Child Health Nursing Research

Korean Academy of Child Health Nursing (한국아동간호학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Correlations between the Status of the Umbilical Cord and Neonatal Health Status

  • Lee, Sun Min (Newborn Nursery, Seoul St. Mary's Hospital, The Catholic University of Korea) ;
  • Kim, Dong Yeon (Neonatal Intensive Care Unit, Seoul St. Mary's Hospital, The Catholic University of Korea) ;
  • Cho, Seongmin (Newborn Nursery, Seoul St. Mary's Hospital, The Catholic University of Korea) ;
  • Noh, Sun Mi (Newborn Nursery, Eunpyeong St. Mary's Hospital, The Catholic University of Korea) ;
  • Park, Hye Ly (Newborn Nursery, Seoul St. Mary's Hospital, The Catholic University of Korea) ;
  • Lee, Gyungjoo (College of Nursing, The Catholic University of Korea)
  • Received : 2020.05.21
  • Accepted : 2020.06.15
  • Published : 2020.07.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Purpose: This study aimed to identify correlations between the status of the umbilical cord and neonatal health status. Methods: In total, 172 newborns were enrolled who were admitted to the newborn nursery with a gestational age of 35 weeks or older and a body weight of 2 kg or above. Data were collected on the basic personal information of the newborns, the diameter and soft tissue status of the umbilical cord, and neonatal health status after birth. Analyses were performed using t-test, analysis of variance, χ2 test, and Fisher exact test. Results: Umbilical cord diameter exhibited a statistically significant difference by sex (t=2.71, p=.007). A thin umbilical cord diameter was associated with a 1-minute Apgar score less than 8 points (t=2.47, p=.015) and with being transferred to the intensive care unit (t=2.45, p=.015). Poor soft tissue status of the umbilical cord was associated with a 1-minute Apgar score of less than 8 points (χ2=16.68, p<.001) and with oxygen being supplied (χ2=4.81, p=.028). Conclusion: Assessing the umbilical cord diameter and status in newborns is an important tool for evaluating neonatal health status after birth, and this point also underscores the importance of professionals' careful observations in the newborn nursery.

Keywords

References

  1. Binbir B, Yeniel AO, Ergenoglu AM, Kazandi M, Akercan F, Sagol S. The role of umbilical cord thickness and HbA1c levels for the prediction of fetal macrosomia in patients with gestational diabetes mellitus. Archives of Gynecology Obstetrics. 2012;285(3):635-639. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-011-1961-3
  2. Charles E, Mabel U, Cletus E, George U, Kennedy A, Ozalla I. Relationship between sonographic umbilical cord size and gestational age among pregnant women in Enugu, Nigeria. African Health Sciences. 2014;14(2):334-338. https://doi.org/10.4314/ahs.v14i2.7
  3. Lopez-Medina MD, Lopez-Araque AB, Linares-Abad M, Lopez-Medina IM. Umbilical cord separation time, predictors and healing complications in newborns with dry care. PLoS One. 2020;15 (1):e0227209. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0227209
  4. Damasceno EB, de Lima PP. Wharton's jelly absence: A possible cause of stillbirth. Autopsy and Case Reports. 2013;3(4):43-47. https://doi.org/10.4322/acr.2013.038
  5. Nosan G, Paro-Panjan D. Umbilical cord care: National survey, literature review and recommendations. The Journal of Maternal-Fetal & Neonatal Medicine. 2017;30(14):1655-1658. https://doi.org/10.1080/14767058.2016.1220530
  6. Ikechebelu J, Eleje G, Ofojebe C. True umbilical cord knot leading to fetal demise. Annals of Medical and Health Sciences Research. 2014;4(Suppl 2):S155-158. https://doi.org/10.4103/2141-9248.138044
  7. Proctor L, Fitzgerald B, Whittle W, Mokhtari N, Lee E, Machin G, et al. Umbilical cord diameter percentile curves and their correlation to birth weight and placental pathology. Placenta. 2013;34(1):62-66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.placenta.2012.10.015
  8. Duman NB, Topuz S, Bostanci MO, Gorkem U, Kocak DY, Togrul C, et al. The effects of umbilical cord entanglement upon labor management and fetal health: Retrospective case control study. The Journal of Maternal-Fetal & Neonatal Medicine. 2018;31(5):656-660. https://doi.org/10.1080/14767058.2017.1293033
  9. Boujenah J, Oliveira J, De La Hosseraye C, Benbara A, Tigaizin A, Bricou A, et al. Should fetal scalp blood sampling be performed in the case of meconium-stained amniotic fluid? The Journal of Maternal-Fetal & Neonatal Medicine. 2016;29(23):3875-3878. https://doi.org/10.3109/14767058.2016.1149567
  10. Bandyopadhyay T, Bhatia BD, Khanna HD. A study of oxidative stress in neonates delivered through meconium-stained amniotic fluid. European Journal of Pediatrics. 2017;176(3):317-325. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00431-016-2845-0
  11. Karumbi J, Mulaku M, Aluvaala J, English M, Opiyo N. Topical umbilical cord care for prevention of infection and neonatal mortality. The Pediatric Infectious Disease Journal. 2013;32(1):78-83. https://doi.org/10.1097/INF.0b013e3182783dc3
  12. Li F, Wu T, Lei X, Zhang H, Mao M, Zhang J. The apgar score and infant mortality. PLoS One. 2013;8(7):e69072. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0069072
  13. WHO Multicentre Growth Reference Study Group. WHO Child Growth Standards based on length/height, weight and age. Acta Paediatrica. 2006;450:76-85. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1651-2227.2006.tb02378.x
  14. Lehre AC, Laake P, Sexton JA. Differences in birth weight by sex using adjusted quantile distance functions. Statistics in Medicine. 2013;32(17):2962-2970. https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.5744
  15. Erturk N. Umbilical cord diameter at the junction of the body wall in the newborn. Is it a biomarker for congenital umbilical hernia? Fetal and Pediatric Pathology. 2018;37(4):223-230. https://doi.org/10.1080/15513815.2018.1477886
  16. Tahmasebi M, Alighanbari R. Evaluation of umbilical cord thickness, cross-sectional area, and coiling index as predictors of pregnancy outcome. Indian Journal of Radiology and Imaging. 2011; 21(3):195-198. https://doi.org/10.4103/0971-3026.85367
  17. Cromi A, Ghezzi F, Di Naro E, Siesto G, Bergamini V, Raio L. Large cross-sectional area of the umbilical cord as a predictor of fetal macrosomia. Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology. 2007;30(6):861-866. https://doi.org/10.1002/uog.5183
  18. Begum K, Ahmed MU, Rahman MM, Hossain MM, Begum M, Sarkar SK, et al. Correlation between umbilical cord diameter and cross sectional area with gestational age and foetal anthropometric parameters. Mymensingh Medical Journal. 2016;25(2):190-197.
  19. Raisanen S, Georgiadis L, Harju M, Keski-Nisula L, Heinonen S. True umbilical cord knot and obstetric outcome. International Journal of Gynecology and Obstetrics. 2013;122(1):18-21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijgo.2013.02.012
  20. Di Naro E1 GF, Raio L, Franchi M, D'Addario V. Umbilical cord morphology and pregnancy outcome. European Journal of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive Biology. 2001;96(2):150-157. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0301-2115(00)00470-x
  21. Hiersch L, Krispin E, Linder N, Aviram A, Gabbay-Benziv R, Yogev Y, et al. Meconium-stained amniotic fluid and neonatal morbidity in low-risk pregnancies at term: The effect of gestational age. American Journal of Perinatology. 2017;34(2):183-190. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0036-1585056
  22. Nankabirwa V, Tylleskar T, Tumuhamye J, Tumwine JK, Ndeezi G, Martines JC, et al. Efficacy of umbilical cord cleansing with a single application of 4% chlorhexidine for the prevention of newborn infections in Uganda: Study protocol for a randomized controlled trial. Trials. 2017;18(1):322. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-017-2050-0
  23. Goldenberg RL, McClure EM, Saleem S. A review of studies with chlorhexidine applied directly to the umbilical cord. Am J Perinatol. 2013;30(8):699-702. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0032-1329695
  24. Lei T, Xie HN, Feng JL. Prenatal diagnosis of four-vessel umbilical cord with supernumerary vein varix: A case report and literature review. The Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Research. 2017;43(7):1200-1204. https://doi.org/10.1111/jog.13324
  25. Sharma D, Shastri S, Sharma P. Intrauterine growth restriction: Antenatal and postnatal aspects. Clinical Medicine Insights: Pediatrics. 2016;10:67-83. https://doi.org/10.4137/CMPed.S40070