Modern approaches to the problem of intrauterine growth restriction: from causes to long-term consequences


  • Yu. V. Davydova SI «Institute of Pediatrics, Obstetrics and Gynecology named after academician O.M. Lukyanova NAMS of Ukraine», Kyiv, Ukraine
  • I. S. Lukyanova SI «Institute of Pediatrics, Obstetrics and Gynecology named after academician O.M. Lukyanova NAMS of Ukraine», Kyiv, Ukraine
  • A. Yu. Limanskaya SI «Institute of Pediatrics, Obstetrics and Gynecology named after academician O.M. Lukyanova NAMS of Ukraine», Kyiv, Ukraine
  • L. P. Butenko SI «Institute of Pediatrics, Obstetrics and Gynecology named after academician O.M. Lukyanova NAMS of Ukraine», Kyiv, Ukraine
  • E. N. Dzyuba SI «Institute of Pediatrics, Obstetrics and Gynecology named after academician O.M. Lukyanova NAMS of Ukraine», Kyiv, Ukraine
  • O. M. Kravets SI «Institute of Pediatrics, Obstetrics and Gynecology named after academician O.M. Lukyanova NAMS of Ukraine», Kyiv, Ukraine



fetal growth restriction, fetus small for gestational age, extragenital pathology, dopplerometry, fetometry, dynamic observation


Intrauterine growth restriction of the fetus (IUGR, FGR) denotes a condition in which the fetus is not able to reach its genetically determined potential dimensions under various conditions (external, congenital, etc.). This functional definition aims to isolate the fetal population whose perinatal consequences can be modified (to prevent antenatal death or the birth of a child with severe disability). Thus, the task of a clinician and an expert in ultrasound diagnostics (maternal-fetal medicine) is to identify precisely fetuses with fetal growth restriction (FGR), which have the highest risk of antenatal death due to a «hostile intrauterine environment» and which require a separate control algorithm and iatrogenic intervention for the purpose of early delivery. Also, it is necessary to clearly isolate fetuses with low gestational weight (LGW) in order to reduce iatrogenic risks for them. The most urgent is the development of such a diagnostic and clinical algorithm in the clinic of extragenital pathology, since the risk of FGR is significantly increased in women with severe pathology, primarily with systemic lupus erythematosus, arterial hypertension, Aerz's disease, and oncological pathology detected during pregnancy and required polychemotherapy.
The aim of our work was to analyze the data of world and our own research on this issue. Systematized data on the types, causes, timing of occurrence and characteristics of indicators, depending on the forms of FGR, are represented.
The main cause of FGR is the insufficient supply of oxygen and nutrients to the fetus, a violation of the oxygen delivery system or damage to the structures of the placental barrier due to maternal diseases. In FGR, a chain of complications arises that must be promptly diagnosed and adequate interventions are performed to prevent perinatal morbidity and mortality.
An algorithm for diagnosing ARI has been developed on the basis of the clinical course of pregnancy, data from laboratory, ultrasound, Dopplerometric studies, and an obstetric strategy for FGR has been created. If this pathology occurs, a multidisciplinary team must create an individual plan for monitoring the condition of the fetus, assessing the effectiveness of therapy for the underlying disease of a pregnant woman with EHP. As a maximum program, an increase in gestational age during delivery, minimization of the risks of morbidity and mortality in newborns is considered. The short-term goal is to identify the fetus with suspected ARI/MGV, with further confirmation or exclusion of ARI. The medium-term goal is to create an algorithm for the frequency and set of observations taking into account EGP and obstetric complications of a pregnant woman; the long-term goal is to optimize the term of delivery to minimize hypoxemia and maximize the gestational age and improve the outcome for the mother.
No conflict of interest were declared by the authors.


Anderson N, Sadler L, Stewart A, McCowan L. (2012). Maternal and pathological pregnancy characteristics in customized birthweight centiles and identification of at-risk small-for-gestational-age infants: a retrospective cohort study. BJOG. 119: 848—856.; PMid:22469096

Anderson NH, Sadler LC, McKinlay CJD, McCowan LME. (2016). INTERGROWTH-21st vs customized birthweight standards for identification of perinatal mortality and morbidity. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology. 214 (4): 509.e1-509.e7.; PMid:26546850.

Figueras F, Gratacos E. (2014). Stage-based approach to the management of fetal growth restriction. Prenat Diagn. 34 (7): 655—659.; PMid:24839087

Gardosi J. (2011). Clinical strategies for improving the detection of fetal growth restriction. Clin Perinatol. 38: 21—31.; PMid:21353087

Gordijn SJ, Beune IM, Thilaganathan B et al. (2016). Consensus definition of fetal growth restriction: a Delphi procedure. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 48: 333—339.; PMid:26909664

Graz MB, Tolsa J-F, Fumeaux CJF. (2015). Being small for gestational age: does it matter for the neurodevelopment of premature infants? A cohort study. PLoS One. 10 (5).; PMid:25965063 PMCid:PMC4428889.

Hales CN, Barker DJP. (2001). The thrifty phenotype hypothesis. British Medical Bulletin. 60 (1): 5—20.; PMid:11809615

Heindel JJ, Balbus J, Birnbaum L et al. (2015). Developmental origins of health and disease: integrating environmental influences. Endocrinology.156 (10): 3416—3421.; PMid:26241070 PMCid:PMC4588819

Kabiri D, Romero R, Gudicha DW et al. (2019). Prediction of adverse perinatal outcomes by fetal biometry: a comparison of customized and population-based standards. Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology.; PMid:31006913.

McCowan Lesley M, Figueras F, Anderson Ngaire H. (2018, Feb 01). Evidence-based national guidelines for the management of suspected fetal growth restriction: comparison, consensus, and controversy. Expert review. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology. 218 (2): S855—S868.; PMid:29422214

Morsing E, Asard M, Ley D, Stjernqvist K, Marsal K. (2011). Cognitive function after intrauterine growth restriction and very preterm birth. Pediatrics. 127 (4): e874—882.; PMid:21382944

Reeves S, Galan HL. (2012). Fetal growth restriction. In: Berghella V, editor. Maternal-fetal evidence based guidelines. 2nd ed. London: Informa Health Care: 329—344.

Royal College of Obstetricians & Gynaecologists Small-for-Gestational-Age Fetus, Investigation and Management (Green-top Guideline No. 31).

Sharma D, Farahbakhsh N, Shastri S, Sharma P. (2016). Intrauterine growth restriction-part 2. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 29: 4037—4048.; PMid:26979578

Villar J, Cheikh Ismail L, Victora CG et al. (2014). International standards for newborn weight, length, and head circumference by gestational age and sex: the Newborn Cross-Sectional Study of the INTERGROWTH-21st Project. Lancet. 384: 857—868.

Wang N, Wang X, Li Q et al. (2017). The famine exposure in early life and metabolic syndrome in adulthood. Clinical Nutrition. 36 (1): 253—259.; PMid:26646357

Warkany J, Monroe BB, Sutherland B. (1961). Intrauterine growth retardation. The American Journal of Diseases of Children. 102: 249—279.; PMid:13783175

Vaughan OR, Forhead AJ, Fowden AL. (2011). Glucocorticoids and placental programming. In: Burton GJ, Barker DJ, Moffett A, Thornburg KL (editors). The placenta and human developmental programming. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press: 175—187.; PMid:20869523