A Little Person With A Giant Umbilical Cord
Woo Sze Yao 1* and Koay Yen Wee 2
1Department Of General Surgery, University Kebangsaan Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
2 DepartmentOf Peadiatric Surgery, Hospital Tunku Azizah, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
* Correspondence author: Woo Sze Yao; garyltdwork@gmail.com
ISSN: 2754-8880
Published 00 11 0000
ORIGINAL
Abstract
The giant umbilical cord is a rare anomaly that is usually detected in the antenatal period and is
distinctive at birth. It is a condition where the diameter of the cord is more than 5 centimeters
in diameter. A normal umbilical cord measures approximately 2 centimeters in diameter. We
present a case of a giant umbilical cord in a male baby, in whom this condition was diagnosed
antenatally. At birth, its appearance is pathognomonic with a large, thickened cord filled with
viscid fluid called Wharton’s jelly. The umbilical vessels were apparent from the surface of the
cord. Surgical exploration which was done revealed no patent urachus. It is pertinent to rule out
other associated anomalies or differential diagnoses when encountering this condition.
Keywords : Umbilical anomaly, giant umbilical cord, umbilical pseudocyst
Introduction
The "belly button", ”navel" and "umbilicus". These are but different terms for that singular structure
seen at the center of the abdomen. It is essentially the first scar on the body, created by the
detachment of the umbilical cord soon after birth.
As simple as the detachment of the umbilical cord by the obstetrician or midwife as it may seem,
there are certain rare disorders of the umbilical cord which warrant a consultation by the paediatric
surgeon. Among them is the giant umbilical cord (GUC). As the name implies, the giant umbilical
cord is defined as an enlargement of more than 5 cm in diameter of the cross-section of the
umbilical cord during the second trimester and beyond (1). We hereby would like to present a
rare case of a giant umbilical cord in an otherwise healthy baby boy.
Case Report
A male infant with a good birth weight of 2.55 kg was born via ELLSCS (elective lower section
Caesarean section) at 35 weeks and 4-days in view of an antenatally diagnosed giant umbilical
cord and placenta praevia posterior major. The birth process was uneventful. Postnatally the
child was nursed in the NICU (Neonatal Intensive Care Unit) for respiratory distress syndrome, a
common problem in premature newborns. At birth, the umbilical cord was detached at an area
where it appeared to have sufficiently tapered in diameter to prevent slippage of the cord clamp
OPEN ACCESS(approximately 30 cm from its attachment to the umbilicus).
Edited by
A.HussainThis condition was first apparent during the antenatal scan at 26 weeks of gestational age
Submitted 21 Aug. 2022undertaken by the 23 years old Gravida 1 Para 1(G1P1) mother. Subsequent serial scans were
performed. These scans revealed an echogenic mass surrounding the umbilical arteries measuring
Accepted 23 Aug. 20223 x 0.6cm with cystic dilatation of the umbilical cord. Doppler scan showed normal flow through
Citationthe umbilical vessels. A detailed scan showed no other structural abnormality.
Woo Sze Yao, Koay Yen Wee.
A Little Person With A GiantThe decision for an elective birth was made in view of umbilical cord abnormality with placenta
Umbilical Cord.praevia major posterior. After birth, the infant was referred to the paediatric surgeon for further
:BJOSS::2022:(3);86-90
evaluation and management. On examination, the child was active, pink, and had no dysmorphic
features with normal vitals. Per abdomen examination revealed a soft, non-distended abdomen,
no organomegaly, and an intact lower urinary tract. There was a firm mass about 4 x 4 cm at the
foetal end of the cord upon examination of the umbilical cord. All 3-vessels (2 umbilical arteries
and 1 umbilical vein) were seen within the thickened cord which contained a large amount of
viscid fluid called Wharton’s jelly giving rise to a mucilaginous-like feel to the palpating fingers.
Urachal remnants or a patent urachus weren’t visible to the naked eye.
Surgical exploration of the giant umbilical cord and umbilicoplasty was done the next day. The
peri-operative period was uneventful. The patient tolerated the operative procedure well. 2
umbilical arteries, 1 vein, and an obliterated umbilical remnant were identified. A bulky mass
was seen in the proximal cord (correlated with the echogenic mass on antenatal scan and a firm
mass palpable during examination) but there was no intraperitoneal extension. The fluid from
the umbilical cord was collected and sent to the laboratory for biochemistry and FEME (full
examination and microscopic examination) while the bulky mass was sent for histopathological
examination. The returned laboratory results were unremarkable.
Post-operatively, the patient recovered well. There was no discharge from the umbilical stump.
The patient was discharged well on day 4-post-operation. The desiccated stump eventually fell
off from the umbilical base.
Figure 1. Giant umbilical cord. Note the visible umbilical vessels
Figure 2. Intraoperative photo of the dissected umbilical cord with 2 umbilical arteries, 1
umbilical vein and an obliterated urachal remnant
87/90
Figure 3. The umbilicus at 1 month post-operation
Discussion
Incidence
The giant umbilical cord is a rare disorder. Very few cases of GUC have been reported in the
literature (1). An entensive literature search of medical journals using the keywords "umbilical
anomaly", "giant umbilical cord", and "umbilical pseudocyst" only revealed 12 cases of GUC.
Conversely, there are many reported cases of "large umbilical cords". These cases, however, do
not satisfy the criteria for GUC as the size of the cords although are more than 2 cm but are less
than 5 cm in diameter.
Cord Facts
The normal cord measures about 2cm in diameter (2) and 50-60 cm in length (3). Upon ultrasonog-
raphy, the umbilical cord is visualised as an echogenic vine-like structure that forms a conduit
between the foetus and the placenta (3). By 8 weeks of gestation, it is well visualised (3). The
pathophysiology behind the giant umbilical cord isn’t well established but it has been posited that
the existence of an osmotic gradient pulls the refluxed foetal urine towards the Wharton’s jelly,
resulting in its swelling (4).
Diagnosis
Since the use of ultrasonography is ubiquitous during the antenatal period and is easily visualised,
most cases of GUC, albeit rare, are diagnosed during this period. Though a rare occurrence itself,
it is frequently associated with vascular or urachal anomalies (5). Male babies are twice more
at risk to have urachal anomalies compared to females (6). A patent urachus in a GUC can be
diagnosed by demonstrating a connection between the foetal bladder and the umbilical cord (7).
Differential diagnosis
There are various other aetiologies for a thickened oedematous umbilical cord e.g. omphalome-
senteric duct remnants, umbilical bladder exstrophy, umbilical hernia, umbilical cord pseudocysts,
or abdominal wall malformations (8).
Management
Almost all cases of GUC would require a surgical exploration of the umbilical cord as the patent
urachus may not be evident on the antenatal ultrasound. In 2005, Wildhaber (7) reported a
88/90
case of a child who presented with a discharge of urine from the umbilicus 1 week after cord
clamping of the giant umbilical cord. This underpinned the importance of surgical exploration as
the post-natal ultrasonography may be inconclusive.
However, currently, opinion is divided as to whether a post-natal abdominal ultrasound and/ or
cysto-urography is necessary before embarking on the operation. In our case, we embarked on
the surgery without post-natal imaging. According to Young et al (9), GUCs with the absence
of urinary tract abnormalities during the antenatal scan do not require any investigations in the
newborn period.
One may argue that conservative management of GUC is theoretically possible in the absence
of evidence of a congenital patent urachus which by itself is a very rare condition occurring in
1-2.5 per 100 000 deliveries (10). A study by Stopak et al observed a complication rate of 18%
post surgery for urachal anomalies (urachal cyst, urachal sinus, or patent urachus) (11). In the
same study, about 87% of patients with urachal remnants who were treated conservatively had a
complete resolution within 1 year. Therefore it is recommended that with the high complication
rate (wound infection, persistent drainage, granuloma, or stitch abscess) and with the possibility of
spontaneous resolution, most urachal anomalies can be treated conservatively up to the first year
of life. There is a paucity of data regarding the incidence of GUCs, let alone that of conservative
vs surgical treatment for GUCs. Despite these limitations, most authors recommend surgical
exploration in the case of GUC.
Conclusion
To conclude, cases of GUC are very few and far in between. However if one is fortunate enough
to come across one, other anomalies associated with it, especially a patent urachus should be
ruled out. Surgical exploration is necessary for resection of the patent urachus in case it was
missed during ultrasonography.
Conflict Of Interest
All authors declare no conflict of interest of any kind.
References
[1]Young S, McGeechan A, Davidson P, Deshpande A. Archives of Disease in Childhood-Fetal
and Neonatal Edition. 2016;101(6):F538-9.
[2]Moshiri M, Zaidi SF, Robinson TJ, Bhargava P, Siebert JR, Dubinsky TJ, et al. Comprehensive
imaging review of abnormalities of the umbilical cord. Radiographics. 2014;34(1):179-96.
Available from: https://pubs.rsna.org/doi/10.1148/rg.341125127.
[3]Dudiak CM, Salomon CG, Posniak HV, Olson MC, Flisak ME. Sonography of the umbilical
cord. Radiographics. 1995;15(5):1035-50.
[4]Nobuhara KK, Lukish JR, Hartman GE, Gilbert JC. The giant umbilical cord: an unusual
presentation of a patent urachus. Journal of pediatric surgery. 2004;39(1):128-9.
[5]Mugarab Samedi V, Miller G, Saade E, Kalaniti K. A giant umbilical cord: Benign finding
or surgical emergency? Clinical Case Reports. 2020;8(2):398-9. Available from: https:
//doi.org/10.1002/ccr3.2663.
[6]Naiditch JA, Radhakrishnan J, Chin AC. Current diagnosis and management of urachal
remnants. Journal of pediatric surgery. 2013;48(10):2148-52.
[7]Wildhaber BE, Antonelli E, Pfister RE. The giant umbilical cord. Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal
Ed. 2005;90:F535-6.
89/90
[8]Rosner-Tenerowicz A, Florjanski J, Paslawski W, Piatek A, Zimmer M. Cystic dilatation
of umbilical cord associated with patent urachus. Ginekologia Polska. 2021;92(8):595-6.
Available from: doi:10.5603/GP.a2021.0156.
[9]Young S, McGeechan A, Davidson P, Deshpande A.Management of the giant umbil-
ical cord: challenging the need for investigations inthe newborn. Archives of Dis-
ease in Childhood-Fetal and Neonatal Edition. 2016;101(6):F538-9. Available from: doi:
10.1136/archdischild-2016-311092.
[10]Schiesser M, Lapaire O, Holzgreve W, Tercanli S. Umbilical cord edema associated with patent
urachus. Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology: The Official Journal of the International
Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology. 2003;22(6):646-7.
[11]Stopak JK, Azarow KS, Abdessalam SF, Raynor SC, Perry DA, Cusick RA. Trends in surgical
management of urachal anomalies. Journal of pediatric surgery. 2015;50(8):1334-7. Available
from: doi:10.1016/j.jpedsurg.2015.04.02010.1016/j.jpedsurg.2015.04.020.
90/90