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-76fb5796d-vfjqv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-27T23:29:38.426Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Complications of Monochorionic Multiple Pregnancy: Fetal Growth Restriction in Monochorionic Twins

from Section 2: - Fetal Disease: Pathogenesis and Treatment

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 October 2019

Edited by
Mark D. Kilby ,
Anthony Johnson  and
Dick Oepkes
Mark D. Kilby
Affiliation:
University of Birmingham
Anthony Johnson
Affiliation:
University of Texas Medical School at Houston
Dick Oepkes
Affiliation:
Leids Universitair Medisch Centrum
Get access

Summary

A summary is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Chapter
Information
Fetal Therapy
Scientific Basis and Critical Appraisal of Clinical Benefits
 , pp. 384 - 397
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2020

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

Coutinho Nunes, F, Domingues, AP, Vide Tavares, M, Belo, A, Ferreira, C, Fonseca, E, et al. Monochorionic versus dichorionic twins: are obstetric outcomes always different? J Obstet Gynaecol (Lahore). 2016; 36: 598–601.Google Scholar
Glinianaia, SV, Obeysekera, MA, Sturgiss, S, Bell, R. Stillbirth and neonatal mortality in monochorionic and dichorionic twins: a population-based study. Hum Reprod. 2011; 26: 2549–57.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Khalil, A, Rodgers, M, Baschat, A, Bhide, A, Gratacos, E, Hecher, K, et al. ISUOG practice guidelines: role of ultrasound in twin pregnancy. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2016; 47: 247–63.Google Scholar
National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. (2011). Multiple pregnancy: antenatal care for twin and triplet pregnancies. Clinical Guideline CG129. www.nice.org.uk/guidance/cg129Google Scholar
Morin, L, Lim, K, Bly, S, Butt, K, Cargill, YM, Davies, G, et al. Ultrasound in twin pregnancies. J Obstet Gynaecol Canada. 2011; 33: 643–56.Google Scholar
Committee on Practice Bulletins—Obstetrics, Society for Maternal–Fetal Medicine. Practice bulletin 169: multifetal gestations: twin, triplet and higher-order multifetal pregnancies. Obstet Gynecol. 2016; 128: e131–46.Google Scholar
Chervenak, FA, Skupski, DW, Romero, R, Myers, MK, Smith-Levitin, M, Rosenwaks, Z, et al. How accurate is fetal biometry in the assessment of fetal age? Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1998; 178: 678–87.Google Scholar
Khalil, A, D’Antonio, F, Dias, T, Cooper, D, Thilaganathan, B, Southwest Thames Obstetric Research Collaborative (STORK). Ultrasound estimation of birth weight in twin pregnancy: comparison of biometry algorithms in the STORK multiple pregnancy cohort. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2014; 44: 210–20.Google Scholar
Kalafat, E, Sebghati, M, Thilaganathan, B, Khalil, A, Southwest Thames Obstetric Research Collaborative (STORK). Predictive accuracy of the Southwest Thames Obstetric Research Collaborative (STORK) chorionicity-specific twin growth charts for stillbirth: a validation study. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2019; 53: 193–9.Google Scholar
Stirrup, OT, Khalil, A, D’Antonio, F, Thilaganathan, B, Southwest Thames Obstetric Research Collaborative (STORK). Fetal growth reference ranges in twin pregnancy: analysis of the Southwest Thames Obstetric Research Collaborative (STORK) multiple pregnancy cohort. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2015; 45: 301–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gielen, M, Lindsey, PJ, Derom, C, Loos, RJF, Souren, NY, Paulussen, ADC, et al. Twin-specific intrauterine ‘growth’ charts based on cross-sectional birthweight data. Twin Res Hum Genet. 2008; 11: 224–35.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Odibo, AO, Cahill, AG, Goetzinger, KR, Harper, LM, Tuuli, MG, Macones, GA. Customized growth charts for twin gestations to optimize identification of small-for-gestational age fetuses at risk of intrauterine fetal death. Ultrasound Obs Gynecol. 2013; 41: 637–42.Google Scholar
Khalil, AA, Khan, N, Bowe, S, Familiari, A, Papageorghiou, A, Bhide, A, et al. Discordance in fetal biometry and Doppler are independent predictors of the risk of perinatal loss in twin pregnancies. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2015; 213: 222. e1–222. e10.Google Scholar
Harper, LM, Weis, MA, Odibo, AO, Roehl, KA, Macones, GA, Cahill, AG. Significance of growth discordance in appropriately grown twins. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2013; 208: 1–5.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chauhan, SP, Shields, D, Parker, D, Sanderson, M, Scardo, JA, Magann, EF. Detecting fetal growth restriction or discordant growth in twin gestations stratified by placental chorionicity. J Reprod Med. 2004; 49: 279–84.Google ScholarPubMed
Lewi, L, Jani, J, Blickstein, I, Huber, A, Gucciardo, L, Van Mieghem, T, et al. The outcome of monochorionic diamniotic twin gestations in the era of invasive fetal therapy: a prospective cohort study. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2008; 199: 514. e1–8.Google Scholar
Gratacós, E, Ortiz, JU, Martinez, JM. A systematic approach to the differential diagnosis and management of the complications of monochorionic twin pregnancies. Fetal Diagn Ther. 2012; 32: 145–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewi, L, Lewi, P, Diemert, A, Jani, J, Gucciardo, L, Van Mieghem, T, et al. The role of ultrasound examination in the first trimester and at 16 weeks’ gestation to predict fetal complications in monochorionic diamniotic twin pregnancies. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2008; 199: 493. e1–493. e7.Google Scholar
Mackie, FL, Hall, MJ, Morris, RK, Kilby, MD. Early prognostic factors of outcomes in monochorionic twin pregnancy: systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2018; 219: 436–46.Google Scholar
Mackie, FL, Morris, RK, Kilby, MD. The prediction, diagnosis and management of complications in monochorionic twin pregnancies: the OMMIT (Optimal Management of Monochorionic Twins) study. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2017; 17: 153.Google Scholar
Cambiaso, O, Zhao, D-P, Abasolo, JI, Aiello, HA, Oepkes, D, Lopriore, E, et al. Discordance of cord insertions as a predictor of discordant fetal growth in monochorionic twins. Placenta. 2016; 47: 81–5.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Memmo, A, Dias, T, Mahsud-Dornan, S, Papageorghiou, AT, Bhide, A, Thilaganathan, B. Prediction of selective fetal growth restriction and twin-to-twin transfusion syndrome in monochorionic twins. BJOG. 2012; 119: 417–21.Google Scholar
D’Antonio, F, Khalil, A, Pagani, G, Papageorghiou, AT, Bhide, A, Thilaganathan, B. Crown-rump length discordance and adverse perinatal outcome in twin pregnancies: systematic review and meta-analysis. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2014; 44: 138–46.Google Scholar
D’Antonio, F, Khalil, A, Mantovani, E, Thilaganathan, B, Hamid, R, Gandhi, H, et al. Embryonic growth discordance and early fetal loss: the STORK multiple pregnancy cohort and systematic review. Hum Reprod. 2013; 28: 2621–7.Google Scholar
Kagan, KO, Gazzoni, A, Sepulveda-Gonzalez, G, Sotiriadis, A, Nicolaides, KH. Discordance in nuchal translucency thickness in the prediction of severe twin-to-twin transfusion syndrome. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2007; 29: 527–32.Google Scholar
Queirós, A, Blickstein, I, Valdoleiros, S, Felix, N, Cohen, A, Simões, T. Prediction of birth weight discordance from fetal weight estimations at 21–24 weeks’ scans in monochorionic and dichorionic twins. J Matern Neonatal Med. 2017; 30: 1944–7.Google ScholarPubMed
Breathnach, FM, McAuliffe, FM, Geary, M, Daly, S, Higgins, JR, Dornan, J, et al. Definition of intertwin birth weight discordance. Obstet Gynecol. 2011; 118: 94–103.Google Scholar
Bekhit, MT, Greenwood, PA, Warren, R, Aarons, E, Jauniaux, E. In utero treatment of severe fetal anaemia due to parvovirus B19 in one fetus in a twin pregnancy—a case report and literature review. Fetal Diagn Ther. 2009; 25: 153–7.Google Scholar
De la Calle, M, Baquero, F, Rodriguez, R, González, M, Fernández, A, Omeñaca, F, et al. Successful treatment of intrauterine cytomegalovirus infection with an intraventricular cyst in a dichorionic diamniotic twin gestation using cytomegalovirus immunoglobulin. J Matern Neonatal Med. 2017; 6: 1–4.Google Scholar
Yinon, Y, Yagel, S, Tepperberg-Dikawa, M, Feldman, B, Schiff, E, Lipitz, S. Prenatal diagnosis and outcome of congenital cytomegalovirus infection in twin pregnancies. BJOG. 2006; 113: 295–300.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Linden, VV, Linden, HV Jr., Leal, MC, Rolim, ELF, Linden, AV, Aragão, MFVV, et al. Discordant clinical outcomes of congenital Zika virus infection in twin pregnancies. Arq Neuropsiquiatr. 2017; 75: 381–6.Google Scholar
Hall, JG. Twinning. Lancet. 2003; 362: 735–43.Google Scholar
McFadden, P, Smithson, S, Massaro, R, Huang, J, Prado, GT, Shertz, W. Monozygotic Twins Discordant for Trisomy 13. Pediatr Dev Pathol. 2017; 20: 340–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lu, J, Cheng, YKY, Ting, YH, Law, KM, Leung, TY. Pitfalls in assessing chorioamnionicity: novel observations and literature review. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2018; 219: 242–54.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: 928–40.Google Scholar
Gaerty, K, Greer, RM, Kumar, S. Systematic review and meta-analysis of perinatal outcomes after radiofrequency ablation and bipolar cord occlusion in monochorionic pregnancies. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2015; 213: 637–43.Google Scholar
Lewi, L, Deprest, J, Hecher, K, Sebire, NJ, Snijders, RJ, Hughes, K, et al. The vascular anastomoses in monochorionic twin pregnancies and their clinical consequences. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2013; 208: 19–30.Google Scholar
Kalafat, E, Thilaganathan, B, Papageorghiou, A, Bhide, A, Khalil, A. The significance of placental cord insertion site in twin pregnancy. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2018; 52: 378–84.Google Scholar
Van Winden, KR, Quintero, RA, Kontopoulos, EV, Korst, LM, Llanes, A, Chmait, RH. Decreased total placental mass found in twin-twin transfusion syndrome gestations with selective growth restriction. Fetal Diagn Ther. 2016; 40: 116–22.Google Scholar
Fox, N, Rebarber, A, Klauser, C, Roman, A, Saltzman, D. Intrauterine growth restriction in twin pregnancies: incidence and associated risk factors. Am J Perinatol. 2011; 28: 267–72.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Khalil, A, Beune, I, Hecher, K, Wynia, K, Ganzevoort, W, Reed, K, et al. Consensus definition and essential reporting parameters of selective fetal growth restriction in twin pregnancy: a Delphi procedure. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2019; 53: 47–54.Google Scholar
Inklaar, MJ, van Klink, JMM, Stolk, TT, van Zwet, EW, Oepkes, D, Lopriore, E. Cerebral injury in monochorionic twins with selective intrauterine growth restriction: a systematic review. Prenat Diagn. 2014; 34: 205–13.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Buca, D, Pagani, G, Rizzo, G, Familiari, A, Flacco, ME, Manzoli, L, et al. Outcome in monochorionic twin pregnancies with selective intrauterine growth restriction according to the umbilical artery Doppler pattern of the smaller twin: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2017; 50: 559–68.Google Scholar
Gratacós, E, Lewi, L, Muñoz, B, Acosta-Rojas, R, Hernandez-Andrade, E, Martinez, JM, 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: 28–34.Google Scholar
Rustico, MA, Consonni, D, Lanna, M, Faiola, S, Schena, V, Scelsa, B, et al. Selective intrauterine growth restriction in monochorionic twins: changing patterns in umbilical artery Doppler flow and outcomes. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2017; 49: 387–93.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ishii, K, Murakoshi, T, Takahashi, Y, Shinno, T, Matsushita, M, Naruse, H, et al. Perinatal outcome of monochorionic twins with selective intrauterine growth restriction and different types of umbilical artery doppler under expectant management. Fetal Diagn Ther. 2009; 26: 157–61.Google Scholar
Gratacós, E, Antolin, E, Lewi, L, Martínez, JM, Hernandez-Andrade, E, Acosta-Rojas, R, et al. Monochorionic twins with selective intrauterine growth restriction and intermittent absent or reversed end-diastolic flow (Type III): feasibility and perinatal outcome of fetoscopic placental laser coagulation. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2008; 31: 669–75.Google Scholar
Ishii, K, Murakoshi, T, Hayashi, S, Saito, M, Sago, H, Takahashi, Y, et al. Ultrasound predictors of mortality in monochorionic twins with selective intrauterine growth restriction. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2011; 37: 22–6.Google Scholar

References

Gratacós, E, Carreras, E, Becker, J, et al. Prevalence of neurological damage in monochorionic twins with selective intrauterine growth restriction and intermittent absent or reversed end-diastolic umbilical artery flow. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2004; 24: 159–63.Google Scholar
Lewi, L, Gucciardo, L, Huber, A, et al. Clinical outcome and placental characteristics of monochorionic diamniotic twin pairs with early- and late-onset discordant growth. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2008; 199: 511. e1–7.Google Scholar
Valsky, DV, Eixarch, E, Martinez, JM, et al. Selective intrauterine growth restriction in monochorionic twins: pathophysiology, diagnostic approach and management dilemmas. Semin Fetal Neonatal Med. 2010; 15: 342–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Valsky, DV, Eixarch, E, Martinez, JM, et al. Selective intrauterine growth restriction in monochorionic diamniotic twin pregnancies. Prenat Diagn. 2010; 30: 719–26.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sebire, NJ, Snijders, RJ, Hughes, K, et al. The hidden mortality of monochorionic twin pregnancies. BJOG. 1997; 104: 1203–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ishii, K, Murakoshi, T, Takahashi, Y, et al. Perinatal outcome of monochorionic twins with selective intrauterine growth restriction and different types of umbilical artery Doppler under expectant management. Fetal Diagn Ther. 2009; 26: 157–61.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Victoria, A, Mora, G, Arias, F. Perinatal outcome, placental pathology, and severity of discordance in monochorionic and dichorionic twins. Obstet Gynecol. 2001; 97: 310–15.Google Scholar
Gratacós, E, Lewi, L, Munoz, 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: 28–34.Google Scholar
Ortibus, E, Lopriore, E, Deprest, J, et al. The pregnancy and long-term neurodevelopmental outcome of monochorionic diamniotic twin gestations: a multicenter prospective cohort study from the first trimester onward. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2009; 200: 494. e1–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chang, YL, Chang, SD, Chao, AS, et al. Clinical outcome and placental territory ratio of monochorionic twin pregnancies and selective intrauterine growth restriction with different types of umbilical artery Doppler. Prenat Diagn. 2009; 29: 253–6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fick, AL, Feldstein, VA, Norton, ME, et al. Unequal placental sharing and birth weight discordance in monochorionic diamniotic twins. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2006; 195: 178–83.Google Scholar
Lewi, L, Cannie, M, Blickstein, I, et al. Placental sharing, birthweight discordance, and vascular anastomoses in monochorionic diamniotic twin placentas. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2007; 197: 587. e1–8.Google Scholar
Denbow, ML, Cox, P, Taylor, M, et al. Placental angioarchitecture in monochorionic twin pregnancies: relationship to fetal growth, fetofetal transfusion syndrome, and pregnancy outcome. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2000; 182: 417–26.Google Scholar
Machin, GA.Velamentous cord insertion in monochorionic twin gestation. An added risk factor. J Reprod Med. 1997; 42: 785–8.Google Scholar
Hack, KE, Nikkels, PG, Koopman-Esseboom, C, et al. Placental characteristics of monochorionic diamniotic twin pregnancies in relation to perinatal outcome. Placenta. 2008: 29: 976–81.Google Scholar
Gratacós, E, Lewi, L, Carreras, E, et al. Incidence and characteristics of umbilical artery intermittent absent and/or reversed end-diastolic flow in complicated and uncomplicated monochorionic twin pregnancies. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2004; 23: 456–60.Google Scholar
Vanderheyden, TM, Fichera, A, Pasquini, L, et al. Increased latency of absent end diastolic flow in the umbilical artery of monochorionic twin fetuses. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2005; 26: 44–9.Google Scholar
Khalil, A, Rodgers, M, Baschat, A, Bhide, A, Gratacós, E, Hecher, K, et al. ISUOG Practice Guidelines: role of ultrasound in twin pregnancy. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2016; 47: 247–63.Google Scholar
Bejar, R, Vigliocco, G, Gramajo, H, et al. Antenatal origin of neurologic damage in newborn infants. II. Multiple gestations. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1990; 162: 1230–6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bennasar, M, Eixarch, E, Martínez, JM et al. Selective intrauterine growth restriction in monochorionic diamniotic twin pregnancies. Semin Fetal Neonatal Med. 2017; 22: 376–82.Google Scholar
Buca, D, Pagani, G, Rizzo, G, et al. Outcome in monochorionic twin pregnancies with selective intrauterine growth restriction according to the umbilical artery Doppler pattern of the smaller twin: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2017; 50: 559–68.Google Scholar
Gratacós, E, Van Schoubroeck, D, Carreras, E, et al. Impact of laser coagulation in severe twin-twin transfusion syndrome on fetal Doppler indices and venous blood flow volume. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2002; 20: 125–30.Google Scholar
Hecher, K, Jauniaux, E, Campbell, S, et al. Artery-to-artery anastomosis in monochorionic twins. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1994; 171: 570–2.Google Scholar
Wee, LY, Taylor, MJ, Vanderheyden, T, et al. Transmitted arterio-arterial anastomosis waveforms causing cyclically intermittent absent/reversed end-diastolic umbilical artery flow in monochorionic twins. Placenta. 2003; 24:772–8.Google Scholar
Gaziano, E, Gaziano, C, Brandt, D. Doppler velocimetry determined redistribution of fetal blood flow: correlation with growth restriction in diamniotic monochorionic and dizygotic twins. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1998; 178: 1359–67.Google Scholar
Bajoria, R, Wee, LY, Anwar, S, et al. Outcome of twin pregnancies complicated by single intrauterine death in relation to vascular anatomy of the monochorionic placenta. Hum Reprod. 1999; 14: 2124–30.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ullberg, U, Sandstedt, B, Lingman, G. Hyrtl’s anastomosis, the only connection between the two umbilical arteries. A study in full term placentas from AGA infants with normal umbilical artery blood flow. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2001; 80: 1–6.Google Scholar
Taylor, MJ, Denbow, ML, Tanawattanacharoen, S, et al. Doppler detection of arterio-arterial anastomoses in monochorionic twins: feasibility and clinical application. Hum Reprod. 2000; 15: 1632–6.Google Scholar
Inklaar, MJ, van Klink, JM, Stolk, TT, et al. Cerebral injury in monochorionic twins with selective intrauterine growth restriction: a systematic review. Prenat Diagn. 2014; 34: 205–13.Google Scholar
Ishii, K, Murakoshi, T, Hayashi, S, et al. Ultrasound predictors of mortality in monochorionic twins with selective intrauterine growth restriction. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2011; 37: 22–6.Google Scholar
Chauhan, SP, Shields, D, Parker, D, et al. Detecting fetal growth restriction or discordant growth in twin gestations stratified by placental chorionicity. J Reprod Med. 2004; 49: 279–84.Google Scholar
Muñoz-Abellana, B, Hernandez-Andrade, E, Figueroa-Diesel, H, et al. Hypertrophic cardiomyopathy-like changes in monochorionic twin pregnancies with selective intrauterine growth restriction and intermittent absent/reversed end-diastolic flow in the umbilical artery. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2007; 30: 977–82.Google Scholar
Gardiner, HM, Matsui, H, Roughton, M, et al. Cardiac function in 10-year-old twins following different fetal therapies for twin-twin transfusion syndrome. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2014; 43: 652–7.Google Scholar
Rossi, AC, D’Addario, V. Umbilical cord occlusion for selective feticide in complicated monochorionic twins: a systematic review of literature. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2009; 200: 123–9.Google Scholar
Peeva, G, Bower, S, Orosz, L, et al. Endoscopic Placental Laser Coagulation in Monochorionic Diamniotic Twins with Type II Selective Fetal Growth Restriction. Fetal Diagn Ther. 2015; 38: 86–93.Google Scholar
Quintero, RA, Bornick, PW, Morales, WJ, et al. Selective photocoagulation of communicating vessels in the treatment of monochorionic twins with selective growth retardation. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2001; 185: 689–96.Google Scholar
Parra-Cordero, M, Bennasar, M, Martínez, JM, et al. Cord occlusion in monochorionic twins with early selective intrauterine growth restriction and abnormal umbilical artery Doppler: a consecutive series of 90 cases. Fetal Diagn Ther. 2016; 39: 186–91.Google Scholar
Gratacós, E, Antolín, E, Lewi, L, et al. Monochorionic twins with selective intrauterine growth restriction and intermittent absent or reversed end-diastolic flow (Type III): feasibility and perinatal outcome of fetoscopic placental laser coagulation. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2008; 31: 669–75.Google Scholar
Quintero, RA, Bornick, PW, Morales, WJ, et al. Selective photocoagulation of communicating vessels in the treatment of monochorionic twins with selective growth retardation. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2001; 185: 689–96.Google Scholar
Chalouhi, GE, Marangoni, MA, Quibel, T, et al. Active management of selective intrauterine growth restriction with abnormal Doppler in monochorionic diamniotic twin pregnancies diagnosed in the second trimester of pregnancy. Prenat Diagn. 2013; 33: 109–15.Google Scholar
Yinon, Y, Ashwal, E, Weis, B, et al. Selective reduction in complicated monochorionic twins: prediction of obstetric outcome and comparison of techniques. Ultrasound Obstetric Gynecol. 2015; 46: 670–7.Google Scholar
Roman, A, Papanna, R, Johnson, A, et al. Selective reduction in complicated monochorionic pregnancies: radiofrequency ablation vs. bipolar cord coagulation. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2010; 36: 37–41.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

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
×