Ultrasound-Based Correlation of Placental Thickness with Gestational Age, Crown-Rump Length (CRL), and Biparietal Diameter (BPD) in Normal, Hypertensive, and Diabetic Pregnancies
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
Background: Placental thickness is an important sonographic marker of placental development and may provide adjunct information about fetal growth and maternal–fetal wellbeing. Maternal hypertension and diabetes can affect placental morphology through distinct vascular and metabolic pathways. Objective: To compare ultrasound-measured placental thickness among normal, hypertensive, and diabetic pregnancies and to assess its correlation with gestational age, biparietal diameter, crown-rump length, and Doppler systolic/diastolic ratio. Methods: This cross-sectional observational study included 80 singleton pregnant women between 28 and 37 weeks of gestation, comprising 40 normal pregnancies, 20 hypertensive pregnancies, and 20 diabetic pregnancies. Placental thickness was measured sonographically at the site of umbilical cord insertion. Fetal biometric parameters and Doppler systolic/diastolic ratio were recorded. Group differences were assessed using one-way ANOVA with Tukey HSD post hoc testing, and correlations were evaluated using Pearson and Spearman correlation analyses. Results: Mean placental thickness differed significantly among the three groups, F(2,77) = 41.546, p < 0.001. Placental thickness was lowest in hypertensive pregnancies (28.60 mm), intermediate in normal pregnancies (32.45 mm), and highest in diabetic pregnancies (37.10 mm). Placental thickness showed a strong positive correlation with gestational age using Pearson correlation (r = 0.660, p < 0.001) and Spearman correlation (ρ = 0.665, p < 0.001). A weak positive correlation was observed with biparietal diameter, while crown-rump length was not significantly correlated with placental thickness. Conclusion: Placental thickness differed significantly across normal, hypertensive, and diabetic pregnancies and was most strongly associated with gestational age. It may serve as a useful adjunct ultrasound marker when interpreted with fetal biometry, Doppler findings, and maternal clinical status.
Article Details
Issue
Section
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
How to Cite
References
1. Mathai BM, Singla SC, Nittala PP. Placental thickness: its correlation with ultrasonographic gestational age in normal and intrauterine growth-retarded pregnancies. J Obstet Gynaecol India. 2014.
2. Sharma D, Shastri S, Sharma P. Placental thickness correlation with intrauterine growth: antenatal and postnatal aspects. Clin Med Insights Pediatr. 2016.
3. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Gestational diabetes mellitus. Obstet Gynecol. 2018.
4. Cunningham FG, Leveno KJ, Bloom SL, Spong CY, Dashe JS, Hoffman BL. Williams obstetrics. 25th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill Education; 2018.
5. Burton GJ, Jauniaux E. Pathophysiology of placental-derived fetal growth restriction. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2018;218(2).
6. Hamidi OP, Hameroff A, Kunselman A, Curtin WM, Sinha R, Ural SH. Placental thickness on ultrasound and neonatal birthweight. J Perinat Med. 2019.
7. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Gestational hypertension and preeclampsia. Obstet Gynecol. 2020.
8. International Diabetes Federation. IDF diabetes atlas. 10th ed. Brussels: International Diabetes Federation; 2021.
9. Sun X, Shen J, Wang L. Insights into the role of placental thickness as a predictive marker of perinatal outcome. J Int Med Res. 2021.
10. Scheffer V, van Haren A, de Cubber L, Bons J, Coumans A, van Kuijk SMJ. Ultrasound evaluation of the placenta in healthy and placental syndrome pregnancies: a systematic review. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2021.
11. Magee LA, Brown MA, Hall DR, Gupte S, Hennessy A, Karumanchi SA. The hypertensive disorders of pregnancy. Pregnancy Hypertens. 2022.
12. Hoddick WK, Mahony BS, Callen PW, Filly RA. Placental thickness. Radiology. 1986;138(2):471-473.
13. Rawal S, Ray S, Sharma N. Correlation between ultrasonographic placental thickness and adverse fetal and neonatal outcomes. Cureus. 2024.
14. Mahalinga G, Rajasekhar KV, Reddy MV, Kumar S, Waheeduddin S. Morphometric analysis of placenta and fetal Doppler indices in normal and high-risk pregnancies. Cureus. 2024.
15. Zhang J, Tang X, Ding Z, Zhu F. Gestational hypertension: fetal and placental characterization using MRI and ultrasound. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2025.
16. Murlewska J, Sylwestrzak O, Strzelecka I, Sokołowski Ł, Kordjalik P, Respondek-Liberska M. Placental thickness correlates with severity-weighted fetal dysfunction in the third trimester. J Clin Med. 2025.
17. Adeyekun AA, Ibraheem OM. Sonographic evaluation of placental thickness and fetal parameters in normal pregnancies. Niger J Clin Pract. 2020;23(5):680-685.
18. Ali R, Ahmed S, Khan M. Role of placental thickness in predicting fetal growth abnormalities. J Ultrasound Med. 2023;42(4):889-896.
19. Azagidi AS, Ibitoye BO. Sonographic placental thickness and its correlation with gestational age and fetal growth parameters. Niger J Clin Pract. 2020;23(3):350-356.
20. Baghel P, Bahel V. Placental thickness and its correlation with gestational age and fetal growth parameters. J Clin Diagn Res. 2015;9(10).
21. Edu A, Teodorescu C, Dobjanschi CG. Placental changes in gestational diabetes mellitus. Rom J Morphol Embryol. 2016;57(2):507-512.
22. Karthikeyan T, Subramaniam R, Johnson W. Placental thickness and its correlation with gestational age. J Clin Diagn Res. 2015;9(8).
23. Patel S, Shah P, Mehta N. Effect of maternal diabetes on placental thickness and fetal growth. Int J Reprod Contracept Obstet Gynecol. 2019;8(5):1800-1805.
24. Deodhar P, Rajoriya M. To compare perinatal outcome in normal and high risk (oligo and poly) pregnancies. Int J Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2019;3(1):27-29. doi:10.33545/gynae.2019.v3.i1a.07.