2003
DOI: 10.1002/pd.540
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Antenatal detection of a single umbilical artery: does it matter?

Abstract: The presence of a single umbilical artery is recognised as a soft marker for congenital anomalies, aneuploidy, earlier delivery and low birthweight. Most of the available data are derived from case series or highly selected populations and are therefore likely to be unrepresentative. In this retrospective case-comparison study, we firstly aimed to determine the incidence of a single umbilical artery in an unselected population and secondly to examine the clinical significance of this soft marker. Over a 40-mon… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
2

Citation Types

14
110
4
8

Year Published

2003
2003
2016
2016

Publication Types

Select...
9

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 96 publications
(138 citation statements)
references
References 32 publications
14
110
4
8
Order By: Relevance
“…We suggest that amniocentesis should only be considered in the presence of fetal anomalies. This finding, and advice, is consistent with previous studies (Gornall et al, 2003;Voskamp et al, 2013).…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 94%
“…We suggest that amniocentesis should only be considered in the presence of fetal anomalies. This finding, and advice, is consistent with previous studies (Gornall et al, 2003;Voskamp et al, 2013).…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 94%
“…The most commonly suggested theories on the development of a single umbilical artery are primary agenesis or secondary thrombotic atrophy of one of the umbilical arteries (16). A single umbilical artery could be associated with some adverse perinatal outcomes such as growth restriction or higher fetal distress rates during the course of labor when it was described as an isolated finding.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…La prevalencia de AUU encontrada en nuestra muestra (0,3 %) es muy superior a la encontrada por nosotros en una comunicación anterior (7) para el período 1978-98 (0,1%), pero muy inferior a la comunicada por otros autores que dan entre 0,6% y 1,2% (11,12,13). Hua y cols (14), en una casuís-tica de 72.373 embarazos da una prevalencia de 0,61% y Horton y cols de 1,3% (6).…”
Section: Discussionunclassified