Cited by 41Maternal and fetal healthcareCongenital Anomalies and Fetal SurgeryPregnancy and preeclampsia studies

Prediction of risk for vasa previa at 9–13 weeks’ gestation

Hasegawa, Junichi, Nakamura, Masamitsu, Sekizawa, Akihiko, Matsuoka, Ryu, Ichizuka, Kiyotake, Okai, Takashi·2011·Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Research

Abstract

Aim: To assess the usefulness for predicting vasa previa by detecting a cord insertion site in the lower third of the uterus between 9 and 13 weeks' gestation. Methods: The positional relationship between the uterine cavity and the cord insertion site was examined in consecutive subjects prospectively using ultrasonography at 9–13 weeks' gestation. The distance between the internal os and the fundus was divided equally into three parts. Cord insertions in the lower third were defined as cases; other insertions were defined as controls. Placental and umbilical cord abnormalities at the time of the delivery were analyzed between the two groups. Results: The cord insertion sites were identified as 139 (10.6%) cases with low cord insertion and 1172 control cases. The case subjects frequently had an abnormal placental form (6.5% vs 2.1%, RR 3.2, 95% CI 1.5–7.0) or placenta previa (4.7% vs 1.3%, RR 3.5, 95% CI 1.3–9.1). The frequencies of velamentous cord insertion were 7.2% in cases and 0.9% in controls (RR 8.1, 95% CI 3.4–19.6). Three cases (2.2%) of vasa previa were observed in the cases, but none were observed in the controls (P = 0.001). Placental abruption occurred in 4.3% of the cases and 0.9% of the controls (RR 4.7, 95% CI 1.7–13.1). Conclusion: Screening sonography in the late first or early second trimesters and following up at the second trimester in cases with low cord insertion is a useful way to detect vasa previa.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1447-0756.2011.01525.x

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Pregnancies with low cord insertion presented with a significantly higher risk of vasa previa (p = 0.001) compared to central umbilical insertion.

    “Additionally, pregnancies with low cord insertion presented with a significantly higher risk of vasa previa (p = 0.001) compared to central umbilical insertion [64].”

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Hasegawa, J., Nakamura, M., Sekizawa, A., Matsuoka, R., Ichizuka, K., & Okai, T.
Affiliations
SHOWA Medical University (JP)
Corresponding author
Hasegawa, Junichi
Venue
Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Research
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2011-05-12
Volume
37
Issue
10
Pages
1346-1351
ISSN
  • 1341-8076 (ISSN-L)
  • 1447-0756
OpenAlex
W2112166576
Cited by
41
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 4 · 2012: 3
FWCI
3.23
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of obstetrics and gynaecology research (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health › Maternal and fetal healthcare
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Congenital Anomalies and Fetal Surgery
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Obstetrics and Gynecology › Pregnancy and preeclampsia studies
Keywords
vasa previa, placenta previa, placental abruption, velamentous cord insertion, placental abnormalities, prenatal screening, second-trimester ultrasound, risk prediction
MeSH terms
Adult, Female, Humans, Placenta, Predictive Value of Tests, Pregnancy, Pregnancy Trimester, First, Prospective Studies, Risk, Risk Factors, Ultrasonography, Umbilical Cord, Vasa Previa

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