Comparison of umbilical coiling index in term pregnancies with and without fetal growth restriction

Arda Düz, Senem; tuncay, gorkem; Karaer, Abdullah; CENGİZ, MURAT

doi:10.5455/annalsmedres.2021.12.657

Comparison of umbilical coiling index in term pregnancies with and without fetal growth restriction

Senem ARDA DÜZ, (İnönü Üniversitesi Tıp Fakültesi Kadın Hastalıkları ve Doğum Anabilim Dalı, Malatya, Türkiye)

MURAT CENGİZ, (İnönü Üniversitesi Tıp Fakültesi Kadın Hastalıkları ve Doğum Anabilim Dalı, Malatya, Türkiye)

Görkem TUNCAY, (İnönü Üniversitesi Tıp Fakültesi Kadın Hastalıkları ve Doğum Anabilim Dalı, Malatya, Türkiye)

ABDULLAH KARAER (İnönü Üniversitesi Tıp Fakültesi Kadın Hastalıkları ve Doğum Anabilim Dalı, Malatya, Türkiye)

Annals of Medical Research

2 0

Yıl: 2022 Cilt: 29 Sayı: 7 Sayfa Aralığı: 683 - 686 Metin Dili: İngilizce DOI: 10.5455/annalsmedres.2021.12.657 İndeks Tarihi: 07-09-2022

Comparison of umbilical coiling index in term pregnancies with and without fetal growth restriction

Öz:

Abstract Aim: To investigate pregnancies with and without fetal growth restriction, giving birth after 37 weeks of gestation in terms of umbilical coiling index and neonatal outcomes. Materials and Methods: Twenty-nine patients with fetal growth restriction and 46 patients who have normal pregnancy and delivered after the 37th week of gestation were recruited in this study. The umbilical coiling index was measured by ultrasound, following the patients who were hospitalized for delivery. Results: There were statistically significant differences between the groups regarding to umbilical artery pulsatility index, gestational age at delivery and birth weight of the newborn. The need for a cesarean section because of non-reassuring fetal condition was statistically significantly higher in the fetal growth restriction group. The mean antenatal umbilical coiling index in fetal growth restriction and control patients was 0.29±0.08 and 0.27±0.08, respectively and the difference was not statistically significant. Conclusion: There was no statistically significant difference between the patients diag- nosed with and without fetal growth restriction who delivered after the 37th gestational week, regarding the umbilical coiling index and perinatal outcomes, except umbilical artery pulsatility index, gestational age at birth and birth weight of the newborn.

Anahtar Kelime:

Belge Türü: Makale Makale Türü: Araştırma Makalesi Erişim Türü: Erişime Açık

1. Salafia CM, Charles AK, Maas EM. Placenta and fetal growth restriction. Clin Obstet Gynecol 2006;49(2):236–256.
2. Mifsud W, Sebire NJ. Placental pathology in early-onset and late-onset fetal growth restriction. Fetal Diagn Ther 2014;36(2):117–128.
3. Lees C, Marlow N, Arabin B, et al. Perinatal morbidity and mor- tality in early-onset fetal growth restriction: cohort outcomes of the trial of randomized umbilical and fetal flow in Europe (TRUFFLE). Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2013;42(4):400–408
4. Meher S, Hernandez-Andrade E, Basheer SN, Lees C. Impact of cerebral redistribution on neurodevelopmental outcome in small- for-gestational-age or growth-restricted babies: a systematic re- view. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2015;46(4):398–404.
5. Jaddoe VW, de Jonge LL, Hofman A, et al. First trimester fetal growth restriction and cardiovascular risk factors in school age children: population based cohort study. BMJ 2014;348: g14.
6. Frøen JF, Gardosi JO, Thurmann A, et al. Restricted fetal growth in sudden intrauterine unexplained death. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2004;83(9):801–807.
7. Meyer FA, Laver-Rudich Z, Tanenbaum R. Evidence for a me- chanical coupling of glycoprotein microfibrils with collagen fibrils in Wharton’s jelly. Biochim Biophys Acta. 1983;755(3):376–387.
8. Bernischke K, Kaufmann P, Baergen RN. Pathology of the Hu- man Placenta, 5th edn. New York: Springer-Verlag, 2006
9. Edmonds HW. The spiral twist of the normal umbilical cord in twins and in singletons. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1954;67(1):102– 20.
10. Lacro RV, Jones KL, Benirschke K. The umbilical cord twist: origin, direction and relevance. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1987;157(4 Pt 1):833–838.
11. Malpas P, Symonds EM. Observations on the structure of the human umbilical cord. Surg Gynecol Obstet 1966;123(4):746– 750.
12. Strong TH, Jarles DL, Vega JS, Feldman DB. The umbilical coiling index. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1994;170 (1 Pt 1):29–32.
13. Strong TH, Finberg HJ, Mattox JH. Antepartum diagno- sis of noncoiled umbilical cords. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1994;170(6):1729–1733.
14. Degani S, Lewinsky RM, Berger H, Spiegel D. Sonographic esti- mation of umbilical coiling index and correlation with Doppler flow characteristics. Obstet Gynecol 1995;86(6):990–993.
15. Rana J, Ebert GA, Kappy KA. Adverse perinatal outcome in pa- tients with an abnormal umbilical coiling index. Obstet Gynecol 1995;85(4):573–7.
16. Machin GA, Ackerman J, Gilbert-Barness E. Abnormal umbil- ical cord coiling is associated with adverse perinatal outcomes. Pediatr Dev Pathol 2000;3(5):462–471.
17. Narayanan A, Ballal P, Shetty N, Kushtagi P. Antenatal um- bilical cord parameters and perinatal outcome. Int J Reprod Contracept Obstet Gynecol. 2016;5(4):1211–1215.
18. Tohma YA, Altay MM, Turgut D, et al. Second trimester umbil- ical cord coiling index and perinatal outcomes. Gynecol Obstet Reprod Med. 2014;20(3):135-142.
19. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Intrauter- ine growth restriction. Washington, DC: American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists; 2000.
20. Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. The inves- tigation and management of the small-for-gestational-age fetus (guideline no. 31). London: Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists; 2002.
21. Kashanian M, Akbarian A, Kouhpayehzadeh J. The umbilical coiling index and adverse perinatal outcome. Int J Gynaecol Ob- stet. 2006;95(1):8-13.
22. Mittal A, Nanda S, Sen J. Antenatal umbilical coiling index as a predictor of perinatal outcome. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2015;291(4):763–768.
23. Chitra T, Sushanth YS, Raghavan S. Umbilical coiling index as a marker of perinatal outcome: an analytical study. Obstet Gynecol Int. 2012;2012:213689.
24. Gupta S, Faridi MMA, Krishnan J. Umbilical coiling index. J Obstet Gynecol India. 2006;56(4):315–319.
25. de Laat MWM, Franx A, Bots ML, et al. Umbilical coiling in- dex in normal and complicated pregnancies. Obstet Gynecol. 2006;107(5):1049–1055.
26. Ezimokhai M, Rizk DEE, Thomas L. Maternal risk factors for abnormal vascular coiling of the umbilical cord. Am J Perinat 2000;17(8):441–445.
27. Kalem MN, Kalem Z, Akgun N, et al. Investigation of possible maternal and fetal factors which affect umbilical coiling index. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 2019;32(6):954-960.
28. Mustafa SJ, Said AM. Association of umbilical coiling in- dex in normal and complicated pregnancies. Diyala Journal of Medicine. 2013;5(1):15-22.
29. Sahoo K, Mahajan A, Shaha P, Kshirsagar NS. Evaluation of Umbilical Coiling Index as a Predictor of Pregnancy Outcome. Int J Health Sci Res. 2015;5(3):92 -100.
30. de Laat MW, Franx A, van Alderen ED, et al. The umbilical coiling index, a review of the literature. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 2005;17(2):93–100.

APA	Arda Düz S, CENGİZ M, tuncay g, Karaer A (2022). Comparison of umbilical coiling index in term pregnancies with and without fetal growth restriction. , 683 - 686. 10.5455/annalsmedres.2021.12.657
Chicago	Arda Düz Senem,CENGİZ MURAT,tuncay gorkem,Karaer Abdullah Comparison of umbilical coiling index in term pregnancies with and without fetal growth restriction. (2022): 683 - 686. 10.5455/annalsmedres.2021.12.657
MLA	Arda Düz Senem,CENGİZ MURAT,tuncay gorkem,Karaer Abdullah Comparison of umbilical coiling index in term pregnancies with and without fetal growth restriction. , 2022, ss.683 - 686. 10.5455/annalsmedres.2021.12.657
AMA	Arda Düz S,CENGİZ M,tuncay g,Karaer A Comparison of umbilical coiling index in term pregnancies with and without fetal growth restriction. . 2022; 683 - 686. 10.5455/annalsmedres.2021.12.657
Vancouver	Arda Düz S,CENGİZ M,tuncay g,Karaer A Comparison of umbilical coiling index in term pregnancies with and without fetal growth restriction. . 2022; 683 - 686. 10.5455/annalsmedres.2021.12.657
IEEE	Arda Düz S,CENGİZ M,tuncay g,Karaer A "Comparison of umbilical coiling index in term pregnancies with and without fetal growth restriction." , ss.683 - 686, 2022. 10.5455/annalsmedres.2021.12.657
ISNAD	Arda Düz, Senem vd. "Comparison of umbilical coiling index in term pregnancies with and without fetal growth restriction". (2022), 683-686. https://doi.org/10.5455/annalsmedres.2021.12.657

APA	Arda Düz S, CENGİZ M, tuncay g, Karaer A (2022). Comparison of umbilical coiling index in term pregnancies with and without fetal growth restriction. Annals of Medical Research, 29(7), 683 - 686. 10.5455/annalsmedres.2021.12.657
Chicago	Arda Düz Senem,CENGİZ MURAT,tuncay gorkem,Karaer Abdullah Comparison of umbilical coiling index in term pregnancies with and without fetal growth restriction. Annals of Medical Research 29, no.7 (2022): 683 - 686. 10.5455/annalsmedres.2021.12.657
MLA	Arda Düz Senem,CENGİZ MURAT,tuncay gorkem,Karaer Abdullah Comparison of umbilical coiling index in term pregnancies with and without fetal growth restriction. Annals of Medical Research, vol.29, no.7, 2022, ss.683 - 686. 10.5455/annalsmedres.2021.12.657
AMA	Arda Düz S,CENGİZ M,tuncay g,Karaer A Comparison of umbilical coiling index in term pregnancies with and without fetal growth restriction. Annals of Medical Research. 2022; 29(7): 683 - 686. 10.5455/annalsmedres.2021.12.657
Vancouver	Arda Düz S,CENGİZ M,tuncay g,Karaer A Comparison of umbilical coiling index in term pregnancies with and without fetal growth restriction. Annals of Medical Research. 2022; 29(7): 683 - 686. 10.5455/annalsmedres.2021.12.657
IEEE	Arda Düz S,CENGİZ M,tuncay g,Karaer A "Comparison of umbilical coiling index in term pregnancies with and without fetal growth restriction." Annals of Medical Research, 29, ss.683 - 686, 2022. 10.5455/annalsmedres.2021.12.657
ISNAD	Arda Düz, Senem vd. "Comparison of umbilical coiling index in term pregnancies with and without fetal growth restriction". Annals of Medical Research 29/7 (2022), 683-686. https://doi.org/10.5455/annalsmedres.2021.12.657