Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-v9fdk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T17:35:31.048Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Assessment of the Umbilical Blood Flow of the Surviving Twin after the Intrauterine Death of the Other Twin

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 August 2014

W. Malinowski ,
W. Dec  and
I. Biskup
W. Malinowski*
Affiliation:
Gynecology and Obstetrics Department, Kutno Hospital, Kutno, Poland
W. Dec
Affiliation:
Lodz University Hospital, Lodz, Poland
I. Biskup
Affiliation:
Gynecology and Obstetrics Department, Schwaz Hospital, Schwaz, Austria
*
Gynecology and Obstetrics Department, Kutno Hospital, Kutno, Poland

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

This paper summarizes our experience with Doppler velocimetry in survivors of intrauterine co-twin demise. In the first trimester, ten dichorionic deaths occurred; none of the survivors developed flow disorders. During the second trimester, there were three intrauterine demises, two of them were monochorionic and the survivors developed flow disorders: one presented transitory venous flow aberration, the other one an impaired development of diastolic flow. In the third trimester, two intrauterine deaths occurred. One case of twin to twin transfusion syndrome (TTTS) was complicated by the donor's death and the recipient showed a loss of diastolic flow. The second one happened during a dichorionic twin pregnancy. The survivor presented high systolic/diastolic daily ratio (S/D = 7.8).

Keywords

Twin pregnancySingle fetal demiseDoppler ultrasoundTwin doppler
Type
Research Article
Information
Acta geneticae medicae et gemellologiae: twin research , Volume 45 , Issue 3 , July 1996 , pp. 383 - 386
Copyright
Copyright © The International Society for Twin Studies 1996

References

REFERENCES

1.Enbom, J (1985): Am J Obstet Gynecol, 152, 424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2.Jaczewski, Bet al. (1993): Ginek Pol, 64, 106.Google Scholar
3.Jenaty, Pet al. (1981): Ultrasonics, 2, 25.Google Scholar
4.Knuppel, RAet al. (1985): Obstet Gynecol, 65, 172.Google Scholar
5.Kuhlman, RSet al. (1990): Am J Obstet Gynecol, 162, 1264.Google Scholar
6.Landy, HJet al. (1982): Acta Genet Med Gemellol, 31, 179.Google Scholar
7.Landy, HJet al. (1986): Am J Obstet Gynecol, 155, 14.Google Scholar
8.Levi, S (1976): J Clinic Ultrasound, 4, 3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9.Liu, Set al. (1992): Acta Genet Med Gemellol, 41, 5.Google Scholar
10.Low, JA (1991): Am J Obstet Gynecol, 164, 1049.Google Scholar
11.Romero, Ret al (1984): N Engl J Med, 310, 772.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
12.Schneider, KT, Loos, W (1989): Geburths u Frauenheilk, 49, 407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
13.Skelly, Het al. (1982): Am J Obstet Gynecol, 142, 595.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
14.Varma, TR (1979): Br J Obstet Gynecol, 86, 290.Google Scholar