Volume 35, Issue 9 (December 2024)
Studies in Medical Sciences 2024, 35(9): 729-739 |
Back to browse issues page
Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Javidfar M, Saniee Y. INVESTIGATING THE ASSOCIATION OF UMBILICAL CORD CROSS-SECTIONAL AREA AND INTRAUTERINE GROWTH RESTRICTION IN PREGNANT WOMEN. Studies in Medical Sciences 2024; 35 (9) :729-739
URL: http://umj.umsu.ac.ir/article-1-6368-en.html
URL: http://umj.umsu.ac.ir/article-1-6368-en.html
Assistant Professor of Radiology, Department of Radiology, School of Medicine, Urmia University of Medical Sciences, Urmia, Iran (Corresponding Author) , saniee.y@umsu.ac.ir
Abstract: (285 Views)
Backgrund & Aim: Intrauterine Growth Restriction (IUGR) can increase perinatal mortality by 10 to 25 percent. Scientific evidence has shown that umbilical cord characteristics are vital markers for assessing intrauterine complications. The present study aimed to investigate the relationship between umbilical cord cross-sectional area and intrauterine growth restriction in pregnant women.
Materials & Methods: In this cross-sectional analytical study, 134 pregnant women were selected through convenience sampling. Patients underwent transabdominal ultrasonography using a Samsung W80 ultrasound device with a 3.5 MHz probe. The diameter and cross-sectional area of the umbilical cord were measured at two points (the junction of the umbilical cord to the abdomen and the free loop) during the third trimester of pregnancy. The results of fetal biometric ultrasound, including BPD, FL, HC, and AC, were also recorded. IUGR was defined as an estimated weight by ultrasound below the 10th percentile for gestational age.
Results: Nineteen infants (14.2%) had IUGR. All biometric indices in the IUGR group were significantly lower than those in the non-IUGR group (p < 0.001). The umbilical cord diameter in the IUGR group (11.52 ± 1.26) was significantly lower than that in the non-IUGR group (14.82 ± 1.45) (p < 0.001). The umbilical cord cross-sectional area was also significantly lower in the IUGR group (125.11 ± 17.2) compared to the non-IUGR group (175.51 ± 31.41) (p < 0.001). There was a direct and significant correlation between both umbilical cord diameter and cross-sectional area with all fetal characteristics (p < 0.001).
Conclusion: The results of the study showed that infants with IUGR had lower biometric indices, and both the diameter and cross-sectional area of the umbilical cord were significantly smaller in these infants. These findings suggest the potential use of umbilical cord measurements as an auxiliary tool in the diagnosis or risk assessment of IUGR.
Materials & Methods: In this cross-sectional analytical study, 134 pregnant women were selected through convenience sampling. Patients underwent transabdominal ultrasonography using a Samsung W80 ultrasound device with a 3.5 MHz probe. The diameter and cross-sectional area of the umbilical cord were measured at two points (the junction of the umbilical cord to the abdomen and the free loop) during the third trimester of pregnancy. The results of fetal biometric ultrasound, including BPD, FL, HC, and AC, were also recorded. IUGR was defined as an estimated weight by ultrasound below the 10th percentile for gestational age.
Results: Nineteen infants (14.2%) had IUGR. All biometric indices in the IUGR group were significantly lower than those in the non-IUGR group (p < 0.001). The umbilical cord diameter in the IUGR group (11.52 ± 1.26) was significantly lower than that in the non-IUGR group (14.82 ± 1.45) (p < 0.001). The umbilical cord cross-sectional area was also significantly lower in the IUGR group (125.11 ± 17.2) compared to the non-IUGR group (175.51 ± 31.41) (p < 0.001). There was a direct and significant correlation between both umbilical cord diameter and cross-sectional area with all fetal characteristics (p < 0.001).
Conclusion: The results of the study showed that infants with IUGR had lower biometric indices, and both the diameter and cross-sectional area of the umbilical cord were significantly smaller in these infants. These findings suggest the potential use of umbilical cord measurements as an auxiliary tool in the diagnosis or risk assessment of IUGR.
Keywords: Intrauterine Growth Restriction, Umbilical Cord Diameter, Umbilical Cord Cross-Sectional Area, Pregnant Women
References
1. Tutus S, Asal N, Uysal G, Şahin H. Is there a relationship between high birth weight and umbilical vein diameter? J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 2021;34(21):3609-13 [DOI:10.1080/14767058.2020.1814247] [PMID]
2. Ronen JA, Castaneda K, Sadre SY. Early accreta and uterine rupture in the second trimester. Cureus 2018;10(7):1-9 [DOI:10.7759/cureus.2904]
3. Moros G, Boutsikou T, Fotakis C, Iliodromiti Z, Sokou R, Katsila T, et al. Insights into intrauterine growth restriction based on maternal and umbilical cord blood metabolomics. Sci Rep 2021;11(1):7824-30 [DOI:10.1038/s41598-021-87323-7] [PMID] []
4. Terstappen F, Calis JJ, Paauw ND, Joles JA, van Rijn BB, Mokry M, et al. Developmental programming in human umbilical cord vein endothelial cells following fetal growth restriction. Clin Epig 2020;12:1-12 [DOI:10.1186/s13148-020-00980-9] [PMID] []
5. Chincarini G, Walker DW, Wong F, Richardson SJ, Cumberland A, Tolcos M. Thyroid hormone analogues: Promising therapeutic avenues to improve the neurodevelopmental outcomes of intrauterine growth restriction. J Neuroch 2024;168:2335-50 [DOI:10.1111/jnc.16124] [PMID]
6. Bosselmann S, Mielke G. Sonographic Assessment of the Umbilical Cord. Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd 2015;75(8):808-18 [DOI:10.1055/s-0035-1557819] [PMID] []
7. Englund EK, Fujiwara T, Smith SA, Meyers ML, Friesen RM, Browne LP, et al. Reliability of 4D flow MRI for investigation of fetal cardiovascular hemodynamics in the third trimester. Radiol J 2024;6(6):7-16 [DOI:10.1148/ryct.240119] [PMID]
8. Warejko U, Feduniw S, Bednarek-Jędrzejek M, Kwiatkowski S. Impact of Doppler uterine artery pulsatility index (ut-a pi), plgf serum level on fetal growth restriction between the 2nd and 3rd trimester. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2024;293:102-111 [DOI:10.1016/j.ejogrb.2023.08.285]
9. Flo K, Wilsgaard T, Acharya G. A new non-invasive method for measuring uterine vascular resistance and its relationship to uterine artery Doppler indices: a longitudinal study. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2011;37(5):538-42 [DOI:10.1002/uog.8907] [PMID]
10. La Verde M, Torella M, Ronsini C, Riemma G, Cobellis L, Marrapodi MM, et al. The association between fetal Doppler and uterine artery blood volume flow in term pregnancies: a pilot study. J Ultrasound 2024;45(2):184-9 [DOI:10.1055/a-2075-3021] [PMID]
11. Ramirez Zegarra R, Carbone IF, Angeli L, Gigli F, Di Ilio C, Barba O, et al. Association of umbilical vein flow with abnormal fetal growth and adverse perinatal outcome in low‐risk population: multicenter prospective study. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2024;63(5):627-34 [DOI:10.1002/uog.27534] [PMID]
12. Nguyen MT, Ouzounian JG. Evaluation and management of fetal macrosomia. Obstet Gynecol Clin 2021;48(2):387-99 [DOI:10.1016/j.ogc.2021.02.008] [PMID]
13. Tzschoppe A, Riedel C, von Kries R, Struwe E, Rascher W, Dörr HG, et al. Differential effects of low birthweight and intrauterine growth restriction on umbilical cord blood insulin‐like growth factor concentrations. Clin Endocrinol 2015;83(5):739-45 [DOI:10.1111/cen.12844] [PMID]
14. Udoh BE, Erim A, Anthony E. Sonographic assessment of umbilical cord diameter as an indicator of fetal growth and perinatal outcome. J Diag Med Sonog 2021;37(1):41-45 [DOI:10.1177/8756479320963041]
15. Chelli SB, Vinaya G, SurekhaS M. Study on Types of Umbilical Cord Insertion in Normal and Intrauterine Growth Restriction. Indian J Public Health Res Dev 2024;2(1):1-9 [google scholar]
16. Fakehi M, Hajari P, Nobatiani N, Mazloomi M, Hivechi N, Kalati M, et al. Relationship Between Anatomic Features of the Placenta, the Type of Abnormal Placental Cord Insertion and Adverse Pregnancy Outcomes in Singleton Pregnancies: A Prospective Observational Study. Pediatr Dev Pathol 2024;27(1):45-51 [DOI:10.1177/10935266231196413] [PMID]
17. Gupta RK, Mittal A. Prognostic indices for pregnancy outcome on ultrasound: A Prospective Study. Pediatr J Res 2016;22(3):8-15 [google scholar]
18. Colmant C, Lapillonne A, Stirnemann J, Belaroussi I, Leroy‐Terquem E, Kermovant‐Duchemin E, et al. Impact of different prenatal management strategies in short‐and long‐term outcomes in monochorionic twin pregnancies with selective intrauterine growth restriction and abnormal flow velocity waveforms in the umbilical artery Doppler: a retrospective observational study of 108 cases. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2021;128(2):401-19 [DOI:10.1111/1471-0528.16318] [PMID]
19. Mohamed ML, Elbeily MM, Shalaby MM, Khattab YH, Taha OT. Umbilical cord diameter in the prediction of foetal growth restriction: a cross sectional study. J Obstet Gynaecol 2022;5:1-5 [DOI:10.1080/01443615.2021.2010185] [PMID]
20. Udoh BE, Erim A, Anthony E. Sonographic assessment of umbilical cord diameter as an indicator of fetal growth and perinatal outcome. J Diag Med Sonog 2021;37(1):41-45 [DOI:10.1177/8756479320963041]
21. Al Heshimi SJ. Fetal umbilical cord circumference measurement and birth weight. Int J Health Sci Res 2017;7:111-6 [google scholar]
22. Feucht U, Mulol H, Vannevel V, Pattinson R. The ability of continuous-wave Doppler ultrasound to detect fetal growth restriction. PLoS One 2021;16(8):1-8 [DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0255960] [PMID] []
23. Pandey D, Garg S, Bharti R, Mittal P, Suri J. Sonographic Umbilical Cord Parameters in Third Trimester of Pregnancy with Gestational Diabetes Mellitus as Predictors of Macrosomia. J South Asian Fed Obstet Gynaecol 2022;14(3):265-70 [DOI:10.5005/jp-journals-10006-2006]
24. Soysal C, Şişman Hİ, Bıyık İ, Erten Ö, Deliloğlu B, Soysal DG, et al. The relationship between umbilical cord measurements and newborn outcomes. Perinat J 2021;29(3):225-30 [DOI:10.2399/prn.21.0293008]
25. Farahbod F, Zarean E, Khanjani S, Moezzi M, Mohammadizadeh F, Shabanian S. Relationship between placental thickness, grading, and heterogeneity in fetal growth restriction in the third trimester of pregnancy by ultrasonography and pathology tests and their relationship with estimated fetal weight and neonatal outcome. Immunopathol Persa 2023;10(2):39471-80 [DOI:10.34172/ipp.2023.39471]
26. Wang L, Zhang X, Chen T, Tao J, Gao Y, Cai L, et al. Association of gestational weight gain with infant morbidity and mortality in the United States. JAMA Netw Open 2021;4(12):1-10 [DOI:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.41498] [PMID] []
27. Baker JC. Placental Evolution: Innovating how to Feed Babies. Annu Rev Genet 2024;58:3-70 [DOI:10.1146/annurev-genet-111523-102135] [PMID]
28. Salomon LJ, Alfirevic Z, Berghella V, Bilardo CM, Chalouhi GE, Costa FD, et al. ISUOG Practice Guidelines (updated): performance of the routine mid-trimester fetal ultrasound scan. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2022;59(6):840-56 [DOI:10.1002/uog.24888] [PMID]
29. Jako M, Suranyi A, Kaizer L, Nemeth G, Bartfai G. Maternal Hematological Parameters and Placental and Umbilical Cord Histopathology in Intrauterine Growth Restriction. Med Princ Pract 2019;28(2):101-18 [DOI:10.1159/000497240] [PMID] []
30. Tolu LB, Ararso R, Abdulkadir A, Feyissa GT, Worku Y. Perinatal outcome of growth restricted fetuses with abnormal umbilical artery Doppler waveforms compared to growth restricted fetuses with normal umbilical artery Doppler waveforms at a tertiary referral hospital in urban Ethiopia. PLoS One 2020;15(6):9-16 [DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0234810] [PMID] []
31. Chelli SB, Surekha S, Upendhar Reddy P, Sumathy G. Histopathological findings of umbilical cord in intrauterine growth restriction. Int J Health Sci 2022;7:5-12 [DOI:10.53730/ijhs.v6nS2.8465]
32. Vişan V, Balan RA, Costea CF, Cărăuleanu A, Haba RM, Haba MŞ C, et al. Morphological and histopathological changes in placentas of pregnancies with intrauterine growth restriction. Rom J Morphol Embryol 2020;61(2):477-83 [DOI:10.47162/RJME.61.2.17] [PMID] []
33. Larciprete G, Valensise H, Di Pierro G, Vasapollo B, Casalino B, Arduini D, et al. Intrauterine growth restriction and fetal body composition. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2005;26(3):258-62 [DOI:10.1002/uog.1980] [PMID]
34. Albu AR, Horhoianu IA, Dumitrascu MC, Horhoianu V. Growth assessment in diagnosis of Fetal Growth Restriction. Review. J Med Life 2014;7(2):150-54 [PMID: 25408718] [PMCID: PMC4197499]
35. Hicks ZM, Gibbs RL, Beer HN, Grijalva PCC, Most MS, Yates DT. PSVIII-B-18 Sustained Maternofetal Inflammation at mid-Gestation Causes Intrauterine Growth Restriction of the Sheep Fetus That is Characterized by Poor Muscle Mass and Asymmetric Body Composition Near Term. J Anim Sci 2022;6:1-6 [DOI:10.1093/jas/skac247.568] []
36. Esposito FG, Tagliaferri S, Giudicepietro A, Giuliano N, Maruotti GM, Saccone G, et al. Fetal heart rate monitoring and neonatal outcome in a population of early- and late-onset intrauterine growth restriction. J Obstet Gynaecol Res 2019;45(7):1343-51 [DOI:10.1111/jog.13981] [PMID]
37. Lubrano C, Taricco E, Coco C, Di Domenico F, Mandò C, Cetin I. Perinatal and Neonatal Outcomes in Fetal Growth Restriction and Small for Gestational Age. J Clin Med 2022;11(10):3-9 [DOI:10.3390/jcm11102729] [PMID] []
38. Pérez‐Cruz M, Cruz‐Lemini M, Fernández M, Parra J, Bartrons J, Gómez‐Roig M, et al. Fetal cardiac function in late‐onset intrauterine growth restriction vs small‐for‐gestational age, as defined by estimated fetal weight, cerebroplacental ratio and uterine artery Doppler. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2015;46(4):465-71 [DOI:10.1002/uog.14930] [PMID]
39. Proctor L, Fitzgerald B, Whittle W, Mokhtari N, Lee E, Machin G, et al. Umbilical cord diameter percentile curves and their correlation to birth weight and placental pathology. Placenta 2013;34(1):62-6 [DOI:10.1016/j.placenta.2012.10.015] [PMID]
40. Soysal C, Şişman Hİ, Biyik I, Erten Ö, Deliloğlu B, Geçkalan Soysal D, et al. The relationship between umbilical cord measurements and newborn outcomes. Perinat J 2021;8:1-5 [DOI:10.2399/prn.21.0293008]
41. Alsatou A, Petrovici V, Corolcova N. Clinico-morphological aspects and outcomes of the lean umbilical cord. Pediatr J 2020;6:2-10 [google scholar]
42. Rostamzadeh S, Kalantari M, Shahriari M, Shakiba M. Sonographic Measurement of the Umbilical Cord and Its Vessels and Their Relation with Fetal Anthropometric Measurements. Iran J Radiol 2015;12(3):1-7 [DOI:10.5812/iranjradiol.12230v2] [PMID] []
43. Shoji H, Watanabe A, Awaji A, Ikeda N, Hosozawa M, Ohkawa N, et al. Intrauterine growth restriction affects z-scores of anthropometric parameters during the first 6 years in very low-birth-weight-children born at less than 30 weeks of gestation. J Dev Orig Health Dis 2020;11(1):44-48 [DOI:10.1017/S2040174419000369] [PMID]
Send email to the article author
| Rights and permissions | |
 |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |
