Mini-review: Prenatal ages and stages - Measures and errors

Citation
R. O'Rahilly et F. Muller, Mini-review: Prenatal ages and stages - Measures and errors, TERATOLOGY, 61(5), 2000, pp. 382-384
Citations number
33
Categorie Soggetti
Pharmacology & Toxicology
Journal title
TERATOLOGY
ISSN journal
00403709 → ACNP
Volume
61
Issue
5
Year of publication
2000
Pages
382 - 384
Database
ISI
SICI code
0040-3709(200005)61:5<382:MPAAS->2.0.ZU;2-Q
Abstract
Background: The confusing term "gestational age" is generally either not de fined or is used for menstrual "age," postovulatory age, or postfertilizati onal age. The designation (post)menstrual weeks and/or days is very useful in obstetrics but, because prenatal age extends from fertilization to birth , menstrual "age" is a misnomer. The term "stage" has a specific morphologi cal meaning in embryology and should not be used either for ages or for len gths. Methods: Embryonic age is best assessed, when possible, from the 23 interna tionally recognized morpho logical stages. A morphological staging system i s not available for the fetal period, and fetal age is assessed mainly from measurements. Results: Among these, the unsatisfactory designation crown-rump length (CRL ) should be replaced, in ultrasonic biometry as well as in embryology, by t he great est length (GL), exclusive of the lower limbs. These points are di scussed in detail, and justification for the views expressed is provided. Conclusions: The continuing confusion concerning prenatal age is shown to b e unnecessary once the ambiguous and superfluous term "gestational age" is abandoned. (C) 2000 Wiley-Liss, Inc.