complications (eg, a 5-minute Apgar score of less than 4, assisted ventilation longer than 30 minutes, birth injuries) increase within the birth weight category 4,000–4,499 g, newborn morbidity increases further within the birth weight category 4,500–4,999 g, and newborn mortality increases with birth weights more than 5,000 g (Fig. 1) (3). Another large cohort study of more than 6 million birth and infant death records demonstrated that perinatal outcomes were no different in the group weighing 4,000–4,499 g compared with those weighing less than 4,000 g, but morbidity and mortality, including stillbirth, increased significantly in newborns weighing 4,500 g or more and more so in those weighing 5,000 g or more (4). The risks associated with increasing birth weight increase on a continuum without a clear threshold. Nonetheless, based on this data, many authors and clinicians divide macrosomia into three categories, each with differing types and levels of risk: 1) 4,000–4,499 g, 2) 4,500–4,999 g, and 3) more than 5,000 g.

Figure 1.
Figure 1.:
Increased risk of adverse outcomes by macrosomia category. Open bars, Category 1 (4,000–4,499 g); gray bars, category 2 (4,500–4,999 g); black bars, category 3 (5,000+ g). The reference group is 3,000–3,999 g. All bars more than an odds ratio of 1 are significant at P<.05. Abbreviations: Asst Vent > 30, assisted ventilation more than 30 minutes; CPD, cephalopelvic disproportions; IMR, infant mortality rate. (Modified from 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;188:1372–8.)

Frequency of Occurrence

Data from the National Center for Health Statistics show that 7.8% of all live-born newborns in the United States weigh 4,000 g or more (6). Only 1% weigh more than 4,500 g and 0.1% more than 5,000 g. The rate of newborns weighing at least 4,000 g has decreased in the United States from the reported rate of 10% in 1996 (7). Women with gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) or obesity have higher rates of LGA newborns (8, 9). In a study of nearly 10,000 women, the rate of LGA newborns without GDM was 7.7% in normal-weight women and 12.7% in obese women. In women with GDM, the rates were 13.6% in normal-weight women and 22.3% in obese women (9).

Risk Factors for Macrosomia

A variety of maternal factors predispose a newborn to macrosomia, including constitutional factors, preexisting diabetes and GDM, maternal prepregnancy obesity, excessive gestational weight gain, abnormal fasting and postprandial glucose levels, dyslipidemia, a prior macrosomic newborn (weight more than 4,000 g), and postterm pregnancy (3, 8, 10–16). The interplay of these risk factors is complex and varies by prepregnancy body mass index (BMI), race, and ethnicity (8, 17, 18).

Gestational age influences birth weight and the risk of macrosomia. Among all women in the United States in 2014, the risk of birth weight more than 4,500 g increases from 1.3% at 39 weeks of gestation to 40 weeks of gestation and to 2.9% when gestational age exceeds 41 weeks (19).

Maternal hyperglycemia increases the risk of macrosomia. When maternal glucose passes through the placenta, it can lead to fetal hyperglycemia with fetal release of insulin, insulin-like growth factors, and growth hormone. This, in turn, can lead to increased fetal fat deposition and larger fetal size (20). Findings from the Hyperglycemia and Adverse Pregnancy Outcomes study showed a strong linear relationship between maternal glucose concentration and LGA fetuses, fetal adiposity, and fetal hyperinsulinemia (21). A subsequent meta-analysis of the relationship between macrosomia (weight more than 4,000 g) and maternal glucose levels in women without diabetes demonstrated that a fasting blood glucose level or any abnormal value on oral glucose tolerance testing was associated with macrosomia, but the fasting glucose level was more strongly associated (13). In women with GDM, the risk of macrosomia increases twofold to threefold even with treatment (8, 18). In a cohort of nearly 13,000 women, LGA newborns occurred in 29% of women with GDM type A1, 30% of women with GDM type A2, and 38% of women with preexisting diabetes (8).

Anthropometric studies suggest that macrosomia produced by maternal glucose intolerance is different from macrosomia associated with other predisposing factors (22, 23). Newborns who are macrosomic because of maternal glucose intolerance tend to have more total body fat, larger shoulder and upper-extremity circumferences, higher upper-extremity skin-fold measurements, and smaller head-to-abdominal-circumference ratios compared with macrosomic newborns of women without diabetes. It has been suggested that this altered fetal body shape is responsible for the higher incidence of shoulder dystocia seen among newborns of women with diabetes (23). Regardless of birth weight, newborns of women with diabetes have an increased risk of shoulder dystocia, clavicular fracture, and brachial plexus palsy (2, 24–26).

Gestational diabetes and hyperglycemia often occur in conjunction with prepregnancy obesity and excessive gestational weight gain making it difficult to distinguish the independent contributions of each to macrosomia. Furthermore, GDM and obesity share common metabolic characteristics such as increased insulin resistance, hyperglycemia, and hyperinsulinemia. There is little doubt that birth weight, in general, increases with maternal BMI (8–11, 17, 27). Although obese women are more likely than normal-weight women to have large newborns, several issues confound this observation (8, 10, 11, 27). First, obese women are more likely to have diabetes (28). Second, excess weight gain during pregnancy is itself a risk factor for excessive fetal growth (9, 10, 12, 16, 17, 29), and the risk of newborn macrosomia (more than 4,000 g) associated with excessive maternal weight gain is higher for obese women than for nonobese women (9–12, 17).

Multiple studies show that GDM, obesity, and excess gestational weight gain are each independently associated with macrosomia (9, 11, 18) and their effects appear to be synergistic. In a multivariate analysis of nearly 106,000 pregnancies stratified by race and ethnicity from the Consortium on Safe Labor, the presence of any of obesity, GDM, or excess weight gain increased the odds of LGA newborns by 2–2.5 (18). When any two of those factors were present, the odds ratio (OR) was 3.5–5, and when all three were present, the OR was 5–11. Ranges in the OR are due to stratification by race or ethnicity. Each race and ethnicity group had differing patterns of response to the various risk factors, but within all race or ethnicity groups, each of the three factors was associated with LGA newborns. Because of the increasing prevalence of maternal obesity compared with diabetes, maternal obesity plays a larger role in macrosomia at a population level (8, 9).

A number of historic maternal factors and habits also influence neonatal birth weight. A woman who previously has given birth to a newborn weighing more than 4,000 g is 5–10 times more likely to give birth to a newborn weighing more than 4,500 g than a woman without such a history (18, 30, 31). A history of macrosomia was the single strongest individual risk factor for macrosomia in a large study controlling jointly for BMI, excess weight gain, diabetes, race, parity, and age (18). To a degree, maternal birth weight may predict newborn weight. Women whose birth weights exceeded 8 lbs (approximately 3,600 g) are twice as likely to give birth to newborns weighing more than 4,000 g than are women whose birth weights were between 6 and 7.9 lbs (approximately 2,700 g to 3,500 g) (32). Two cohort studies show that multiparity and grand multiparity increase the risk of macrosomia (4, 31).

Genetic factors, such as parental phenotype, also play a role in determining newborn birth weight. Tall women (in the 80th percentile or more) have a higher risk of macrosomia than short women (in the 20th percentile or less) even when controlled for weight (15). Male newborns typically weigh more than female newborns at any gestational age and, therefore, constitute a larger proportion of newborns with birth weights exceeding 4,500 g (4, 33).

Diagnosis

An accurate diagnosis of macrosomia can only be made by weighing the newborn after birth. The prenatal prediction of newborn birth weight is imprecise. Although published formulas for estimating fetal weight show a correlation with birth weight, the variability of the estimate is up to 20% with most of the formulas (34). Ultrasonography enables the direct measurement of various fetal body parts, but its accuracy in predicting macrosomia is poor. A meta-analysis of 29 studies found a sensitivity of 56% and specificity of 92% for predicting birth weight more than 4,000 g (35). Ultrasound accuracy decreases with increasing fetal weight beyond 4,000 g (36, 37) such that an ultrasound-estimated fetal weight of more than 4,500 g accurately predicts birth weight more than 4,500 g in only 33–44% of cases (35–40).

Given the poor predictive ability of ultrasonography at term to predict macrosomia, a variety of other techniques and formulas have been investigated. Neither longitudinal ultrasound examinations nor individual growth-curve modeling improves the prediction of macrosomia (41). Using customized growth curves to detect fetal overgrowth and its complications has proved to be no better than using population-based growth curves (42). Small studies of three-dimensional ultrasonography have shown mixed results (35, 43–45). A formula using biacromial diameter (46) and a macrosomic-specific formula (47) have shown high rates of accuracy but are from single institutions, and validation studies have not been reported. Magnetic resonance imaging has been shown to have higher sensitivity and specificity than ultrasonography (35, 48) but given its cost and discomfort, as well as its size limitations for obese women, further study is needed to determine the appropriate clinical use of magnetic resonance imaging in this setting.

Studies comparing the accuracy of ultrasonography with that of physical examination for the detection of macrosomia have had inconsistent findings, and none have shown that ultrasonography is superior to physical examination in a clinically meaningful way (39, 49). Parous women appear to be able to predict the weight of their newborns as well as clinicians who use ultrasonography or clinical palpation maneuvers (50, 51).

Risks Associated With Macrosomia

Maternal Morbidity

The primary maternal risk associated with macrosomia is an increased risk of cesarean birth. Studies show that with birth weights more than 4,500 g, the risk of cesarean birth for women attempting a vaginal delivery is at least double that of controls (2–4, 52, 53). Labor protraction and arrest disorders are more frequent with macrosomia (3, 54), and almost all of the increased risk of cesarean birth is attributed to labor abnormalities (55). Studies have demonstrated consistently that the inaccurate ultrasonographic prediction of macrosomia predisposes women to the diagnosis of labor abnormalities and cesarean birth independent of actual birth weight (56–59). One group reported that, as an indication for cesarean birth, macrosomia was responsible for 10% of the overall increase in cesarean birth rates over the 7-year study period despite no change in the true rate of newborn macrosomia (birth weight more than 4,500 g) during that time (60).

The risks of postpartum hemorrhage, chorioamnionitis, and significant vaginal lacerations are elevated with macrosomia (54). In a multivariate analysis of nearly 9,000 deliveries, after adjustment for age, parity, diabetes, and labor induction, birth weight more than 4,500 g was associated with significantly increased risks of chorioamnionitis (OR 2.4), shoulder dystocia (OR 7.1), third-degree or fourth-degree lacerations (OR 1.7), and postpartum hemorrhage (OR 3.1) (54). The risk of third-degree and fourth-degree lacerations is increased twofold to threefold with macrosomia (33, 61, 62); this is especially true if delivery is complicated by shoulder dystocia (63).

Fetal Morbidity and Mortality

Macrosomia increases the risk of shoulder dystocia. Shoulder dystocia occurs in 0.2–3.0% of all vaginal deliveries (64) and the risk increases to 9–14% when birth weight is more than 4,500 g (2, 33, 65). In the presence of maternal diabetes, a birth weight of 4,500 g or more has been associated with rates of shoulder dystocia from 20% to 50% (2, 33). Figure 2 shows the relationship between birth weight, maternal diabetes status, spontaneous or assisted vaginal delivery, and the mean frequency of shoulder dystocia based on a study of more than 175,000 births in California in 1992 (2). The fetal injuries most commonly associated with macrosomia and shoulder dystocia are fracture of the clavicle and damage to the nerves of the brachial plexus, specifically at vertebrae C5 and C6, which can produce Erb–Duchenne paralysis. Fracture of the clavicle complicates 0.4–0.6% of all births and typically resolves without permanent sequelae (66, 67). For macrosomic newborns, the risk of clavicular fracture is increased approximately 10-fold (67). It is important to note that although macrosomia clearly increases risk, most instances of shoulder dystocia occur unpredictably among newborns of normal birth weight (68), and most macrosomic newborns do not experience shoulder dystocia (2, 33, 65).

Figure 2.
Figure 2.:
Frequency of shoulder dystocia for increasing birth weight by maternal diabetes status and method of vaginal delivery—spontaneous or assisted. (Reprinted from Nesbitt TS, Gilbert WM, Herrchen B. Shoulder dystocia and associated risk factors with macrosomic infants born in California. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1998;179: 476–80.)

According to U.S. studies, the rate of neonatal brachial plexus palsy is low, with an incidence of both transient and persistent neonatal brachial plexus palsy of 1.5 per 1,000 total births (68). Case–control studies demonstrate that the risk of brachial plexus palsy among newborns delivered vaginally is increased 18-fold to 21-fold when birth weight exceeds 4,500 g (25, 67, 69), with absolute rates between 2.6% and 7% (70, 71). Brachial plexus palsy also can occur in the absence of shoulder dystocia or with cesarean birth (68). Most cases of brachial plexus palsy resolve without permanent disability. Other large case series confirm that 80–90% of cases of brachial plexus palsy will resolve by age 1 year (72, 73). Persistent injury is more common with higher birth weights and, in particular, birth weights more than 4,500 g (74, 75).

Macrosomia is associated with a number of other risks to the newborn, including increased risks of depressed 5-minute Apgar scores, hypoglycemia, respiratory problems, polycythemia, meconium aspiration, and increased rates of admission and prolonged admission (more than 3 days) to a neonatal intensive care unit (3, 54, 70, 76). Macrosomic newborns are more likely than normal-weight newborns to be overweight and obese later in life (77, 78).

Clinical Considerations and Recommendations

How accurate are clinical estimates of fetal weight?

The prediction of birth weight is imprecise by ultrasonography or clinical measurement. For suspected macrosomia, the accuracy of estimated fetal weight using ultrasound biometry is no better than that obtained with abdominal palpation. In several prospective studies, clinical palpation alone, irrespective of the obstetrician’s or other obstetric care provider’s level of clinical training, predicted macrosomia as accurately as any reported ultrasound method (39, 79, 80–83). The effect of maternal obesity on clinical estimates of birth weight is unclear. Studies have shown either no effect or overestimation of birth weight due to maternal obesity (84, 85). Data in women with morbid obesity (BMI of 40 or more) is limited; one study demonstrated no effect on clinical estimation of fetal weight when compared with women with a BMI more than 25. (85).

Measurement of the symphysis to fundal height is commonly used during prenatal care to detect size discrepancies for referral to ultrasonography, but fundal height alone is a poor predictor of macrosomia. Retrospective studies suggest that the sensitivity of fundal height measurement alone for the detection of macrosomia is 20–70% depending on the thresholds used (85–88), although the specificity is more than 90%, indicating that it is more effective for ruling out macrosomia than ruling it in.

Prospective studies of women in labor or before induction that were designed to evaluate abdominal palpation maneuvers for the detection of macrosomia report sensitivity of 16–68%, specificity of 90–99%, and positive predictive values between 38% and 80% (39, 81, 89, 90). Using an algorithm of ultrasonography performed on women with clinically estimated fetal weights of 3,700 g or more did not improve positive predictive value (89). In a prospective study of women presenting in active labor, extrapolated estimated fetal weight based on an earlier ultrasonogram was similarly accurate to clinically estimated fetal weight and more accurate than ultrasonography in labor (83). Prospective studies among women with diabetes also have shown that clinical estimates of macrosomia are as predictive as those derived with ultrasonography (91).

Simply asking a parous woman for her estimate of the birth weight may provide an estimate as accurate as any other. In two studies, a parous woman’s ability to predict birth weight more than 4,000 g was as accurate as that of clinicians using clinical palpation maneuvers alone (51, 90).

How accurate is ultrasonographic measurement in predicting macrosomia?

Most commercially available ultrasound units have one or more estimated fetal weight equations already programmed into the system software (92, 93). However, most of the regression formulas currently in use are associated with significant errors when the newborn is predicted to be macrosomic. For example, the Hadlock formula to estimate fetal weight has a mean absolute percent error of 13% for newborns weighing more than 4,500 g, compared with 8% for nonmacrosomic newborns (36, 94), and the absolute error increases with increasing estimated fetal weight (37, 40).

For clinical care, the ability to predict birth weight more than 4,500 g or more than 5,000 g would be useful. However, ultrasonography is less effective at identifying newborns with birth weights more than 4,500 g. Among women without diabetes, ultrasound biometry used to detect birth weight more than 4,500 g has a sensitivity of only 10–45%, a specificity of 57–99%, a positive predictive value of 11–44%, and a negative predictive value of 92–99% (39, 40, 89, 95). When birth weight exceeds 4,500 g, only 40–60% of newborns weigh within 10% of the ultrasonography-derived estimate (36, 40). Reports demonstrating higher accuracy generally rely on less stringent criteria for macrosomia, such as birth weight more than 4,000 g or weight exceeding the 90th percentile for a given gestational age. In a meta-analysis of 56 studies, the pooled sensitivity and specificity were 56% and 92%, respectively, for predicting birth weight more than 4,000 g (35). Furthermore, estimations derived from ultrasonography most commonly overestimate the actual birth weight (37, 96). These observations suggest that the utility of ultrasonography for obtaining estimated weights is limited. Key sources of inaccuracy include large intraobserver and interobserver variability or technical difficulties obtaining accurate fetal measurements in late gestation (96, 97).

No single formula based on ultrasound biometry performs significantly better than others for the detection of macrosomia more than 4,500 g. One study compared the accuracy of 36 different published formulae for estimating fetal weight with ultrasonography, and none was superior to the others in a clinically meaningful way (98). Another large study that evaluated 21 formulae found considerable variation in sensitivity (14–99%) and specificity (64–99.8%), but estimates based on three or four biometric parameters performed better than estimates based on the abdominal circumference alone (99).

In addition to inaccuracy, ultrasonographic determination of fetal weight appears to predispose women to the diagnosis of labor abnormalities and cesarean birth independent of actual birth weight (89, 100–103). In a prospective study, women with a clinically estimated fetal weight more than 3,700 g near term had an ultrasound examination, and women with an estimated fetal weight more than 4,000 g were told of the potential for birth trauma. If the estimated fetal weight was more than 4,500 g, cesarean birth was recommended. The cesarean birth rate was doubled (51% versus 25%, P<.05) when ultrasonography-derived estimated fetal weight was more than 4,000 g versus less than 4,000 g, although actual birth weight of 4,000 g or more was seen in 56% and 30% of individuals, respectively (89). In a retrospective cohort of macrosomic neonates (weight more than 4,000 g), the adjusted OR of cesarean birth in women who received an ultrasound examination versus women who did not receive an ultrasound examination within 1 month of delivery was 2.1 (95% CI, 1.06 to 4.3) (100). Similarly, in a Maternal-Fetal Medicine Units Network analysis, after adjustment for actual birth weight, the adjusted OR of cesarean birth was 1.44 (95% CI, 1.31 to 1.58) for women with an ultrasonography-derived estimated fetal weight, regardless of the result of the ultrasonogram. The OR increased to 2.15 (95% CI, 1.55 to 2.98) when the ultrasonography-derived estimated fetal weight was more than 4,000 g versus less than 3,500 g (101). A randomized controlled trial that compared women who received routine ultrasound examinations at 18 weeks of gestation and an additional ultrasound examination at 33 weeks of gestation with women who received a single routine ultrasound examination at 18 weeks demonstrated a slight reduction in induction of labor and scheduled cesarean birth for suspected macrosomia (104). However, this study failed to demonstrate any significant differences in perinatal outcomes. Similar to clinical estimates of fetal weight, ultrasonography can be used most effectively as a tool to rule out macrosomia, which may help avoid maternal and fetal morbidity.

Are there effective interventions for treating or preventing suspected macrosomia?

Interventions shown to reduce macrosomia include exercise during pregnancy, low glycemic diet in women with GDM, and prepregnancy bariatric surgery in women with class 2 or class 3 obesity. A meta-analysis of 28 randomized clinical trials in 5,322 women that compared standard care with supervised prenatal exercise found a decreased risk of macrosomia or LGA newborns (OR 0.69; 95% CI, 0.55 to 0.86) without an increase in small for gestational age (SGA) or preterm delivery (105). In addition, women randomized to exercise gained less weight and had a 20% lower rate of cesarean birth. Most studies included normal-weight women without GDM. One half of the exercise programs were aerobic and the other half were combined aerobic and resistance training. A newer meta-analysis of 15 high-quality randomized controlled trials that included 3,670 women and any type of exercise found that for exercise-only interventions (as opposed to exercise plus other interventions), macrosomia was reduced by 39% (OR 0.61; 95% CI, 0.41–0.92) (106). A subgroup analysis showed that combining more than one type of exercise further reduced the odds of macrosomia (OR 0.46; 95% CI, 0.29–0.73); SGA and preterm delivery were not increased. These studies add further evidence of the benefit of exercise during pregnancy (107). Women without contraindications should be encouraged to engage in aerobic and strength-conditioning exercises during pregnancy to reduce the risk of macrosomia.

In women without diabetes, dietary interventions that do not include exercise have shown modest-to-no benefit in preventing macrosomia. A Cochrane review of 65 randomized control trials of diet, exercise, or both, to prevent excessive weight gain in pregnancy found a reduction of excessive weight gain of 20% (relative risk [RR] 0.80; 95% CI, 0.73 to 0.87) but did not find a decrease in macrosomia (108). However, in a subgroup analysis of overweight women or women with GDM, combined diet plus exercise resulted in a 15% reduced risk of macrosomia (RR 0.85; 95% CI, 0.73 to 1.00). Similarly, in a recent meta-analysis using individual participant data, there was no decrease in LGA or GDM, although less weight gain occurred in the dietary intervention arms compared with the control group (109).

Control of maternal hyperglycemia reduces the risk of macrosomia; therefore, maternal glucose management is recommended for pregnancies complicated by diabetes. One clinical trial suggests that the addition of insulin to diet therapy may benefit women at risk of LGA newborns diagnosed between 29 weeks of gestation and 33 weeks of gestation (110). This study randomized 98 women with GDM and a fetal abdominal circumference exceeding the 75th percentile for gestational age to either diet therapy alone or diet therapy with twice-daily insulin. The addition of insulin therapy decreased the likelihood of birth weight more than the 90th percentile from 45% among those treated with diet only to 13% among those receiving insulin (P<.01) (110). These results are consistent with larger trials designed to determine the effects of treatment of GDM with diet and insulin (if indicated) on newborn outcomes. In the Australian Carbohydrate Intolerance Study in Pregnant Women trial, the risk of a birth weight more than 4,000 g was reduced from 21% to 10% (RR, 0.47; 95% CI, 0.34 to 0.64; P=.001) (111). Similarly, in a large multicenter randomized trial of treatment of mild GDM, the risk of a birth weight more than 4,000 g was reduced from 14.3% to 5.9% (RR, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.26–0.66; P=.001) (112). Specific diets also have been investigated. A meta-analysis of five randomized controlled trials that included 300 women with GDM compared low glycemic diets to usual care and found a 73% decrease in macrosomia (OR, 0.27; 95% CI, 0.10 to 0.71) (113). Diets that included additional dietary fiber further decreased the risk. Together, these trials confirm that control of maternal hyperglycemia is important in the prevention of macrosomia among women in whom gestational diabetes has been diagnosed.

For women with class 2 or class 3 obesity (BMI more than 35 or more than 40 respectively), having had bariatric surgery before pregnancy is associated with decreased odds of GDM (OR 0.31 and 0.47, respectively) and LGA newborns (OR 0.40 and 0.46, respectively) in meta-analyses of observational studies (114, 115). However, previous bariatric surgery also was associated with an increase in SGA newborns and a possible increase in preterm delivery. The largest study used the Swedish medical birth registry and included 2,562 women who had undergone bariatric surgery matched to other women in the registry by early pregnancy BMI and other factors (116). The rate for LGA newborns was lower in those who had undergone bariatric surgery (4.2% versus 7.3%; OR 0.6), but the rate of SGA newborns was higher (5.2% versus 3.0%: OR 2.0) as was preterm birth (9.7% versus 6.1%: OR 1.7). Studies in these meta-analyses matched on postsurgical BMI rather than pre-surgical BMI. A more appropriate comparison would be to match prebariatric surgery BMI to prepregnancy BMI in women who had not undergone bariatric surgery. This type of comparison was done in a follow-up study using the same Swedish medical birth registry (117). Among 670 women who had bariatric surgery, there were lower rates of GDM (1.9% versus 6.8%; OR 0.25) and LGA newborns (8.6% versus 22.4%; OR 0.33). Preterm births were not significantly different. However, there was an increase in SGA newborns (15.6% versus 7.6%; OR 2.20) and a nonsignificant increase in stillbirth (1.7% versus 0.7%; P=.06). Given the health benefits, particularly for pregnancy outcomes, prepregnancy counseling of morbidly obese patients regarding the benefits and risks of bariatric surgery is recommended.

Is there a role for induction of labor in the management of term patients with suspected macrosomia?

Evidence from retrospective cohort studies that examined a policy of induction of labor in term patients with suspected macrosomia is inconsistent. Some reports show that induction of labor increases the risk of cesarean birth without reducing shoulder dystocia or newborn morbidity (118–120). Others suggest a slight decrease or no effect on the risk of cesarean birth and no difference in the rate of shoulder dystocia with induction of labor (121, 122). Some of these studies are limited by sample size, and all are compromised because of possible bias introduced by their retrospective nature.

Two randomized clinical trials have examined the effect of a policy of induction of labor at term for ultrasonography-derived estimated fetal weight more than the 90th percentile. In the first trial, a total of 273 women at 38 weeks of gestation or later with ultrasonography-derived estimated fetal weights between 4,000 g and 4,500 g were randomized to either planned induction of labor or expectant management (123). The cesarean birth rates were similar: 19.4% for the induction group and 21.6% for the expectant group. There were 11 cases of shoulder dystocia: five in the induction group and six in the expectant group. All were managed without brachial plexus palsy or other trauma. In a second European trial, a total of 822 women with estimated fetal weights above the 95th percentile for gestational age at 37 weeks of gestation to 38 weeks of gestation were randomized to induction of labor within 3 days or to expectant management (124). With induction of labor, the risk of significant shoulder dystocia was reduced from 4% to 1% (RR, 0.32; 95% CI, 0.12 to 0.85). Importantly, there were no instances of brachial plexus palsy in either group, and the cesarean birth rates were similar: 28% in the induction group and 32% in the expectant management group (RR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.72 to 1.09). The only significant differences in newborn outcomes were a decrease in fractures from 1% to 0.8% and an increase in neonatal hyperbilirubinemia and the need for phototherapy, especially in the group that gave birth before 38 completed weeks of gestation. Two meta-analyses, including these trials and two smaller unpublished trials involving a total of 1,190 women with suspected macrosomia (a heterogeneous cohort of nulliparous women, multiparous women, women with diabetes, and women without diabetes), have been published (125, 126). Compared with expectant management, induction of labor for suspected macrosomia reduced the risk of shoulder dystocia (RR, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.37 to 0.98) and any type of fracture (RR, 0.20; 95% CI, 0.05 to 0.79) with no change in the risk of cesarean birth (RR 0.91; 95% CI, 0.76 to 1.09) or instrumental delivery (RR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.65 to 1.13) (125). However, there were no differences between the groups for brachial plexus palsy, although this outcome was infrequent (RR, 0.21; 95% CI, 0.01 to 4.28).

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists recommends against delivery before 39 0/7 weeks of gestation unless it is medically indicated (127). Whether intervention is better than expectant management for suspected LGA fetuses and the gestational age at which delivery should be performed are unclear (128). Although the meta-analysis of available trials is provocative and raises questions for further study, it is not clear that a reduction in shoulder dystocia would be seen with induction of labor after 39 0/7 weeks of gestation (125, 126). At this time, and until additional studies are reported, suspected macrosomia or LGA fetus is not an indication for induction of labor before 39 0/7 weeks of gestation because there is insufficient evidence that benefits of reducing shoulder dystocia risk would outweigh the harms of early delivery.

When should scheduled cesarean birth be considered for suspected macrosomia at a particular estimated fetal weight?

The goal of scheduled cesarean birth for suspected macrosomia is to reduce fetal morbidity or maternal morbidity, or both. Although fetal and maternal morbidity increase with birth weights more than 4,000 g, most births of macrosomic newborns are uncomplicated (33, 54, 75, 129). For example, in a Norwegian study that included nearly 68,000 infants with birth weights more than 4,500 g, shoulder dystocia occurred in 2.6% of newborns weighing 4,000–4,500 g, 6.7% of newborns weighing 4,500–5,000 g, and 15% of newborns weighing more than 5,000 g (129). Transient brachial plexus palsy is estimated to occur in 1–17% of births complicated by shoulder dystocia and of these, 3–33% persist at 1 year after birth (68). Of note, the risk of permanent brachial plexus palsy increases with birth weight (68, 65). The risk of maternal morbidity also increases with increasing birth weight, but most vaginal deliveries are uncomplicated. In a cohort of 8,800 births of newborns weighing more than 4,000 g, increased rates of chorioamnionitis (12.4% versus 17%), third-degree or fourth-degree lacerations (4.5% versus 6.1%), postpartum hemorrhage (2.3% versus 7.8%) and length of stay 5 or more days (5.6% versus 10%) were observed compared with newborns who weighed less than 4000 g (54).

Cesarean birth reduces, but does not eliminate, the risk of birth trauma and neonatal brachial plexus palsy associated with macrosomia (25, 130, 131). Although the prediction of macrosomia is imprecise, scheduled cesarean birth may be beneficial for newborns with suspected macrosomia who have an estimated fetal weight of at least 5,000 g in women without diabetes and an estimated fetal weight of at least 4,500 g in women with diabetes. However, given the absence of randomized clinical trials, planned cesarean birth for suspected macrosomia is controversial and is based on expert opinion.

Most fetuses with macrosomia who are delivered vaginally do not experience shoulder dystocia. Consequently, if all fetuses suspected of being macrosomic had a cesarean birth, the cesarean birth rate would increase disproportionately to the reduction in the rate of shoulder dystocia. Studies using estimates of the prevalence of permanent brachial plexus palsy at birth found that between 155 and 1,026 cesarean births would need to be performed to prevent one occurrence of permanent brachial plexus palsy for newborns with a birth weight of 4,500 g, and between 79 to 373 cesarean births for newborns with a birth weight of 5,000 g (25, 70). Because these analyses did not consider the imperfect predictive values of ultrasonography for macrosomia, they underestimated the number of cesarean births that would be needed to implement such a policy. In a decision analytic model that accounted for the reported sensitivity and specificity of ultrasonography for the detection of macrosomia (4,500 g or greater), it was calculated that for women without diabetes, 3,695 cesarean births would be required to prevent one permanent injury, at an additional cost of $8.7 million for each permanent injury avoided (132, 133). For pregnancies complicated by diabetes, the estimated ratios of cesarean births and cost per permanent injury avoided were more favorable, although these figures were still high at 443 cesarean births performed at a cost of $930,000 for each permanent injury avoided. A cost-effective analysis compared the strategies of expectant management, induction of labor, and cesarean birth to prevent the occurrence of permanent brachial plexus palsy among women without diabetes whose newborns had an estimated fetal weight of 4,500 g (134) and concluded that expectant management was the most cost-effective option whereas induction and scheduled cesarean birth were similar to each other (134). The model accounts for the poor sensitivity of ultrasonographic diagnosis, which the authors posited would further favor expectant management (134). A policy of scheduled cesarean birth for suspected macrosomia in newborns weighing less than 5,000 g in women without diabetes would result in significant maternal morbidity and would be economically unsound.

Despite the poor predictive value of an estimated fetal weight of more than 5,000 g and a lack of evidence supporting cesarean birth, most, but not all, researchers agree that consideration should be given to cesarean birth in this situation because of the increased risk of stillbirth and higher rates of other morbidities in women and newborns weighing more than 5,000 g (2, 30, 70, 130). Among newborns with birth weights exceeding 5,000 g, there are reports of cesarean birth rates of 35–60%, brachial plexus palsy rates of 7–11%, and a neonatal death rate as high as 1.9% (3, 70, 130, 135). In contrast, some investigators suggest that ultrasonography-derived fetal weight estimates alone should not be used to determine the route of delivery because of the poor accuracy of ultrasonography for determining prenatally if this threshold has been exceeded (25, 38).

For women with gestational or preexisting diabetes, the risk of fetal and maternal morbidity increase when newborns weigh more than 4,500 g (2, 54). The number of cesarean births to prevent one occurrence of permanent brachial plexus palsy is more favorable than it is in women without diabetes, (132) supporting the recommendation for scheduled cesarean birth in women with diabetes with an estimated fetal weight more than 4,500 g. Pregnant women with suspected macrosomia should be provided individualized counseling about the risks and benefits of vaginal births and cesarean births based on the degree of suspected macrosomia, accounting for their relevant clinical considerations. Discussion should include the inability to estimate birth weight accurately, the low incidence of brachial plexus palsy and shoulder dystocia even in macrosomic fetuses, the fact that shoulder dystocia is challenging to predict, and the fact that the risk of brachial plexus palsy is not eliminated by cesarean birth.

How should a diagnosis of suspected macrosomia affect the management of labor and vaginal delivery?

Prolonged first and second stages of labor are common when macrosomia is present (3, 54), leading to increased rates of conversion to cesarean during labor (2, 52). Many investigators have attempted to determine whether shoulder dystocia can be predicted. Labor abnormalities have been associated with shoulder dystocia in some, but not all, studies, and these abnormalities occur too frequently to be useful predictors (129, 136–138). Likewise, models that combine risk factors have not reliably predicted shoulder dystocia or brachial plexus palsy (139–141). However, some studies have shown that the combination of a macrosomic newborn weighing more than 4,500 g in addition to labor arrest is significantly associated with shoulder dystocia (140, 142). Therefore, when fetal weight is estimated to be more than 4,500 g, a prolonged second stage of labor or arrest of descent in the second stage above +2 out of +5 station is an indication for cesarean birth.

A clinician’s suspicion of a large fetus on prenatal examination and communication of fetal size concerns to the patient have been associated with increased labor and delivery interventions. In a nationally representative survey of 2,000 U.S. women, those with “suspected large babies” had increased adjusted odds of medically induced labor (adjusted OR, 1.9; 95% CI, 1.4 to 2.6), were more likely to ask for cesarean births (adjusted OR, 4.6; 95% CI, 2.8 to 7.6), and were more likely to have planned cesarean births (adjusted OR, 1.8; 95% CI, 1.0 to 4.5). However, only 20% of these women gave birth to a newborn weighing 4,000 g or more (143). Communication to the patient about concerns of macrosomia may be one mechanism through which the cesarean birth rate is increased in those with suspected macrosomia.

Whether to conduct an operative vaginal delivery in cases of suspected macrosomia is another important consideration. Figure 2 shows that the risk of shoulder dystocia increases in assisted vaginal delivery. Observational studies consistently demonstrate an increased risk of shoulder dystocia when a macrosomic fetus is delivered using forceps or vacuum extraction. Two population-based cohort studies, each with more than 1 million births, found threefold to fivefold increased odds of shoulder dystocia with vacuum-assisted delivery (129, 144). A meta-analysis of four observational studies calculated a summary OR of 2.98 (95% CI, 2.3 to 3.9) (145). Whether forceps delivery of a macrosomic newborn increases the risk of shoulder dystocia is unclear. The largest study found no increased risk of shoulder dystocia with forceps delivery (OR 1.1) (129). Similarly, the meta-analysis found no increased risk of shoulder dystocia associated with forceps use compared with vacuum use (OR 1.1), but individual studies within the meta-analysis varied from a threefold increased risk with forceps use compared with a threefold decreased risk with vacuum use (145). The risk of shoulder dystocia at the time of operative vaginal delivery increases when more risk factors are present. For example, when an LGA newborn, diabetes, and vacuum delivery were all present, the OR was 33 (144). Thus, the clinician should have a heightened awareness for shoulder dystocia in these situations, although judicious use of operative vaginal delivery is reasonable even when risk factors are present. The patient should be counseled regarding these risks, caution should be exercised, and preparations should be made for the possibility of encountering shoulder dystocia.

Is suspected macrosomia a contraindication to labor after cesarean?

It is appropriate for patients, obstetrician–gynecologists, and other obstetric care providers to consider past and predicted birth weights when making decisions regarding labor after cesarean; however, suspected macrosomia is not a contraindication to labor after cesarean. Women undergoing labor after cesarean with a suspected macrosomic fetus (birth weight more than 4,000 g) have a lower likelihood of vaginal birth after cesarean birth (VBAC) than women attempting labor after cesarean who have a nonmacrosomic fetus (62, 146–148). Although success rates of labor after cesarean decrease as newborn birth weights increase to 4,000 g or more (146, 147), this effect does not decrease absolute VBAC success rates to less than 50% in women who have had a previous vaginal delivery or previous VBAC (62, 146, 147). There may be a higher risk of uterine rupture during labor after cesarean with neonatal birth weights more than 4,000 g. A study of 10,000 women who underwent labor after cesarean found no increased risk of uterine rupture among 1,441 women with macrosomic newborns (149). However, in a literature review, the pooled OR of rupture from eight observational studies, including the one noted previously, was 1.52 (95% CI, 1.09 to 2.11) (62). Only one of these studies controlled for confounders and obtained an adjusted OR of 2.6 (95% CI, 1.00 to 6.85) with neonatal birth weight greater than 4,000 g (62). The rates of rupture were highest in women with no history of prior vaginal delivery and with increasing birth weight (146, 147). Because these studies used actual birth weight as opposed to estimated fetal weight, and because there is no accurate way to predict birth weight, especially for birth weights more than 4,000 g, these data have limited applicability in making decisions regarding mode of delivery before labor (7).

Summary of Recommendations

The following recommendations are based on good and consistent scientific evidence (Level A):

  • ▸ The prediction of birth weight is imprecise by ultrasonography or clinical measurement. For suspected macrosomia, the accuracy of estimated fetal weight using ultrasound biometry is no better than that obtained with abdominal palpation.
  • ▸ Women without contraindications should be encouraged to engage in aerobic and strength-conditioning exercises during pregnancy to reduce the risk of macrosomia.
  • ▸ Control of maternal hyperglycemia reduces the risk of macrosomia; therefore, maternal glucose management is recommended for pregnancies complicated by diabetes.

The following recommendations are based on limited or inconsistent scientific evidence (Level B):

  • ▸ Similar to clinical estimates of fetal weight, ultrasonography can be used most effectively as a tool to rule out macrosomia, which may help avoid maternal and fetal morbidity.
  • ▸ Given the health benefits, particularly for pregnancy outcomes, prepregnancy counseling of morbidly obese patients regarding the benefits and risks of bariatric surgery is recommended.
  • ▸ Suspected fetal macrosomia or LGA fetus is not an indication for induction of labor before 39 0/7 weeks of gestation because there is insufficient evidence that benefits of reducing shoulder dystocia risk would outweigh the harms of early delivery.

The following recommendations are based primarily on consensus and expert opinion (Level C):

  • ▸ Although the prediction of macrosomia is imprecise, scheduled cesarean birth may be beneficial for newborns with suspected macrosomia who have an estimated fetal weight of at least 5,000 g in women without diabetes and an estimated fetal weight of at least 4,500 g in women with diabetes.
  • ▸ Pregnant women with suspected macrosomia should be provided individualized counseling about the risks and benefits of vaginal births and cesarean births based on the degree of suspected macrosomia, accounting for their relevant clinical considerations.
  • ▸ It is appropriate for patients, obstetrician–gynecologists, and other obstetric care providers to consider past and predicted birth weights when making decisions regarding labor after cesarean however, suspected macrosomia is not a contraindication to labor after cesarean.
  • ▸ The term “macrosomia” implies growth beyond an absolute birth weight, historically 4,000 g or 4,500 g, regardless of the gestational age, although establishing a universally accepted definition for macrosomia is challenging.

The MEDLINE database, the Cochrane Library, and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists’ own internal resources and documents were used to conduct a literature search to locate relevant articles published between January 2000–July 2019. The search was restricted to articles published in the English language. Priority was given to articles reporting results of original research, although review articles and commentaries also were consulted. Abstracts of research presented at symposia and scientific conferences were not considered adequate for inclusion in this document. Guidelines published by organizations or institutions such as the National Institutes of Health and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists were reviewed, and additional studies were located by reviewing bibliographies of identified articles. When reliable research was not available, expert opinions from obstetrician–gynecologists were used.

Studies were reviewed and evaluated for quality according to the method outlined by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force:

  • I Evidence obtained from at least one properly designed randomized controlled trial.
  • II-1 Evidence obtained from well-designed controlled trials without randomization.
  • II-2 Evidence obtained from well-designed cohort or case–control analytic studies, preferably from more than one center or research group.
  • II-3 Evidence obtained from multiple time series with or without the intervention. Dramatic results in uncontrolled experiments also could be regarded as this type of evidence.
  • III Opinions of respected authorities, based on clinical experience, descriptive studies, or reports of expert committees.

Based on the highest level of evidence found in the data, recommendations are provided and graded according to the following categories:

Level A—Recommendations are based on good and consistent scientific evidence.

Level B—Recommendations are based on limited or inconsistent scientific evidence.

Level C—Recommendations are based primarily on consensus and expert opinion.

Number 216 (Replaces Practice Bulletin Number 173, November 2016)

Committee on Practice Bulletins—Obstetrics. This Practice Bulletin was developed by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists’ Committee on Practice Bulletins—Obstetrics in collaboration with William H. Barth Jr, MD and Rebecca Jackson, MD.

Published online on December 19, 2019

Copyright 2019 by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, posted on the internet, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without prior written permission from the publisher.

American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists 409 12th Street, SW, PO Box 96920, Washington, DC 20090-6920

Macrosomia. ACOG Practice Bulletin No. 216. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Obstet Gynecol 2020;135:e18–35.

References

1. Duryea EL, Hawkins JS, McIntire DD, Casey BM, Leveno KJ. A revised birth weight reference for the United States. Obstet Gynecol 2014;124:16–22. (Level II-3)
2. Nesbitt TS, Gilbert WM, Herrchen B. Shoulder dystocia and associated risk factors with macrosomic infants born in California. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1998;179:476–80. (Level II-3)
3. 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;188:1372–8. (Level II-3)
4. Zhang X, Decker A, Platt RW, Kramer MS. How big is too big? The perinatal consequences of fetal macrosomia. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2008;198:517.e1–6. (Level II-3)
5. Doty MS, Chen HY, Sibai BM, Chauhan SP. Maternal and neonatal morbidity associated with early term delivery of large-for-gestational-age but nonmacrosomic neonates. Obstet Gynecol 2019;133:1160–6. (Level II-2)
6. Martin JA, Hamilton BE, Osterman MJK, Driscoll AK, Drake P. Births: final data for 2017. Natl Vital Stat Rep 2018;67(8):1–50. (Level II-3)
7. Chauhan SP, Grobman WA, Gherman RA, Chauhan VB, Chang G, Magann EF, et al. Suspicion and treatment of the macrosomic fetus: a review. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2005;193:332–46. (Level III)
8. Ehrenberg HM, Mercer BM, Catalano PM. The influence of obesity and diabetes on the prevalence of macrosomia. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2004;191:964–8. (Level II-3)
9. Black MH, Sacks DA, Xiang AH, Lawrence JM. The relative contribution of prepregnancy overweight and obesity, gestational weight gain, and IADPSG-defined gestational diabetes mellitus to fetal overgrowth. Diabetes Care 2013;36:56–62. (Level II-2)
10. Ferraro ZM, Barrowman N, Prud'homme D, Walker M, Wen SW, Rodger M, et al. Excessive gestational weight gain predicts large for gestational age neonates independent of maternal body mass index. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 2012;25:538–42. (Level II-3)
11. Alberico S, Montico M, Barresi V, Monasta L, Businelli C, Soini V, et al. The role of gestational diabetes, pre-pregnancy body mass index and gestational weight gain on the risk of newborn macrosomia: results from a prospective multicentre study. Multicentre Study Group on Mode of Delivery in Friuli Venezia Giulia. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 2014;14:23. (Level II-2)
12. Goldstein RF, Abell SK, Ranasinha S, Misso M, Boyle JA, Black MH, et al. Association of gestational weight gain with maternal and infant outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA 2017;317:2207–25. (Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis)
13. Farrar D, Simmonds M, Bryant M, Sheldon TA, Tuffnell D, Golder S, et al. Hyperglycaemia and risk of adverse perinatal outcomes: systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ 2016;354:i4694. (Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis)
14. Wang J, Moore D, Subramanian A, Cheng KK, Toulis KA, Qiu X, et al. Gestational dyslipidaemia and adverse birthweight outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Obes Rev 2018;19:1256–68. (Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis)
15. Marshall NE, Biel FM, Boone-Heinonen J, Dukhovny D, Caughey AB, Snowden JM. The association between maternal height, body mass index, and perinatal outcomes. Am J Perinatol 2019;36:632–40. (Level II-2)
16. Santos S, Voerman E, Amiano P, Barros H, Beilin LJ, Bergstrom A, et al. Impact of maternal body mass index and gestational weight gain on pregnancy complications: an individual participant data meta-analysis of European, North American and Australian cohorts. BJOG 2019;126:984–95. (Meta-Analysis)
17. Dietz PM, Callaghan WM, Sharma AJ. High pregnancy weight gain and risk of excessive fetal growth. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2009;201:51.e1–6. (Level II-3)
18. Bowers K, Laughon SK, Kiely M, Brite J, Chen Z, Zhang C. Gestational diabetes, pre-pregnancy obesity and pregnancy weight gain in relation to excess fetal growth: variations by race/ethnicity. Diabetologia 2013;56:1263–71. (Level II-3)
19. Hamilton BE, Martin JA, Osterman MJ, Curtin SC, Matthews TJ. Births: final data for 2014. Natl Vital Stat Rep 2015;64(12):1–64.
20. Catalano PM, Hauguel-De Mouzon S. Is it time to revisit the Pedersen hypothesis in the face of the obesity epidemic? Am J Obstet Gynecol 2011;204:479–87. (Level III)
21. Metzger BE, Lowe LP, Dyer AR, Trimble ER, Chaovarindr U, Coustan DR, et al. Hyperglycemia and adverse pregnancy outcomes. HAPO Study Cooperative Research Group. N Engl J Med 2008;358:1991–2002. (Level II-2)
22. Nasrat H, Abalkhail B, Fageeh W, Shabat A, el Zahrany F. Anthropometric measurement of newborns of gestational diabetic mothers: does it indicate disproportionate fetal growth? J Matern Fetal Med 1997;6:291–5. (Level II-2)
23. McFarland MB, Trylovich CG, Langer O. Anthropometric differences in macrosomic infants of diabetic and nondiabetic mothers. J Matern Fetal Med 1998;7:292–5. (Level II-2)
24. 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;103:868–72. (Level II-2)
25. Ecker JL, Greenberg JA, Norwitz ER, Nadel AS, Repke JT. Birth weight as a predictor of brachial plexus injury. Obstet Gynecol 1997;89:643–7. (Level II-2)
26. Catalano PM, McIntyre HD, Cruickshank JK, McCance DR, Dyer AR, Metzger BE, et al. The hyperglycemia and adverse pregnancy outcome study: associations of GDM and obesity with pregnancy outcomes. HAPO Study Cooperative Research Group. Diabetes Care 2012;35:780–6. (Level II-2)
27. Lutsiv O, Mah J, Beyene J, McDonald SD. The effects of morbid obesity on maternal and neonatal health outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analyses. Obes Rev 2015;16:531–46. (Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis)
28. Torloni MR, Betran AP, Horta BL, Nakamura MU, Atallah AN, Moron AF, et al. Prepregnancy BMI and the risk of gestational diabetes: a systematic review of the literature with meta-analysis. Obes Rev 2009;10:194–203. (Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis)
29. Siega-Riz AM, Viswanathan M, Moos MK, Deierlein A, Mumford S, Knaack J, et al. A systematic review of outcomes of maternal weight gain according to the Institute of Medicine recommendations: birthweight, fetal growth, and postpartum weight retention. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2009;201:339.e1–14. (Level III)
30. Modanlou HD, Dorchester WL, Thorosian A, Freeman RK. Macrosomia—maternal, fetal, and neonatal implications. Obstet Gynecol 1980;55:420–4. (Level II-2)
31. Boulet SL, Salihu HM, Alexander GR. Mode of delivery and birth outcomes of macrosomic infants. J Obstet Gynaecol 2004;24:622–9. (Level III)
32. Klebanoff MA, Mills JL, Berendes HW. Mother's birth weight as a predictor of macrosomia. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1985;153:253–7. (Level II-2)
33. Lipscomb KR, Gregory K, Shaw K. The outcome of macrosomic infants weighing at least 4500 grams: Los Angeles County + University of Southern California experience. Obstet Gynecol 1995;85:558–64. (Level II-3)
34. Hadlock FP, Deter RL, Harrist RB, Park SK. Estimating fetal age: computer-assisted analysis of multiple fetal growth parameters. Radiology 1984;152:497–501. (Level II-3)
35. Malin GL, Bugg GJ, Takwoingi Y, Thornton JG, Jones NW. Antenatal magnetic resonance imaging versus ultrasound for predicting neonatal macrosomia: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BJOG 2016;123:77–88. (Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis)
36. Scioscia M, Vimercati A, Ceci O, Vicino M, Selvaggi LE. Estimation of birth weight by two-dimensional ultrasonography: a critical appraisal of its accuracy. Obstet Gynecol 2008;111:57–65. (Level II-3)
37. Zafman KB, Bergh E, Fox NS. Accuracy of sonographic estimated fetal weight in suspected macrosomia: the likelihood of overestimating and underestimating the true birthweight [preprint]. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 2018. (Level II-2)
38. Sandmire HF. Whither ultrasonic prediction of fetal macrosomia? Obstet Gynecol 1993;82:860–2. (Level III)
39. Chauhan SP, Hendrix NW, Magann EF, Morrison JC, Kenney SP, Devoe LD. Limitations of clinical and sonographic estimates of birth weight: experience with 1034 parturients. Obstet Gynecol 1998;91:72–7. (Level II-2)
40. Aviram A, Yogev Y, Ashwal E, Hiersch L, Danon D, Hadar E, et al. Different formulas, different thresholds and different performance-the prediction of macrosomia by ultrasound. J Perinatol 2017;37:1285–91. (Level II-2)
41. Zhang J, Kim S, Grewal J, Albert PS. Predicting large fetuses at birth: do multiple ultrasound examinations and longitudinal statistical modelling improve prediction? Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol 2012;26:199–207. (Level II-2)
42. Costantine MM, Mele L, Landon MB, Spong CY, Ramin SM, Casey B, et al. Customized versus population approach for evaluation of fetal overgrowth. Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Maternal-Fetal Medicine Units Network, Bethesda, Maryland. Am J Perinatol 2013;30:565–72. (Level II-3)
43. Tuuli MG, Kapalka K, Macones GA, Cahill AG. Three-versus two-dimensional sonographic biometry for predicting birth weight and macrosomia in diabetic pregnancies. J Ultrasound Med 2016;35:1925–30. (Level II-2)
44. Maruotti GM, Saccone G, Martinelli P. Third trimester ultrasound soft-tissue measurements accurately predicts macrosomia. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 2017;30:972–6. (Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis)
45. Gibson KS, Stetzer B, Catalano PM, Myers SA. Comparison of 2- and 3-dimensional sonography for estimation of birth weight and neonatal adiposity in the setting of suspected fetal macrosomia. J Ultrasound Med 2016;35:1123–9. (Level II-2)
46. Youssef AEA, Amin AF, Khalaf M, Khalaf MS, Ali MK, Abbas AM. Fetal biacromial diameter as a new ultrasound measure for prediction of macrosomia in term pregnancy: a prospective observational study. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 2019;32:2674–9. (Level II-2)
47. Porter B, Neely C, Szychowski J, Owen J. Ultrasonographic fetal weight estimation: should macrosomia-specific formulas be utilized? Am J Perinatol 2015;32:968–72. (Level II-3)
48. Kadji C, Cannie MM, Resta S, Guez D, Abi-Khalil F, De Angelis R, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging for prenatal estimation of birthweight in pregnancy: review of available data, techniques, and future perspectives. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2019;220:428–39. (Level III)
49. Kayem G, Grange G, Breart G, Goffinet F. Comparison of fundal height measurement and sonographically measured fetal abdominal circumference in the prediction of high and low birth weight at term. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2009;34:566–71. (Level II-3)
50. Chauhan SP, Sullivan CA, Lutton TC, Magann EF, Morrison JC. Parous patients’ estimate of birth weight in postterm pregnancy. J Perinatol 1995;15:192–4. (Level II-2)
51. Harlev A, Walfisch A, Bar-David J, Hershkovitz R, Friger M, Hallak M. Maternal estimation of fetal weight as a complementary method of fetal weight assessment: a prospective clinical trial. J Reprod Med 2006;51:515–20. (Level II-3)
52. Rossi AC, Mullin P, Prefumo F. Prevention, management, and outcomes of macrosomia: a systematic review of literature and meta-analysis. Obstet Gynecol Surv 2013;68:702–9. (Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis)
53. Beta J, Khan N, Khalil A, Fiolna M, Ramadan G, Akolekar R. Maternal and neonatal complications of fetal macrosomia: systematic review and meta-analysis. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2019;54:308–18. (Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis)
54. King JR, Korst LM, Miller DA, Ouzounian JG. Increased composite maternal and neonatal morbidity associated with ultrasonographically suspected fetal macrosomia. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 2012;25:1953–9. (Level II-2)
55. Menticoglou SM, Manning FA, Morrison I, Harman CR. Must macrosomic fetuses be delivered by a caesarean section? A review of outcome for 786 babies greater than or equal to 4,500 g. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol 1992;32:100–3. (Level III)
56. Sadeh-Mestechkin D, Walfisch A, Shachar R, Shoham-Vardi I, Vardi H, Hallak M. Suspected macrosomia? Better not tell. Arch Gynecol Obstet 2008;278:225–30. (Level II-3)
57. Blackwell SC, Refuerzo J, Chadha R, Carreno CA. Overestimation of fetal weight by ultrasound: does it influence the likelihood of cesarean delivery for labor arrest? Am J Obstet Gynecol 2009;200:340.e1–3. (Level II-3)
58. Melamed N, Yogev Y, Meizner I, Mashiach R, Pardo J, Ben-Haroush A. Prediction of fetal macrosomia: effect of sonographic fetal weight-estimation model and threshold used. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2011;38:74–81. (Level III)
59. Scifres CM, Feghali M, Dumont T, Althouse AD, Speer P, Caritis SN, et al. Large-for-gestational-age ultrasound diagnosis and risk for cesarean delivery in women with gestational diabetes mellitus. Obstet Gynecol 2015;126:978–86. (Level II-2)
60. Barber EL, Lundsberg LS, Belanger K, Pettker CM, Funai EF, Illuzzi JL. Indications contributing to the increasing cesarean delivery rate. Obstet Gynecol 2011;118:29–38. (Level II-3)
61. Gupta N, Kiran TU, Mulik V, Bethel J, Bhal K. The incidence, risk factors and obstetric outcome in primigravid women sustaining anal sphincter tears. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2003;82:736–43. (Level II-3)
62. Jastrow N, Roberge S, Gauthier RJ, Laroche L, Duperron L, Brassard N, et al. Effect of birth weight on adverse obstetric outcomes in vaginal birth after cesarean delivery. Obstet Gynecol 2010;115:338–43. (Level II-2)
63. Gauthaman N, Walters S, Tribe IA, Goldsmith L, Doumouchtsis SK. Shoulder dystocia and associated manoeuvres as risk factors for perineal trauma. Int Urogynecol J 2016;27:571–7. (Level II-3)
64. 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;195:657–72. (Level III)
65. Raio L, Ghezzi F, Di Naro E, Buttarelli M, Franchi M, Durig P, et al. Perinatal outcome of fetuses with a birth weight greater than 4500 g: an analysis of 3356 cases. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2003;109:160–5. (Level II-3)
66. Ahn ES, Jung MS, Lee YK, Ko SY, Shin SM, Hahn MH. Neonatal clavicular fracture: recent 10 year study. Pediatr Int 2015;57:60–3. (Level II-3)
67. Perlow JH, Wigton T, Hart J, Strassner HT, Nageotte MP, Wolk BM. Birth trauma. A five-year review of incidence and associated perinatal factors. J Reprod Med 1996;41:754–60. (Level II-2)
68. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Neonatal brachial plexus palsy. Washington, DC: American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists; 2014. (Level III)
69. McFarland LV, Raskin M, Daling JR, Benedetti TJ. Erb/Duchenne's palsy: a consequence of fetal macrosomia and method of delivery. Obstet Gynecol 1986;68:784–8. (Level II-2)
70. Bryant DR, Leonardi MR, Landwehr JB, Bottoms SF. Limited usefulness of fetal weight in predicting neonatal brachial plexus injury. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1998;179:686–9. (Level II-3)
71. Esakoff TF, Cheng YW, Sparks TN, Caughey AB. The association between birthweight 4000 g or greater and perinatal outcomes in patients with and without gestational diabetes mellitus. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2009;200:672.e1–4. (Level II-2)
72. Morrison JC, Sanders JR, Magann EF, Wiser WL. The diagnosis and management of dystocia of the shoulder. Surg Gynecol Obstet 1992;175:515–22. (Level II-3)
73. Hardy AE. Birth injuries of the brachial plexus: incidence and prognosis. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1981;63–B:98–101. (Level III)
74. Gherman RB, Ouzounian JG, Satin AJ, Goodwin TM, Phelan JP. A comparison of shoulder dystocia-associated transient and permanent brachial plexus palsies. Obstet Gynecol 2003;102:544–8. (Level II-3)
75. Kolderup LB, Laros RK Jr, Musci TJ. Incidence of persistent birth injury in macrosomic infants: association with mode of delivery. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1997;177:37–41. (Level II-2)
76. Gillean JR, Coonrod DV, Russ R, Bay RC. Big infants in the neonatal intensive care unit. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2005;192:194–5. (Level II-3)
77. Cnattingius S, Villamor E, Lagerros YT, Wikstrom AK, Granath F. High birth weight and obesity—a vicious circle across generations. Int J Obes (Lond) 2012;36:1320–4. (Level II-3)
78. Sparano S, Ahrens W, De Henauw S, Marild S, Molnar D, Moreno LA, et al. Being macrosomic at birth is an independent predictor of overweight in children: results from the IDEFICS study. Matern Child Health J 2013;17:1373–81. (Level II-3)
79. Chauhan SP, Cowan BD, Magann EF, Bradford TH, Roberts WE, Morrison JC. Intrapartum detection of a macrosomic fetus: clinical versus 8 sonographic models. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol 1995;35:266–70. (Level II-2)
80. Sherman DJ, Arieli S, Tovbin J, Siegel G, Caspi E, Bukovsky I. A comparison of clinical and ultrasonic estimation of fetal weight. Obstet Gynecol 1998;91:212–7. (Level II-3)
81. Noumi G, Collado-Khoury F, Bombard A, Julliard K, Weiner Z. Clinical and sonographic estimation of fetal weight performed during labor by residents. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2005;192:1407–9. (Level II-3)
82. Hendrix NW, Grady CS, Chauhan SP. Clinical vs. sonographic estimate of birth weight in term parturients. A randomized clinical trial. J Reprod Med 2000;45:317–22. (Level I)
83. Weiner E, Mizrachi Y, Fainstein N, Elyashiv O, Mevorach-Zussman N, Bar J, et al. Comparison between three methods of fetal weight estimation during the active stage of labor performed by residents: a prospective cohort study. Fetal Diagn Ther 2017;42:117–23. (Level II-2)
84. Drassinower D, Timofeev J, Huang CC, Benson JE, Driggers RW, Landy HJ. Accuracy of clinically estimated fetal weight in pregnancies complicated by diabetes mellitus and obesity. Am J Perinatol 2014;31:31–7. (Level II-3)
85. Goetzinger KR, Tuuli MG, Odibo AO, Roehl KA, Macones GA, Cahill AG. Screening for fetal growth disorders by clinical exam in the era of obesity. J Perinatol 2013;33:352–7. (Level II-3)
86. Sparks TN, Cheng YW, McLaughlin B, Esakoff TF, Caughey AB. Fundal height: a useful screening tool for fetal growth? J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 2011;24:708–12. (Level II-3)
87. Wallin A, Gyllensward A, Westin B. Symphysis-fundus measurement in prediction of fetal growth disturbances. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 1981;60:317–23. (Level II-2)
88. Persson B, Stangenberg M, Lunell NO, Brodin U, Holmberg NG, Vaclavinkova V. Prediction of size of infants at birth by measurement of symphysis fundus height. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1986;93:206–11. (Level II-2)
89. Weiner Z, Ben-Shlomo I, Beck-Fruchter R, Goldberg Y, Shalev E. Clinical and ultrasonographic weight estimation in large for gestational age fetus. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2002;105:20–4. (Level II-3)
90. Peregrine E, O'Brien P, Jauniaux E. Clinical and ultrasound estimation of birth weight prior to induction of labor at term. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2007;29:304–9. (Level II-2)
91. Johnstone FD, Prescott RJ, Steel JM, Mao JH, Chambers S, Muir N. Clinical and ultrasound prediction of macrosomia in diabetic pregnancy. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1996;103:747–54. (Level II-3)
92. Hadlock FP, Harrist RB, Carpenter RJ, Deter RL, Park SK. Sonographic estimation of fetal weight. The value of femur length in addition to head and abdomen measurements. Radiology 1984;150:535–40. (Level II-3)
93. Shepard MJ, Richards VA, Berkowitz RL, Warsof SL, Hobbins JC. An evaluation of two equations for predicting fetal weight by ultrasound. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1982;142:47–54. (Level II-3)
94. Alsulyman OM, Ouzounian JG, Kjos SL. The accuracy of intrapartum ultrasonographic fetal weight estimation in diabetic pregnancies. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1997;177:503–6. (Level II-2)
95. O'Reilly-Green CP, Divon MY. Receiver operating characteristic curves of sonographic estimated fetal weight for prediction of macrosomia in prolonged pregnancies. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 1997;9:403–8. (Level II-3)
96. Milner J, Arezina J. The accuracy of ultrasound estimation of fetal weight in comparison to birth weight: a systematic review. Ultrasound 2018;26:32–41. (Systematic Review)
97. Dudley NJ. A systematic review of the ultrasound estimation of fetal weight. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2005;25:80–9. (Systematic Review)
98. Hoopmann M, Abele H, Wagner N, Wallwiener D, Kagan KO. Performance of 36 different weight estimation formulae in fetuses with macrosomia. Fetal Diagn Ther 2010;27:204–13. (Level III)
99. Melamed N, Yogev Y, Meizner I, Mashiach R, Ben-Haroush A. Sonographic prediction of fetal macrosomia: the consequences of false diagnosis. J Ultrasound Med 2010;29:225–30. (Level II-3)
100. Matthews KC, Williamson J, Gupta S, Lam-Rachlin J, Saltzman DH, Rebarber A, et al. The effect of a sonographic estimated fetal weight on the risk of cesarean delivery in macrosomic and small for gestational-age infants. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 2017;30:1172–6. (Level II-2)
101. Froehlich RJ, Sandoval G, Bailit JL, Grobman WA, Reddy UM, Wapner RJ, et al. Association of recorded estimated fetal weight and cesarean delivery in attempted vaginal delivery at term. MSCE, for the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) Maternal-Fetal Medicine Units (MFMU) Network. Obstet Gynecol 2016;128:487–94. (Level II-2)
102. Stubert J, Peschel A, Bolz M, Glass A, Gerber B. Accuracy of immediate antepartum ultrasound estimated fetal weight and its impact on mode of delivery and outcome—a cohort analysis. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 2018;18:11–7. (Level II-2)
103. Little SE, Edlow AG, Thomas AM, Smith NA. Estimated fetal weight by ultrasound: a modifiable risk factor for cesarean delivery? Am J Obstet Gynecol 2012;207:309.e1–6. (Level II-2)
104. Skrastad RB, Eik-Nes SH, Sviggum O, Johansen OJ, Salvesen KA, Romundstad PR, et al. A randomized controlled trial of third-trimester routine ultrasound in a non-selected population. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2013;92:1353–60. (Level III)
105. Wiebe HW, Boule NG, Chari R, Davenport MH. The effect of supervised prenatal exercise on fetal growth: a meta-analysis. Obstet Gynecol 2015;125:1185–94. (Level I)
106. Davenport MH, Meah VL, Ruchat SM, Davies GA, Skow RJ, Barrowman N, et al. Impact of prenatal exercise on neonatal and childhood outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Br J Sports Med 2018;52:1386–96. (Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis)
107. Physical activity and exercise during pregnancy and the postpartum period. Committee Opinion No. 650. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Obstet Gynecol 2015;126:e135–42. (Level III)
108. Muktabhant B, Lawrie TA, Lumbiganon P, Laopaiboon M. Diet or exercise, or both, for preventing excessive weight gain in pregnancy. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2015, Issue 6. Art. No.: CD007145. (Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis)
109. Effect of diet and physical activity based interventions in pregnancy on gestational weight gain and pregnancy outcomes: meta-analysis of individual participant data from randomised trials. International Weight Management in Pregnancy (i-WIP) Collaborative Group [published erratum appears in BMJ 2017;358:j3991]. BMJ 2017;358:j3119. (Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis)
110. Buchanan TA, Kjos SL, Montoro MN, Wu PY, Madrilejo NG, Gonzalez M, et al. Use of fetal ultrasound to select metabolic therapy for pregnancies complicated by mild gestational diabetes. Diabetes Care 1994;17:275–83. (Level II-1)
111. Crowther CA, Hiller JE, Moss JR, McPhee AJ, Jeffries WS, Robinson JS. Effect of treatment of gestational diabetes mellitus on pregnancy outcomes. Australian Carbohydrate Intolerance Study in Pregnant Women (ACHOIS) Trial Group. N Engl J Med 2005;352:2477–86. (Level I)
112. Landon MB, Spong CY, Thom E, Carpenter MW, Ramin SM, Casey B, et al. A multicenter, randomized trial of treatment for mild gestational diabetes. Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Maternal-Fetal Medicine Units Network. N Engl J Med 2009;361:1339–48. (Level I)
113. Wei J, Heng W, Gao J. Effects of low glycemic index diets on gestational diabetes mellitus: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled clinical trials. Medicine (Baltimore) 2016;95:e3792. (Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis)
114. Yi XY, Li QF, Zhang J, Wang ZH. A meta-analysis of maternal and fetal outcomes of pregnancy after bariatric surgery. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2015;130:3–9. (Meta-Analysis)
115. Galazis N, Docheva N, Simillis C, Nicolaides KH. Maternal and neonatal outcomes in women undergoing bariatric surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2014;181:45–53. (Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis)
116. Roos N, Neovius M, Cnattingius S, Trolle Lagerros Y, Saaf M, Granath F, et al. Perinatal outcomes after bariatric surgery: nationwide population based matched cohort study. BMJ 2013;347:f6460. (Level II-2)
117. Johansson K, Cnattingius S, Naslund I, Roos N, Trolle Lagerros Y, Granath F, et al. Outcomes of pregnancy after bariatric surgery. N Engl J Med 2015;372:814–24. (Level II-2)
118. Combs CA, Singh NB, Khoury JC. Elective induction versus spontaneous labor after sonographic diagnosis of fetal macrosomia. Obstet Gynecol 1993;81:492–6. (Level II-2)
119. Friesen CD, Miller AM, Rayburn WF. Influence of spontaneous or induced labor on delivering the macrosomic fetus. Am J Perinatol 1995;12:63–6. (Level II-2)
120. Leaphart WL, Meyer MC, Capeless EL. Labor induction with a prenatal diagnosis of fetal macrosomia. J Matern Fetal Med 1997;6:99–102. (Level II-2)
121. Cheng YW, Sparks TN, Laros RK Jr, Nicholson JM, Caughey AB. Impending macrosomia: will induction of labour modify the risk of caesarean delivery? BJOG 2012;119:402–9. (Level II-3)
122. Vendittelli F, Riviere O, Neveu B, Lemery D, Audipog Sentinel Network. Does induction of labor for constitutionally large-for-gestational-age fetuses identified in utero reduce maternal morbidity? BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 2014;14:15–156. (Level II-3)
123. 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;89:913–7. (Level I)
124. Boulvain M, Senat MV, Perrotin F, Winer N, Beucher G, Subtil D, et al. Induction of labour versus expectant management for large-for-date fetuses: a randomised controlled trial. Groupe de Recherche en Obstetrique et Gynecologie, (GROG). Lancet 2015;385:2600–5. (Level I)
125. Boulvain M, Irion O, Dowswell T, Thornton JG. Induction of labour at or near term for suspected fetal macrosomia. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2016, Issue 5. Art. No.: CD000938. (Level III)
126. Magro-Malosso ER, Saccone G, Chen M, Navathe R, Di Tommaso M, Berghella V. Induction of labour for suspected macrosomia at term in non-diabetic women: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. BJOG 2017;124:414–21. (Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis)
127. Avoidance of nonmedically indicated early-term deliveries and associated neonatal morbidities. ACOG Committee Opinion No. 765. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Obstet Gynecol 2019;133:e156–63. (Level III)
128. Caughey AB. Should pregnancies be induced for impending macrosomia? Lancet 2015;385:2557–9. (Level III)
129. Overland EA, Vatten LJ, Eskild A. Risk of shoulder dystocia: associations with parity and offspring birthweight. A population study of 1 914 544 deliveries. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2012;91:483–8. (Level II-3)
130. Spellacy WN, Miller S, Winegar A, Peterson PQ. Macrosomia—maternal characteristics and infant complications. Obstet Gynecol 1985;66:158–61. (Level II-2)
131. Gregory KD, Henry OA, Ramicone E, Chan LS, Platt LD. Maternal and infant complications in high and normal weight infants by method of delivery. Obstet Gynecol 1998;92:507–13. (Level II-2)
132. Rouse DJ, Owen J, Goldenberg RL, Cliver SP. The effectiveness and costs of elective cesarean delivery for fetal macrosomia diagnosed by ultrasound. JAMA 1996;276:1480–6. (Level III)
133. Rouse DJ, Owen J. Prophylactic cesarean delivery for fetal macrosomia diagnosed by means of ultrasonography—a Faustian bargain? Am J Obstet Gynecol 1999;181:332–8. (Level III)
134. Herbst MA. Treatment of suspected fetal macrosomia: a cost-effectiveness analysis. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2005;193:1035–9. (Cost-benefit)
135. Berard J, Dufour P, Vinatier D, Subtil D, Vanderstichele S, Monnier JC, et al. Fetal macrosomia: risk factors and outcome. A study of the outcome concerning 100 cases >4500 g. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 1998;77:51–9. (Level II-3)
136. McFarland M, Hod M, Piper JM, Xenakis EM, Langer O. Are labor abnormalities more common in shoulder dystocia? Am J Obstet Gynecol 1995;173:1211–4. (Level II-2)
137. Laughon SK, Berghella V, Reddy UM, Sundaram R, Lu Z, Hoffman MK. Neonatal and maternal outcomes with prolonged second stage of labor [published erratum appears in Obstet Gynecol 2014;124:842]. Obstet Gynecol 2014;124:57–67. (Level II-2)
138. 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;165:831–7. (Level II-2)
139. Revicky V, Mukhopadhyay S, Morris EP, Nieto JJ. Can we predict shoulder dystocia? Arch Gynecol Obstet 2012;285:291–5. (Level II-3)
140. Palatnik A, Grobman WA, Hellendag MG, Janetos TM, Gossett DR, Miller ES. Predictors of shoulder dystocia at the time of operative vaginal delivery. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2016;215:624.e1–5. (Level II-2)
141. Gupta M, Hockley C, Quigley MA, Yeh P, Impey L. Antenatal and intrapartum prediction of shoulder dystocia. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2010;151:134–9. (Level II-3)
142. Acker DB, Sachs BP, Friedman EA. Risk factors for shoulder dystocia. Obstet Gynecol 1985;66:762–8. (Level II-2)
143. Cheng ER, Declercq ER, Belanoff C, Stotland NE, Iverson RE. Labor and delivery experiences of mothers with suspected large babies. Matern Child Health J 2015;19:2578–86. (Level II-3)
144. Sheiner E, Levy A, Hershkovitz R, Hallak M, Hammel RD, Katz M, et al. Determining factors associated with shoulder dystocia: a population-based study. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2006;126:11–5. (Level II-2)
145. Dall'Asta A, Ghi T, Pedrazzi G, Frusca T. Does vacuum delivery carry a higher risk of shoulder dystocia? Review and meta-analysis of the literature. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2016;204:62–8. (Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis)
146. Elkousy MA, Sammel M, Stevens E, Peipert JF, Macones G. The effect of birth weight on vaginal birth after cesarean delivery success rates. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2003;188:824–30. (Level II-3)
147. Zelop CM, Shipp TD, Repke JT, Cohen A, Lieberman E. Outcomes of trial of labor following previous cesarean delivery among women with fetuses weighing >4000 g. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2001;185:903–5. (Level II-3)
148. Hammad IA, Chauhan SP, Gherman RB, Ouzounian JG, Hill JB, Abuhamad AZ. Neonatal brachial plexus palsy with vaginal birth after cesarean delivery: a case–control study. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2013;208:229.e1–5. (Level II-2)
149. Algert CS, Morris JM, Simpson JM, Ford JB, Roberts CL. Labor before a primary cesarean delivery: reduced risk of uterine rupture in a subsequent trial of labor for vaginal birth after cesarean. Obstet Gynecol 2008;112:1061–6. (Level II-2)
© 2019 by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.