Ukrainian Journal Health of Woman. 2025. 3(178): 73-79. doi: 10.15574/HW.2025.3(178).73
Ovcharenko S. O., Sulimenko O. M.
Multidisciplinary medical center "Leleka", Kyiv, Ukraine

For citation: Ovcharenko SO, Sulimenko OM. (2025). Determining risk factors for umbilical cord pathology based on medical history. Ukrainian Journal Health of Woman. 3(178): 73-79. doi: 10.15574/HW.2025.3(178).7379
Article received: Mar 25, 2025. Accepted for publication: May 21, 2025.

Aim – to conduct an analysis of somatic and obstetric-gynecological history in order to identify risk factors for the development of umbilical cord pathology.
Materials and methods. A retrospective review of 75 delivery records at gestational ages between 28 and 41 weeks was performed. The study group (Group I, n=48) was subdivided into: Ia – 23 women with umbilical cord entanglement around the fetal neck and/or trunk; Ib – 13 women with a short umbilical cord; and Ic – 12 women with umbilical vessel abnormalities (single umbilical artery). The Control group (CG) included 27 pregnant women without umbilical cord pathology. The features of the premorbid background, reproductive and gynecological history, and extragenital pathology in the examined groups were analyzed.
Results. The study of the anamnesis showed: artificial abortions in the Group I were higher than in the CG. Also in the Group I, women had a history of one or more spontaneous miscarriages. Fetal growth retardation syndrome, аntenatal and intranatal fetal death were noted in the anamnesis in the Group I, in pregnant women in the CG these indicators were absent. Assessment of the frequency of extragenital pathology showed a burdened somatic anamnesis in both the Group I and the CG. Cardiovascular and endocrine diseases, pathology of the urinary system, inflammatory processes of the reproductive system and pathological changes of the cervix, the specific weight of gynecological diseases per woman almost twice exceeded such indicators in the CG. It should also be noted the high level of infertility in both the Group I and the CG.
Conclusions. The somatic health status of women and the presence of gynecological disorders at the preconception stage are significantly associated with a higher incidence of umbilical cord pathology. These findings highlight the necessity of improving current diagnostic and preventive strategies for pregnancy complications, with a particular emphasis on preconception care tailored to the specific medical history of women.
The study was conducted in accordance with the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki. The study protocol was approved by the local ethics committee of the participating institution. Informed consent of the patients was obtained for the study.
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Keywords: umbilical cord, anomalies, perinatal pathology, cord entanglement.

REFERENСЕS

1. Bala M. (2024). Gross anomalies of the umbilical cord and placental pathologies. Ege Tip Dergisi. 63(2): 158-165. https://doi.org/10.19161/etd.1317684

2. Bohîlțea RE, Dima V, Ducu I et al. (2022). Clinically Relevant Prenatal Ultrasound Diagnosis of Umbilical Cord Pathology. Diagnostics (Basel). 12(2): 236. https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics12020236; PMid:35204327 PMCid:PMC8871173

3. Dias Z, Kore S. (2023). Length of the umbilical cord and perinatal outcomes: study of 500 deliveries. New Indian J OBGYN. 9(2): 85-91. https://doi.org/10.21276/obgyn.2023.9.2.7

4. Dondiuc I, Alsatou A, Capros H. (2024). Impact of umbilical cord pathology on perinatal outcomes. Moldovan J Health Sci. 11(4): 10-14. https://doi.org/10.52645/MJHS.2024.4.02

5. Dubetskyi BI, Makarchuk OM, Zhurakivska OY et al. (2023). Pregnancy and umbilical cord pathology: structural and functional parameters. J Med Life. 16(8): 1282-1291. https://doi.org/10.25122/jml-2023-0025; PMid:38024812 PMCid:PMC10652671

6. Dubetskyi B, Makarchuk O, Andriiets O et al. (2023). Risk factors of umbilical cord pathology and negative perinatal consequences. Neonatology, Surgery and Perinatal Medicine. 12; 4(46): 12-20. https://doi.org/10.24061/2413-4260.XII.4.46.2022.3

7. Eleje GU, Nwammuo CB, Nnamani KO et al. (2024). Double true umbilical cord knots coexisting with a nuchal cord with successful fetal outcome: A case report. SAGE Open Med Case Rep. 12: 2050313X241239524. https://doi.org/10.1177/2050313X241239524; PMid:38495733 PMCid:PMC10943703

8. Goshu B. (2022). Histopathologic impacts of diabetes mellitus on umbilical cord. Pediatr Health Med Ther. 13: 37-41. https://doi.org/10.2147/PHMT.S323812; PMid:35210900 PMCid:PMC8863384

9. Jain P, Aggarwal M, Ahuja M, Gupta S. (2021). Umbilical cord coiling index as a marker of perinatal outcome. Indian J Obstet Gynecol Res. 8(3): 349-353. https://doi.org/10.18231/j.ijogr.2021.068

10. Jauniaux E, Ebbing C, Oyelese Y et al. (2024). EAPM position statement: congenital anomalies of the umbilical cord. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 298: 61-65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejogrb.2024.04.044; PMid:38728843

11. Kalluru P, Kalluru H, Allagadda T et al. (2024). Abnormal umbilical cord coiling and pregnancy factors. J Turk Ger Gynecol Assoc. 25: 44-52. https://doi.org/10.4274/jtgga.galenos.2023.2023-3-3; PMid:38445471 PMCid:PMC10921081

12. Kulshrestha K, Sukla D, Verma K. (2021). Umbilical Cord Abnormalities and Maternal and Perinatal Outcome. J Clin Diagn Res. 15(8): QC06-10. https://doi.org/10.7860/JCDR/2021/46830.14720

13. Luo J, Zhou J, Huang K et al. (2021). Spontaneous umbilical cord vascular rupture during pregnancy. Res Square. Preprint. https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-712163/v1

14. Mintser AP. (2018). Statisticheskie metodyi issledovaniya v klinicheskoy meditsine. Prakticheskaya meditsina. 3: 41-45.

15. Mota F, Oliveira N, Fonseca M, Mimoso G. (2019). Spontaneous umbilical cord haematoma. BMJ Case Rep. 12: e229952. https://doi.org/10.1136/bcr-2019-229952; PMid:31217216 PMCid:PMC6586201

16. Pan S, Xu A, Lu X et al. (2024). Umbilical artery thrombosis risk factors and perinatal outcomes. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 24: 63. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12884-024-06335-z; PMid:38355469 PMCid:PMC10865511

17. Sánchez-Trujillo L, García-Montero C, Fraile-Martinez O et al. (2022). Considering the Effects and Maternofoetal Implications of Vascular Disorders and the Umbilical Cord. Medicina (Kaunas). 58(12): 1754. https://doi.org/10.3390/medicina58121754; PMid:36556956 PMCid:PMC9782481

18. Tonni G, Lituania M, Cecchi A et al. (2023). Umbilical Cord Diseases Affecting Obstetric and Perinatal Outcomes. Healthcare. 11: 2634. https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare11192634; PMid:37830671 PMCid:PMC10572758

19. Tonni G, Lituania M, Grisolia G et al. (2025). Placental and Umbilical Cord Anomalies Detected by Ultrasound: Part 2. J Clin Ultrasound. 53(4): 832-862. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcu.23909; PMid:40035148

20. Saji S, Hasegawa J, Nakamura M et al. (2023). Perinatal outcomes in isolated single umbilical artery. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 62(S1): EP20.23. https://doi.org/10.1002/uog.27009

21. Wei J, Li Q, Zhai H. (2021). Umbilical artery thrombosis diagnosed at different gestational ages and fetal outcomes. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 21: 489. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12884-021-04264-9; PMid:34809600 PMCid:PMC8607721

22. Zhu Y, Beejadhursing R, Liu Y. (2021). Umbilical cord thrombosis in the third trimester: 10 cases. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 304(5): 1219-1225. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-020-05910-x; PMid:33389094

23. Zhang L, Delisle MF, Hendson G et al. (2023). Umbilical Cord Hemangioma with Significant Cord Edema. J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 45(11): 101785. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jogc.2021.06.012; PMid:34303858