Sonographic parameters of placenta thickness and cross-sectional area of umbilical cord as markers of fetal growth restriction

Authors

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.18370/2309-4117.2025.80.29-36

Keywords:

placenta, umbilical cord, fetal growth restriction

Abstract

Objective of the study: to evaluate sonographic parameters - the cross-sectional area of the umbilical cord and the thickness of the placenta - as criteria for predicting the likelihood of fetal growth restriction (FGR).
Materials and methods. The research was a prospective cohort study. Antenatal assessment of sonographic parameters of the placenta and umbilical cord in comparison with an extended postnatal macroscopic examination was performed in two study groups: the main group included 82 pregnant women with prenatal risk factors for FGR who gave birth to children with a birth weight <10th percentile, the comparison group included 80 women without FGR.
Results. When forming groups, the most common predictors of FGR were taken into account: chronic arterial hypertension (OR = 6.40), history of placental dysfunction (OR = 3.46), manifestations of FGR, preeclampsia in a previous pregnancy or in the mother's history (OR = 2.82), uterine factor (uterine development anomaly, uterine hypoplasia, sexual infantilism) (OR = 9.45), increased body mass index > 25 kg/cm2 (OR = 4.64), smoking (OR = 2.89). In the main group, the fetal weight at birth was below the 10th percentile in 57.3% of cases (47), at the 5th percentile - in 22.0% (18), below the 3rd percentile - in 20.7% (17), and head circumference below the 10th percentile - in 42.7% (35). The diagnosis of FGR was established before delivery in 76 pregnant women (92.7%) and before 30 weeks of pregnancy in 31 women (37.8%). In the main group, the average placental thickness parameters did not show an increase during pregnancy and were 23.4 B ± 0.08 mm compared to 34.9 В ± 1.21 mm in the comparison group (which is 1.5 times lower, p < 0.05). The average parameters of cross-sectional area of the umbilical cord were 1.69 В± 0.04 compared to 2.62 В± 0.05 (which is 1.6 times lower than in the comparison group, p < 0.05). The average placental weight was 294.6 В± 12.4 g compared to 498.8 В± 22.6 g, respectively.
The umbilical cord thickness and the cross-sectional area of the umbilical cord are sensitive parameters for predicting the birth of a fetus that is too small for gestational age when using a threshold value of 25.0 mm for placental thickness and 1.8 cm2 for umbilical cord cross-sectional area at 32–34 weeks of gestation.
Conclusions. Comparison of the cross-sectional area of the umbilical cord and the estimated fetal weight based on ultrasound data suggested that placental thickness and, in particular, the cross-sectional area of the umbilical cord are acceptable predictors for expecting FGR compared to other parameters. The results of the study suggest that the diameter of the umbilical cord has a higher predictive value for FGR and is a significant predictor of the development of this condition. 

Author Biographies

Y.O. Yarotska, Kyiv Perinatal Center, Kyiv

PhD, obstetrician-gynecologist

D.O. Govseev, O.O. Bogomolets National Medical University; Kyiv Perinatal Center, Kyiv

MD, professor, Head of the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology No. 1;
director

O.S. Zahorodnya, O.O. Bogomolets National Medical University, Kyiv

MD, professor, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology No. 1

References

  1. Hromova A, Berezhna V, Liakhovska T, et al. Peculiarities of pregnancy course, childbirth, and morphofunctional state of placenta in women with intrauterine fetal growth retardation. Actual Problems of the Modern Medicine. 2021;3(75):11–16. DOI: 10.31718/2077–1096.21.3.11
  2. Tepla I. The relationship between placental growth rates and the birth weight in dichorionic diamniotic twins. Medical Science of Ukraine (MSU), 2021;17(3):66–75. DOI: 10.32345/2664-4738.3.2021.07
  3. Chisholm KM, Folkins AK. Placental and clinical characteristics of term small-for-gestational-age neonates: a case-control study. Pediatr. Dev. Pathol. 2016; 19:37-46. DOI: 10.2350/15-04-1621-OA.1
  4. Lynch JL, Gibbs BG. Birth Weight and Early Cognitive Skills: Can Parenting Offset the Link? Matern Child Health J. 2017 Jan;21(1):156-67. DOI: 10.1007/ s10995-016-2104-z.
  5. Li TG, Guan CL, Wang J, Peng MJ. Comparative study of umbilical cord cross-sectional area in foetuses with isolated single umbilical artery and normal umbilical artery. J Obstet Gynaecol. 2022 Jul;42(5):935-40. DOI: 10.1080/01443615.2021.1962818.
  6. Dubetskyi B, Makarchuk O, Andriiets O, Rymarchuk M. RISK FACTORS OF UMBILICAL CORD PATHOLOGY AND FACTORS OF NEGATIVE PERINATAL CONSEQUENCES AND NEWBORN INCIDENCE. Neonatology, Surgery and Perinatal Medicine. 2023;12(4(46):12-20. DOI: 10.24061/2413-4260.XII.4.46.2022.3
  7. Pásztor N, Sikovanyecz J, Keresztúri A, et al. Evaluation of the relation between placental weight and placental weight to foetal weight ratio and the causes of stillbirth: a retrospective comparative study. J Obstet Gynaecol. 2018 Jan;38(1):74-80. DOI: 10.1080/01443615.2017.1349084
  8. Begum K, Ahmed MU, Rahman MM, et al. Correlation between Umbilical Cord Diameter and Cross Sectional Area with Gestational Age and Foetal Anthropometric Parameters. Mymensingh Med J. 2016 Apr;25(2):190-7.
  9. Mohamed ML, Elbeily MM, Shalaby MM, et al. Umbilical cord diameter in the prediction of foetal growth restriction: a cross sectional study. J Obstet Gynaecol. 2022 Jul;42(5):1117-21. DOI: 10.1080/01443615.2021.2010185.
  10. Akolekar R, Ciobanu A, Zingler E, et al. Routine assessment of cerebroplacental ratio at 35-37 weeks’ gestation in the prediction of adverse perinatal outcome. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2019 Jul;221(1):65. e1-65.e18. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajog.2019.03.002.
  11. Coenen H, Braun J, Köster H, et al. Role of umbilicocerebral and cerebroplacental ratios in prediction of perinatal outcome in FGR pregnancies. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2022 Jun;305(6):1383–92. DOI: 10.1007/s00404-021-06268-4.
  12. Kahramanoglu O, Demirci O, Eric Ozdemir M, et al. Cerebroplacental doppler ratio and perinatal outcome in late-onset foetal growth restriction. J Obstet Gynaecol. 2022 Jul;42(5):894–9. DOI: 10.1080/01443615.2021.1954148.
  13. Morales-Roselló J, Loscalzo G, Buongiorno S, Perales-Marín A. Cerebroplacental ratio and estimated fetal weight, the 2 different yardsticks. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2019 Dec;221(6):664–5. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajog.2019.08.038.
  14. De Paepe ME, Shapiro S, Young LE, Luks FI. Placental weight, birth weight and fetal:placental weight ratio in dichorionic and monochorionic twin gestations in function of gestational age, cord insertion type and placental partition. Placenta. 2015; 36(2): 213–20. DOI: 10.1016/J.
  15. Ismail KI, Hannigan A, O’Donoghue K, Cotter A. Abnormal placental cord insertion and adverse pregnancy outcomes: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Systematic Reviews. 2017; 6: article 242. DOI: 10.1186/ s13643-017-0641-1
  16. Jelenkovic A, Sund R, Yokoyama Y, et al. Birth size and gestational age in opposite-sex twins as compared to same-sex twins: An individual-based pooled analysis of 21 cohorts. Sci Rep. 2018; 8(1):6300. DOI:10.1038/s41598-018-24634-2
  17. Stirnemann J, Villar J, Salomon LJ, et al. International Estimated Fetal Weight Standards of the INTERGROWTH-21st Project. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2017; 49(4): 478-86. DOI: 10.1002/uog.17347.
  18. Audette MC, McLaughlin K, Kingdom JC. Second Trimester Placental Growth Factor Levels and Placental Histopathology in Low-Risk Nulliparous Pregnancies. J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2021 Oct;43(10):1145-52.e1. DOI: 10.1016/j.jogc.2021.01.018.
  19. Burton GJ, Jauniaux E. Pathophysiology of placental-derived fetal growth restriction. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2018 Feb;218(2S):S745-S761. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajog.2017.11.577.
  20. Busreea RA, Sen S, Jahan A, et al. Relationship between birth weight of the neonate with weight of placenta and cord length in a tertiary care hospital. Int J Reprod Contracept Obstet Gynecol 2025;14:1023-8.
  21. Ma LX, Levitan D, Baergen RN. Weights of Fetal Membranes and Umbilical Cords: Correlation With Placental Pathology. Pediatr Dev Pathol. 2020 Aug;23(4):249-52. DOI: 10.1177/1093526619889460.
  22. Kankhare S, Ponde RS, Kulkarni P, et al. Evaluation of Umbilical cord diameter and Its relation with Birth weight: A Cross-Sectional Study. European Journal of Cardiovascular Medicine. March, 2025; 15(3):778–81. DOI : 10.5083/ejcm/25-03-134
  23. Baergen RN, Burton GJ, Kaplan CG. Benirschke’s Pathology of the Human Placenta. 7th ed. Cham: Springer; 2021.
  24. Melamed N, Baschat A, Yinon Y, et al. FIGO (International Federation of Gynecology and obstetrics) initiative on fetal growth: best practice advice for screening, diagnosis, and management of fetal growth restriction. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2021;152(1):3–57. DOI: 10.1002/ijgo.13522
  25. Committee on Obstetric Practice. Delayed umbilical cord clamping after birth. Committee Opinion American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists [Internet]. Obstet. Gynecol. 2020;814:136:e100-6. Available from: https://www.acog.org/clinical/clinical-guidance/committee-opinion/articles/2020/12/delayed-umbilical-cord-clamping-after-birth.

Downloads

Published

2025-11-28

How to Cite

Yarotska, Y., Govseev, D., & Zahorodnya, O. (2025). Sonographic parameters of placenta thickness and cross-sectional area of umbilical cord as markers of fetal growth restriction. REPRODUCTIVE ENDOCRINOLOGY, (80), 29–36. https://doi.org/10.18370/2309-4117.2025.80.29-36

Issue

No. 80 (2025)

Section

Pregnancy and childbirth

License

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:

    1. Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.

    1. Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.