Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Review
Systematic Review
Add like
Add dislike
Add to saved papers

Umbilical cord coiling: clinical outcomes in an unselected population and systematic review.

This study was conducted to determine the frequency of pre-defined clinical outcomes in relation to umbilical cord coiling indices >90th percentile and <10th percentile in an unselected population of >1,000 women with a singleton pregnancy resulting in livebirth delivering at or near term and to report these findings in the context of a systematic review. Placentas of consecutive deliveries from an unselected low-risk population with >15 cm attached umbilical cords were included in the study. Clinical outcomes included interventional delivery, birthweight <10th percentile, Apgar score <7 at 1 min, neonatal acidosis (pH<7.2) and admission to neonatal special care. Standard MOOSE (Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology) guidelines were observed for the systematic review. Umbilical coiling index was determined for 1,082 placentas. Mean maternal age was 30.7 years (standard deviation [SD] =5.7) and 519 women (48 %) were primiparous. Mean cord length was 43 cm (SD=13) and mean cord coiling index 0.20 (SD=0.09). A total of 866 cords were normally coiled, and 108 cases were hypercoiled (>90th centile) and 108 cases were undercoiled (<10th percentile). There were no differences between cases of overcoiled, normally coiled or undercoiled cords for any clinical outcome studied. The systematic review yielded a small number of clinical studies which were too statistically and clinically heterogenous to permit meta-analysis. There is insufficient evidence either from this unselected cohort study or from a systematic review to support the previous suggestion that cord coiling index >90th centile or <10th centile is associated with adverse clinical outcome in an unselected population. Previous studies that draw a link between abnormal cord coiling and clinical outcome are generally too small and/or selective to allow meaningful conclusions or applicability to low-risk populations.

Full text links

We have located links that may give you full text access.
Can't access the paper?
Try logging in through your university/institutional subscription. For a smoother one-click institutional access experience, please use our mobile app.

Related Resources

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

Mobile app image

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.

By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.

Your Privacy Choices Toggle icon

You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app