International Journal of Reproductive BioMedicine

Published date: Mar 07 2019

Journal Title: International Journal of Reproductive BioMedicine

Issue title: International Journal of Reproductive BioMedicine (IJRM): Volume 17, Issue No. 1

Pages: 51 - 56

DOI: 10.18502/ijrm.v17i1.3820

Nazila Najdi

Fatemeh Safi

Shahrzad Hashemi-Dizajidr.shahrzad.hashemi.1@gmail.com

Ghazal Sahraian

Yahya Jand

Background: In some patients with a family history of the gender-linked disease, determination of the fetal gender in the first trimester of pregnancy is of importance. In X-linked recessive inherited diseases, only the male embryos are involved, while in some conditions, such as congenital adrenal hyperplasia, female embryos are affected; hence early determination of fetal gender is important.

Objective: The aim of the current study was to predict the gender of the fetus based on the accurate measurement of the fetal anogenital distance (AGD) by ultrasound in the first trimester.

Materials and Methods: To determine the AGD and crown-rump length in this cross-sectional study, 316 women with singleton pregnancies were exposed to ultrasonography. The results were then compared with definitive gender of the embryos after birth.

Results: The best cut-off for 11 wk to 11 wk, 6 days of pregnancy was 4.5 mm, for 12 wk to 12 wk, 6 days was 4.9 mm, and for 13 wk to 13 wk, 6 days was 4.8 mm.

Conclusion: AGD is helpful as an ultrasonographic marker that can determine fetal gender in the first trimester, especially after 12 wks.

Key words: Sonography, Gender, Female, Male, Pregnancy, First trimester.

[1] Mujezinovic F, Alfirevic Z. Procedure-related complications of amniocentesis and chorionic villous sampling: a
systematic review. Obstet Gynecol 2007; 110: 687–694.

[2] Colmant C, Morin-Surroca M, Fuchs F, Fernandez H, Senat MV. Non-invasive prenatal testing for fetal sex
determination: is ultrasound still relevant? Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2013; 171: 197–204.

[3] Costa JM, Benachi A, Gautier E. New strategy for prenatal diagnosis of X-linked disorders. New Engl J Med 2002; 346: 1502.

[4] Mazza V, Di Monte I, Pati M, Contu G, Ottolenghi C, Forabosco A, et al. Sonographic biometrical range of
external genitalia differentiation in the first trimester of pregnancy: analysis of 2593 cases. Prenat Diagn 2004;
24: 677–684.

[5] Chelli D, Methni A, Dimassi K, Boudaya F, Sfar E, Zouaoui B, et al. Fetal sex assignment by first trimester ultrasound: a Tunisian experience. Prenat Diagn 2009; 29: 1145–1148.

[6] Hsiao CH, Wang HC, Hsieh CF, Hsu JJ. Fetal gender screening by ultrasound at 11 to 13(+6) weeks. Acta Obstet
Gynecol Scand 2008; 87: 8–13.

[7] Michailidis GD, Papageorgiou P, Morris RW, Economides DL. The use of three-dimensional ultrasound for fetal
gender determination in the first trimester. Br J Radiol 2003; 76: 448–451.

[8] Lev-Toaff AS, Ozhan S, Pretorius D, Bega G, Kurtz AB, Kuhlman K. Three-dimensional multiplanar ultrasound for fetal gender assignment: value of the mid-sagittal plane. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2000; 16: 345–350.

[9] Efrat Z, Akinfenwa OO, Nicolaides KH. First-trimester determination of fetal gender by ultrasound. Ultrasound
Obstet Gynecol 1999; 13: 305–307.

[10] Emerson DS, Felker RE, Brown DL. The sagittal sign. An early second trimester sonographic indicator of fetal
gender. J Ultrasound Med 1989; 8: 293–297.

[11] Efrat Z, Perri T, Ramati E, Tugendreich D, Meizner I. Fetal gender assignment by first-trimester ultrasound.
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2006; 27: 619–621.

[12] Pedreira DA. In search for the ’third point’. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2000; 15: 262–267.

[13] Arfi A, Cohen J, Canlorbe G, Bendifallah S, ThomassinNaggara I, Darai E, et al. First-trimester determination
of fetal gender by ultrasound: measurement of the anogenital distance. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2016;
203: 177–181.

[14] Salazar-Martinez E, Romano-Riquer P, Yanez-Marquez E, Longnecker MP, Hernandez-Avila M. Anogenital distance in human male and female newborns: a descriptive, crosssectional study. Environ Health 2004; 3: 8.

[15] Papadopoulou E, Vafeiadi M, Agramunt S, Basagana X, Mathianaki K, Karakosta P, et al. Anogenital distances in newborns and children from Spain and Greece: predictors, tracking and reliability. Paediatr Perinatal Epidemiol 2013;27: 89–99.

[16] Welsh M, Saunders PT, Fisken M, Scott HM, Hutchison GR, Smith LB, et al. Identification in rats of a programming window for reproductive tract masculinization, disruption of which leads to hypospadias and cryptorchidism. J Clin Invest 2008; 118: 1479–1490.

[17] Dean A, Smith LB, Macpherson S, Sharpe RM. The effect of dihydrotestosterone exposure during or prior to the masculinization programming window on reproductive development in male and female rats. Int J Androl 2012;35: 330–339.

[18] Eisenberg ML, Hsieh TC, Lipshultz LI. The relationship between anogenital distance and age. Andrology 2013; 1:90–93.

[19] Kutlu AO. Anogenital distance in Turkish newborns. J Clin Res Pediatr Endocrinol 2012; 4: 45–46.