DOI: 10.5772/intechopen.

80092

Provisional chapter
Chapter 10

Time and Mode of Delivery in Twin Pregnancies

Martins Santana, Vivian Melo Corrêa,

Eduardo Félix Martins Santana, Melo Corrêa,
Isabela Bottura
Isabela Bottura and José Pedro Parise Filho
Parise Filho

Additional
Additional information is available
information is available at
at the
the end
end of
of the
the chapter
chapter

http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.80092

Abstract
There are many suitable recommendations for twin gestation term in the literature.
In many protocols, resolution is recommended for dichorionic pregnancies around
38 weeks, at 36 weeks for monochorionic (devoid of complications) and at 32–34 weeks
in cases of single amniotic chamber. The main risk associated with vaginal delivery is
connected to the possibility of anoxia of the second twin. However, a cesarean delivery
performed by non-cephalic presentation of the second twin is associated with increased
maternal morbidity without improved neonatal outcome. The most important factors in
the decision of the delivery mode include the presentation of the fetus, gestational age,
and weight or the weight difference between the fetuses.

Keywords: twin pregnancy, delivery, labor

1. Introduction

It is known that multiple pregnancy presents morbidity and mortality rates about 3–7 times
greater than single pregnancies, and these are often determined in delivery care [1].
Among the difficulties in twin birth, we highlight: prematurity, non-cephalic presentations,
dystocia, funicular prolapse, placental abruption, increased operative incidence, postpartum
hemorrhages, perinatal anoxia and tocotraumatism [2].
In this chapter we will review the main aspects related to the time and mode of delivery in
multiple pregnancies and issues related to fetal weight assessment.

© 2016 The Author(s). Licensee InTech. This chapter is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons
© 2018 The Author(s). Licensee IntechOpen. This chapter is distributed under the terms of the Creative
Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0), which permits unrestricted use,
Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0), which permits unrestricted use,
distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
212 Multiple Pregnancy - New Challenges

2. Risk of fetal death in the third trimester for twin pregnancies

Multiple pregnancies have high rates of mortality and morbidity when compared to single
pregnancies. This is mainly due to prematurity, complications close to delivery, and placental
insufficiency [1].

In fact, this risk is related to chorionicity. The monochorionic (MC) pregnancies present a higher
incidence of perinatal mortality, higher admission in neonatal intensive care unit and low birth
weight [3]. It is possible that the single placental mass shared between pairs originates from an
imbalance in placental anastomoses, may be overloaded in the third trimester [4].

A large Dutch cohort with 1407 multiple pregnancies showed that after 32 weeks’ gestation,
mortality was 11.6% in MC and 5% in dichorionic (DC) [5]. The risk of uterine death was
significantly higher in MC than in DC (hazard ratio 8.8, 95% CI 2.7–28.9), and in most cases
no change in fetal status was observed. The authors concluded that fetal vitality control was
not sufficient to prevent adverse events and delivery should be planned up to the 37th week
for MC.

A study with 94,170 multiple deliveries showed that the risk of fetal death increased signifi-
cantly between 37 and 38 weeks of gestation in twin pregnancies. This risk was higher between
34 and 37 weeks of gestation in triplet pregnancies. The risk of child death after delivery
gradually declined as pregnancies neared full term. This group recommended increased fetal
surveillance after 34 weeks of gestation in multiple pregnancies [6].

3. Time of delivery in dichorionic pregnancies

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) suggests that delivery be
performed between 38 + 0 and 38 + 6 weeks in uncomplicated twin dichorionic pregnancies [7].
Depending on complications such as fetal growth restriction, termination of pregnancy is recom-
mended before 38 weeks.

In 2016, a systematic review included 32 studies (29,685 dichorionic, 5486 monochorionic

pregnancies) and showed that in dichorionic pregnancies beyond 34 weeks (15 studies, 17,830
pregnancies), the weekly risk of stillbirths due to expectant management and the risk of neo-
natal death were balanced at the 37th week of gestation. When delivery was delayed for 1
week (up to 38 weeks) led to an additional 8.8 perinatal deaths per 1000 pregnancies [8].

4. Time of delivery in monochorionic pregnancies

The same review showed that monochorionic pregnancies beyond 34 weeks (13 studies, 2149
pregnancies), had a tendency for an increase in stillbirths compared to neonatal deaths after
36 weeks, with an additional 2.5 per 1000 perinatal deaths, which was not significant [8].
 Time and Mode of Delivery in Twin Pregnancies 213
http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.80092

Just like DC gestations, there are no high-quality studies to respond with great certainty the
right time for terminate monochorionic pregnancies. Most specialists in large reference cen-
ters recommend delivery of monochorionic/diamniotic twins between 36 + 0 and 36 + 6 weeks.
This may be the point of balance between the already reduced risk of prematurity and the risk
of fetal death [9].

There is still a lot of divergence between medical societies for the correct time of delivery.
ACOG suggests delivery of monochorionic twins between 34 + 0 to 37 + 6 weeks of gestation
[7] and the North American Fetal Therapy Network suggests delivery at 36 + 0 to 37 + 6 weeks
of gestation [9]. However, others delegate delivery at 32 weeks of gestation [10]. It is clear that
in cases of Twin-Twin Transfusion Syndrome, most of deliveries are performed earlier and
this depends on the degree of complication that is present.

On the other hand, in monoamniotic pregnancies, most specialized centers in the world rec-
ommend delivery between 32 and 34 weeks. This fact is justified by the high rate of perinatal
mortality in the third trimester (30–70%) and has as main motive the umbilical cords entangle-
ment in the same amniotic chamber [4, 11, 12].

5. Delivery mode: vaginal delivery vs. cesarean section

The mode of delivery in twin pregnancy depends on multiple factors and is very controversial
in the literature. The most important factors to be considered on deciding the delivery mode
are the fetus presentation, especially the first twin, fetal weight, weight difference between the
fetuses, gestational weight and maternal clinical conditions. Women’s parity is also a condi-
tion with high influence in mode of delivery in a twin pregnancy, as nulliparous usually
result in less success when attempting a vaginal delivery [13].
The decision on either performing an elective cesarean delivery must consider the best neona-
tal and maternal outcomes, to reduce neonatal morbidity and mortality, maternal complica-
tions and preserving the women’s reproductive future. The biggest risk in a vaginal delivery
is for the second twin, as complications can occur after the delivery of the first twin, including
placental abruption, cord prolapse and long delivery intervals [14].

It is important to consider that conditions that would indicate a cesarean section in singleton
pregnancies should also be applied in multiple pregnancies.

5.1. Fetus presentation

Determining fetal presentation is fundamental in the decision of the mode of delivery. The
presentation of twin pairs in a term twin pregnancy is 40% of the times cephalic/cephalic,
35–40% cephalic/non-cephalic and only 20% with the first twin non-cephalic [15]. It is a gen-
eral consensus that, when both fetuses are in cephalic presentation, a vaginal delivery should
be attempted [13–15]. However, it is important to notice that the second twin change its pre-
sentation in about 20% of the time, after the first one is born [15].
214 Multiple Pregnancy - New Challenges

When the second twin is in a non-cephalic presentation, vaginal delivery is controversial.

Some studies say that neonatal morbidity is higher for the second twin in those cases and an
elective cesarean section should be planned [16, 17]. However, both a systematic review and
meta-analysis [14] and a recent published prospective cohort study [18] support that cesarean
deliveries neither add neonatal morbidity nor mortality. Therefore, a vaginal delivery is a
safe option. In those cases, the second twin can either be delivered by breech extraction or an
external cephalic version can be attempted [19].
Finally, when the first twin is non-cephalic, the safest delivery mode is the cesarean sec-
tion. A randomized multicenter trial, The Breech Trial, showed that a planned cesarean
delivery decreases significantly perinatal mortality and neonatal serious morbidity, when
compared with a planned vaginal delivery in pregnancies with a non-cephalic presenting
twin [20].

5.2. Fetal weight estimation in twin pregnancies

Twin pregnancies are more likely to show deviations in fetal growth curve. Conditions such as
prematurity, intrauterine growth restriction and fetal malformations are common in multiple
gestations, raising the risk of mortality and perinatal morbidity to 3–7 times when compared
to single pregnancies [21]. Prematurity is present in approximately 55% of twin pregnancies,
with adverse consequences even in short and long term [22].

When comparing the weights of fetuses from twin pregnancies to those of single pregnancies,
it is observed that fetuses of twin pregnancies have a lower weight than fetuses of single
pregnancies, especially from the end of the second trimester. It is known that this variation
between the weights starts at around 28 weeks and at 38 weeks the 50th percentile for a twin
pregnancy corresponds to the 10th percentile for a single pregnancy [23], but this difference
does not seem to increase neonatal mortality. Therefore, it is argued that the lower weight
of twin fetuses, when compared to that of single pregnancies, may be physiological of this
condition.

Accuracy in the estimation of fetal weight is of paramount importance for the proper follow-
up of prenatal care and ultrasonography study has been the main tool for this evaluation.

Currently fetal weight estimation by ultrasonography is most commonly performed by

the formula of Hadlock et al. [24], which uses two-dimensional measures of cephalic pole,
abdominal circumference and femur length. However, studies have shown that formulas
using two-dimensional parameters can generate variations of up to 15% in relation to the real
weight of the fetus [25].

New methods have been sought to improve the accuracy of fetal weight estimation such as
three-dimensional ultrasonography. In the early 2000s, Lee et al. [26] introduced a new sono-
graphic parameter, the fraction limb volume. This parameter is based on evaluation of 50% of
bone diaphysis length (arm and thigh).

This method has the advantage of reducing the time spent to perform the test, maintaining a
good accuracy for the estimation fetal weight.
 Time and Mode of Delivery in Twin Pregnancies 215
http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.80092

In general, the accuracy of estimation weight in twin pregnancies is worse than single preg-
nancies. Biometric measurement of these fetuses in the third trimester is greatly impaired
due to the technical difficulty of examination. When using 33 formulas to assess the accuracy
of estimation weight by two-dimensional ultrasonography, 25 of these formulas present a
weight variation of less than 10% for single pregnancies, but only 3 of these formulas present
the same result for twin pregnancies [27].

An ongoing study that has been developed in multiple pregnancy unit of Federal University of
São Paulo has shown that the use of fraction limb volume in twin pregnancies can improve the
accuracy of estimation weight in these pregnancies, as well as reduce the time of the examination.
Although evaluation of fetal body volume through the use of magnetic resonance imaging
is still considered an expensive method, there is good accuracy in fetal weight estimation,
besides being a good predictor in the diagnoses of small fetuses for gestational age when
compared to two-dimensional ultrasonography [28].
Estimating weight in twin pregnancies remains a challenge. New research needs to be con-
ducted in search for new methods in order to improve accuracy.

Fetal weight should not be considered when both fetuses are cephalic. In those cases, regard-
less the fetal weight, a vaginal delivery can be attempted. However, in cephalic/non-cephalic
twin pregnancies, the influence of weight on mode of delivery is controversial. Most stud-
ies showed worst perinatal outcomes for vaginal deliveries when the second twin was non-
cephalic and under 1500 g [29, 30].

Weight difference is related to worst neonatal outcomes, regardless the delivery mode [31],
and also to unsuccessful attempt of labor [32]. Furthermore, a weight difference above 40%
has been associated with higher neonatal mortality rates in vaginal deliveries, regardless fetal
presentation, in a retrospective study in 2005 [33].

5.3. Previous C-section

A previous cesarean delivery is considered a risk factor for an emergency C-section after
attempting a vaginal delivery in twin pregnancies [34]. Regardless, a caution trial of labor can
be a safe option in those patients, when the first twin is cephalic [35].
On the other hand, patients with two or more previous cesarean sections should not attempt
a vaginal delivery due to higher risk of uterine rupture.

5.4. Preterm pairs

There is limited existing evidence to determine the safest mode of delivery for extremely
preterm twins. Therefore, it is important to consider the fetal presentation and weight when
deciding the delivery mode, regardless gestational age.

A recently published meta-analysis showed no significant difference in neonatal death and severe
brain injury by mode of delivery for cephalic/non-cephalic twins with a gestational age under
28 weeks [36]. This study found higher rates of maternal complications in growth-discordant twins.
216 Multiple Pregnancy - New Challenges

5.5. Maternal conditions

Higher rates of maternal morbidities are found in multiple gestations, compared to singletons.
There is a higher risk of pre-eclampsia, diabetes and post-partum complications, as uterine
atony and postpartum hemorrhage. Regardless, maternal conditions are rarely an indication
of a cesarean section. An elective cesarean delivery can be performed after maternal request,
after exposing the risks of the procedure, as longer maternal hospital stay, increased risk of
the newborn going to the ICU due to respiratory problems and increased risks for subsequent
pregnancies, as placenta previa and uterine rupture [37]. In those cases, the surgery should be
planned to the appropriate gestational age, considering chorionicity and amnionicity.

6. Exceptional situations

Although the data about triplet pregnancies are still limited, and the monoamniotic and diam-
niotic triplets should be delivered between 32 + 0 and 32 + 6 weeks [38], most studies and
guidelines suggest delivery time at no later than 36 weeks, even in uncomplicated triamniotic
triplets [6, 39, 40]. The preferred delivery route is the cesarean section because vaginal delivery
is associated with an increased risk of adverse outcomes if compared with the cesarean [41, 42].

In conjoined twins, the data available is based in small case report studies and expert opinion,
but what is suggested is the delivery time and mode of the viable ones must be near term
cesarean section after confirming lung maturity. In selected cases an EXIT procedure can be
performed in order to stabilize the fetuses with cardiac union to examine and close the vessel
communication safely [43].

7. Twin-to-twin delivery time intervals

Another controversial subject about delivery in twins is the time interval between fetuses in
vaginal delivery.
New guidelines such as the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists do not rec-
ommend an upper limit to the time interval between fetuses, if the fetal heart rate is reassur-
ing, as some studies also suggests [44–47]. However, there are studies that provide evidence
of an association, but not necessarily causality, between longer twin-to-twin time interval
and poor second twin outcome, such as lower apgar grades and decreasing pH in umbilical
arterial blood gas [48–50]. This lack of strong evidence leaves space for different approach and
expectant management [51].

A very specific approach can be performed in the case of a dichorionic twin pregnancy with
spontaneous preterm delivery <24 weeks and never above 28 weeks, which is called delayed
interval delivery when the second twin do not have an indication for labor such as infection
among other complications. Several techniques and interventions are described but the evi-
dence is not strong, but the main goal is to provide a better outcome for the second twin, and
success rates of these particular cases are good according to a systematic review of 2016 [52].
 Time and Mode of Delivery in Twin Pregnancies 217
http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.80092

8. Associated risks: vaginal and cesarean delivery

During the last few years, a lot of studies were performed trying to elucidate the question
about the best delivery route for twins, according to the associated risks and benefits of
planned cesarean section or planned attempt vaginal delivery.

The twin birth study, showed that planned cesarean section was not superior to planned vagi-
nal delivery regarding maternal risk or neonatal mortality or morbidity [53], and ever since
some society guidelines suggest attempt to vaginal delivery to diamniotic twin pregnancies if
the first twin is in cephalic presentation [54].

The concern about the risks includes the possibility of combined delivery, which involves an
unplanned cesarean after attempt of vaginal delivery and is associated with higher second
twin morbidity [14] and may be an increased risk of neonatal and/or maternal infection prob-
ably because the exposure to labor and rupture of membranes are higher than in a planned
cesarean delivery.

Cesarean delivery can expose mothers to short-term risks such as endometritis, wound com-
plications, surgical injuries, hemorrhage [55], although maternal outcomes past 3 month and
long-term risks, including abnormal placentation, are similar both ways cesarean an vaginal
planned delivery [56, 57].

Newborns delivered by planned cesarean present a higher risk in developing allergic disor-
ders [58–60].

9. Adverse neonatal outcome

The twin birth study did not found statistically significant difference in morbidity and fetal
or neonatal mortality between planned cesarean or planned vaginal delivery [14, 53], and a
2-year follow up after delivery found no difference in neurodevelopment and death in both
groups [61].

A retrospective study with 1070 twin pregnancies attempted trial of labor between 2003 and
2015 showed that in planned cesarean, the first twin has a lower blood pH and base excess
than in vaginal delivery, but the study was unpowered for neonatal outcome assessment [13].

10. Conclusion

The time of delivery in twin pregnancies is around 38 weeks for dichorionic pairs, 36 weeks
for monochorionic and 32 weeks for monoamniotic. When both fetuses are on cephalic pre-
sentation at delivery, the vaginal route is preferable regardless of weight. Being the first twin
in non-cephalic presentation, cesarean section is the best choice. When the first twin is in
cephalic presentation and the second non-cephalic, cesarean section is indicated if the fetus
weight is less than 1,500g. However, vaginal delivery is possible if the fetus’ weight is above
218 Multiple Pregnancy - New Challenges

1,500g. In those cases, the second twin can either be delivered by breech extraction or an
external cephalic version can be attempted.

Author details

Eduardo Félix Martins Santana1,2*, Vivian Melo Corrêa1, Isabela Bottura2 and

José Pedro Parise Filho2
*Address all correspondence to: [email protected]

1 Department of Obstetrics, Paulista School of Medicine, Federal University of São Paulo

(EPM-UNIFESP), São Paulo, SP, Brazil
2 Department of Perinatology, Albert Einstein Hospital, São Paulo, SP, Brazil

References

[1] Sherer DM. Adverse perinatal outcome of twin pregnancies according to chorionicity:

Review of the literature. American Journal of Perinatology. 2001;18:23-37

[2] Hatkar PA, Bhide AG. Perinatal outcome of twins in relation to chorionicity. Journal of
Postgraduate Medicine. 1999;45:33-37
[3] Sebire NJ, Snijders RJ, Hughes K, Sepulveda W, Nicolaides KH. The hidden mortal-
ity of monochorionic twin pregnancies. British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology.
1997;104:1203-1207
[4] Elito Junior J, Santana EFM, Nardini GC. Monochorionic twin pregnancy: Potencial risks
and perinatal outcomes. In: Obstetric and Gynecologic Practice in 2014. 67th ed. Europe:
InTech; 2014. pp. 203-234
[5] Hack KE, Derks JB, Elias SG, Franx A, Roos EJ, Voerman SK, et al. Increased perinatal
mortality and morbidity in monochorionic versus dichorionic twin pregnancies: Clinical
implications of a large Dutch cohort study. BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics
and Gynaecology. 2008;115(1):58-67
[6] Ko HS, Choi SK, Wie JH, Park IY, Park YG, Shin JC. Optimal timing of delivery based on
the risk of stillbirth and infant death associated with each additional week of expectant
management in multiple pregnancies: A National Cohort Study of Koreans. Journal of
Korean Medical Science. 2018;33(10):e80
[7] Committee on Practice Bulletins—Obstetrics, society for maternal–fetal medicine.
Practice bulletin no. 169: Multifetal gestations: Twin, triplet, and higher-order multifetal
pregnancies. Obstetrics and Gynecology. 2016;128:e131

[8] Cheong-See F, Schuit E, Arroyo-Manzano D, et  al. Prospective risk of stillbirth and
neonatal complications in twin pregnancies: Systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ.
2016;354:i4353
 Time and Mode of Delivery in Twin Pregnancies 219
http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.80092

[9] Emery SP, Bahtiyar MO, Dashe JS, et al. The north American fetal therapy network con-
sensus statement: Prenatal management of uncomplicated monochorionic gestations.
Obstetrics and Gynecology. 2015;125:1236

[10] Simões T, Amaral N, Lerman R, et al. Prospective risk of intrauterine death of monocho-
rionic-diamniotic twins. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology. 2006;195:134
[11] Beasley E, Megerian G, Gerson A, Roberts NS.  Monoamniotic twins: Case series and
proposal for antenatal management. Obstetrics and Gynecology. 1999;93:130
[12] Rodis JF, McIlveen PF, Egan JF, et al. Monoamniotic twins: Improved perinatal survival
with accurate prenatal diagnosis and antenatal fetal surveillance. American Journal of
Obstetrics and Gynecology. 1997;177:1046
[13] Schachter-Safrai N, Karavani G, Haj-Yahya R, Ofek Shlomai N, Porat S. Risk factors for
cesarean delivery and adverse neonatal outcome in twin pregnancies attempting vaginal
delivery. Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica. Jul 2018;97(7):845-851
[14] Rossi A, Mullin P, Chmait R. Neonatal outcomes of twins according to birth order,
presentation and mode of delivery: A systematic review and meta-analysis. BJOG.
2011;118:523-532
[15] Bibbo C, Robinson JN.  Management of twins: Vaginal or cesarean delivery? Clinical
Obstetrics and Gynecology. 2015;58(2):294-308
[16] Yang Q, Wen SW, Chen Y, Krewski D, Fung KFK, Walker M. Neonatal death and mor-
bidity in vertex-nonvertex second twins according to mode of delivery and birth weight.
American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology. 2005;192:840-847
[17] Grisaru D, Fuchs S, Kupferminc MJ, Har-Toov J, Niv J, Lessing JB. Outcome of 306 twin
deliveries according to first twin presentation and method of delivery. American Journal
of Perinatology. 2000;17:303-307
[18] Schmitz T, Korb D, Battie C, et al. Neonatal morbidity associated with vaginal delivery of
noncephalic second twins. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology. 2018;4:449.
e1-449.e13
[19] Chervenak FA, Johnson RE, Berkowitz RL, et  al. Intrapartum external version of the
second twin. Obstetrics and Gynecology. 1983;62:160-165
[20] 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;356:1375-1383
[21] Hack KE, Derks JB, Elias SG, et al. Increased perinatal mortality and morbidity in mono-
chorionic versus dichorionic twin pregnancies: Clinical implications of a large Dutch
cohort study. BJOG. 2008;115:58-67
[22] Elliott JP. High-order multiple gestations. Seminars in Perinatology. 2005;29:305-311
[23] Alexander GR, Kogan M, Martin J, Papiernik E. What are the fetal growth patterns of
sigletons, twins and triplets in the United States? Clinical Obstetrics and Gynecology.
1998;41(1):114-125
220 Multiple Pregnancy - New Challenges

[24] Hadlock FP, Harrist RB, Sharman RS, Deter RL, Park SK. Estimation of fetal weight with
the use of head, body and femur measurements. A prospective study. American Journal
of Obstetrics and Gynecology. 1985;151(3):333-337
[25] Dudley NJ. A systematic review of ultrassound estimation of fetal weight. Ultrasound in
Obstetrics & Gynecology. 2005;25(1):80-89

[26] Lee W, Deter RL, Ebersole JD, Huang R, Blarchart K, Romero R. Birth weight prediction
by three-dimensional ultrassonography fractional limb volume. Journal of Ultrasound
in Medicine. 2001;20:1283-1292

[27] Khalil A, D’Antonio F, Dias T, Cooper D, Thilaganathan B, Southwest Thames Obstetric

Research Collaborative (STORK). Ultrasound estimation of birth weight in twin preg-
nancy: Comparison of biometry algorithms in the STORK multiple pregnancy cohort.
Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology. 2014;44:210-220

[28] Kadji C, Bevilaqua E, Hurtado I, et al. Comparison of conventional 2D ultrassound to

magnetic resonance imaging for prenatal estimation of birthweight in twin pregnancy.
American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology. 2018;218(1):128.e1-128.e11

[29] Barrett JM, Staggs SM, Van Hooydonk JE, et al. The effect of type of delivery upon neo-
natal outcome in premature twins. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology.
1982;143:360-367

[30] Zhang J, Bowes WA, Grey TW, et al. Twin delivery and neonatal and infant mortality: A
population-based study. Obstetrics and Gynecology. 1996;88:593-598

[31] D'Antonio F, Khalil A, Dias T, et al. Weight discordance and perinatal mortality in twins:
Analysis of the Southwest Thames Obstetric Research Collaborative (STORK) multiple
pregnancy cohort. Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology. 2013;41:643-648

[32] Ko HJ, Jun JK. Clinical factors associated with failed trials of labor in late preterm and
term twin pregnancies. Journal of Perinatal Medicine. 2014;42(4):449-455

[33] Kontopoulos EV, Ananth CV, Smulian JC, et al. The influence of mode of delivery on
twin neonatal mortality in the US: Variance by birth weight discordance. American
Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology. 2005;192:252-256

[34] Spiegel E, Kessous R, Sergienko R, Sheiner E. Risk factors predicting an emergency

cesarean delivery for the second twin after vaginal delivery of the first twin. Archives of
Gynecology and Obstetrics. 2015;292(3):531-536

[35] Delaney T, Young DC. Trial of labour compared to elective caesarean in twin gestations
with a previous caesarean delivery. Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Canada.
2003;25(4):289-292

[36] Dagenais C, Lewis-Mikhael AM, Grabovac M, et al. What is the safest mode of delivery
for extremely preterm cephalic/non-cephalic twin pairs? A systematic review and meta-
analyses. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2017;17:397
 Time and Mode of Delivery in Twin Pregnancies 221
http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.80092

[37] American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. ACOG committee opinion no. 559:
Cesarean delivery on maternal request. Obstetrics and Gynecology. 2013;121(4):904-907

[38] Van Mieghem T, De Heus R, Lewi L, et al. Prenatal management of monoamniotic twin
pregnancies. Obstetrics and Gynecology. 2014;124:498.65
[39] Kahn B, Lumey LH, Zybert PA, Lorenz JM, Cleary-Goldman J, D'Alton ME, et  al.
Prospective risk of fetal death in singleton, twin, and triplet gestations: Implications for
practice. Obstetrics and Gynecology. 2003;102(4):685-692
[40] National Collaborating Centre for Women's and Children's Health (GB). Multiple
Pregnancy: The Management of Twin and Triplet Pregnancies in the Antenatal Period.
London, United Kingdom: RCOG Press; 2011
[41] Vintzileos AM, Ananth CV, Kontopoulos E, Smulian JC. Mode of delivery and risk of
stillbirth and infant mortality in triplet gestations: United States, 1995 through 1998.
American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology. 2005;192:464
[42] Lappen JR, Hackney DN, Bailit JL. Maternal and neonatal outcomes of attempted vagi-
nal compared with planned cesarean delivery in triplet gestations. American Journal of
Obstetrics and Gynecology. 2016;215:493.e1
[43] Mackenzie TC, Crombleholme TM, Johnson MP, et al. The natural history of prenatally
diagnosed conjoined twins. Journal of Pediatric Surgery. 2002;37:303
[44] Stein W, Misselwitz B, Schmidt S. Twin-to-twin delivery time interval: Influencing factors
and effect on short-term outcome of the second twin. Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica
Scandinavica. 2008;87(3):346-353
[45] McGrail CD, Bryant DR.  Intertwin time interval: How it affects the immediate neo-
natal outcome of the second twin. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology.
2005;192(5):1420-1422
[46] Rayburn WF, Lavin JPJ, Miodovnik M, Varner MW. Multiple gestation: Time interval
between delivery of the first and second twins. Obstetrics and Gynecology. 1984;63(4):
502-506
[47] Committee on Practice B-O, Society for Maternal-Fetal M.  Practice bulletin no. 169:
Multifetal gestations: Twin, triplet, and higher-order multifetal pregnancies. Obstetrics
and Gynecology. 2016;128(4):e131-e146
[48] Leung TY, Tam WH, Leung TN, Lok IH, Lau TK. Effect of twin-to-twin delivery inter-
val on umbilical cord blood gas in the second twins. BJOG: An International Journal of
Obstetrics and Gynaecology. 2002;109(1):63-67
[49] Hjorto S, Nickelsen C, Petersen J, Secher NJ.  The effect of chorionicity and twin-to-
twin delivery time interval on short-term outcome of the second twin. The Journal of
Maternal-Fetal & Neonatal Medicine. 2014;27(1):42-47

[50] Lindroos L, Elfvin A, Ladfors L, Wennerholm UB.  The effect of twin-to-twin delivery
time intervals on neonatal outcome for second twins. BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth.
2018;18:36
222 Multiple Pregnancy - New Challenges

[51] Rydhström H, Ingemarsson I. Interval between birth of the first and the second twin and
its impact on second twin perinatal mortality. Journal of Perinatal Medicine. 1990;18:449

[52] Feys S, Jacquemyn Y. Delayed-interval delivery can save the second twin: Evidence from
a systematic review. Facts, Views & Vision in ObGyn. 2016;8:223

[53] Barrett JF, Hannah ME, Hutton EK, et al. A randomized trial of planned cesarean or vagi-
nal delivery for twin pregnancy. The New England Journal of Medicine. 2013;369:1295
[54] American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, Society for Maternal-Fetal
Medicine. Obstetric care consensus no. 1: Safe prevention of the primary cesarean deliv-
ery. Obstetrics and Gynecology. 2014;123:693-711

[55] Hammad IA, Chauhan SP, Magann EF, Abuhamad AZ. Peripartum complications with
cesarean delivery: A review of maternal-fetal medicine units network publications. The
Journal of Maternal-Fetal & Neonatal Medicine. 2014;27:463

[56] Hutton EK, Hannah ME, Ross S, et  al. Maternal outcomes at 3 months after planned
caesarean section versus planned vaginal birth for twin pregnancies in the twin birth
study: A randomised controlled trial. BJOG. 2015;122:1653

[57] Marshall NE, Fu R, Guise JM. Impact of multiple cesarean deliveries on maternal morbid-
ity: A systematic review. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology. 2011;205:262.e1

[58] Moore HC, de Klerk N, Holt P, et al. Hospitalisation for bronchiolitis in infants is more
common after elective caesarean delivery. Archives of Disease in Childhood. 2012;97:410

[59] Black M, Bhattacharya S, Philip S, et al. Planned cesarean delivery at term and adverse
outcomes in childhood health. JAMA. 2015;314:2271

[60] Bager P, Wohlfahrt J, Westergaard T. Caesarean delivery and risk of atopy and allergic
disease: Meta-analyses. Clinical and Experimental Allergy. 2008;38:634

[61] Asztalos EV, Hannah ME, Hutton EK, et al. Twin birth study: 2-year neurodevelopmen-
tal follow-up of the randomized trial of planned cesarean or planned vaginal delivery
for twin pregnancy. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology. 2016;214:371.e1