Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-mkpzs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-29T18:43:25.811Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Growth Patterns in Preterm and Term Twin Deliveries

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 August 2014

A.P.M. Smith ,
D.M. Campbell  and
J. Lemon
A.P.M. Smith*
Affiliation:
Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, U.K.
D.M. Campbell
Affiliation:
Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, U.K.
J. Lemon
Affiliation:
Computing Department, University of Aberdeen, U.K.
*
Ultrasound Department, Aberdeen Maternity Hospital, Cornhill Road, Aberdeen AB9 2ZA, U.K.

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.

Preterm deliveries in singleton pregnancies have been shown to be associated with decreased rate of growth in utero. A total of 113 sets of twins were scanned serially at fortnightly intervals to establish fetal growth. There was no significant difference in the growth pattern in twins delivered before 37 weeks compared to those delivered after this time.

Keywords

Twin fetal growthPreterm and term twins
Type
Research Article
Information
Acta geneticae medicae et gemellologiae: twin research , Volume 39 , Issue 3 , July 1990 , pp. 413 - 416
Copyright
Copyright © The International Society for Twin Studies 1990

References

REFERENCES

1.MacGregor, SN, Sabbagha, RE, Tamura, RK, Pielet, BW, Feigenbaum, SL (1988): Differing fetal growth patterns in pregnancies complicated by preterm labour. Obstet Gynecol 72:834.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2.Tamura, RK, Sabbagha, RE, Depp, R, Vaisrub, N, Dooley, SL, Socol, ML (1984): Diminished growth in fetuses born preterm after spontaneous labor or rupture of membranes. Am J Obstet Gynecol 148:1105.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
3.Weiner, CP. Sabbagha, RE, Vaisrub, N, Depp, R (1985): A hypothetical model suggesting suboptimal intrauterine growth in infants delivered preterm. Obstet Gynecol 65:323.Google ScholarPubMed