Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-xbtfd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-14T06:07:36.417Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Section 7 - Multiple pregnancy

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 April 2016

Edited by
Bidyut Kumar  and
Zarko Alfirevic
Bidyut Kumar
Affiliation:
Wrexham Maelor Hospital
Zarko Alfirevic
Affiliation:
University of Liverpool
Get access
Type
Chapter
Information
Fetal Medicine , pp. 297 - 320
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2016

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

References

Mutchinick, OM, Luna-Muñoz, L, Amar, E, et al. Conjoined twins: a worldwide collaborative epidemiological study of the International Clearinghouse for Birth Defects Surveillance and Research. Am J Med Genet C Semin Med Genet 2011;157C(4): 274–87.Google Scholar
Collins, J. Global epidemiology of multiple birth. Reprod Biomed Online 2007; 15 Suppl 3: 45–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bortolus, R, Parazzini, F, Chatenoud, L, et al. The epidemiology of multiple births. Human Reproduction Update 1999; 5(2): 179–87.Google Scholar
European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology (ESHRE). Assisted reproductive technology in Europe 2002. Results generated from European registers by ESHRE. Human Reprod 2006; 21: 1680–97.Google Scholar
Bhattacharya, S, Kamath, MS. Reducing multiple births in assisted reproduction technology. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol 2014; 28(2): 191–9.Google Scholar
Vitthala, S, Gelbaya, TA, Brison, DR, et al. The risk of monozygotic twins after assisted reproductive technology: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Human Reprod Update 2009; 15(1): 45–55.Google Scholar
Lewis, G, ed. Why Mothers Die 2000–2002. Report on Confidential Enquiries into Maternal Deaths in the United Kingdom, 8th edn. London: RCOG Press, 2004.Google Scholar
Tucker, J, McGuire, W. Epidemiology of preterm birth. BMJ 2004; 329: (7467): 675–8.Google Scholar
Ananth, CV, Joseph, KS, Demissie, K, et al. Trends in twin preterm birth subtypes in the United States, 1989 to 2000: impact of perinatal mortality. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2005; 193: 1076–82.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Boyle, EM, Poulsen, G, Field, DJ, et al. Effects of gestational age at birth on health outcomes at 3 and 5 years of age: population based cohort study. BMJ 2012; 344: e896.Google Scholar
Alexander, GR, Kogan, M, Martin, J, et al. What are the fetal growth patterns of singletons, twins, and triplets in the United States? Clin Obstet Gynecol 1998; 41: 114.Google Scholar
Minakami, H, Sato, I. Reestimating date of delivery in multifetal pregnancies. J Am Med Assoc 1996; 275(18): 1432–4.Google Scholar
Hack, KE, Derks, JB, Elias, SG, et al. Increased perinatal mortality and morbidity in monochorionic versus dichorionic twin pregnancies: clinical implications of a large Dutch cohort study. BJOG 2008; 115(1): 58–67.Google Scholar
Pharoah, PO, Cooke, T. Cerebral palsy and multiple births. Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed 1996; 75: F174–7.Google Scholar
Rossi, AC1, Mullin, PM, Chmait, RH. Neonatal outcomes of twins according to birth order, presentation and mode of delivery: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BJOG 2011; 118(5): 523–32.Google Scholar
Henderson, J, Hockley, C, Petrou, S, et al. Economic implications of multiple births: inpatient hospital costs in the first 5 years of life. Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed 2004; 89: F542–5.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Collins, J, Graves, G. The economic consequences of multiple gestation pregnancy in assisted conception cycles. Hum Fertil 2000; 3: 275–83.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

References

Whitworth, M, Bricker, L, Neilson, JP, et al. Ultrasound for fetal assessment in early pregnancy. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2010; 4: CD007058.Google Scholar
Dias, T, Mahsud-Dornan, S, Thilaganathan, B, et al. First-trimester ultrasound dating of twin pregnancy: are singleton charts reliable? BJOG 2010; 117(8): 979–84.Google Scholar
National Collaborating Centre for Women’s and Children’s Health. Multiple pregnancy: the management of twin and triplet pregnancies in the antenatal period. London: RCOG Press, 2011.Google Scholar
Dias, T, Arcangeli, T, Bhide, A, et al. First-trimester ultrasound determination of chorionicity in twin pregnancy. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2011; 38(5): 530–2.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stagiannis, KD, Sepulveda, W, Southwell, D, et al. Ultrasonographic measurement of the dividing membrane in twin pregnancy during the second and third trimesters: a reproducibility study. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1995; 173: 1546–50.Google Scholar
Dias, T, Ladd, S, Mahsud-Dornan, S, et al. Systematic labeling of twin pregnancies on ultrasound. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2011; 38: 130–3.Google Scholar
Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (RCOG). Amniocentesis and chorionic villus sampling. RCOG Green-Top Guideline No. 8. London: RCOG Press, 2010.Google Scholar
Garchet-Beaudron, A, Dreux, S, Leporrier, N, et al; ABA Study Group; Clinical Study Group. Second-trimester Down syndrome maternal serum marker screening: a prospective study of 11 040 twin pregnancies. Prenat Diagn 2008; 28(12): 1105–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Edwards, MS, Ellings, JM, Newman, RB, et al. Predictive value of antepartum ultrasound examination for anomalies in twin gestations. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 1995; 6: 43–9.Google Scholar
Schinzel, AA, Smith, DW, Miller, JR. Monozygotic twinning and structural defects. J Pediatr 1979; 95: 921–30.Google Scholar
Sperling, L, Kiil, C, Larsen, LU et al. Detection of chromosomal abnormalities, congenital abnormalities and transfusion syndrome in twins. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2007; 29(5): 517–26.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
D’Antonio, F, Khalil, A, Dias, T, et al. on behalf of the Southwest Thames Obstetric Research Collaborative (STORK). Weight discordance and perinatal mortality in twins: analysis of the Southwest Thames Obstetric Research Collaborative (STORK) multiple pregnancy cohort. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2013; 41: 643–8.Google Scholar
Senat, MV, Deprest, J, Boulvain, M, et al. Endoscopic laser surgery versus serial amnioreduction for severe twin-to-twin transfusion syndrome. N Engl J Med 2006; 8: 136–44.Google Scholar
Quintero, RA, Morales, WJ, Allen, MH, et al. Staging of twin-twin transfusion syndrome. J Perinatol 1999; 19: 550–5.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Breathnach, FM, McAuliffe, FM, Geary, M, et al; Perinatal Ireland Research Consortium. Definition of intertwin birth weight discordance. Obstet Gynecol 2011; 118(1): 94–103.Google Scholar
Slaghekke, F, Kist, WJ, Oepkes, D, et al. Twin anemia-polycythemia sequence: diagnostic criteria, classification, perinatal management and outcome. Fetal Diagn Ther 2010; 27(4): 181–90.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sueters, M, Oepkes, D. Diagnosis of twin-to-twin transfusion syndrome, selective growth restriction, twin anaemia-polycythaemia sequence, and twin reversed arterial perfusion sequence. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol 2014; 28(2): 215–26.Google Scholar
Spencer, R. Anatomic description of conjoined twins: a plea for standardized terminology. J Pediatr Surg 1996; 31: 941–4.Google Scholar
Conde-Agudelo, A, Romero, R, Hassan, SS et al. Transvaginal sonographic cervical length for the prediction of spontaneous preterm birth in twin pregnancies: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2010; 203(2): 128.e1–128.e12.Google Scholar
Colton, T, Kayne, HL, Zhang, Y et al. A metaanalysis of home uterine activity monitoring. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1995; 173(5): 1499–505.Google Scholar

References

Wimalasundera, RC. Selective reduction and termination of multiple pregnancies. In: Kilby, M, Baker, PN, Critchley, H, Field, DJ, eds. Multiple Pregnancy London: RCOG Press, 2006; 95–108.Google Scholar
Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (RCOG). Consensus views arising from 50th Study Group: Multiple Pregnancy. In: Kilby M, Baker PN, Critchley H, Field DJ, eds. London: RCOG Press, 2006; 283–5.Google Scholar
Bricker, L, Optimal antenatal care for twin and triplet pregnancy: The evidence base, Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol 2014; 28(2): 305–17.Google Scholar
National Collaborating Centre for Women’s and Children’s Health. Multiple pregnancy: the management of twin and triplet pregnancies in the antenatal period. London: RCOG Press, 2011.Google Scholar
Danon, D, Sekar, R, Hack, KE, et al. Increased stillbirth in uncomplicated monochorionic twin pregnancies: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Obstet Gynecol 2013; 121: 1318–26.Google Scholar
Barrett, JFR. Twin delivery: method, timing and conduct. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol 2014; 28(2): 327–38.Google Scholar
Hannah, ME, Hannah, WJ, Hewson, SA et al. Planned caesarean section versus planned vaginal birth for breech presentation at term: a randomised multicentre trial. Term Breech Trial Collaborative Group. Lancet 2000; 356(9239): 1375–83.Google Scholar
Barrett, JF, Hannah, ME, Hutton, EK, et al. for the Twin Birth Study Collaborative Group. A randomized trial of planned cesarean or vaginal birth for twin pregnancies. NEJM 2013; 369: 1295–305.Google Scholar
Crowther, CA, Han, S. Hospitalisation and bed rest for multiple pregnancy. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2010; (7): CD000110.Google Scholar
Romero, R, Nicolaides, K, Conde-Agudelo, A, et al. Vaginal progesterone in women with an asymptomatic sonographic short cervix in the midtrimester decreases preterm delivery and neonatal morbidity: systematic review and meta-analysis of individual patient data. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2012; 206: 124.e1–19.Google Scholar
Rode, L, Tabor, A. Prevention of preterm delivery in twin pregnancy. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol 2014; 28(2): 273–83.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Yamasmit, W, Chaithongwongwatthana, S, Tolosa, JE, et al. Prophylactic oral betamimetics for reducing preterm birth in women with a twin pregnancy. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2012; 9: CD004733.Google Scholar
Yaron, Y, Johnson, KD, Bryant-Greenwood, PK, et al. Selective termination and elective reduction in twin pregnancies: 10 years experience at a single centre. Human Reproduction 1998; 13(8): 2301–4.Google Scholar
Hillman, SC, Morris, RK, Kilby, MD. Co-twin prognosis after single fetal death: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Obstet Gynecol 2011; 118(4): 928–40.Google Scholar
Shek, NW, Hillman, SC, Kilby, MD. Single-twin demise: Pregnancy outcome. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol 2013; S1521–6934(13): 00154–5.Google Scholar
Roberts, D, Neilson, JP, Kilby, MD, et al. Interventions for the treatment of twin-twin transfusion syndrome. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2014; 1: CD002073.Google Scholar
Gratacós, E, Lewi, L, Muñoz, B, et al. A classification system for selective intrauterine growth restriction in monochorionic pregnancies according to umbilical artery Doppler flow in the smaller twin. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2007; 30(1): 28–34.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pagani, G, D’Antonio, F, Khalil, A, et al. Intrafetal laser treatment for twin reversed arterial perfusion sequence: cohort study and meta-analysis. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2013; 42(1): 6–14.Google Scholar
Dias, T, Thilaganathan, B, Bhide, A. Monoamniotic twin pregnancy. The Obstetrician & Gynaecologist 2012; 14: 71–8.Google Scholar
Van Mieghem, T, De Heus, R, Lewi, L, et al. Prenatal management of monoamniotic twin pregnancies. Obstet Gynecol 2014; 124(3): 498–506.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×