EVALUATION OF UMBILICAL CORD THICKNESS AND ITS ASSOCIATION WITH ANTENATAL MATERNAL RISK FACTORS
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.22159/ajpcr.2025v18i9.55357Keywords:
antenatal risk factors, umbilical cord thickness, PIHAbstract
Objective: The umbilical cord provides the pathway for unhindered blood transport from the placenta to the foetus and vice versa. Antenatal risks may lead to change in the thickness of umbilical cord thickness. The aim of the study was to determine the association between umbilical cord thickness and antenatal maternal risk factors.
Methods: This was a cross sectional prospective study conducted between Jan 2023 to Dec 2023 at department of Pediatrics, Pacific Medical College and Hospital, Udaipur, India. Total 400 newborn subjected for this study. Out of these 200 newborn enrolled as control group for this study. Informed consent was obtained from the caregivers. Institutional ethical committee approval was sought before the start of the study.
Results: Mean umbilical cord diameter among neonates with antenatal risk factors (UCD in mm) was11.53 ± 2.59 and mean umbilical cord diameter among newborns without antenatal risk factors was 12.23 ± 2.43 respectively. The difference in UCD in mm among cases and controls was significant (P < 0.05). Bad obstetric history and PIH was associated with significant change in umbilical cord thickness. Among cases, 23% neonates required NICU admission and 77% did not require NICU admission whereas among controls, only 0.5% neonate required NICU admission and 99.5% did not require NICU admission. There was significant association between NICU admission among cases and control group. (P<0.05)
Conclusion: Presence of antenatal risk factors leads to significant change in umbilical cord thickness. Thin umbilical cord has been found to be associated with need of NICU admission.
Downloads
References
1. Gill RW, Kossoff G, Warren PS, Garrett WJ. Umbilical venous flow in normal and complicated pregnancy. Ultrasound Med Biol. 1984;10(3):349- 63. doi: 10.1016/0301-5629(84)90169-8, PMID 6464221
2. Narayan J, Bangalia D, Charan LS, Sonkariya S, Barolia DK, Garg P. Evaluation of umbilical cord thickness and its association with antenatal maternal risk factors: A cross sectional prospective study. J Compr Pediatr. 2022;13(4):e129463. doi: 10.5812/compreped-129463
3. Lee SM, Kim DY, Cho S, Noh SM, Park HL, Lee G. Correlations between the status of the umbilical cord and neonatal health status. Child Health Nurs Res. 2020 Jul;26(3):348-56. doi: 10.4094/ chnr.2020.26.3.348, PMID 35004478
4. Bandyopadhyay T, Bhatia BD, Khanna HD. A study of oxidative stress in neonates delivered through meconium-stained amniotic fluid. Eur J Pediatr. 2017;176(3):317-25. doi: 10.1007/s00431-016-2845-0, PMID 28062958
5. Karumbi J, Mulaku M, Aluvaala J, English M, Opiyo N. Topical un- biblical cord care for prevention of infection and neonatal mortality. Pediatr Infect Dis J. 2013;32(1):78-83. doi: 10.1097/ INF.0b013e3182783dc3, PMID 23076382
6. López-Medina MD, López-Araque AB, Linares-Abad M, López-Medina IM. Umbilical cord separation time, predictors and healing complications in newborns with dry care. PLoS One. 2020;15(1):e0227209. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0227209, PMID 31923218
7. Raio L, Ghezzi F, Di Naro E, Franchi M, Maymon E, Mueller MD, et al. Prenatal diagnosis of a lean umbilical cord: A simple marker for the fetus at risk of being small for gestational age at birth. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 1999 Mar;13(3):176-80. doi: 10.1046/j.1469- 0705.1999.13030176.x. PMID 10204208
8. Elghazaly EA, Awad KA, Alghamdi J. Correlation between the measurement of the umbilical cord diameter and the birth weight outcome, in Sudanese neonates. Int J Health Sci Res. 2018;8(11):97-101.
9. Scott JM, Wilkinson R. Further studies on the umbilical cord and its water content. J Clin Pathol. 1978;31(10):944-8. doi: 10.1136/ jcp.31.10.944, PMID 711902, PMCID PMC1145457
10. Barbieri C, Cecatti JG, Surita FG, Costa ML, Marussi EF, Costa JV. Area of Wharton’s jelly as an estimate of the thickness of the umbilical cord and its relationship with estimated fetal weight. Reprod Health. 2011;8:32. doi: 10.1186/1742-4755-8-32, PMID 22054163
11. Sepulveda W, Alcalde JL, Schnapp C, Bravo M. Prenatal outcome after diagnoses of chorioangioma. Obstet Gynecol. 2003;102(5 Pt 1):1028-33. doi: 10.1016/s0029-7844(03)00859-7, PMID 14672481
12. Tahmasebi M, Alighanbari R. Evaluation of umbilical cord thickness, crosssectional area, and coiling index as predictors of pregnancy outcome. Indian J Radiol Imaging. 2011 Jul;21(3):195-8. doi: 10.4103/0971- 3026.85367, PMID 22013294, PMCID PMC3190491
13. Togni FA, Araujo Júnior E, Vasques FA, Moron AF, Torloni MR, Nardozza LM. The cross-sectional area of umbilical cord components in normal pregnancy. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2007 Mar;96(3):156-61. doi: 10.1016/j.ijgo.2006.10.003. PMID 17280668
14. Udoh BE, Erim A, Anthony E. Sonographic assessment of umbilical cord diameter as an indicator of fetal growth and perinatal outcome. J Diagn Med Sonogr. 2020;37(1):41-5. doi: 10.1177/8756479320963041
15. Balkawade NU, Shinde MA. Study of length of umbilical cord and fetal outcome: A study of 1,000 deliveries. J Obstet Gynaecol India. 2012 Oct;62(5):520-5. doi: 10.1007/s13224-012-0194-0. PMID 24082551, PMCID PMC3526711
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
Copyright (c) 2025 Swaroop Singh, Puneet Jain, SUNNY MALVIA
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
The publication is licensed under CC By and is open access. Copyright is with author and allowed to retain publishing rights without restrictions.
