RiganoS., Early and persistent reduction in umbilical vein blood flow in the growth-restricted fetus: A tongitudinal studyAmerican Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecotogy.2001.185: p 834–8.
2.
BoitoS., Umbilical venous volume flow in the normally developing and growth-restricted fetus. Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology.2002.19 (4): p 344–9.
3.
OzcanT., Arterial and venous Doppler velocimetry in the severely growth-restricted fetus and associations with adverse perinatal outcomes. Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology.1998.12 (1): p. 39–44.
4.
TulzerG., Doppler in non-immune hydrops fetalis. Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology.1994.4; p. 279–83.
5.
HellevikL., A mathematical model of umbilical venous pulsation. Journal of Biomechanics2000.33: p 1123–30.
6.
ReedK.AndersonC., Changes in umbilical venous velocities with physiologic perturbations. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 2000.182 (4): p 835–40.
7.
HofstaetteraC.DubielbM.GudmundssonS.Two types of umbilical venous pulsations and outcome of high-risk pregnancyEarly Human Development, 2001.61 (2): p. 111–7.
8.
KiserudT, Hemodynamics of the ductus venosus. European Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology and Reproductive Biology.1999.84: p. 139–47.
9.
HecherK., Reference ranges tor fetal venous and atrioventricular blood flow parametersUltrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology.1994.4 (5): p. 381–90.
10.
MatiasA., Screening for chromosomal abnormalities at 10–14 weeks: the role of ductus venosus blood flowUltrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology.1998.12 (6): p 380–4.
