Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Article
  • Published:

True knot at the time of delivery: electronic fetal monitoring characteristics and neonatal outcomes

Journal of Perinatology volume 38, pages 1620–1624 (2018)Cite this article

Subjects

ABSTRACT

Objective

Determine the association between electronic fetal monitoring and neonatal outcomes in the setting of a true knot at delivery.

Study design

This was a planned secondary analysis of a prospective cohort of 8580 women. Patients with and without a true knot were compared and the primary outcome was repetitive late decelerations occurring with at least 50% of contractions. Confounders were adjusted for using logistic regression.

Results

A total of 8580 patients met inclusion criteria and 49 (0.57%) had a TK. There was no significant difference in the rate of repetitive late decelerations in patients with TK (aOR 1.04; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.25–4.40),other electronic fetal monitoring parameters, or neonatal outcomes.

Conclusion

Neonates with true knots who are delivered at term have similar electronic fetal monitoring characteristics compared to those without true knots and no detectable difference in neonatal morbidity; thus, calling into question the clinical significance of a true knot at term.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Airas U, Heinonen S. Clinical significance of true umbilical knots: a population based analysis. Am J Perinatol. 2002;19:127–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Hershkovitz R, Silberstein T, Sheiner E, Shoham-Vardi I, Holcberg G, Katz M, et al. Risk factors associated with true knots of the umbilical cord. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2001;98:36–39.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Joura EA, Zeisler H, Sator MO. [Epidemiology and clinical value of true umbilical cord knots]. Wien Klin Wochenschr. 1998;110:232–5.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Sørnes T. Umbilical cord knots. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2000;79:157–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Räisänen S, Georgiadis L, Harju M, Keski-Nisula L, Heinonen S. True umbilical cord knot and obstetric outcome. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2013;122:18–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Maher JT, Conti JA. A comparison of umbilical cord blood gas values between newborns with and without true knots. Obstet Gynecol. 1996;88:863–6.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Sopracordevole F, Perissinotto MG. [True knots in the umbilical cord: clinical implications]. Minerva Ginecol. 1991;43:109–13.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Gembruch U, Baschat AA. True knot of the umbilical cord: transient constrictive effect to umbilical venous blood flow demonstrated by Doppler sonography. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 1996;8:53–56.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Roberts RN. Combined simple and complex cord knots. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 1995;62:131–3.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Minas V, Pilsniak A. An uncommon compound umbilical cord knot. J Obstet Gynaecol. 2011;31:183–4.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Polis RL, Santolaya-Forgas J, Tong C, Onieal G, Canterino JC, Matta PG, et al. Personalized medicine in a patient with the antenatal diagnosis of an umbilical cord knot and a previous adverse outcome for this reason. J Ultrasound Med. 2014;33:735–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Cahill AG, Tuuli MG, Stout MJ, Lopez JD, Macones GA. A prospective cohort study of fetal heart rate monitoring: deceleration area is predictive of fetal acidemia. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2018;218:523.e1–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.. ACOG Practice Bulletin No. 101: ultrasonography in pregnancy. Obstet Gynecol. 2009;113:451–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Expert Committee on the Diagnosis and Classification of Diabetes Mellitus. Report of the expert committee on the diagnosis and classification of diabetes mellitus. Diabetes Care. 2003;26(Suppl 1):S5–20.

    Google Scholar 

  15. ACOG. Hypertension in pregnancy. Report of the American College of obstetricians and gynecologists’ task force on hypertension in pregnancy. Obstet Gynecol. 2013;122:1122–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Alexander GR, Himes JH, Kaufman RB, Mor J, Kogan M. A United States National reference for fetal growth. Obstet Gynecol. 1996;87(2 I):163–8.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. ACOG Practice Bulletin No. 106: Intrapartum fetal heart rate monitoring: nomenclature, interpretation, and general management principles. Obstet Gynecol. 2009;114:192–202.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Macones GA, Hankins GD, Spong CY, Hauth J, Moore T. The 2008 National Institute of Child Health and Human Development workshop report on electronic fetal monitoring: update on definitions, interpretation, and research guidelines. Obstet Gynecol. 2008;112:661–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Hennessy JP. True knots of the umbilical cord. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1944;48:528–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Blickstein I, Shoham-Schwartz Z, Lancet M. Predisposing factors in the formation of true knots of the umbilical cord-analysis of morphometric and perinatal data. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 1987;25:395–8.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Funding

This study is supported by the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) grant number R01H@061619-04 (PI: AGC). EBC was supported by a NIH T32 training grant (5T32HD055172-05) and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation #74250.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Division of Maternal Fetal Medicine, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO, USA

    Ebony B. Carter, Cheryl S. Chu, Zach Thompson, Methodius G. Tuuli, George A. Macones & Alison G. Cahill

Authors
  1. Ebony B. Carter
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Cheryl S. Chu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Zach Thompson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Methodius G. Tuuli
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. George A. Macones
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Alison G. Cahill
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ebony B. Carter.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Carter, E.B., Chu, C.S., Thompson, Z. et al. True knot at the time of delivery: electronic fetal monitoring characteristics and neonatal outcomes. J Perinatol 38, 1620–1624 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41372-018-0250-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41372-018-0250-4

Search

Advanced search

Quick links