Please or to access all these features

Add post

Watch this thread

Save thread

Start a new thread

Flip thread

Hide thread

My feed

Active Unanswered threads

Getting started FAQ's

Unanswered threads Acronyms Talk guidelines

Hide shortcut buttons

Talk

Antenatal tests

Get updates on how your baby develops, your body changes, and what you can expect during each week of your pregnancy by signing up to the Mumsnet Pregnancy Newsletters.

Flip

Original poster

Single umbilical artery - any experiences?

13 replies

minipie · 01/08/2012 15:52

So, I've just had my 20 week scan and all was utterly normal except for "single umbilical artery" (SUA). The umbilical cord has one vein and one artery rather than the usual one vein and two arteries.

We have been told that this can sometimes (not always) cause slow growth, so I have to have further scans at 28 and 36 weeks.

From googling it looks like there is some evidence for SUA (when it appears on its own without other abnormalities) being linked to: slow growth, early labour, stillbirth and "hidden" kidney/digestive system defects. The risks seem reasonably small but enough for them to do extra scans.

It seems SUA can also be linked with chromosomal abnormalities but usually only when seen with other physical abnormalities on the scan (we had none) and in any case I had a CVS at 12 weeks (due to highish NT and low Papp-A)which showed chromosomes all normal

I would be interested to hear from anyone who had this show up at their scan?

thanks!

OP posts:

thisisyesterday · 01/08/2012 21:50

bumping for you. have def read about this on here before so am sure there are others who have been through it

Original poster

minipie · 01/08/2012 22:34

thank you! very kind of you. have spent all afternoon googling so I have a bit more information but would be good to hear from actual people who have had this.

OP posts:

rufusnine · 01/08/2012 22:55

Don't know anything about the actual problem - this is just a little bit of reassurance - a friend had this same scenario and had a perfectly, perfect baby boy. Hope all goes well x

Original poster

minipie · 02/08/2012 11:08

thanks rufus.

OP posts:

kilmuir · 02/08/2012 11:12

We found out firstdaughterhad this when she wasborn. She is 14 now and no problems. She was a good 7 and ahalf pounds when born. Also had tobe induced at 41 weeks so no early arrival there

AnneOfCleavers · 02/08/2012 11:17

I don't have any first hand experience but like rufus a friend of mine had this. She was extremely worried but had a healthy baby with no problems at all. Hopefully everything will go fine for you too.

Original poster

minipie · 02/08/2012 11:45

thank you both! I have been reading medical studies and it seems that most of the more recent studies don't find any link between this and slow growth/early delivery. However there are still some studies which do... Anyway I guess there is not much I can do about it other than have the scans and hope.

OP posts:

ISeeShapes · 02/08/2012 21:46

I had this when I was pregnant with DD (now almost two). It was a normal pregnancy and she was born on her due date at 6lbz 11ozs - which was about the weight I was hoping for expecting.

I think that I read something that suggested that they are able to see it more now than they used to - due to improvements in ultrasound technology. I think that the suggestion was that they used to investigate pregnancies with issues and so would find the SUA, whereas with a normal one with an SUA, the SUA wouldn't be looked for so and so would not be marked as a pregnancy with a SUA. If that makes sense - it gave me some comfort anyway.

Good luck for the rest of your pregnancy.

OddBoots · 02/08/2012 21:49

I didn't have it found on scan but one of my surrogate babies was born with this and she was and is absolutely fine.

chipmonkey · 02/08/2012 21:58

A friend's sister just gave birth to a healthy baby boy who had this. He is perfectly healthy and feeding well!

nipitinthebud · 02/08/2012 22:07

I had this with my first DS. It was found at 13 weeks, following bad blood test results. I had a CVS and chromosomally all normal. I did have low amniotic fluid from around 12 weeks and he looked like he was a week or so behind growthwise. I had monthly u/s from 12 weeks. I had a C-section due to the fluid dipping very low at 36+6 (so almost due anyway) and they were concerned about IUGR (and he was breech! tricky baby!!!). But even with all that....which is kinda the problems they talk about, it wasn't an emergency rush me into theatre type C-section - just better off getting him out in the next few days. I asked my consultant how 'high risk' my pg was due to the SUA and other problems, and he said it was really on the very low end of high risk (so your risk with SUA without anything else would be lower than that). My DS was smallish (5lb 5oz - but not bad weight for 36+6) but scored high on all his Agpars and was absolutely fine.

I think if yours was found at 20 weeks without any other indicators I would try not to worry unduly. A SUA is considered a variant of normal these days. Its only really when there are other factors (like I had) that there is a higher chance of problems - but although very stressful at the time, all was fine. I'd stay away from Google though as you are always drawn to the worst case scenarios and research, which doesn't really give you an accurate assessment of your particular scenario.

Original poster

minipie · 02/08/2012 22:37

Thank you all - really helps to hear real stories, somehow much more reassuring than anonymous statistics!

ISeeShapes that makes sense - would explain why the more recent studies show less of a link with problems than the earlier studies do.

OP posts:

grape999 · 07/08/2012 20:05

I have a nearly 6 year old who had this. Perfectly healthy, 8lb 7 baby, and still healthy now.

Flip