We have located links that may give you full text access.
Clinical significance of true umbilical cord knot: a propensity score matching study.
BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth 2024 January 13
OBJECTIVE: True umbilical cord knot (TUCK) is a rare finding that often leads to intensified surveillance and patient anxiety. This study sought to evaluate the incidence, risk factors, and obstetric and neonatal outcomes of TUCK.
METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was conducted at a tertiary university medical center in 2007-2019. Patients with singleton pregnancies diagnosed postnatally with TUCK were identified and compared to women without TUCK for obstetric and neonatal outcomes using propensity score matching (PSM).
RESULTS: TUCK was diagnosed in 780 of the 96,766 deliveries (0.8%). Women with TUCK were older than those without TUCK (32.57 vs. 31.06 years, P < 0.001) and had higher gravidity (3 vs. 2, P < 001) and a higher rate of prior stillbirth (1.76% vs. 0.43%, P < 0.01). Following covariate adjustment, 732 women with TUCK were compared to 7320 matched controls. TUCK was associated with emergency cesarean delivery due to non-reassuring fetal heart rate (2.54% vs. 4.35%, P = 0.008, OR 1.71, 95%CI 1.14-2.56) and intrapartum meconium-stained amniotic fluid (19.26% vs. 15.41%, P = 0.022, OR 1.31, 95%CI 1.04-1.65). Neonatal outcomes were comparable except for higher rates of 1-min Apgar score < 7 and neonatal seizures in the TUCK group. The stillbirth rate was higher in the TUCK group, but the difference was not statistically significant (1.23% vs 0.62%, P = 0.06, OR 1.96, 95%CI 0.96-4.03).
CONCLUSIONS: TUCK has several identifiable risk factors. Pregnant women with TUCK may cautiously be informed of the relatively low risks of major obstetric or perinatal complications. The lower occurrence of stillbirth in the TUCK group warrants further study.
METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was conducted at a tertiary university medical center in 2007-2019. Patients with singleton pregnancies diagnosed postnatally with TUCK were identified and compared to women without TUCK for obstetric and neonatal outcomes using propensity score matching (PSM).
RESULTS: TUCK was diagnosed in 780 of the 96,766 deliveries (0.8%). Women with TUCK were older than those without TUCK (32.57 vs. 31.06 years, P < 0.001) and had higher gravidity (3 vs. 2, P < 001) and a higher rate of prior stillbirth (1.76% vs. 0.43%, P < 0.01). Following covariate adjustment, 732 women with TUCK were compared to 7320 matched controls. TUCK was associated with emergency cesarean delivery due to non-reassuring fetal heart rate (2.54% vs. 4.35%, P = 0.008, OR 1.71, 95%CI 1.14-2.56) and intrapartum meconium-stained amniotic fluid (19.26% vs. 15.41%, P = 0.022, OR 1.31, 95%CI 1.04-1.65). Neonatal outcomes were comparable except for higher rates of 1-min Apgar score < 7 and neonatal seizures in the TUCK group. The stillbirth rate was higher in the TUCK group, but the difference was not statistically significant (1.23% vs 0.62%, P = 0.06, OR 1.96, 95%CI 0.96-4.03).
CONCLUSIONS: TUCK has several identifiable risk factors. Pregnant women with TUCK may cautiously be informed of the relatively low risks of major obstetric or perinatal complications. The lower occurrence of stillbirth in the TUCK group warrants further study.
Full text links
Related Resources
Trending Papers
Consensus Statement on Vitamin D Status Assessment and Supplementation: Whys, Whens, and Hows.Endocrine Reviews 2024 April 28
The Tricuspid Valve: A Review of Pathology, Imaging, and Current Treatment Options: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association.Circulation 2024 April 26
Intravenous infusion of dexmedetomidine during the surgery to prevent postoperative delirium and postoperative cognitive dysfunction undergoing non-cardiac surgery: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.European Journal of Medical Research 2024 April 19
Interstitial Lung Disease: A Review.JAMA 2024 April 23
Management of Diverticulitis: A Review.JAMA Surgery 2024 April 18
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
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