Hostname: page-component-cb9f654ff-mnl9s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-08-31T11:41:55.144Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Fetal Growth in Twin Pregnancies

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 August 2014

J.P. Neilson
J.P. Neilson*
Affiliation:
Department of Midwifery, University of Glasgow/Queen Mother's Hospital, Glasgow, Scotland
*
Queen Mother's Hospital, Glasgow G3 8SH, Scotland

Abstract

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

In 65 consecutive twin pregnancies, 722 measurement of fetal abdominal circumference have been obtained with ultrasound. Zygosity was established after delivery in 85% of the pregnancies. There was no difference in mean abdominal circumference measurements between monozygotic and dizygotic pregnancies. In both groups, the pattern of growth was linear throughout pregnancy in contrast to that predicted by birth-weight for gestational age charts. It is suggested that increasing trunk flexion, in later twin pregnancy, may distort accurate abdominal circumference measurement.

Keywords

Twin pregnancyZygosityUltrasoundFetal growth

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Acta geneticae medicae et gemellologiae: twin research , Volume 37 , Issue 1 , January 1988 , pp. 35 - 39
Copyright
Copyright © The International Society for Twin Studies 1988

References

REFERENCES

1.Geirsson, RT, Persson, P-H (1984): Diagnosis of intrauterine growth retardation using ultrasound. Clin Obstet Gynaecol 11:457–480.Google Scholar
2.Gennser, G, Persson, P-H (1986): Biophysical assessment of placental function. Clin Obstet Gynaecol 13:521–552.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
3.Gruenwald, P (1966): Growth of the human fetus II: Abnormal growth in twins and infants of mothers with diabetes, hypertension, or isoimmunisation. Am J Obstet Gynecol 94:1120–1132.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
4.Neilson, JP (1981): Detection of the small-for-dates twin fetus by ultrasound. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 88:27–32.Google Scholar
5.Neilson, JP, Whitfield, CR, Aitchison, TC (1980): Screening for the small-for-dates fetus: A two-stage ultrasound examination schedule. Br Med J 1:1203–1206.Google Scholar
6.Patel, N, Barrie, W, Campbell, D, Howat, R, Melrose, E, Redford, D, McIlwaine, GM, Smalls, M (1985): Scottish Twin Survey 1983: Preliminary repott. University of Glasgow.Google Scholar
7.Schneider, L, Bessis, R, Tabaste, J-L, Sarramond, M-F, Papiernik, E, Baudet, J, Pontonnier, G (1978): Echographic survey of twin fetal growth: a plea for specific charts for twins. In Nance, WE, Allen, G, Parisi, P (eds): Twin Research: Clinical Studies. New York: Alan R Liss, pp 137–141.Google Scholar
8.Secher, NJ, Kaern, J, Hansen, PK (1985): Intrauterine growth in twin pregnancies: Prediction of fetal growth retardation. Obstet Gynecol 66:63–68.Google Scholar
9.Secher, NJ, Hansen, PKLenstrup, C, Pederson-Bjergaard, L, Eriksen, PS, Thomsen, BL, Keidling, N (1986): Birthweight-for-gestational-age chart based on early ultrasound estimation of gestational age. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 93:128–134.Google Scholar
10.Socol, ML, Tamulra, RK, Sabbagha, RE, Chen, T, Vaisrub, N (1984): Diminished biparietal diameter and abdominal circumference growth in twins. Obstet Gynecol 64:235–238.Google ScholarPubMed
11.Thomson, AM, Billewicz, WZ, Hytten, FE (1986): The assessment of fetal growth. J Obstet Gynaecol Br Commonw 75:903–916.Google Scholar
12.Whitfield, CR, Smith, NC, Cockburn, F, Gibson, AAM (1986): Perinatally related wastage. A proposed classification of primary obstetric factors. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 93:694–703.Google ScholarPubMed