[go: up one dir, main page]
More Web Proxy on the site http://driver.im/ Skip to main content
Springer Nature Link
Log in

The value of ultrasound in predicting isolated inter-twin discordance and adverse perinatal outcomes

  • Maternal-Fetal Medicine
  • Published:
Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

To investigate the value of ultrasound approaching delivery to predict isolated inter-twin discordance and adverse perinatal outcomes.

Methods

We retrospectively included twin pregnancies with sonography approaching delivery in ten maternal–foetal medicine centres in China from 2013 to 2014. Estimated foetal weight (EFW) and inter-twin EFW disparity (EFWD) were calculated based on biometry parameters. Percentage errors between EFW and actual birthweight or between EFWD and actual inter-twin disparity were calculated. ROC curves and multiple logistic regression were applied to evaluate the ability of EFWD to predict inter-twin disparity ≥ 25%, stillbirth, asphyxia and admission to a neonatal intensive unit (NICU). Chorionicity-stratified analysis was further performed.

Results

Two hundred sixty-six monochorionic and 760 dichorionic twin pregnancies were analysed. The percentage errors in foetal weight estimations were 7–13%, whereas percentage errors in the estimation of inter-twin disparity were nearly 100%. Among eight formulas, Hadlock1 performed best, with a detectable rate of 65% and a false positive rate of 5% when predicting inter-twin disparity ≥ 25%. EFWD ≥ 22% was strongly associated with stillbirth (OR = 4.17, 95% CI 1.40–12.40) and NICU admission (OR = 3.48, 95% CI 2.03–5.97) after adjustment for gestational age, parity and abnormal umbilical systolic/diastolic ratio. Ultrasound had better predictive ability in monochorionic twins.

Conclusion

The predictive value of ultrasound for isolated inter-twin discordance and adverse perinatal outcomes was limited, which was possibly due to the magnifying of systematic errors in the disparity estimation compared with weight estimation. Despite this, abnormal biometry was an independent contributor for the poor prognosis of neonates.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
£29.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price includes VAT (United Kingdom)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Hack KE, Derks JB, Elias SG, Franx A, Roos EJ, Voerman SK, Bode CL, Koopman-Esseboom C, Visser GH (2008) Increased perinatal mortality and morbidity in monochorionic versus dichorionic twin pregnancies: clinical implications of a large Dutch cohort study. BJOG 115:58–67

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Chauhan SP, Scardo JA, Hayes E, Abuhamad AZ, Berghella V (2010) Twins: prevalence, problems, and preterm births. Am J Obstet Gynecol 203:305–315

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Morin L, Lim K (2011) Ultrasound in twin pregnancies. J Obstet Gynaecol Can 33:643–656

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. D’Antonio F, Thilaganathan B, Laoreti A, Khalil A (2017) Birthweight discordance and neonatal morbidity in twin pregnancies: analysis of the STORK multiple pregnancy cohort. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. https://doi.org/10.1002/uog.18916

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Jahanfar S, Lim K (2017) Adverse maternal outcomes and birth weight discordance in twin gestation: British Columbia, Canadian data. Int J Womens Health 9:871–878

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Kalish RB, Gupta M, Perni SC, Berman S, Chasen ST (2004) Clinical significance of first trimester crown–rump length disparity in dichorionic twin gestations. Am J Obstet Gynecol 191:1437–1440

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. D’Antonio F, Khalil A, Dias T, Thilaganathan B (2013) Crown–rump length discordance and adverse perinatal outcome in twins: analysis of the Southwest Thames Obstetric Research Collaborative (STORK) multiple pregnancy cohort. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 41:621–626

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Johansen ML, Oldenburg A, Rosthoj S, Cohn MJ, Rode L, Tabor A (2014) Crown–rump length discordance in the first trimester: a predictor of adverse outcome in twin pregnancies? Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 43:277–283

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Nakayama S, Ishii K, Kawaguchi H, Yamamoto R, Murata M, Hayashi S, Mitsuda N (2014) Perinatal complications of monochorionic diamniotic twin gestations with discordant crown–rump length determined at mid-first trimester. J Obstet Gynaecol Res 40:418–423

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. D’Antonio F, Khalil A, Morlando M, Thilaganathan B (2015) Accuracy of predicting fetal loss in twin pregnancies using gestational age-dependent weight discordance cut-offs: analysis of the STORK multiple pregnancy cohort. Fetal Diagn Ther 38:22–28

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. D’Antonio F, Khalil A, Thilaganathan B (2014) Second-trimester discordance and adverse perinatal outcome in twins: the STORK multiple pregnancy cohort. BJOG 121:422–429

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Gratacos E, Lewi L, Munoz B, Acosta-Rojas R, Hernandez-Andrade E, Martinez JM, Carreras E, Deprest J (2007) A classification system for selective intrauterine growth restriction in monochorionic pregnancies according to umbilical artery Doppler flow in the smaller twin. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 30:28–34

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Gaziano EP, Gaziano C, Terrell CA, Hoekstra RE (2001) The cerebroplacental Doppler ratio and neonatal outcome in diamnionic monochorionic and dichorionic twins. J Matern Fetal Med 10:371–375

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Caravello JW, Chauhan SP, Morrison JC, Magann EF, Martin JJ, Devoe LD (1997) Sonographic examination does not predict twin growth discordance accurately. Obstet Gynecol 89:529–533

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Chamberlain P, Murphy M, Comerford FR (1991) How accurate is antenatal sonographic identification of discordant birthweight in twins? Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 40:91–96

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. van de Waarsenburg MK, Hack KE, Rijpma RJ, Mulder EJ, Pistorius L, Derks JB (2015) Ultrasonographic prediction of birth weight discordance in twin pregnancies. Prenat Diagn 35:906–912

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Van Mieghem T, Deprest J, Klaritsch P, Gucciardo L, Done E, Verhaeghe J, Lewi L (2009) Ultrasound prediction of intertwin birth weight discordance in monochorionic diamniotic twin pregnancies. Prenat Diagn 29:240–244

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Chang YL, Chang TC, Chang SD, Cheng PJ, Chao AS, Hsieh PC, Soong YK (2006) Sonographic prediction of significant intertwin birth weight discordance. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 127:35–40

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Gernt PR, Mauldin JG, Newman RB, Durkalski VL (2001) Sonographic prediction of twin birth weight discordance. Obstet Gynecol 97:53–56

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Hehir MP, Breathnach FM, Hogan JL, Mcauliffe FM, Geary MP, Daly S, Higgins J, Hunter A, Morrison JJ, Burke G, Mahony R, Dicker P, Tully E, Malone FD (2017) Prenatal prediction of significant intertwin birthweight discordance using standard second and third trimester sonographic parameters. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 96:472–478

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Khalil AA, Khan N, Bowe S, Familiari A, Papageorghiou A, Bhide A, Thilaganathan B (2015) Discordance in fetal biometry and Doppler are independent predictors of the risk of perinatal loss in twin pregnancies. Am J Obstet Gynecol. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2015.02.024

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Danon D, Melamed N, Bardin R, Meizner I (2008) Accuracy of ultrasonographic fetal weight estimation in twin pregnancies. Obstet Gynecol 112:759–764

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Dudley NJ (2005) A systematic review of the ultrasound estimation of fetal weight. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 25:80–89

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Stirrup OT, Khalil A, D’Antonio F, Thilaganathan B (2015) Fetal growth reference ranges in twin pregnancy: analysis of the Southwest Thames Obstetric Research Collaborative (STORK) multiple pregnancy cohort. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 45:301–307

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Stirrup OT, Khalil A, D’Antonio F, Thilaganathan B (2017) Patterns of second- and third-trimester growth and discordance in twin pregnancy: analysis of the Southwest Thames obstetric research collaborative (STORK) multiple pregnancy cohort. Fetal Diagn Ther 41:100–107

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Wei J, Wu QJ, Zhang TN, Shen ZQ, Liu H, Zheng DM, Cui H, Liu CX (2016) Complications in multiple gestation pregnancy: a cross-sectional study of ten maternal-fetal medicine centers in China. Oncotarget 7:30797–30803

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. Kalish RB, Thaler HT, Chasen ST, Gupta M, Berman SJ, Rosenwaks Z, Chervenak FA (2004) First- and second-trimester ultrasound assessment of gestational age. Am J Obstet Gynecol 191:975–978

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Dias T, Mahsud-Dornan S, Thilaganathan B, Papageorghiou A, Bhide A (2010) First-trimester ultrasound dating of twin pregnancy: are singleton charts reliable? BJOG 117:979–984

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Tunon K, Eik-Nes SH, Grottum P, Von During V, Kahn JA (2000) Gestational age in pregnancies conceived after in vitro fertilization: a comparison between age assessed from oocyte retrieval, crown–rump length and biparietal diameter. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 15:41–46

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Stenhouse E, Hardwick C, Maharaj S, Webb J, Kelly T, Mackenzie FM (2002) Chorionicity determination in twin pregnancies: how accurate are we? Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 19:350–352

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Bromley B, Benacerraf B (1995) Using the number of yolk sacs to determine amnionicity in early first trimester monochorionic twins. J Ultrasound Med 14:415–419

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Sarris I, Ioannou C, Ohuma EO, Altman DG, Hoch L, Cosgrove C, Fathima S, Salomon LJ, Papageorghiou AT (2013) Standardisation and quality control of ultrasound measurements taken in the INTERGROWTH-21st Project. BJOG 120(Suppl 2):33–37

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Hadlock FP, Harrist RB, Sharman RS, Deter RL, Park SK (1985) Estimation of fetal weight with the use of head, body, and femur measurements–a prospective study. Am J Obstet Gynecol 151:333–337

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Hadlock FP, Harrist RB, Carpenter RJ, Deter RL, Park SK (1984) Sonographic estimation of fetal weight. The value of femur length in addition to head and abdomen measurements. Radiology 150:535–540

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Ong S, Smith AP, Fitzmaurice A, Campbell D (1999) Estimation of fetal weight in twins: a new mathematical model. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 106:924–928

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Ott WJ, Doyle S, Flamm S, Wittman J (1986) Accurate ultrasonic estimation of fetal weight. Prospective analysis of new ultrasonic formulas. Am J Perinatol 3:307–310

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Shepard MJ, Richards VA, Berkowitz RL, Warsof SL, Hobbins JC (1982) An evaluation of two equations for predicting fetal weight by ultrasound. Am J Obstet Gynecol 142:47–54

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Combs CA, Rosenn B, Miodovnik M, Siddiqi TA (2000) Sonographic EFW and macrosomia: is there an optimum formula to predict diabetic fetal macrosomia? J Matern Fetal Med 9:55–61

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Lewi L, Gucciardo L, Van Mieghem T, de Koninck P, Beck V, Medek H, Van Schoubroeck D, Devlieger R, De Catte L, Deprest J (2010) Monochorionic diamniotic twin pregnancies: natural history and risk stratification. Fetal Diagn Ther 27:121–133

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Rustico MA, Consonni D, Lanna M, Faiola S, Schena V, Scelsa B, Introvini P, Righini A, Parazzini C, Lista G, Barretta F, Ferrazzi E (2017) Selective intrauterine growth restriction in monochorionic twins: changing patterns in umbilical artery Doppler flow and outcomes. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 49:387–393

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Acharya G, Wilsgaard T, Berntsen GK, Maltau JM, Kiserud T (2005) Reference ranges for serial measurements of umbilical artery Doppler indices in the second half of pregnancy. Am J Obstet Gynecol 192:937–944

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. D’Antonio F, Khalil A, Dias T, Thilaganathan B (2013) Weight discordance and perinatal mortality in twins: analysis of the Southwest Thames Obstetric Research Collaborative (STORK) multiple pregnancy cohort. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 41:643–648

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Hartley RS, Hitti J, Emanuel I (2002) Size-discordant twin pairs have higher perinatal mortality rates than nondiscordant pairs. Am J Obstet Gynecol 187:1173–1178

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Vergani P, Locatelli A, Ratti M, Scian A, Pozzi E, Pezzullo JC, Ghidini A (2004) Preterm twins: what threshold of birth weight discordance heralds major adverse neonatal outcome? Am J Obstet Gynecol 191:1441–1445

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Branum AM, Schoendorf KC (2003) The effect of birth weight discordance on twin neonatal mortality. Obstet Gynecol 101:570–574

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. D’Antonio F, Odibo AO, Prefumo F, Khalil A, Buca D, Flacco ME, Liberati M, Manzoli L, Acharya G (2017) Weight discordance and perinatal mortality in twin pregnancies: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. https://doi.org/10.1002/uog.18966

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Chen ZL, Liu J, Feng ZC (2013) Experts’ consensus on the criteria for the diagnosis and grading of neonatal asphyxia in China. Transl Pediatr 2:64–65

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  48. Moret L, Mesbah M, Chwalow J, Lellouch J (1993) Internal validation of a measurement scale: relation between principal component analysis, Cronbach’s alpha coefficient and intra-class correlation coefficient. Rev Epidemiol Sante Publique 41:179–186

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Davies MJ, Moore VM, Willson KJ, Van Essen P, Priest K, Scott H, Haan EA, Chan A (2012) Reproductive technologies and the risk of birth defects. N Engl J Med 366:1803–1813

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. McDonald SD, Murphy K, Beyene J, Ohlsson A (2005) Perinatel outcomes of singleton pregnancies achieved by in vitro fertilization: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Obstet Gynaecol Can 27:449–459

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Masheer S, Maheen H, Munim S (2015) Perinatal outcome of twin pregnancies according to chorionicity: an observational study from tertiary care hospital. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 28:23–25

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Jacobsson B, Ladfors L, Milsom I (2004) Advanced maternal age and adverse perinatal outcome. Obstet Gynecol 104:727–733

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Phillips JK, Skelly JM, King SE, Bernstein IM, Higgins ST (2018) Associations of maternal obesity and smoking status with perinatal outcomes. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 31:1620–1626

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Zhao DP, Cambiaso O, Otano L, Lewi L, Deprest J, Sun LM, Duan T, Oepkes D, Shapiro S, De Paepe ME, Lopriore E (2015) Veno-venous anastomoses in twin-twin transfusion syndrome: a multicenter study. Placenta 36:911–914

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Galea P, Jain V, Fisk NM (2005) Insights into the pathophysiology of twin–twin transfusion syndrome. Prenat Diagn 25:777–785

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Favre R, Koch A, Weingertner AS, Sananes N, Trieu NT, Kohler M, Guerra F, Nisand I (2013) Vascular pattern in monochorionic placentas with spontaneous TAPS and TTTS with residual anastomoses after laser: a case–control study. Prenat Diagn 33:979–982

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Khalil A, Rodgers M, Baschat A, Bhide A, Gratacos E, Hecher K, Kilby MD, Lewi L, Nicolaides KH, Oepkes D, Raine-Fenning N, Reed K, Salomon LJ, Sotiriadis A, Thilaganathan B, Ville Y (2016) ISUOG practice guidelines: role of ultrasound in twin pregnancy. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 47:247–263

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Townsend R, Khalil A (2016) Twin pregnancy complicated by selective growth restriction. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol 28:485–491

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Khalil A, D’Antonio F, Dias T, Cooper D, Thilaganathan B (2014) Ultrasound estimation of birth weight in twin pregnancy: comparison of biometry algorithms in the STORK multiple pregnancy cohort. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 44:210–220

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Hoopmann M, Kagan KO, Yazdi B, Grischke EM, Abele H (2011) Prediction of birth weight discordance in twin pregnancies by second- and third- trimester ultrasound. Fetal Diagn Ther 30:29–34

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Reberdao MA, Martins L, Torgal M, Viana R, Seminova T, Casal E, Hermida M, Blickstein I (2010) The source of error in the estimation of intertwin birth weight discordance. J Perinat Med 38:671–674

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. Esinler D, Bircan O, Esin S, Sahin EG, Kandemir O, Yalvac S (2015) Finding the best formula to predict the fetal weight: comparison of 18 formulas. Gynecol Obstet Invest 80:78–84

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. Leombroni M, Liberati M, Fanfani F, Pagani G, Familiari A, Buca D, Manzoli L, Scambia G, Rizzo G, D’Antonio F (2017) Diagnostic accuracy of ultrasound in predicting birth-weight discordance in twin pregnancy: systematic review and meta-analysis. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 50:442–450

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  64. Kadji C, Bevilacqua E, Hurtado I, Carlin A, Cannie MM, Jani JC (2018) Comparison of conventional 2D ultrasound to magnetic resonance imaging for prenatal estimation of birthweight in twin pregnancy. Am J Obstet Gynecol. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2017.10.009

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  65. Gaziano EP, Gaziano C, Terrell CA, Hoekstra RE (2001) The cerebroplacental Doppler ratio and neonatal outcome in diamnionic monochorionic and dichorionic twins. J Matern Fetal Med 10:371–375

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  66. Chittacharoen A, Leelapattana P, Rangsiprakarn R (2000) Prediction of discordant twins by real-time ultrasonography combined with umbilical artery velocimetry. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 15:118–121

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  67. Queiros A, Blickstein I, Valdoleiros S, Felix N, Cohen A, Simoes T (2017) Prediction of birth weight discordance from fetal weight estimations at 21–24 weeks’ scans in monochorionic and dichorionic twins. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 30:1944–1947

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We acknowledge the contributions of the members of the Collaborative Group on Twin Birth and Fetal Abnormality in China (CGTBFA), including the Shengjing Hospital of China Medical University (Prof. Caixia Liu), Women’s Hospital School of Medicine Zhejiang University (Prof. Jing He), the Shanghai First Maternity and Infant Health Institute Affiliated to Tongji University (Prof. Tao Duan), the Third Hospital Affiliated to Guangzhou Medical University (Prof. Dunjin Chen), the Shandong Provincial Hospital to Shandong University(Prof. Xietong Wang), the First Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-sen University (Prof. Zilian Wang), the First Affiliated Hospital of Chongqing Medical University (Prof. Hongbo Qi), the Peking University First Hospital (Prof. HuixiaYang) and the Nanjing Drum Tower Hospital of Nanjing Medical University (Prof. Yali Hu).

Funding

This study was funded by Shanghai Medical Center of Key Programs for Female Reproductive Diseases (2017ZZ01016), National Key Research and Development Program of Reproductive Health & Major Birth Defects Control and Prevention (2016YFC1000403, 2016YFC1000403), and Shanghai Committee of Science and Technology (18411963400).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Obstetrics and Gynecology Hospital, Fudan University, 419 Fangxie Road, Shanghai, 200011, China

    Xinning Chen, Qiongjie Zhou, Xirong Xiao & Xiaotian Li

  2. Shanghai Key Laboratory of Female Reproductive Endocrine-Related Diseases, Shanghai, China

    Qiongjie Zhou & Xiaotian Li

  3. Women’s Health and Perinatology Research Group, Department of Clinical Medicine, UiT, The Arctic University of Norway, Tromsø, Norway

    Qiongjie Zhou

  4. Institute of Biomedical Sciences, Fudan University, Shanghai, China

    Xiaotian Li

Authors
  1. Xinning Chen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Qiongjie Zhou
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Xirong Xiao
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Xiaotian Li
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

XC: data collection, data analysis, manuscript writing. QZ: data collection, manuscript editing. XX: data management, manuscript editing. XL: project development, funding acquisition, data management, manuscript editing.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Xiaotian Li.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

We declare that we have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

This study obtained ethical approval from each institutional ethics committee of 10 collaborative hospitals (Obstetrics and Gynecology Hospital of Fudan University, First Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-sen University, First Affiliated Hospital of Chongqing Medical University, Gulou Clinical Medical College of Nanjing Medical University, Peking University First Hospital, Shandong Provincial Hospital of Shandong University, Shanghai First Maternity and Infant Health Institute Affiliated with Tongji University, Shengjing Hospital of China Medical University, Third Hospital Affiliated with GuangZhou Medical University, and Women’s Hospital School of Medicine at Zhejiang University). All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. Informed consent was obtained from all participants included in the study.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 25 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Chen, X., Zhou, Q., Xiao, X. et al. The value of ultrasound in predicting isolated inter-twin discordance and adverse perinatal outcomes. Arch Gynecol Obstet 299, 459–468 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-018-5002-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-018-5002-3

Keywords