Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics

, Volume 283, Issue 5, pp 989–991 | Cite as

The value of bladder filling in addition to manual elevation of presenting fetal part in cases of cord prolapse

  • Ilia Bord
  • Ofer Gemer
  • Eyal Y. Anteby
  • Simon Shenhav
Materno-fetal Medicine



To compare perinatal outcome of deliveries complicated by cord prolapse between cases in which bladder filling was performed in addition to supporting presenting part and cases where only support was employed.

Materials and methods

A retrospective review of 44 deliveries complicated by prolapse occurring after admission was made. The first group included 29 patients who were rushed to a cesarean section with doctor’s hand inside the vagina pushing the presenting part. The second group of 15 patients, included women whose bladder was filled with 500 cc of normal saline in addition to manual support.


Time to delivery was similar in the first and second group (19.7 ± 9.46 and 21.6 ± 11.9, P = 0.57; respectively) as well as the mean neonatal pH values (7.28 ± 0.09 and 7.26 ± 0.07, P = 0.55; respectively). There was no significant difference in proportion of neonates with an Apgar score of less than 7 between the two arms.


The addition of bladder filling to further displace the presenting part did not improve the neonatal outcome which was not compromised regardless of the measures employed.


Cord prolapse Obstetrical emergency Neonatal outcome 


  1. 1.
    Savage EW, Kohi SG, Wynn RM (1970) Prolapse of the umbilical cord. Obstet Gynecol 35:502–509Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Cushner IM (1961) Prolapse of the umbilical cord, including a follow-up of fetal survivors. Am J Obstet Gynecol 81:666–680PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Kahana B, Sheiner E, Levy A, Lazer S, Mazor M (2004) Umbilical cord prolapse and perinatal outcomes. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 84:127–132PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Critchlow CW, Leet TL, Benedetti TJ, Daling JR (1994) Risk factors and infant outcomes associated with umbilical cord prolapse: a population-based case–control study among births in Washington State. Am J Obstet Gynecol 170:613–618PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Koonings PP, Paul RH, Campbell K (1990) Umbilical cord prolapse: a contemporary look. J Rep Med 35:690–692Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Boyle JJ, Katz WL (2005) Umbilical cord prolapse in current obstetric practice. J Rep Med 50:303–306Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Uygur D, Kis S, Tuncer R, Ozcan FS, Erkaya S (2002) Risk factors and infant outcomes associated with umbilical cord prolapse. Int J Obstet Gynaecol 78:127–130CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Yla-Outinen A, Heinonen PK, Tuimala R (2005) Predisposing and risk factors of umbilical cord prolapse. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 64:567–570CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Usta IM, Mercer BM, Sibai BM (1999) Current obstetrical practice and umbilical cord prolapse. Am J Perinatol 16:479–484PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Katz Z, Lancet M, Borenstein R (1982) Management of labor with umbilical cord prolapse. Am J Obstet Gynecol 142:239–241PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Duval C, Lemoine JP, Demory JE (1987) Procidence du cordon ombilical: 79 procidences (Prolapse of the umbilical cord: 79 prolapses) (in French). Rev Fr Gynecol Obstet 82:163–167PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Vago T (1970) Prolapse of the umbilical cord: a method of management. Am J Obstet Gynecol 107:967–969PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Katz Z, Shoham Z, Lancet M, Blickstein I, Mogilnet BM, Zalel Y (1988) Management of labor with umbilical cord prolapse: a 5-year study. Obstet Gynecol 72:278–280PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Bock JE, Wiese J (1972) Prolapse of the umbilical cord. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 51:303–308PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ilia Bord
    • 1
  • Ofer Gemer
    • 1
  • Eyal Y. Anteby
    • 1
  • Simon Shenhav
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Obstetrics and GynecologyBarzilai Medical CenterAshkelonIsrael

Personalised recommendations