PDF herunterladen
Am J Perinatol 2008; 25(3): 149-152
DOI: 10.1055/s-2008-1061502
© Thieme Medical Publishers

Serial Sonographic Growth Assessment in Pregnancies Complicated by an Isolated Single Umbilical Artery

Samantha Wiegand1 , David S. McKenna2 , Christopher Croom2 , Gary Ventolini2 , Jiri D. Sonek2 , Ran Neiger2
  • 1Integrated Residency Program, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base/Wright State University Boonshoft School of Medicine, Dayton, Ohio
  • 2Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Wright State University Boonshoft School of Medicine, Dayton, Ohio
Weitere Informationen

Publikationsverlauf

Publikationsdatum:
22. Februar 2008 (online)

Auch verfügbar auf
    Lizenzen und Reprints

ABSTRACT

Pregnancies complicated by an isolated single umbilical artery (SUA) are thought to be at increased risk for intrauterine growth restriction (IUGR). The management of these pregnancies often includes serial sonographic assessments of fetal growth. The goal of our study was to test the validity of this assertion. We conducted a longitudinal sonographic assessment of intrauterine fetal growth in pregnancies complicated by a SUA. We included pregnancies where fetal growth was assessed three or more times, and the presence of SUA was repeatedly demonstrated. Pregnancies with fetal anomalies and multiple gestations were excluded. IUGR was defined as an estimated fetal weight (EFW) ≤ 10th percentile of the normal ranges established by Hadlock. Between January 1999 and December 2005, we identified 273 pregnancies with SUA, for an overall incidence of 0.48% within the total population of patients examined at our institution. One hundred and thirty-five pregnancies did not meet our inclusion criteria. Of the 138 we analyzed, four pregnancies (2.9%) were found to have EFW ≤ 10th percentile. We concluded that the occurrence of IUGR in pregnancies complicated by an isolated SUA is not increased. Serial sonographic assessments of fetal growth do not appear to be indicated in the management of such pregnancies.

KEYWORDS

Single umbilical artery - intrauterine growth restriction

REFERENCES

  • 1 Callen P W. Ultrasonography in obstetrics and gynecology. 4th ed. Philadelphia; WB Saunders 2000
    Suche in Google Scholar
  • 2 Volpe G, Volpe P, Boscia F M, Volpe N, Buonadonna A L, Gentile M. “Isolated” single umbilical artery: incidence, cytogenetic abnormalities, malformation and perinatal outcome.  Minerva Ginecol. 2005;  57 189-198
    PubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 3 Gornall A S, Kurinczuk J J, Konjec J C. Antenatal detection of a single umbilical artery: does it matter?.  Prenat Diagn. 2003;  23 117-123
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 4 Monie I W. Genesis of single umbilical artery.  Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1970;  108 400-405
    PubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 5 Persutte W H, Hobbins J. Single umbilical artery: a clinical enigma in modern prenatal diagnosis.  Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 1995;  6 216-229
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 6 Saller D N, Keene C L, Sun C J, Schwartz S. The association of single umbilical artery with cytogenetically abnormal pregnancies.  Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1990;  163 922-925
    PubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 7 Robinson J N, Abuhamad A Z. Abdominal wall and umbilical cord anomalies.  Clin Perinatol. 2000;  27 947-978
    PubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 8 Goldkrand J W, Pettigrew C, Lentz S U, Clements S P, Bryant J L, Hodges J. Volumetric umbilical artery blood flow: comparison of the normal versus the single umbilical artery cord.  J Matern Fetal Med. 2001;  10 116-121
    PubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 9 Hadlock E P, Harrist R B, Carpenter R J et al.. Sonographic estimation of fetal weight.  Radiology. 1984;  150 535-540
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 10 Phelan J P, Smith C V, Broussard P, Small M. Amniotic fluid volume assessment using the four-quadrant technique in the pregnancy between 36 and 42 weeks' gestation.  J Reprod Med. 1987;  32 540-542
    PubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 11 Budorick N E, Kelly T F, Dunn J A, Scioscia A L. The single umbilical artery in a high-risk patient population: what should be offered?.  J Ultrasound Med. 2001;  20 619-627
    PubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 12 Catanzarite V A, Hendricks S K, Maida C, Westbrook C, Cousins L, Schrimmer D. Prenatal diagnosis of the two-vessel cord: implications for patient counseling and obstetric management.  Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 1995;  5 98-105
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 13 Rinehart B K, Terrone D A, Taylor C W, Isler C M, Larmon J E, Roberts W E. Single umbilical artery is associated with an increased incidence of structural and chromosomal anomalies and growth restriction.  Am J Perinatol. 2000;  17 229-232
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 14 Parilla B V, Tamura R K, MacGregor S N, Geibel L J, Sabbagha R E. The clinical significance of a single umbilical artery as an isolated finding on prenatal ultrasound.  Obstet Gynecol. 1995;  85 570-572
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 15 Predanic M, Perni S C, Friedman A, Chervenak F A, Chasen S T. Fetal growth assessment and neonatal birth weight in fetuses with an isolated single umbilical artery.  Obstet Gynecol. 2005;  105 1093-1097
    PubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 16 Pierce B T, Dance V D, Wagner R K, Apodaca C C, Nielson P E, Calhoun B C. Perinatal outcome following fetal single umbilical artery diagnosis.  J Matern Fetal Med. 2001;  10 59-63
    PubMedSuche in Google Scholar

Samantha WiegandM.D. 

2025 Pacer Trail

Beavercreek, OH 45434