Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 189

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Perinatal Diagnostic Evaluation of Velamentous Umbilical Cord Insertion: Clinical, Doppler, and Ultrasonic Findings

HEINONEN, S, RYYNANEN, M, KIRKINEN, P, SAARIKOSKI, S·1996·Obstetrics & Gynecology

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the association between velamentous cord insertion and adverse pregnancy outcome in singleton pregnancies, and to assess the diagnostic usefulness of nonstress testing (NST) and Doppler ultrasound in this condition. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed 12,750 consecutive singleton, chromosomally normal pregnancies from July 1989 through December 1993 at the University Hospital of Kuopio, Finland. Of these, 216 were complicated by velamentous umbilical cord insertion, whereas the remaining 12,534 were normal controls. Using multiple regression analysis, we evaluated the risks by noting adverse infant outcomes: low birth weight (LBW), small for gestational age (SGA), preterm delivery, fetal death, admission to a specific infant care unit, low Apgar scores, neonatal acidemia, and abnormal intrapartum fetal heart rate (FHR) patterns. At prenatal visits, NST and Doppler ultrasound examinations were carried out as a routine part of obstetric care. RESULTS: Even after we controlled for confounding factors, velamentous umbilical cord insertion was associated with higher risk of LBW (odds ratio [OR] 2.32), SGA (OR 1.54), preterm delivery (OR 2.12), low Apgar scores at 1 and 5 minutes (ORs 1.76 and 2.47, respectively), and abnormal intrapartum FHR pattern (OR 1.59). Only 5% of the patients with abnormal insertion showed pathologic NST results at prenatal visits. Ultrasonographic examination was carried out on 80 patients with velamentous umbilical cord insertion as a routine part of obstetric care, and in only one case was direct visualization of the abnormal insertion successful. After we excluded pregnancies with preeclampsia, abnormal umbilical artery Doppler velocimetry was found in none of the cases examined (n = 48). CONCLUSION: There were substantial differences in pregnancy outcome measures between the subjects with velamentous umbilical cord insertion and controls. Current antepartum methods of tracing uteroplacental problems are not effective in the prenatal detection of abnormal insertion. Therefore, in future studies, the use of other diagnostic tools, such as color Doppler imaging of cord insertion, should be evaluated in high-risk pregnancies followed-up because of fetal growth restriction.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/0029-7844(95)00339-8

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

See all 189

Metadata

Authors
HEINONEN, S., RYYNANEN, M., KIRKINEN, P., & SAARIKOSKI, S.
Venue
Obstetrics & Gynecology
Published
1996-01
Volume
87
Issue
1
Pages
112-117
ISSN
0029-7844 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1993213703
Cited by
189
References
0
FWCI
4.83
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Perinatal Diagnostic Evaluation of Velamentous Umbilical Cord Insertion: Clinical, Doppler, and Ultrasonic Findings. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/0029-7844(95)00339-8
The paper
HEINONEN, S., RYYNANEN, M., KIRKINEN, P., & SAARIKOSKI, S. (1996). Perinatal Diagnostic Evaluation of Velamentous Umbilical Cord Insertion: Clinical, Doppler, and Ultrasonic Findings. Obstetrics & Gynecology. https://doi.org/10.1016/0029-7844(95)00339-8

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.