Risk Factors, Maternal and Neonatal Outcome in Umbilical Cord Prolapse in South Indian Population
Madhusmita Hembram, Haritha Sagili
Citation Information :
Hembram M, Sagili H. Risk Factors, Maternal and Neonatal Outcome in Umbilical Cord Prolapse in South Indian Population. J South Asian Feder Obs Gynae 2017; 9 (4):323-326.
To assess associated risk factors, maternal and neonatal outcome of pregnancies complicated by umbilical cord prolapse in South Indian population.
Study design
It was a descriptive study. Risk factors, maternal and neonatal outcome were noted down retrospectively from case records of mothers affected by umbilical cord prolapse from April 2014 to March 2016.
Results
There were 39 cases of umbilical cord prolapse in 2 years. The incidence of umbilical cord prolapse in our hospital was 0.1%. Most of the women were ≤ 25 years of age (72%). Primis were 56%. Most common presentation in umbilical cord prolapse was cephalic presentation (64%). Among the affected individuals, 82% had term gestation, 79% had higher presenting part, and 87% had spontaneous rupture of membranes. Babies were delivered by lower segment cesarean section (LSCS) in 95% and birth weight was ≥2.5 kg in 67% of cases with umbilical cord prolapse. Decision to delivery interval (DDI) was ≤30 minutes in 84% of cases. APGAR score was ≥7 at 1 minute in 65% and ≥7 at 5 minutes in 83% of cases. There were 15 neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) admissions and 2 stillbirths. Most common gender was male (75%).
Conclusion
In our study, maternal risk factors were different from traditional risk factors in relation to age, parity, period of gestation, presentation, and birth weight. But, station of presenting part, early dilatation of cervix at diagnosis, and male gender predominance were similar to traditional risk factors. Neonatal outcome was good in our study with no birth injuries. All cases should be monitored properly to reduce the occurrence of umbilical cord prolapse even in low-risk population. Early detection and intervention is required for good neonatal outcome. Umbilical cord prolapse should be managed by an expert obstetrician.
How to cite this article
Hembram M, Sagili H. Risk Factors, Maternal and Neonatal Outcome in Umbilical Cord Prolapse in South Indian Population. J South Asian Feder Obst Gynae 2017;9(4):323-326.
Maternal risk factors and outcomes of umbilical cord prolapse: a population-based study. J Obstet Gynaecol Can 2016 Jan;38(1):23-28.
Cord prolapse, associated factors and fetal outcome: a report of 47 Cases from the Yaounde Central Hospital, Cameroon. Clin Mother Child Health 2010 Jul;7(1):1179-1182.
Emergency obstetrics care in a Nigerian tertiary hospital: a 20 years review of umbilical cord prolapse. Niger J Clin Pract 2009 Sep;12(3):232-236.
Umbilical cord prolapse: a clinical study of 60 cases seen at Obafemi Awolowo University Teaching Hospital, Ile-Ife. East Afri Med J 1988 May;75(5):308-310.
Cord complications: associated risk factors and perinatal outcome. Open J Obstet Gynecol 2011 Dec;1(4):174-177.
Risk factors and infant outcomes associated with umbilical cord prolapse: a population-based case-control study among births in Washington State. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1994 Feb;170(2):613-618.
Cord prolapse. Review of literature. A series of 50 cases. J Gynecol Obstet Biol Reprod (Paris) 1996;25(8):841-845.
Retrospective evaluation of risk factors and perinatal outcome of umbilical cord prolapse during labour. Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci 2015 Jul;19(13):2336-2339.
Umbilical cord prolapse. Is the time from diagnosis to delivery critical? J Reprod Med 1998 Feb;43(2):129-132.
Umbilical cord prolapse in current obstetric practice. J Reprod Med 2005 May;50(5):303-306.
Results of delivery in umbilical cord prolapse. Saudi Med J 2003 Jul;24(7):754-757.
Audit of ‘Crash’ emergency caesarean sections due to cord prolapse in terms of response time and perinatal outcome. Ann Acad Med Singapore 2003 Sep;32(5):638-641.
Umbilical cord prolapse and perinatal outcome. Int J Gynaecology 2004 Feb;84(2):127-132.
