Background/Objectives: The clinical significance of isolated oligohydramnios at term may depend on the measurement method used. We assessed whether isolated oligohydramnios at term, defined by a single deepest vertical pocket (SDVP) below 2 cm, is associated with labor management, primary cesarean delivery, and short-term neonatal outcomes. Methods: This retrospective cohort study included 328 singleton pregnancies delivered at 37 + 0 to 41 + 6 weeks at a tertiary center between January 2023 and May 2026. All 128 exposed pregnancies met SDVP < 2 cm; 72 AFI-only cases with SDVP ≥ 2 cm were excluded from the primary analysis. The control group comprised 200 low-risk term pregnancies with SDVP ≥ 2 cm. Primary cesarean outcomes were evaluated among women without a previous cesarean delivery. Multivariable logistic regression estimated adjusted odds ratios (aORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Results: Labor induction was more frequent with SDVP-defined isolated oligohydramnios than with normal fluid (75.0% vs. 29.0%; p < 0.001). Among induced women, admission Bishop score, labor duration, and failed-induction rate were similar (6.3% vs. 5.2%; p = 1.000). Overall cesarean delivery, including repeat procedures, occurred in 30.5% versus 19.0% (p = 0.017). Primary cesarean delivery occurred in 25.8% and 18.5% (aOR, 1.67; 95% CI, 0.94–2.99), whereas primary cesarean delivery for fetal distress was more frequent (14.2% vs. 5.6%; aOR, 2.50; 95% CI, 1.05–5.94). Composite neonatal morbidity did not differ significantly (12.5% vs. 9.0%; aOR, 1.31; 95% CI, 0.61–2.78), nor did neonatal intensive care unit admission, cord pH, or neonatal death. Conclusions: At term, SDVP-defined isolated oligohydramnios was associated with more labor induction, a higher crude overall cesarean rate, and more primary cesarean delivery for fetal distress. No statistically significant adjusted association was detected for primary cesarean delivery or composite neonatal morbidity; the confidence intervals do not establish equivalence or exclude clinically important differences.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ozalp et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: