Secondary Logo

Journal Logo

Review

Complications of Monochorionic Diamniotic Twins: Stepwise Approach for Early Identification, Differential Diagnosis, and Clinical Management

Micheletti, Talita1,2; Eixarch, Elisenda1,2,3; Bennasar, Mar1,2; Martinez, Josep María1,3; Gratacos, Eduard1,2,3,4,∗

Editor(s): Pan, Yang

Author Information
doi: 10.1097/FM9.0000000000000076
  • Open

Abstract

Introduction: monochorionic (MC) diamniotic twin pregnancy

MC twins occur in one in 250 pregnancies, about 20% of twin pregnancies and 70% of monozygotic twins.1,2 Monochorionicity accounts for a significant proportion of perinatal morbidity and mortality in twins.3–5 Perinatal mortality rate is around two to four times as compared with dichorionic (DC) twins and single pregnancies respectively.6 Neurological morbidity is four to five times higher than in DC pregnancies and consequently 25–30 times higher than in singletons. Overall one in three MC twins will have a complication during pregnancy.7,8

The main feature of MC, especially monochorionic diamniotic (MCDA) twins, is a shared placenta with interfetal anastomoses, leading to a situation of bidirectional blood exchange between the fetuses. Anastomoses can be arterio-arterial (AA), veno-venous, or arterio-venous (AV)9 and they are present in variable combinations in each case. Vascular connections are the basis for several complications that are unique to MC twins.10 Most of these complications are associated with high mortality and fetal therapy can improve the prognosis substantially.

Early diagnosis and management of MCDA twin complications is critical to improve the outcomes of these pregnancies. However, recognition of these complications can be challenging. MCDA pregnancies may often show clinical signs that are difficult to understand, and the overlapping of more than one complication in the same patient is not uncommon. In this paper we provide a general description of the main MCDA twin complications and describe a systematic approach for follow-up and evaluation of MCDA twins allowing timely recognition, adequate differential diagnosis, and targeted management.

Follow-up of uncomplicated MCDA twins

The main goal in the management of MCDA twins is detecting complications as soon as possible to offer fetal therapy or elective delivery. To this end, we can distinguish three main periods in pregnancy.

11–14 weeks: early diagnosis of chorionicity and major fetal anomalies

The first critical step in the management of MCDA twins is correct identification. Even if there are earlier signs for determination of chorionicity, the diagnosis is usually established at the 11–14 weeks scan. All twins must be classified as DC or MC, according to whether a “lambda” (DC) or a “T”(MCDA) sign is observed in the first trimester placental ultrasound (Fig. 1).11,12 Correct classification is critical because the protocol for follow-up is different in MCDA and DC twins. At the moment of diagnosis it is important to remember that the prevalence of major malformation is three to four times more frequent in MC twins (see below, MCDA twins discordant for malformation). Once the diagnosis of MCDA twins is established, a 2-week interval follow-up must be conducted for the remaining of gestation. Follow-up of MCDA pregnancies should ideally be performed at specialized units. Some authors have proposed the use of first trimester markers such as increased nuchal translucency, nuchal translucency or crown-rump length discrepancy, and abnormal ductus venosus to identify those cases at higher risk of suffering complication.13 However, when evaluated prospectively, none of these characteristics have sufficient efficacy to be used in clinical management.14

FIGURE 1
FIGURE 1:
First trimester diagnosis of chorionicity. A Monochorionic pregnancy. Long arrow shows the “T” sign. B Dichorionic pregnancy. Short arrow indicates the “lambda” sign.

15–29 weeks: detection of complications amenable by fetal therapy

The majority of the severe problems of MCDA twins appear within this gestational age timeframe. Among the various possible complications, the most feared due to its rapid evolution and high mortality is twin-to-twin transfusion syndrome (TTTS). Early detection of TTTS is the main reason for the need to follow-up MCDA twins at 2-week intervals. A 4-week interval may result in many cases detected too late to avoid fetal death of severe sequelae in the newborn. TTTS may appear a few days after a normal exam, but a 2-week interval will allow timely detection of most cases. The recommended protocol for follow-up of uncomplicated cases is described in Figure 2. Those cases presenting suspicion signs can be evaluated at closer intervals (see Diagnostic Algorithm below, Fig. 3) or referred to a fetal therapy center for consideration.

FIGURE 2
FIGURE 2:
Follow-up in uncomplicated monochorionic pregnancies. AC: Abdominal circumference; CRL: Crown-rump length; DV: Ductus venosus; MC: Monochorionic; MF: Malformation; MRI: Magnetic resonance imaging; NT: Nuchal translucency; sFGR: Selective intrauterine growth restriction; sIUFD: Single intrauterine fetal death; TAPS: Twin anemia polycythemia sequence; TTTS: Twin-to-twin transfusion syndrome; W: Weeks.
FIGURE 3
FIGURE 3:
Algorithm for differential diagnosis in monochorionic twins with apparent discrepancy in amniotic fluid or fetal size. AF: Amniotic fluid; DVP: Deepest vertical pocket of amniotic fluid; EFW: Estimated fetal weight; MCA: Middle cerebral artery; MoM: Multiple of the median; PSV: Peak systolic velocity; sFGR: Selective fetal growth restriction; TAPS: Twin anemia-polycythemia sequence; TTTS: Twin-to-twin transfusion syndrome.

30–36 weeks: detection of late complications and elective delivery at term

The risk of serious complications decreases with gestational age, but they may still occur and progress rapidly. Therefore, a 2-week follow-up scheme must continue until the end of gestation. The third trimester risk of intrauterine fetal death (IUFD) in uncomplicated MCDA twins seems to be very low15,16 but the consequences can be devastating. Consequently, there is consensus that elective delivery around 36–37 weeks is a reasonable approach.17–19

Main complications of MCDA twins

TTTS

TTTS occurs in 10%–15% of all MCDA twins.20,21 TTTS mainly occurs because at some point in pregnancy the bidirectional inter-twin flow becomes unbalanced.22 In most cases, TTTS is associated with the number and/or diameter of AV anastomoses from the donor to the recipient fetus.23 While the presence of AV anastomoses is the prerequisite for TTTS, other factors, including fetal weight discordance, relative placental growth, cord insertions or fetal cardiac defects may help triggering the disease in individual cases. TTTS is a severe hemodynamic disorder characterized by hypovolemia, oliguria and oligohydramnios in the donor, and hypervolemia, polyuria, and polyhydramnios in the recipient.24,25 Additionally, vasoactive molecules and sustained oliguria lead to hypertension and renal tubular damage in the donor, while transfer of these vasoactive molecules to the recipient is thought to produce hypertension and contribute further to hypertrophic cardiomyopathy.26–28 Irrespective of its complex pathophysiology, TTTS is invariably associated with remarkable changes in fetal diuresis that lead to very obvious differences in the amniotic fluid (AF) deepest pocket and the bladder size of each fetus.

There is a general consensus on the diagnostic criteria (Table 1), which are based on the differences in AF and bladder sizes as the key signs.29 Importantly, the diagnosis of TTTS does not include fetal weight or Doppler criteria. Once the diagnosis is established, TTTS can be staged in degrees of severity. The most widely used is the Quintero staging system (Table 1).30 It must be stressed that in a substantial number of cases, TTTS appears in combination with selective fetal growth restriction (sFGR). This does not change the management (see below Algorithm for diagnosis and management – Fig. 3) but association with sFGR may reduce survival in the small twin.

Table 1 - Diagnostic criteria and staging of severity in TTTS.29,30
Diagnostic criteria Severity staging
(1) Confirmed monochorionic pregnancy(2) Polyhydramnios in the recipient with a deepest vertical pocket of 8 cm or more(3) Oligohydramnios in the donor with a deepest vertical pocket <2 cm(4) Discordant fetal bladders with markedly enlarged bladder in the recipient and very small or non-visible bladder in the donor during most of the examination I The bladder is still visible in the donor twinII The bladder is no longer visible in the donorIII Critically abnormal Doppler in either twin: absent-reverse diastolic flow in the umbilical artery of the donor or recipient and/or absent/reverse flow in the DV or pulsatile flow in the UV of the recipientIV Hydrops in either fetusV Demise of one or both twins
DV: Ductus venosus; TTTS: Twin-to-twin transfusion syndrome; UV: Umbilical vein.
The cut-off above 20 weeks is still subject of debate. A cut-off of ≥10 cm beyond 20 weeks has been used in randomized trials and is commonly used by European groups, while a unique cut-off of 8 cm is more commonly used in the United States. Both cut-offs are considered to be acceptable for the diagnosis.

TTTS is always a severe condition. If left untreated, pregnancy loss rate is 100% when diagnosed before 20 weeks, and more than 80% between 21 and 26 weeks. The rate of severe sequelae in survivors may be as high as 80%. TTTS may progress abruptly and even lead to fetal death in very early stages.31 Consequently, fetal therapy must be offered as soon as possible. The treatment of choice between 15 and 28 weeks is fetoscopic laser coagulation of placental anastomosis. Some centers treat until 30 weeks. Laser therapy reverts the manifestations of the syndrome and results in overall survival rates of 80%–90% for at least one fetus.32–35 In cases where laser is not possible, amniodrainage is a second line palliative therapy to prolong pregnancy and improve survival (at least one fetus in 50%–60% of cases),32,36 at the cost of a much higher rate of neurological handicap (29%–35% vs. 11%–16% with laser).37,38

Laser in TTTS stage I has been questioned by some groups.39 However, the criteria for the definition of TTTS stage I may change in different countries (see Table 1 with diagnostic criteria), and consequently some classifications include as TTTS I cases that for others are just discordant AF.32,40 This may explain that in some series up to10% of TTTS stage I may complicate with fetal demise before therapy.31,41 Therefore, it is highly advisable that in the presence of a suspicion TTTS, even if it looks as stage I, the case be always referred as soon as possible to a fetal therapy center for detailed evaluation. A randomized trial comparing conservative management and laser surgery for TTTS stage I is underway (https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01220011).

Twin anemia polycythemia sequence (TAPS)

TAPS presents in two clinical forms, spontaneously or after laser therapy for TTTS. Spontaneous TAPS occurs in 3%–5% of MCDA twins, normally during the third trimester.42 TAPS is a form of inter-twin unbalanced transfusion, however, occurring in a placenta where interfetal anastomoses are very small. Thus, there is discordant AV interfetal flow, but the difference with TTTS is that in TAPS the magnitude is much smaller.43 Chronic subtle transfusion in TAPS leads to a hematological disorder, that is, anemia-polycythemia, but the severe hemodynamic fetal imbalance of TTTS does not occur. When occurring after laser, TAPS is the result of an incomplete coagulation leaving one or two very small placental vessels. This may occur in 0.5%–6% of cases, depending on definitions, laser technique, and center experience.44,45

TAPS can be diagnosed with fetal or with neonatal criteria. Fetal criteria rely in the evaluation of middle cerebral artery Doppler, since normally there are no other manifestations.44,46,47 This complication must be actively searched either in non-complicated MCDA twins from 15 weeks onwards, especially during the third trimester and in TTTS cases after laser therapy. Neonatal diagnostic criteria are based on the presence of severe hemoglobin and reticulocyte discordance.43,48 The use of reticulocyte count is important to distinguish TAPS from acute feto-fetal transfusion during delivery, which may occur in 1.8%–5.5%49 and present low level of reticulocyte. Spontaneous TAPS is diagnosed neonatally in a remarkable proportion of cases TAPS. Controversies exist,50–52 but there is expert consensus in the prenatal and postnatal diagnostic criteria,52 summarized in Table 2.

Table 2 - Diagnostic criteria for TAPS.52
Period Diagnostic criteria
Prenatal MCA-PSV ≥1.50 MoM in the anemic and MCA-PSV ≤0.8 MoM in the fetus with polycythemia OR Delta MCA-PSV ≥1.0 MoM
Postnatal Inter-twin hemoglobin difference ≥8.0 g/dL and Inter-twin reticulocyte count ratio (anemic/fetus with polycythemia) ≥1.7
MCA-PSV: Middle cerebral artery peak systolic velocity as measured with spectral Doppler; MoM: Multiple of the Median; TAPS: Twin anemia polycythemia sequence.

The prognosis in spontaneous cases of TAPS is normally good and most cases can be managed expectantly.53 However, anecdotal cases of death of the co-twin have been reported.54,55 TAPS after laser for TTTS is usually more aggressive and requires therapy. Therapy for TAPS is indicated if middle cerebral artery Doppler discordance progresses rapidly or pre-hydropic signs are observed in the donor. The only causative treatment is laser therapy. However, in post-laser cases, this option can be difficult sometimes,56 and repeat transfusions to the donor often achieve good outcomes.57

Acute feto-fetal transfusion by single intrauterine fetal death (sIUFD) and other causes

Acute feto-fetal transfusion in MC twins can occur during pregnancy or during delivery. Regarding delivery, this has been long described in MC twins. It may occur between delivery of one fetus and the other, and it normally carries a good prognosis.58

However, when acute feto-fetal transfusion occurs during pregnancy the consequences can be devastating. The characteristic clinical scenario facilitating this complication is sIUFD.59 The surviving twin may suffer a massive exsanguination into the circulation of the dying fetus, which is associated with a reported 18%–34%59–61 of brain injury, especially if the death occurs beyond 28 weeks,59 and about 15% of spontaneous co-twin death,60 with greater risk before 28 weeks.62 In addition, there is an increased risk of preterm birth with higher incidence in pregnancies complicated by TTTS.62 The risk of these complications after sIUFD depends on the size of vascular anastomoses and feto-placental mass of the demised twin,10 and, therefore, it is largely unpredictable.

Single fetal death may occur unexpectedly in approximately 1%–1.5% of uncomplicated MCDA twins, and this is the main reason to recommend elective delivery between 36 and 37 weeks.17,63–64 However, the majority of cases of sIUFD occur in pregnancies complicated with TTTS and sFGR. The risk of brain injury is lower if sIUFD occurs in the first half of gestation or before 28 weeks.59 Irrespective of the gestational age, the management is based on evaluating the presence of neurological damage in the survivor, preferably by dedicated neurosonography combined with fetal brain MRI around 30 weeks and ideally not before 3 weeks post-sIUFD.59,65–67

Acute feto-fetal transfusion may also occur when both fetuses are alive. A well-characterized situation for this is sFGR, as discussed in the next section. Aside from sFGR, a proportion of apparently uncomplicated MCDA twins present neurological handicap during childhood,8,68,69 and this is thought to be explained to acute feto-fetal transfusion accidents during pregnancy.

sFGR in MCDA twins

Early sFGR affects 10% of MCDA twins, with a similar frequency as observed in DC twins.70,71 An expert consensus study proposed for the diagnosis an estimated fetal weight (EFW) in one twin <3rd centile as a single criterion, or the presence of at least three of the following: EFW of one twin <10th centile,71 abdominal circumference of one twin <10th centile, EFW discordance of ≥25%, umbilical artery pulsatility index of the smaller twin >95th centile.72 Selective FGR in MCDA twins is mainly caused by a discordance in placental territories.73 However, the existence of interfetal anastomoses74 strongly interferes with the natural history of fetal growth restriction as compared with singletons or DC twins. Vascular connections and interfetal blood flow benefit the FGR fetus but may create hemodynamic imbalances that pose risks to both twins. The magnitude of blood flow interchange depends on the number and type of anastomoses. From a clinical point of view, sFGR behave according to one of three major patterns, that can be distinguished by Doppler umbilical flow in the FGR fetus (Table 3).75

Table 3 - Type of sFGR in MCDA twins according to the characteristics of umbilical artery Doppler in the small twin and main clinical features of each type.75
Type Clinical features
Type INormal Doppler (positive diastolic flow) (1) Low risk of poor outcome(2) Smaller degree of weight discordance(3) Very low risk of IUFD and co-twin brain damage(4) GA at delivery normally >34 weeks (good evolution of FGR)
Type IIPersistent AREDF (1) High risk of poor outcome(2) Doppler evolution predictable in most cases: hypoxic deterioration and IUFD of FGR(3) Very low risk of brain injury of normal co-twin(4) Mean GA at delivery 29 weeks (deterioration of FGR)
Type IIIIntermittent AREDF (1) High risk of poor outcome(2) Doppler evolution usually non-predictable: low risk of hypoxic deterioration but 10%–15% risk of unexpected IUFD of FGR(3) 10%-15% risk of brain injury in normal co-twin(4) FGR commonly survives until 32 weeks and beyond
AREDF: Absent/reverse end-diastolic flow; FGR: Fetal growth restriction; GA: Gestational age; IUFD: Intrauterine fetal death; MCDA: Monochorionic diamniotic; sFGR: Selective fetal growth restriction.

As a whole, both sFGR type II and III are at high risk of very-preterm delivery, IUFD, and neurological sequelae.76,77 Type II follows a more “predictable” course, where the small twin progressively deteriorates as shown by Doppler, while type III shows an apparently benign evolution and the smaller twin rarely deteriorates.78,79 However, an intermittent absent/reverse end diastolic flow is associated with a risk of unpredictable fetal demise of the FGR in around 15% of cases. There is also risk of brain damage of the normally grown fetus, even when both fetuses are born alive, affecting as many as 15%–30% of cases.76,79 This thought to be explained by the existence of large AA placental anastomoses, which cause also the intermittent diastolic flow in these pregnancies. AA vessels allow a large amount of blood flow interchange, helping the FGR twin to survive but increasing the risk of acute interfetal transfusion an exsanguination if the FGR twin suffers hypotension or bradycardia.

The main two differences of sFGR with respect to TTTS is that (1) it is not an emergency situation and (2) there is more than one management option. In general, sFGR type I has a good prognosis and expectant management until 34 to 35 weeks seems reasonable.80,81 Type II and III are associated with a poor prognosis, and the clinical decisions are more difficult. The main options are expectant management, cord occlusion or laser therapy. In general, they can be offered as options to protect intact survival of the larger twin and prolong the duration of pregnancy.

In sFGR type II managed expectantly, cases with normal venous Doppler can be monitored weekly, while closer follow-up every 1–2 days is recommended when ductus venosus pulsatility index becomes >95th centile. Fetal therapy can be offered in severe cases with early diagnosis (<24 weeks’ gestation) with signs of imminent fetal demise.82 Cord occlusion has elevated survival rates of the normal fetus >90%, with delivery around 36 weeks,83 while laser has been associated with approximately 40% survival of FGR and 70% survival of the normal fetus, with delivery in average gestation at 32 weeks.84 In sFGR type III, weekly follow-up seems reasonable. If fetal therapy is considered, cord occlusion is a straightforward treatment for very early or extreme cases. Laser coagulation is also feasible, but it can be technically challenging due to close cord insertions and the large size of the AA vessel.80 Fetal demise after laser can occur in 60%–80% in the FGR, and in up to 15%–30% in the normal twin.74

Late sFGR may be detected in the third trimester in about 5% of cases of MCDA twins. Late sFGR in MCDA twins is normally a much more benign condition with generally a good prognosis (Fig. 4).85

FIGURE 4
FIGURE 4:
Decision tree for counseling in sFGR. DV: Ductus venosus; EFW: Estimated fetal weight; GA: Gestational age; PI: Pulsatility index; REDF: Reverse end diastolic flow; sFGR: Selective fetal growth restriction; TTTS: Twin-to-twin transfusion syndrome; UA: Umbilical artery; W: Weeks.

Stepwise algorithm for the differential diagnosis between MCDA twin complications

The differential diagnosis between the complications of MCDA twins has been a historic source of confusion, especially because a substantial number of the early series, particularly those dealing with TTTS, were likely to merge cases of TTTS and sFGR according to current criteria. This may justify remarkable differences in clinical behavior and outcomes that can be found in the literature.

From a clinical point of view, difficulties in the differentiation between TTTS and sFGR may remain in specific cases. In addition, situations of “high-risk-but-nothing-for-the-moment” can also be challenge. Indeed, on the follow-up of MCDA twins it is relatively common to find cases with subjective differences in AF or fetal size, but with intermediate or overlapping features. A systematic approach is key to correct classification and the adequate decision in this case. Briefly, once structurally normal fetuses are confirmed, four complication scenarios remain: TTTS, sFGR, TAPS, and non-specific AF or EFW discordance. A structured algorithm will lead to accurate classification and adequate management in virtually all cases. We use a sequence of questions, the order of which is determined by the importance and urgency of treatment86 (Fig. 3). The first entity to rule out is always TTTS, since the prognosis is invariably poor and urgent treatment is mandatory. If TTTS is diagnosed, co-existence or not with sFGR is irrelevant; it does not change the need of urgent laser therapy. The second and third questions determine whether there is sFGR and TAPS. The order of questions 2 and 3 is not so relevant, although in real practice TAPS is extremely rare during the second trimester.

Finally, if all these conditions are excluded, we are left with discordances that do not meet any diagnostic criteria. These cases are normally referred in the literature as “discordant for amniotic fluid”, although it is common that some degree of fetal weight discordance also coexists. We recommend describing exactly the observations in the report, with a clear remark that “currently diagnostic criteria for TTTS (or sFGR) are not met”. Discordant AFs represent a specific situation by itself and requires a stricter follow-up, because the risk of developing any complication over time, either TTTS or sFGR, has been reported to be nearly 50%.87 A weekly follow-up, or closer if the suspicion is high, should allow timely treatment if required in most cases. Obviously, there will remain a higher risk of unexpected rapid evolution and/or fetal demise, and this should be made clear during counseling. However, parents must be reassured that this risk is in principle much lower than that of invasive therapy and that in 50% of cases there will be a normal evolution and outcome. Therefore according to current evidence discordant AF should never be treated.

MCDA twins discordant for fetal defects

Discordant fetal anomaly is another characteristic and relatively common complication of MCDA twins. Fetal structural abnormalities affect up to 3% of cases, three times higher as compared with DC or singletons,88 and occur in only one twin in more than 80% of the instances.89,90 Most commonly, discordant malformations involve nervous and circulatory systems.91 Much more rarely MC twins can be discordant for fetal karyotypes.92,93

One particularly common discordant anomaly (up to 1% of MC twins) is the presence of an acardiac fetus, which survives thanks to twin reverse arterial perfusion sequence (TRAP).94,95 While many cases may progress well until the third trimester, pregnancy loss may be as high as 50% due cardiac failure of the normal twin, also called “pump twin”, and complications related with polyhydramnios.96 The survival rates with cord occlusion range 80%–90%.97 Similar survival rate (92%) has recently been reported after early interstitial laser coagulation of TRAP fetuses,98 but the results from the TRAP Intervention STudy, a multicenter, open-label, randomized controlled trial, are expected to provide evidence for or against the benefit of early (12–14 weeks’ gestation) vs. late (16–19 weeks) intervention in such pregnancies (https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02621645).

The number of cases in which the discordant malformation is associated with a high risk of intrauterine death of the affected twin is small. However, there is also the problem of parents’ anxiety of carrying a fetus with a serious malformation. Obviously, selective feticide by any technique will threaten the whole pregnancy and consequently survival of the structurally normal fetus. In spite of these risks, a proportion of parents will request selective interruption of pregnancy where legally available. Cord occlusion by means of laser or bipolar coagulation is the option of choice for most of these cases. Radiofrequency is also an option,99,100 especially in TRAP pregnancies, but success rate may be compromised in advanced gestations.101 Regardless of the technique used, survival rates in experienced hands for selective feticide in MCDA twins range 80%–90%.82 While these figures may suggest a high rate of pregnancy loss, the cumulative rate of fetal loss or pre-viable preterm birth has been reported to be in the range of 10%–15% in DC twins undergoing selective reduction.102

Conclusions

Adequate management of MCDA twins can be accomplished by means of an integrated view of the main groups of complications, and should be guided by very basic principles. The complexity and the uncountable number of combined complications that MCDA twin pregnancies can present may often blur clinical decisions in a way that such basic principles are forgotten. Even though exceptional highly difficult cases may need individualization, our simplified (but clinically useful) approach for MCDA pregnancies (Fig. 5) based in the obvious principles of early diagnosis, proper follow-up, and timely intervention covers the great majority of cases. Moreover, while it may seem too simplistic considering the vast knowledge behind MC twin pregnancy, our clinical experience of more than 20 years demonstrates that, still today, the cases of poor or suboptimal management derive from failure to comply with one or more of this basic set of principles.

FIGURE 5
FIGURE 5:
Basic principles for the management of MCDA twins. AF: Amniotic fluid; EFW: Estimated fetal weight; MCDA: Monochorionic diamniotic; sFGR: Selective fetal growth restriction; TTTS: Twin-to-twin transfusion syndrome.

Funding

None.

Conflicts of Interest

None.

REFERENCES

[1]. Lewi L, Gucciardo L, Van Mieghem T, et al. Monochorionic diamniotic twin pregnancies: natural history and risk stratification. Fetal Diagn Ther 2010;27(3):121–133. doi:10.1159/000313300.
[2]. Tchirikov M. Monochorionic twin pregnancy: screening, pathogenesis of complications and management in the era of microinvasive fetal surgery. J Perinat Med 2010;38(5):451–459. doi:10.1515/jpm.2010.069.
[3]. Oldenburg A, Rode L, B⊘dker B, et al. Influence of chorionicity on perinatal outcome in a large cohort of Danish twin pregnancies. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2012;39(1):69–74. doi:10.1002/uog.10057.
[4]. Morikawa M, Yamada T, Yamada T, et al. Prospective risk of stillbirth: monochorionic diamniotic twins vs. dichorionic twins. J Perinat Med 2012;40(3):245–249. doi:10.1515/jpm-2011-0205.
[5]. Nakayama S, Ishii K, Kawaguchi H, et al. Perinatal outcome of monochorionic diamniotic twin pregnancies managed from early gestation at a single center. J Obstet Gynaecol Res 2012;38(4):692–697. doi:10.1111/j.1447-0756.2011.01759.x.
[6]. Lewi L, Van Schoubroeck D, Gratacós E, et al. Monochorionic diamniotic twins: complications and management options. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol 2003;15(2):177–194. doi:10.1097/00001703-200304000-00013.
[7]. Acosta-Rojas R, Becker J, Munoz-Abellana B, et al. Twin chorionicity and the risk of adverse perinatal outcome. Int J Gynecol Obstet 2007;96(2):98–102. doi:10.1016/j.ijgo.2006.11.002.
[8]. 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(5):494.e1–494.e8. doi:10.1016/j.ajog.2009.01.048.
[9]. 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(2):417–426. doi:10.1016/S0002-9378(00)70233-X.
[10]. Lewi L, Deprest J, Hecher K. The vascular anastomoses in monochorionic twin pregnancies and their clinical consequences. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2013;208(1):19–30. doi:10.1016/j.ajog.2012.09.025.
[11]. Carroll SGM, Soothill PW, Abdel-Fattah SA, et al. Prediction of chorionicity in twin pregnancies at 10-14 weeks of gestation. BJOG 2002;109(2):182–186. doi:10.1111/j.1471-0528.2002.01172.x.
[12]. Dias T, Arcangeli T, Bhide A, et al. First-trimester ultrasound determination of chorionicity in twin pregnancy. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2011;38(5):530–532. doi:10.1002/uog.8956.
[13]. Stagnati V, Zanardini C, Fichera A, et al. Early prediction of twin-to-twin transfusion syndrome: systematic review and meta-analysis. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2017;49(5):573–582. doi:10.1002/uog.15989.
[14]. Mogra R, Saaid R, Tooher J, et al. Prospective validation of first-trimester ultrasound characteristics as predictive tools for twin-twin transfusion syndrome and selective intrauterine growth restriction in monochorionic diamniotic twin pregnancies. Fetal Diagn Ther 2020;47(4):321–327. doi:10.1159/000504049.
[15]. Southwest Thames Obstetrics Research Collaborative (STORK). Prospective risk of late stillbirth in monochorionic twins: a regional cohort study. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2012;39(5):500–504. doi:10.1002/uog.11110.
[16]. Hack KEA, Derks JB, Elias SG, et al. Perinatal mortality and mode of delivery in monochorionic diamniotic twin pregnancies ≥32 weeks of gestation: a multicentre retrospective cohort study. BJOG 2011;118(9):1090–1097. doi:10.1111/j.1471-0528.2011.02955.x.
[17]. Breathnach FM, McAuliffe FM, Geary M, et al. Optimum timing for planned delivery of uncomplicated monochorionic and dichorionic twin pregnancies. Obstet Gynecol 2012;119(1):50–59. doi:10.1097/AOG.0b013e31823d7b06.
[18]. 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. doi:10.1111/j.1471-0528.2007.01556.x.
[19]. Robinson BK, Miller RS, D’Alton ME, et al. Effectiveness of timing strategies for delivery of monochorionic diamniotic twins. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2012;207(1):53.e1–53.e7. doi:10.1016/j.ajog.2012.04.007.
[20]. Stirnemann JJ, Mougeot M, Proulx F, et al. Profiling fetal cardiac function in twin-twin transfusion syndrome. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2010;35(1):19–27. doi:10.1002/uog.7488.
[21]. Ville Y. Twin-to-twin transfusion syndrome: time to forget the Quintero staging system? Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2007;30(7):924–927. doi:10.1002/uog.5221.
[22]. Bermúdez C, Becerra CH, Bornick PW, et al. Placental types and twin-twin transfusion syndrome. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2002;187(2):489–494. doi:10.1067/mob.2002.124280.
[23]. Quintero RA, Martínez JM, López J, et al. Individual placental territories after selective laser photocoagulation of communicating vessels in twin-twin transfusion syndrome. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2005;192(4):1112–1118. doi:10.1016/j.ajog.2004.12.018.
[24]. Van Mieghem T, Lewi L, Gucciardo L, et al. The fetal heart in twin-to-twin transfusion syndrome. Int J Pediatr 2010;2010:379792. doi:10.1155/2010/379792.
[25]. Habli M, Michelfelder E, Livingston J, et al. Acute effects of selective fetoscopic laser photocoagulation on recipient cardiac function in twin-twin transfusion syndrome. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2008;199(4):412.e1–412.e6. doi:10.1016/j.ajog.2008.06.067.
[26]. Mercanti I, Boivin A, Wo B, et al. Blood pressures in newborns with twin–twin transfusion syndrome. J Perinatol 2011;31(6):417–424. doi:10.1038/jp.2010.141.
[27]. Van Mieghem T, Doné E, Gucciardo L, et al. Amniotic fluid markers of fetal cardiac dysfunction in twin-to-twin transfusion syndrome. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2010;202(1):48.e1–48.e7. doi:10.1016/j.ajog.2009.08.013.
[28]. Van Mieghem T, Klaritsch P, Doné E, et al. Assessment of fetal cardiac function before and after therapy for twin-to-twin transfusion syndrome. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2009;200(4):400.e1–400.e7. doi:10.1016/j.ajog.2009.01.051.
[29]. Baschat A, Chmait RH, et al. WAPM Consensus Group on Twin-to-Twin Transfusion. Twin-to-twin transfusion syndrome (TTTS). J Perinat Med 2011;39(2):107–112. doi:10.1515/jpm.2010.147.
[30]. Quintero RA, Morales WJ, Allen MH, et al. Staging of twin-twin transfusion syndrome. J Perinatol 1999;19(8 Pt 1):550–555. doi:10.1038/sj.jp.7200292.
[31]. O’Donoghue K, Cartwright E, Galea P, et al. Stage I twin–twin transfusion syndrome: rates of progression and regression in relation to outcome. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2007;30(7):958–964. doi:10.1002/uog.5189.
[32]. Senat M-V, Deprest J, Boulvain M, et al. Endoscopic laser surgery versus serial amnioreduction for severe twin-to-twin transfusion syndrome. N Engl J Med 2004;351(2):136–144. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa032597.
[33]. Lewi L, Jani J, Blickstein I, 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(5):514.e1–514.e8. doi:10.1016/j.ajog.2008.03.050.
[34]. Rossi AC, D’Addario V. Laser therapy and serial amnioreduction as treatment for twin-twin transfusion syndrome: a metaanalysis and review of literature. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2008;198(2):147–152. doi:10.1016/j.ajog.2007.09.043.
[35]. Roberts D, Gates S, Kilby M, et al. Interventions for twin–twin transfusion syndrome: a Cochrane review. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2008;31(6):701–711. doi:10.1002/uog.5328.
[36]. Hecher K, Plath H, Bregenzer T, et al. Endoscopic laser surgery versus serial amniocenteses in the treatment of severe twin-twin transfusion syndrome. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1999;180(3 Pt 1):717–724. doi:10.1016/S0002-9378(99)70278-4.
[37]. Maschke C, Diemert A, Hecher K, et al. Long-term outcome after intrauterine laser treatment for twin-twin transfusion syndrome. Prenat Diagn 2011;31(7):647–653. doi:10.1002/pd.2797.
[38]. Rossi AC, Vanderbilt D, Chmait RH. Neurodevelopmental outcomes after laser therapy for twin–twin transfusion syndrome. Obstet Gynecol 2011;118(5):1145–1150. doi:10.1097/AOG.0b013e318231827f.
[39]. Molina S, Papanna R, Moise KJ, et al. Management of Stage I twin-to-twin transfusion syndrome: an international survey. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2010;36(1):42–47. doi:10.1002/uog.7566.
[40]. Bebbington MW, Tiblad E, Huesler-Charles M, et al. Outcomes in a cohort of patients with Stage I twin-to-twin transfusion syndrome. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2010;36(1):48–51. doi:10.1002/uog.7612.
[41]. Emery SP, Hasley SK, Catov JM, et al. North American Fetal Therapy Network: intervention vs expectant management for stage I twin-twin transfusion syndrome. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2016;215(3):346.e1–346.e7. doi:10.1016/j.ajog.2016.04.024.
[42]. Lopriore E, Deprest J, Slaghekke F, et al. Placental characteristics in monochorionic twins with and without twin anemia–polycythemia sequence. Obstet Gynecol 2008;112(4):753–758. doi:10.1097/AOG.0b013e318187e1ff.
[43]. 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):181–190. doi:10.1159/000304512.
[44]. Robyr R, Lewi L, Salomon LJ, et al. Prevalence and management of late fetal complications following successful selective laser coagulation of chorionic plate anastomoses in twin-to-twin transfusion syndrome. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2006;194(3):796–803. doi:10.1016/j.ajog.2005.08.069.
[45]. Weingertner AS, Kohler A, Kohler M, et al. Clinical and placental characteristics in four new cases of twin anemia-polycythemia sequence. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2010;35(4):490–494. doi:10.1002/uog.7508.
[46]. Gucciardo L, Lewi L, Vaast P, et al. Twin anemia polycythemia sequence from a prenatal perspective. Prenat Diagn 2010;30(5):438–442. doi:10.1002/pd.2491.
[47]. Klaritsch P, Deprest J, Van Mieghem T, et al. Reference ranges for middle cerebral artery peak systolic velocity in monochorionic diamniotic twins: a longitudinal study. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2009;34(2):149–154. doi:10.1002/uog.6436.
[48]. Lopriore E, Slaghekke F, Oepkes D, et al. Hematological characteristics in neonates with twin anemia-polycythemia sequence (TAPS). Prenat Diagn 2010;30(3):251–255. doi:10.1002/pd.2453.
[49]. Skupski DW, Sylvestre G, Di Renzo GC, et al. Acute twin-twin transfusion syndrome in labor: pathophysiology and associated factors. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 2012;25(5):456–460. doi:10.3109/14767058.2011.637146.
[50]. Tollenaar LSA, Slaghekke F, Middeldorp JM, et al. Twin anemia polycythemia sequence: current views on pathogenesis, diagnostic criteria, perinatal management, and outcome. Twin Res Hum Genet 2016;19(3):222–233. doi:10.1017/thg.2016.18.
[51]. Tollenaar LSA, Lopriore E, Middeldorp JM, et al. Improved prediction of twin anemia–polycythemia sequence by delta middle cerebral artery peak systolic velocity: new antenatal classification system. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2019;53(6):788–793. doi:10.1002/uog.20096.
[52]. Khalil A, Gordijn S, Ganzevoort W, et al. Consensus diagnostic criteria and monitoring of twin anemia polycythemia sequence: a Delphi procedure. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2020;56(3):388–394. doi:10.1002/uog.21882.
[53]. Lopriore E, Slaghekke F, Oepkes D, et al. Clinical outcome in neonates with twin anemia-polycythemia sequence. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2010;203(1):54.e1–54.e5. doi:10.1016/j.ajog.2010.02.032.
[54]. Sherer DM, Sinkin RA, Metlay LA, et al. Acute intrapartum twin-twin transfusion. A case report. J Reprod Med 1992;37(2):184–186.
[55]. Uotila J, Tammela O. Acute intrapartum fetoplacental transfusion in monochorionic twin pregnancy. Obstet Gynecol 1999;94(5 Pt 2):819–821. doi:10.1016/S0029-7844(99)00441-X.
[56]. Groussolles M, Sartor A, Connan L, et al. Evolution of middle cerebral artery peak systolic velocity after a successful laser procedure for iatrogenic twin anemia-polycythemia sequence. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2012;39(3):354–356. doi:10.1002/uog.8999.
[57]. Herway C, Johnson A, Moise K, et al. Fetal intraperitoneal transfusion for iatrogenic twin anemia-polycythemia sequence after laser therapy. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2009;33(5):592–594. doi:10.1002/uog.6334.
[58]. Lopriore E, Holtkamp N, Sueters M, et al. Acute peripartum twin-twin transfusion syndrome: incidence, risk factors, placental characteristics and neonatal outcome. J Obstet Gynaecol Res 2014;40(1):18–24. doi:10.1111/jog.12114.
[59]. Machie FL, Morris RK, Kilby MD. Fetal brain injury in survivors of twin pregnancies complicated by demise of one twin: a review. Twin Res Hum Genet 2016;19(3):262–267. doi:10.1017/thg.2016.39.
[60]. Hillman SC, Morris RK, Kilby MD. Co-twin prognosis after single fetal death: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Obstet Gynecol 2011;118(4):928–940. doi:10.1097/AOG.0b013e31822f129d.
[61]. Ong S, Zamora J, Khan K, et al. Prognosis for the co-twin following single-twin death: a systematic review. BJOG 2006;113(9):992–998. doi:10.1111/j.1471-0528.2006.01027.x.
[62]. Mackie F, Rigby A, Morris R, et al. Prognosis of the co-twin following spontaneous single intrauterine fetal death in twin pregnancies: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BJOG 2018;126(5):569–578. doi:10.1111/1471-0528.15530.
[63]. Danon D, Sekar R, Hack KEA, et al. Increased stillbirth in uncomplicated monochorionic twin pregnancies: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Obstet Gynecol 2013;121(6):1318–1326. doi:10.1097/AOG.0b013e318292766b.
[64]. 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. Published 2016 Sep 6. doi:10.1136/bmj.i4353.
[65]. Simonazzi G, Segata M, Ghi T, et al. Accurate neurosonographic prediction of brain injury in the surviving fetus after the death of a monochorionic cotwin. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2006;27(5):517–521. doi:10.1002/uog.2701.
[66]. Peguero A, Eixarch E, Rilo A, et al. OP15.05 - prevalence of neurosonography abnormalities after fetoscopy treatment in complicated monochorionic twin pregnancies. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol Gynecol 2012;40(Suppl. 1):100. doi:10.1002/uog.11533.
[67]. Stirnemann J, Chalouhi G, Essaoui M, et al. Fetal brain imaging following laser surgery in twin-to-twin surgery. BJOG 2018;125(9):1186–1191. doi:10.1111/1471-0528.14162.
[68]. Sierakowski A, Eapen V, Črnčec R, et al. Developmental and behavioral outcomes of uncomplicated monochorionic diamniotic twins born in the third trimester. Neuropsychiatr Dis Treat 2017;13:1373–1384. Published 2017 May 19. doi:10.2147/NDT.S122739.
[69]. Hecher K, Gardiner HM, Diemert A, et al. Long-term outcomes for monochorionic twins after laser therapy in twin-to-twin transfusion syndrome. Lancet Child Adolesc Heal 2018;2(7):525–535. doi:10.1016/S2352-4642(18)30127-5.
[70]. 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(7):977–982. doi:10.1002/uog.5166.
[71]. Valsky DV, Eixarch E, Martinez JM, et al. Selective intrauterine growth restriction in monochorionic diamniotic twin pregnancies. Prenat Diagn 2010;30(8):719–726. doi:10.1002/pd.2536.
[72]. Khalil A, Beune I, Hecher 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(1):47–54. doi:10.1002/uog.19013.
[73]. Chang Y-L, Chang S-D, Chao A-S, 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(3):253–256. doi:10.1002/pd.2193.
[74]. 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(6):342–348. doi:10.1016/j.siny.2010.07.002.
[75]. 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. doi:10.1002/uog.4046.
[76]. 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(3):157–161. doi:10.1159/000253880.
[77]. 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(2):159–163. doi:10.1002/uog.1105.
[78]. Hecher K, Jauniaux E, Campbell S, et al. Artery-to-artery anastomosis in monochorionic twins. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1994;171(2):570–572. doi:10.1016/0002-9378(94)90308-5.
[79]. 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(7):772–778. doi:10.1016/S0143-4004(03)00114-0.
[80]. Bennasar M, Eixarch E, Martinez JM, et al. Selective intrauterine growth restriction in monochorionic diamniotic twin pregnancies. Semin Fetal Neonatal Med 2017;22(6):376–382. doi:10.1016/j.siny.2017.05.001.
[81]. Khalil A, Rodgers M, Baschat A, et al. ISUOG practice guidelines: role of ultrasound in twin pregnancy. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2016;47(2):247–263. doi:10.1002/uog.15821.
[82]. Lewi L, Gratacos E, Ortibus E, et al. Pregnancy and infant outcome of 80 consecutive cord coagulations in complicated monochorionic multiple pregnancies. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2006;194(3):782–789. doi:10.1016/j.ajog.2005.09.013.
[83]. 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(3):186–191. doi:10.1159/000439023.
[84]. 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(2):86–93. doi:10.1159/000374109.
[85]. 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(5):511.e1–511.e7. doi:10.1016/j.ajog.2008.04.022.
[86]. 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(3):145–155. doi:10.1159/000342751.
[87]. Van Mieghem T, Eixarch E, Gucciardo L, et al. Outcome prediction in monochorionic diamniotic twin pregnancies with moderately discordant amniotic fluid. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2011;37(1):15–21. doi:10.1002/uog.8802.
[88]. Rustico MA, Baietti MG, Coviello D, et al. Managing twins discordant for fetal anomaly. Prenat Diagn 2005;25(9):766–771. doi:10.1002/pd.1260.
[89]. Gul A, Cebeci A, Aslan H, et al. Perinatal outcomes of twin pregnancies discordant for major fetal anomalies. Fetal Diagn Ther 2005;20(4):244–248. doi:10.1159/000085078.
[90]. Weber MA, Sebire NJ. Genetics and developmental pathology of twinning. Semin Fetal Neonatal Med 2010;15(6):313–318. doi:10.1016/j.siny.2010.06.002.
[91]. Rustico MA, Lanna M, Faiola S, et al. Major discordant structural anomalies in monochorionic twins: spectrum and outcomes. Twin Res Hum Genet 2018;21(6):546–555. doi:10.1017/thg.2018.58.
[92]. Nieuwint A, Van Zalen-Sprock R, Hummel P, et al. ‘Identical’ twins with discordant karyotypes. Prenat Diagn 1999;19(1):72–76. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1097-0223(199901)19:1<72::AID-PD465>3.0.CO;2-V.
[93]. Lewi L, Blickstein I, Van Schoubroeck D, et al. Diagnosis and management of heterokaryotypic monochorionic twins. Am J Med Genet A 2006;140(3):272–275. doi:10.1002/ajmg.a.31052.
[94]. Hartge DR, Weichert J. Prenatal diagnosis and outcome of multiple pregnancies with reversed arterial perfusion (TRAP-sequence). Arch Gynecol Obstet 2012;286(1):81–88. doi:10.1007/s00404-012-2283-9.
[95]. S⊘gaard K, Skibsted L, Brocks V. Acardiac twins: pathophysiology, diagnosis, outcome and treatment. Fetal Diagn Ther 1999;14(1):53–59. doi:10.1159/000020889.
[96]. Lewi L, Valencia C, Gonzalez E, et al. The outcome of twin reversed arterial perfusion sequence diagnosed in the first trimester. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2010;203(3):213.e1–213.e4. doi:10.1016/j.ajog.2010.04.018.
[97]. Valsky DV, Martinez-Serrano M-J, Sanz M, et al. Cord occlusion followed by laser cord transection in monochorionic monoamniotic discordant twins. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2011;37(6):684–688. doi:10.1002/uog.8924.
[98]. Tavares de Sousa M, Glosemeyer P, Diemert A, et al. First-trimester intervention in twin reversed arterial perfusion sequence. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2020;55(1):47–49. doi:10.1002/uog.20860.
[99]. 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(1):37–41. doi:10.1002/uog.7567.
[100]. Paramasivam G, Wimalasundera R, Wiechec M, et al. Radiofrequency ablation for selective reduction in complex monochorionic pregnancies. BJOG 2010;117(10):1294–1298. doi:10.1111/j.1471-0528.2010.02624.x.
[101]. Bebbington MW, Danzer E, Moldenhauer J, et al. Radiofrequency ablation vs bipolar umbilical cord coagulation in the management of complicated monochorionic pregnancies. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2012;40(3):319–324. doi:10.1002/uog.11122.
[102]. Evans MI, Goldberg JD, Horenstein J, et al. Selective termination for structural, chromosomal, and Mendelian anomalies: international experience. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1999;181(4):893–897. doi:10.1016/S0002-9378(99)70321-2.
Keywords:

Acute feto-fetal transfusion; Discordant malformation; Monochorionic diamniotic twin pregnancy; Pregnancy, twin; Selective fetal growth restriction; Single intrauterine fetal death; Twin anemia-polycythemia sequence; Twin-twin transfusion syndrome

Copyright © 2021 The Chinese Medical Association, published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc.