Multifetal reduction of triplets to twins compared with non-reduced twins: a meta-analysis

Yaniv Zipori, Jigal Haas, Howard Berger, Eran Barzilay

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

7 Scopus citations

Abstract

The current systematic review and meta-analysis evaluates the perinatal outcomes in twin pregnancies following multifetal pregnancy reduction (MPR) compared with non-reduced twins. We considered all studies comparing perinatal outcomes of twin pregnancies following MPR to non-reduced twin pregnancies. Our search yielded 639 publications, of which 91 were assessed for eligibility. A total of 22 studies met our inclusion criteria. Overall, fetal reduction of triplets to twins resulted in comparable perinatal outcomes to non-reduced twins with regards to gestational age and birthweight at delivery, pregnancy loss prior to 24 weeks, as well as the development of gestational diabetes and hypertensive disorders of pregnancy. Of all outcomes, only the Caesarean section rate was significantly higher in the MPR group compared with the non-reduced twins group with an odds ratio of 1.95 (95% confidence interval 1.33–2.87). This meta-analysis suggests that MPR of triplet pregnancies to twins is associated with comparable perinatal outcomes to that of non-reduced twins. This information can further help in guiding, and probably reassuring, clinician and patient decision-making when faced with high-order multifetal pregnancies.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)87-93
Number of pages7
JournalReproductive BioMedicine Online
Volume35
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - 1 Jul 2017
Externally publishedYes

Keywords

  • Meta-analysis
  • Multifetal pregnancy reduction
  • Non-reduced twins
  • Perinatal outcome
  • Triplets

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Reproductive Medicine
  • Obstetrics and Gynecology
  • Developmental Biology

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Multifetal reduction of triplets to twins compared with non-reduced twins: a meta-analysis'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this