Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-g7gxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T08:31:10.815Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Conjoined Twins in Hungary, 1970-1986

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 August 2014

J. Métneki  and
A. Czeizel
J. Métneki*
Affiliation:
Department of Human Genetics and Teratology, WHO Collaborating Centre for the Community Control of Hereditary Diseases, National Institute of Hygiene, Budapest, Hungary
A. Czeizel
Affiliation:
Department of Human Genetics and Teratology, WHO Collaborating Centre for the Community Control of Hereditary Diseases, National Institute of Hygiene, Budapest, Hungary
*
National Institute of Hygiene, Gyáli ut 2-6. H-1097 Budapest, Hungary

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.

The total prevalence of conjoined twins (birth + prenatally diagnosed) was 1:68,000 in the study of 1970-1986. Symmetrical cases (the so-called Siamese twins) have an obvious predominance (92.3%). Associated major malformations occurred in 80% of conjoined twins and more than 1/5 were discordant. The surviving time of liveborn conjoined twin sets was not more than two days except in two surgically successfully separated pairs. The family study did not indicate a higher recurrence risk. The case group was compared to two control groups and it appeared that the periconceptional use of oral contraception and ovulation induction were mentioned more frequently in pregnancies resulting in conjoined twins.

Keywords

Conjoined twinsPopulation-based studyPrevalenceEpidemiologyEtiopathology
Type
Research Article
Information
Acta geneticae medicae et gemellologiae: twin research , Volume 38 , Issue 3-4 , October 1989 , pp. 285 - 299
Copyright
Copyright © The International Society for Twin Studies 1989

References

REFERENCES

1. Beischer, NA, Fortune, DW (1968): Double monsters. Obstet Gynecol 32:158–170.Google Scholar
2. Bender, C (1967): Studies on symmetrically conjoined twins. J Pediat 70:1010.Google Scholar
3. Bhettay, E, Nelson, NM, Beighton, P (1975): Epidemic of conjoined twins in Southern Africa? Lancet ii:741–43.Google Scholar
4. Bland, KG, Hammer, B (1962): Xiphopagus twins, report of obstetric and surgical management of a case. Centr Afr J Med 8:371.Google Scholar
5. Bod, M, Czeizel, A (1981): Congenital malformation surveillance. Teratology 24:277–283.Google Scholar
6. Castilla, EE, Lopez-Camelo, JS, Orioli, IM, Sanchez, O, Paz, JE (1988): The epidemiology of conjoined twins in Latin America. Acta Genet Med Gemellol 37:111–118.Google ScholarPubMed
7. Center for Disease Control: Congenital Malformation Surveillance. Unpublished data, 1968–1978.Google Scholar
8. Czeizel, A, Pàzsy, A, Purztai, Y, Nagy, M (1983): Aetiological monitor of congenital abnormalities: A case-control surveillance system. Acta Paediatr Hung 24:91–98.Google Scholar
9. Czeizel, A, Telegdi, L, Tusnady, G (1988): Multiple Congenital Abnormalities. Budapest: Akademia Kiadi.Google Scholar
10. Czeizel, A, Sankaranarayanan, K (1984): The load of genetic and partially genetic disorders in man. I. Congenital anomalies: Estimates of detriment in terms of years of life lost and years of impaired life. Mutation Res 128:73–103.Google Scholar
11. Czeizel, A, Bognar, Z, Rockenbauer, M (1984): Some epidemiological data on spontaneous abortion in Hungary, 1971-1980. J Epidemiol Comm Hlth 38:143–148.Google Scholar
12. Edmonds, LD, Layde, PM (1982): Conjoined twins in the United States, 1970-1977. Teratology 25:301–308.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
13. Emanuel, I, Houng, SW, Gulman, LT et al (1972): The incidence of congenital malformations in a Chinese population: The Taipei Collaborative Study. Teratology 5:159–170.Google Scholar
14. Feldman, WM (1937): British Encyclopedia of Medical Practice 5:334.Google Scholar
15. ICBDMS. International Clearinghouse for Birth Defects Monitoring Systems (1985): ISSN 0743-5703.Google Scholar
16. Källen, B, Rybo, G (1978): Conjoined twinning in Sweden. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 57:257–259.Google Scholar
17. MacKenzie, SG, Lippman, A (1989): An investigation of report bias in a case-control study of pregnancy outcome. Am J Epidemiol 129:65–67.Google Scholar
18. Métneki, J, Czeizel, A, Keller, I (1983): Incidence, epidemiology and etiopathology of conjoined twins (in Hungarian). Orv Hetil 124:885–887.Google Scholar
19. Milham, S (1966): Symmetrical conjoined twins: An analysis of the birth records of twenty-two sets. J Pediat 69:643–47.Google Scholar
20. Mudalier, AL (1930): Double monsters: Study of their circulatory system and some other anatomical abnormalities and complications in labour. J Obstet Gynaecol Brit Emp 37:753–776.Google Scholar
21. National Perinatal Statistic Unit, University of Sidney, (1988): Congenital Malformation Monitoring Report. ISSN 0726-4046.Google Scholar
22. Potter, EL (1961): Pathology of the Fetus and Infant. Chicago: Year Book Medical Publishers, pp 184–198.Google Scholar
23. Robertson, EG (1953): Craniopagus parietalis. Arch Neurol Psychiat 70:189–205.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
24. Rudolph, AJ, Michaels, JP, Nichols, BJ (1967): Obstetric management of conjoined twins. Birth Defects Orig Art Ser 3:28–56.Google Scholar
25. Ryden, AL (1934): Case history to knowledge on birth of thoracopagus (in German). Zentralbl F. Gynaekol, 58:972–5.Google Scholar
26. Stevenson, AD, Johnston, HA, Stewart, MIP et al (1966): Congenital malformations. Bull WHO 34, Suppl. 80.Google ScholarPubMed
27. Tilley, BC et al (1985): A comparison of pregnancy history recall and medical records: implications for retrospective sudies. Am J Epidemiol 121:269–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
28. Wilcox, AJ, Homey, LF (1984): Accuracy of spontaneous abortion recall. Am J Epidemiol 120:727–733.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
29. Wiljoen, DL, Nelson, NM, Beighton, P (1983): The epidemiology of conjoined twinning in Southern Africa. Clin Genet 24:15–21.Google Scholar
30. Zake, EZN (1984): Case reports of 16 sets of conjoined twins from Uganda Hospital. Acta Genet Med Gemellol 33:75–80.Google ScholarPubMed