Purpose
While the optimal delivery method of twin pregnancies is heavily debated, the rate of cesarean deliveries is increasing. This retrospective study evaluates delivery methods and neonatal outcome of twin pregnancies during two time-periods and aims to identify predictive factors for the delivery outcome.
Methods
553 twin pregnancies were identified in the institutional database of the University Women’s Hospital Freiburg, Germany. 230 and 323 deliveries occurred in period I (2009–2014) and period II (2015–2021) respectively. Cesarean births due to non-vertex position of the first fetus were excluded. In period II, the management of twin pregnancies was reviewed and adjusted and systematic training and standardized procedures were implemented.
Results
Period II showed significantly lower rates of planned cesarean deliveries (44.0% vs. 63.5%, p < 0.0001) and higher rates of vaginal deliveries (68% vs. 52.4%, p = 0.02). Independent risk factors for primary cesarean delivery were period, maternal age > 40 years, nullipara, previous cesarean birth (HR:11.3, p < 0.001), gestational age < 37 + 0th weeks, monochorionicity and higher fetal weight difference. Predictive factors for successful vaginal delivery were previous vaginal delivery, gestational age between 34–36 weeks and vertex/vertex presentation of the fetuses. The neonatal outcome in period I and period II were comparable. Planned cesarean delivery showed significantly higher rates of NICU transfer.
Conclusion
Vaginal labor in twin pregnancies is safe. Structured and regular updates of obstetrical concepts and procedures in obstetric departments are key to increase vaginal deliveries without impairing its safety. To reduce elective cesarean deliveries, prevention of the first cesarean birth seems to be most promising.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.