Virchows Archiv

, Volume 464, Issue 1, pp 105–112

Umbilical cord coiling: clinical outcomes in an unselected population and systematic review

  • F. A. Jessop
  • C. C. Lees
  • S. Pathak
  • C. E. Hook
  • N. J. Sebire
Original Article


This study was conducted to determine the frequency of pre-defined clinical outcomes in relation to umbilical cord coiling indices >90th percentile and <10th percentile in an unselected population of >1,000 women with a singleton pregnancy resulting in livebirth delivering at or near term and to report these findings in the context of a systematic review. Placentas of consecutive deliveries from an unselected low-risk population with >15 cm attached umbilical cords were included in the study. Clinical outcomes included interventional delivery, birthweight <10th percentile, Apgar score <7 at 1 min, neonatal acidosis (pH < 7.2) and admission to neonatal special care. Standard MOOSE (Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology) guidelines were observed for the systematic review. Umbilical coiling index was determined for 1,082 placentas. Mean maternal age was 30.7 years (standard deviation [SD] = 5.7) and 519 women (48 %) were primiparous. Mean cord length was 43 cm (SD = 13) and mean cord coiling index 0.20 (SD = 0.09). A total of 866 cords were normally coiled, and 108 cases were hypercoiled (>90th centile) and 108 cases were undercoiled (<10th percentile). There were no differences between cases of overcoiled, normally coiled or undercoiled cords for any clinical outcome studied. The systematic review yielded a small number of clinical studies which were too statistically and clinically heterogenous to permit meta-analysis. There is insufficient evidence either from this unselected cohort study or from a systematic review to support the previous suggestion that cord coiling index >90th centile or <10th centile is associated with adverse clinical outcome in an unselected population. Previous studies that draw a link between abnormal cord coiling and clinical outcome are generally too small and/or selective to allow meaningful conclusions or applicability to low-risk populations.


Umbilical cord Coiling Growth restriction Outcome 


  1. 1.
    Strong TH Jr, Jarles DL, Vega JS, Feldman DB (1994) The umbilical coiling index. Am J Obstet Gynecol 170:29–32PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Azocarespin B (1964) Significance of coiling of the umbilical cord. Rev Obstet Ginecol Venez 24:771–781PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bankowski M (1964) Intrauterine asphyxia due to excessive coiling of the umbilical cord. Pol Tyg Lek 19:1248–1249PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    de Laat MW, Franx A, Bots ML, Visser GH, Nikkels PG (2006) Umbilical coiling index in normal and complicated pregnancies. Obstet Gynecol 107:1049–1055PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    de Laat MW, Franx A, Nikkels PG, Visser GH (2006) Prenatal ultrasonographic prediction of the umbilical coiling index at birth and adverse pregnancy outcome. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 28:704–709PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Degani S, Leibovich Z, Shapiro I, Gonen R, Ohel G (2001) Early second-trimester low umbilical coiling index predicts small-for-gestational-age fetuses. J Ultrasound Med 20:1183–1188PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ercal T, Lacin S, Altunyurt S, Saygili U, Cinar O, Mumcu A (1996) Umbilical coiling index: is it a marker for the foetus at risk? Br J Clin Pract 50:254–256PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kashanian M, Akbarian A, Kouhpayehzadeh J (2006) The umbilical coiling index and adverse perinatal outcome. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 95:8–13PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Rana J, Ebert GA, Kappy KA (1995) Adverse perinatal outcome in patients with an abnormal umbilical coiling index. Obstet Gynecol 85:573–577PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Machin GA, Ackerman J, Gilbert-Barness E (2000) Abnormal umbilical cord coiling is associated with adverse perinatal outcomes. Pediatr Dev Pathol 3:462–471PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Khong TY (2010) Evidence-based pathology: umbilical cord coiling. Pathology 42:618–622PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Sebire NJ (2007) Pathophysiological significance of abnormal umbilical cord coiling index. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 30:804–806PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Pathak S, Hook E, Hackett G, Murdoch E, Sebire NJ, Jessop F, Lees C (2010) Cord coiling, umbilical cord insertion and placental shape in an unselected cohort delivering at term: relationship with common obstetric outcomes. Placenta 31:963–968PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Gersell DJ (1998) ASCP survey on placental examination. Am J Clin Pathol 109:127–143PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hargitai B, Marton T, Cox PM (2004) Examination of the human placenta. J Clin Pathol 57:785–792PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Pathak S, Lees CC, Hackett G, Jessop F, Sebire NJ (2011) Frequency and clinical significance of placental histological lesions in an unselected population at or near term. Virchows Arch 459:565–572PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Pathak S, Sebire NJ, Hook L, Hackett G, Murdoch E, Jessop F, Lees C (2011) Relationship between placental morphology and histological findings in an unselected population near term.). Virchows Arch 459:11–20PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Four in one growth chart. Accessed 15 March 2010.
  19. 19.
    Dean A, Sullivan K, Soe M (2011) OpenEpi: Open Source Epidemiological Statistics for Public Health. (version 2.3.1). Accessed 31 August 2011.
  20. 20.
    Stroup DF, Berlin JA, Morton SC, Olkin I, Williamson GD, Rennie D, Moher D, Becker BJ, Sipe TA, Thacker SB (2000) Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology: a proposal for reporting. Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) group. JAMA 283:2008–2012PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Higgins JPT, Green S (2011) Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions.The Cochrane Collaboration. (version 5.1.0, updated March 2011). Accessed 31 August 2011.
  22. 22.
    Chitra T, Sushanth YS, Raghavan S (2012) Umbilical coiling index as a marker of perinatal outcome: an analytical study. Obstet Gynecol Int 2012:213–689CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    de Laat MW, van Alderen ED, Franx A, Visser GH, Bots ML, Nikkels PG (2007) The umbilical coiling index in complicated pregnancy. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 130:66–72PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Predanic M, Perni SC, Chasen ST, Baergen RN, Chervenak FA (2005) Ultrasound evaluation of abnormal umbilical cord coiling in second trimester of gestation in association with adverse pregnancy outcome. Am J Obstet Gynecol 193:387–394PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Otsubo Y, Yoneyama Y, Suzuki S, Sawa R, Araki T (1999) Sonographic evaluation of umbilical cord insertion with umbilical coiling index. J Clin Ultrasound 27:341–344PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Casey BM, McIntire DD, Leveno KJ (2001) The continuing value of the Apgar score for the assessment of newborn infants. New Engl J Med 344:467–471PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Armstrong L, Stenson BJ (2007) Use of umbilical cord blood gas analysis in the assessment of the newborn. Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed 92:430–434CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Ernst LM, Minturn L, Huang MH, Curry E, Su EJ (2013) Gross patterns of umbilical cord coiling: correlations with placental histology and stillbirth. Placenta 34:583–588PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • F. A. Jessop
    • 1
  • C. C. Lees
    • 2
  • S. Pathak
    • 1
  • C. E. Hook
    • 1
  • N. J. Sebire
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Paediatric PathologyAddenbrookes HospitalCambridgeUK
  2. 2.Department of Fetal MedicineAddenbrookes HospitalCambridgeUK
  3. 3.Department of Paediatric PathologyCamelia Botnar LaboratoriesLondonUK

Personalised recommendations