Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Meta-Analysis
. 2015 Dec 19;2015(12):CD006553.
doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD006553.pub3.

Planned caesarean section for women with a twin pregnancy

G Justus Hofmeyr  1 , Jon F Barrett, Caroline A Crowther
Affiliations
Meta-Analysis

Planned caesarean section for women with a twin pregnancy

G Justus Hofmeyr et al. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. .

Abstract

Background: Twin pregnancies are associated with increased perinatal mortality, mainly related to prematurity, but complications during birth may contribute to perinatal loss or morbidity. The option of planned caesarean section to avoid such complications must therefore be considered. On the other hand, randomised trials of other clinical interventions in the birth process to avoid problems related to labour and birth (planned caesarean section for breech, and continuous electronic fetal heart rate monitoring), have shown an unexpected discordance between short-term perinatal morbidity and long-term neurological outcome. The risks of caesarean section for the mother in the current and subsequent pregnancies must also be taken into account.

Objectives: To determine the short- and long-term effects on mothers and their babies, of planned caesarean section for twin pregnancy.

Search methods: We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (18 November 2015) and reference lists of retrieved studies.

Selection criteria: Randomised trials comparing a policy of caesarean section with planned vaginal birth for women with twin pregnancy.

Data collection and analysis: Two review authors independently assessed eligibility, quality and extracted data. Data were checked for accuracy. For important outcomes the quality of the evidence was assessed using the GRADE approach.

Main results: We included two trials comparing planned caesarean section versus planned vaginal birth for twin pregnancies.Most of the data included in the review were from a multicentre trial where 2804 women were randomised in 106 centres in 25 countries. All centres had facilities to perform emergency caesarean section and had anaesthetic, obstetrical, and nursing staff available in the hospital at the time of planned vaginal delivery. In the second trial carried out in Israel, 60 women were randomised. We judged the risk of bias to be low for all categories except performance (high) and outcome assessment bias (unclear).There was no clear evidence of differences between women randomised to planned caesarean section or planned vaginal birth for maternal death or serious morbidity (risk ratio (RR) 0.86, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.67 to 1.11; 2844 women; two studies; moderate quality evidence). There was no significant difference between groups for perinatal or neonatal death or serious neonatal morbidity (RR 1.15, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.67; data for 5565 babies, one study, moderate quality evidence). No studies reported childhood disability.For secondary outcomes there was no clear evidence of differences between groups for perinatal or neonatal mortality (RR 1.41, 95% CI 0.76 to 2.62; 5685 babies; two studies, moderate quality evidence), serious neonatal morbidity (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.64; 5644 babies; two studies, moderate quality evidence) or any of the other neonatal outcomes reported.The number of women undergoing caesarean section was reported in both trials. Most women in the planned caesarean group had treatment as planned (90.9% underwent caesarean section), whereas in the planned vaginal birth group 42.9% had caesarean section for at least one twin. For maternal mortality; no events were reported in one trial and two deaths (one in each group) in the other. There were no significant differences between groups for serious maternal morbidity overall (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.11; 2844 women; two studies) or for different types of short-term morbidity. There were no significant differences between groups for failure to breastfeed (RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.38; 2570 women, one study; moderate quality evidence) or the number of women with scores greater than 12 on the Edinbugh postnatal depression scale (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.14; 2570 women, one study; moderate quality evidence).

Authors' conclusions: Data mainly from one large, multicentre study found no clear evidence of benefit from planned caesarean section for term twin pregnancies with leading cephalic presentation. Data on long-term infant outcomes are awaited. Women should be informed of possible risks and benefits of labour and vaginal birth pertinent to their specific clinical presentation and the current and long-term effects of caesarean section for both mother and babies. There is insufficient evidence to support the routine use of planned caesarean section for term twin pregnancy with leading cephalic presentation, except in the context of further randomised trials.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

JF Barrett is principal investigator for Barrett 2013. He did not participate in decisions relating to that study.

Justus Hofmeyr receives royalties from UpToDate for chapters related to breech pregnancy, delivery of a baby in breech presentation and external cephalic version. UpToDate is an electronic publication by Wolters Kluwer to disseminate evidence‐based medicine (such as Cochrane reviews).

Figures

1
1
'Risk of bias' graph: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item presented as percentages across all included studies.
2
2
'Risk of bias' summary: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item for each included study.
1.1
1.1. Analysis
Comparison 1 Planned caesarean section versus planned vaginal birth, Outcome 1 Maternal death or serious maternal morbidity.
1.2
1.2. Analysis
Comparison 1 Planned caesarean section versus planned vaginal birth, Outcome 2 Perinatal or neonatal death or serious neonatal morbidity.
1.4
1.4. Analysis
Comparison 1 Planned caesarean section versus planned vaginal birth, Outcome 4 Perinatal or neonatal death.
1.5
1.5. Analysis
Comparison 1 Planned caesarean section versus planned vaginal birth, Outcome 5 Serious neonatal morbidity.
1.6
1.6. Analysis
Comparison 1 Planned caesarean section versus planned vaginal birth, Outcome 6 Apgar score less than eight at five minutes.
1.7
1.7. Analysis
Comparison 1 Planned caesarean section versus planned vaginal birth, Outcome 7 Apgar score less than four at five minutes.
1.8
1.8. Analysis
Comparison 1 Planned caesarean section versus planned vaginal birth, Outcome 8 Neonatal encephalopathy, as defined by trial authors.
1.9
1.9. Analysis
Comparison 1 Planned caesarean section versus planned vaginal birth, Outcome 9 Birth trauma, as defined by trial authors.
1.10
1.10. Analysis
Comparison 1 Planned caesarean section versus planned vaginal birth, Outcome 10 Nerve palsy (including brachial plexus injury).
1.11
1.11. Analysis
Comparison 1 Planned caesarean section versus planned vaginal birth, Outcome 11 Subdural or intracerebral haemorrhage.
1.12
1.12. Analysis
Comparison 1 Planned caesarean section versus planned vaginal birth, Outcome 12 Intraventricular haemorrhage: grade III or IV.
1.13
1.13. Analysis
Comparison 1 Planned caesarean section versus planned vaginal birth, Outcome 13 Cystic periventricular leukomalacia.
1.14
1.14. Analysis
Comparison 1 Planned caesarean section versus planned vaginal birth, Outcome 14 Neonatal sepsis up to 72 hours.
1.15
1.15. Analysis
Comparison 1 Planned caesarean section versus planned vaginal birth, Outcome 15 Necrotising enterocolitis.
1.16
1.16. Analysis
Comparison 1 Planned caesarean section versus planned vaginal birth, Outcome 16 Assisted ventilation for 24 hours or more.
1.17
1.17. Analysis
Comparison 1 Planned caesarean section versus planned vaginal birth, Outcome 17 Short‐term maternal outcomes: caesarean section.
1.18
1.18. Analysis
Comparison 1 Planned caesarean section versus planned vaginal birth, Outcome 18 Short‐term maternal outcomes: mortality.
1.19
1.19. Analysis
Comparison 1 Planned caesarean section versus planned vaginal birth, Outcome 19 Short‐term maternal outcomes: serious maternal morbidity.
1.20
1.20. Analysis
Comparison 1 Planned caesarean section versus planned vaginal birth, Outcome 20 Short‐term maternal outcomes: thromboembolism requiring anticoagulant therapy.
1.21
1.21. Analysis
Comparison 1 Planned caesarean section versus planned vaginal birth, Outcome 21 Short‐term maternal outcomes: wound infection.
1.22
1.22. Analysis
Comparison 1 Planned caesarean section versus planned vaginal birth, Outcome 22 Short‐term maternal outcomes: systemic infection.
1.23
1.23. Analysis
Comparison 1 Planned caesarean section versus planned vaginal birth, Outcome 23 Short‐term maternal outcomes: disseminated intravascular coagulation.
1.24
1.24. Analysis
Comparison 1 Planned caesarean section versus planned vaginal birth, Outcome 24 Short‐term maternal outcomes: amniotic fluid embolism.
1.25
1.25. Analysis
Comparison 1 Planned caesarean section versus planned vaginal birth, Outcome 25 Short‐term maternal outcomes: postpartum haemorrhage.
1.26
1.26. Analysis
Comparison 1 Planned caesarean section versus planned vaginal birth, Outcome 26 Short‐term maternal outcomes: blood transfusion.
1.27
1.27. Analysis
Comparison 1 Planned caesarean section versus planned vaginal birth, Outcome 27 Longer‐term maternal outcomes: failure to breastfeed.
1.28
1.28. Analysis
Comparison 1 Planned caesarean section versus planned vaginal birth, Outcome 28 Longer‐term maternal outcomes: urinary incontinence.
1.29
1.29. Analysis
Comparison 1 Planned caesarean section versus planned vaginal birth, Outcome 29 Longer‐term maternal outcomes: flatus incontinence.
1.30
1.30. Analysis
Comparison 1 Planned caesarean section versus planned vaginal birth, Outcome 30 Longer‐term maternal outcomes: faecal incontinence.
1.31
1.31. Analysis
Comparison 1 Planned caesarean section versus planned vaginal birth, Outcome 31 Longer‐term maternal outcomes: postnatal depression, as defined by trial authors (EPDS > 12).
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Update of

References

References to studies included in this review

Barrett 2013 {published data only}
    1. Barrett J. Evidence based intra‐partum management of twin pregnancy. BJOG: an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology 2008;115(s1):19.
    1. Barrett J, Aztalos E, Willan A, Joseph K, Armson BA, Hutton E, et al. The Twin Birth Study: a multicenter RCT of planned cesarean section (CS) and planned vaginal birth (VB) for twin pregnancies 320 to 386/7 weeks. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 2013;208(1 Suppl):S4‐5.
    1. Barrett J, Hutton E, Twin birth study group. Twin birth study (TBS). Perinatal Society of Australia and New Zealand 7th Annual Congress; 2003 March 9‐12; Tasmania, Australia. 2003:P162.
    1. Barrett JF, Hannah ME, Hutton EK, Willan AR, Allen AC, Armson BA, et al. A randomized trial of planned cesarean or vaginal delivery for twin pregnancy. New England Journal of Medicine 2013;369(14):1295‐305. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Hutton E, Barrett J. The twin birth study: a randomised controlled trial of planned vaginal or planned caesarean birth for twin pregnancies. International Confederation of Midwives 30th Triennial Congress. Midwives: Improving Women’s Health; 2014 June 1‐4; Prague, Czech Republic. 2014:C158.
Rabinovici 1987 {published data only}
    1. Rabinovici J, Barkai G, Reichman B, Serr DM, Mashiach S. Randomized management of the second non‐vertex twin: vaginal delivery or cesarean section. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 1987;156:52‐6. - PubMed
    1. Rabinovici J, Barkai G, Reichman B, Serr DM, Mashiach S. The randomized management of the second non‐vertex twin: vaginal delivery or cesarean section?. Proceedings of 11th European Congress of Perinatal Medicine; 1988 April 10‐13; Rome, Italy. 1988.

References to studies excluded from this review

Juan 2014 {published data only}
    1. Juan DH, Min C. Study on the route of delivery and pregnancy outcome in twin pregnancy. Journal of Maternal‐Fetal & Neonatal Medicine 2014;27(Suppl 1):435.

References to studies awaiting assessment

Dera 2009 {published data only}
    1. Dera A, Breborowicz GH, Szczapa‐Krenz H. Natural delivery is safe: outcome differences by mode of delivery by time. Journal of Maternal‐Fetal & Neonatal Medicine 2009;22(Suppl 1):43‐4.

Additional references

Aaronson 2010
    1. Aaronson D, Harlev A, Sheiner E, Levy A. Trial of labor after cesarean section in twin pregnancies: maternal and neonatal safety. Journal of Maternal‐Fetal & Neonatal Medicine 2010;23(6):550‐4. - PubMed
ACOG 2002
    1. ACOG. Educational bulletin. Special problems of multiple gestation. 1998 No. 253. Compendium of Selected Publications. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, 2002:222‐32.
Alexander 2008
    1. Alexander JM, Leveno KJ, Rouse D, Landon MB, Gilbert SA, Spong CY, et al. Cesarean delivery for the second twin. Obstetrics & Gynecology 2008;112(4):748‐52. - PMC - PubMed
Anonymous 2000
    1. Anonymous. Health Canada. Canadian Perinatal Health Report. Ottawa: Minister of Public Health Works and Government Services Canada, 2000.
Arnold 1987
    1. Arnold C, McLean F, Kramer M, Usher R. Respiratory distress syndrome in second‐born versus first‐born twins: a matched case‐control analysis. New England Journal of Medicine 1987;317:1121‐5. - PubMed
Barrett 2000
    1. Barrett J, Bocking A. The SOGC consensus statement on management of twin pregnancies (part I). Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Canada: JOGC 2000;7:519‐29.
Barrett 2004
    1. Barrett JF. Delivery of the term twin. Best Practice & Research. Clinical Obstetrics & Gynaecology 2004;18(4):625‐30. - PubMed
Blickstein 1987
    1. Blickstein I, Schwartz‐Shoham, Lancet M, Borenstein R. Vaginal delivery of the second twin in breech presentation. Obstetrics & Gynecology 1987;69:774‐6. - PubMed
Blickstein 2000
    1. Blickstein I, Goldman RD, Kupferminc M. Delivery of breech first twins: a multicenter retrospective study. Obstetrics & Gynecology 2000;95:37‐42. - PubMed
Cheung 2000
    1. Cheung YB, Yip P, Karlberg J. Mortality of twins and singletons by gestational age: a varying‐coefficient approach. American Journal of Epidemiology 2000;152:1107‐16. - PubMed
De Almeida 2010
    1. Almeida MF, Guinsburg R, Costa JO, Anchieta LM, Freire LM, Campos D Jr. Non‐urgent caesarean delivery increases the need for ventilation at birth in term newborn infants. Archives of Disease in Childhood Fetal & Neonatal Edition 2010;95(5):F326‐F330. - PubMed
Dodd 2014
    1. Dodd JM, Deussen AR, Grivell RM, Crowther CA. Elective birth at 37 weeks’ gestation for women with an uncomplicated twin pregnancy. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2014, Issue 2. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003582.pub2] - DOI - PMC - PubMed
Eason 2002
    1. Eason E, Labrecque M, Marcoux S, Mondor M. Anal incontinence after childbirth. Canadian Medical Association Journal 2002;166:326‐30. - PMC - PubMed
Fabre 1988
    1. Fabre E, Agüero R, Augustin JL, Pérez‐Hiraldo MP, Bescos JL. Perinatal mortality in twin pregnancy: an analysis of birth weight‐specific mortality rates and adjusted mortality rates for birth weight distributions. Journal of Perinatal Medicine 1988;16:85‐91. - PubMed
Farrell 2001
    1. Farrell SA, Allen VM, Baskett TF. Parturition and urinary incontinence in primiparas. Obstetrics & Gynecology 2001;97:350‐6. - PubMed
Ford 2006
    1. Ford AA, Bateman BT, Simpson LL. Vaginal birth after cesarean delivery in twin gestations: a large, nationwide sample of deliveries. American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology 2006;195(4):1138‐42. - PubMed
Ghai 1988
    1. Ghai V, Vidyasagar D. Morbidity and mortality factors in twins, an epidemiologic approach. Clinics in Perinatology 1988;15:123‐40. - PubMed
Grant 1989
    1. Grant A, O'Brien N, Joy MT, Hennessy E, MacDonald D. Cerebral palsy among children born during the Dublin randomised trial of intrapartum monitoring. Lancet 1989;8674:1233‐6. - PubMed
Grisaru 2000
    1. Grisaru D, Fuchs S, Kupferminc MJ, Har‐Toov J, Niv J, Lessing JB. Outcome of 306 twin deliveries according to first twin presentation and method of delivery. American Journal of Perinatology 2000;17:303‐7. - PubMed
Hall 1999
    1. Hall MH, Bewley S. Maternal mortality and mode of delivery. Lancet 1999;354:776. - PubMed
Hannah 2000
    1. Hannah ME, Hannah WJ, Hewson S, Hodnett E, Saigal S, Willan A, et al. Planned caesarean section versus planned vaginal birth for breech presentation at term: a randomised multicentre trial. Lancet 2000;356:1375‐83. - PubMed
Hannah 2002
    1. Hannah ME, Hannah WJ, Hodnett E, Chalmers B, Kung R, Willan A, et al. Outcomes at 3 months postpartum for women enrolled in the multicenter international randomized Term Breech Trial of planned cesarean section and planned vaginal birth for breech presentation at term. JAMA 2002;287:1822‐31. - PubMed
Henriksen 1994
    1. Henriksen TB, Sperling L, Hedegaard M, Ulrichsen H, Ovlisen B, Secher NJ. Cesarean section in twin pregnancies in two Danish counties with different cesarean section rates. Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica 1994;73(2):123‐8. - PubMed
Higgins 2011
    1. Higgins JPT, Green S, editors. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 [updated March 2011]. The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011. Available from www.cochrane‐handbook.org.
Hofmeyr 2015
    1. Hofmeyr GJ, Hannah M, Lawrie TA. Planned caesarean section for term breech delivery. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2015, Issue 7. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD000166.pub2] - DOI - PMC - PubMed
Hogle 2002
    1. Hogle K, Hutton E, McBrien KA, Barrett J, Hannah ME. Cesarean delivery for twins: a systematic review and meta‐analysis. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 2002;188:220‐7. - PubMed
Houlihan 1996
    1. Houlihan C, Knuppel RA. Intrapartum management of multiple gestations. Complicated labor and delivery II. Clinics in Perinatology 1996;23:91‐116. - PubMed
Joseph 1998
    1. Joseph KS, Kramer MS, Marcoux S, Ohlsson A, Wen SW, Allen A, et al. Determinants of preterm birth rates in Canada from 1981 through 1983 and from 1992 through 1994. New England Journal of Medicine 1998;339:1434‐9. - PubMed
Joseph 2001a
    1. Joseph KS, Marcoux S, Ohlsson A, Liu S, Allen AC, Kramer MS, et al. Changes in stillbirth and infant mortality associated with increases in preterm birth among twins. Pediatrics 2001;108:1055‐61. - PubMed
Joseph 2001b
    1. Joseph KS, Allen AC, Dodds L, Vincer MJ, Armson BA. Causes and consequences of recent increases in preterm birth among twins. Obstetrics & Gynecology 2001;98:57‐64. - PubMed
Kiely 1990
    1. Kiely JL. The epidemiology of perinatal mortality in multiple births. Bulletin of the New York Academy of Medicine 1990;66:618‐37. - PMC - PubMed
Knight 2008
    1. Knight M, Kurinczuk JJ, Spark P, Brocklehurst P. Cesarean delivery and peripartum hysterectomy. Obstetrics & Gynecology 2008;111(1):97‐105. - PubMed
Lavender 2012
    1. Lavender T, Hofmeyr GJ, Neilson JP, Kingdon C, Gyte GML. Caesarean section for non‐medical reasons at term. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2012, Issue 3. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004660.pub3] - DOI - PubMed
Laws 2010
    1. Laws PJ, Li Z, Sullivan EA. Australia's mothers and babies 2008. AIHW Perinatal Statistic Unit. Canberra, 2010:Perinatal Statistic Series no. 24. Cat. no PER 50.
Lie 2000
    1. Lie RT. Invited commentary: intersecting perinatal mortality curves by gestational age ‐ are appearances deceiving?. American Journal of Epidemiology 2000;152:1117‐9. - PubMed
Luthy 1987
    1. Luthy DA, Shy KK, Belle G, Larson EB, Hughes JP, Benedetti TJ, et al. A randomized trial of electronic fetal monitoring in preterm labor. Obstetrics & Gynecology 1987;69:687‐95. - PubMed
Macdonald 1985
    1. Macdonald D, Grant A, Sheridan‐Pereira M, Boylan P, Chalmers I. The Dublin randomized controlled trial of intrapartum fetal heart rate monitoring. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 1985;152:524‐39. - PubMed
Meyer 1998
    1. Meyer S, Schreyer A, Grandi P, Hohlfeld P. The effects of birth on urinary continence mechanisms and other pelvic‐floor characteristics. Obstetrics & Gynecology 1998;92:613‐8. - PubMed
Persad 2001a
    1. Persad V, Baskett T, O'Connell CM, Scott HM. Combined vaginal‐cesarean delivery of twin pregnancies. Obstetrics & Gynecology 2001;98:1032‐7. - PubMed
Persad 2001b
    1. Persad V, Young D, Armson A, Joseph KS, Baskett T. Determinants of perinatal morbidity and death among the second of twins. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 2001;184:S188. - PubMed
RevMan 2014 [Computer program]
    1. The Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration. Review Manager (RevMan). Version 5.3. Copenhagen: The Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration, 2014.
Schneid‐Kofman 2005
    1. Schneid‐Kofman N, Sheiner E, Levy A, Holcberg G. Risk factors for wound infection following cesarean deliveries. International Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics 2005;90(1):10‐5. - PubMed
Sentilhes 2007
    1. Sentilhes L, Goffinet F, Talbot A, Diguet A, Verspyck E, Cabrol D, et al. Attempted vaginal versus planned cesarean delivery in 195 breech first twin pregnancies. Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica 2007;86(1):55‐60. - PubMed
Shy 1990
    1. Shy KK, Luthy DA, Bennett FC, Whitfield M, Larson EB, Belle G, et al. Effects of electronic fetal heart rate monitoring, as compared with periodic auscultation, on the neurologic development of premature infants. New England Journal of Medicine 1990;322(9):588‐93. - PubMed
Simoes 2007
    1. Simoes T, Aboim L, Costa A, Ambrosio A, Alves S, Blickstein I. Puerperal complications following elective Cesarean sections for twin pregnancies. Journal of Perinatal Medicine 2007;35(2):104‐7. - PubMed
Suzuki 2008
    1. Suzuki S, Inde Y, Igarashi M, Miyake H. Elective cesarean as a risk factor for transfusion after delivery of twins. Journal of Nippon Medical School: Nihon Ika Daigahu Zasshi 2008;75(4):247‐9. - PubMed
Suzuki 2009
    1. Suzuki S. Risk factors for emergency cesarean delivery of the second twin after vaginal delivery of the first twin. Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology Research 2009;35(3):467‐71. - PubMed
Suzuki 2010
    1. Suzuki S, Yamashita E, Inde Y, Hiraizumi Y, Satomi M. Increased rate of elective cesarean delivery and neonatal respiratory disorders in twin pregnancies. Journal of Nippon Medical School: Nihon Ika Daigahu Zasshi 2010;77(2):93‐6. - PubMed
Varner 2005
    1. Varner MW, Leindecker S, Spong CY, Moawad AH, Hauth JC, Landon MB, et al. The Maternal‐Fetal Medicine Unit cesarean registry: trial of labor with a twin gestation. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 2005;193(1):135‐40. - PubMed
Viktrup 2001
    1. Viktrup L, Lose G. The risk of stress incontinence 5 years after first delivery. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 2001;185:82‐7. - PubMed
Wells 1991
    1. Wells SR, Thorp JM, Bowes WA. Management of the nonvertex second twin. Surgery, Gynecology and Obstetrics 1991;172:383‐5. - PubMed
Wen 2004a
    1. Wen SW, Fung KF, Oppenheimer L, Demissie K, Yang Q, Walker M. Occurrence and predictors of cesarean delivery for the second twin after vaginal delivery of the first twin. Obstetrics & Gynecology 2004;103(3):413‐9. - PubMed
Wen 2004b
    1. Wen SW, Rusen ID, Walker M, Listen R, Kramer MS, Baskett T, et al. Comparison of maternal mortality and morbidity between trial of labour and elective cesarean section among women with previous caesarean delivery. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 2004;191:1263‐9. - PubMed
Whyte 2004
    1. Whyte H, Hannah ME, Saigal S, Hannah WJ, Hewson S, Amankwah K, et al. Outcomes of children at 2 years after planned cesarean birth versus planned vaginal birth for breech presentation at term: the International Randomized Term Breech Trial. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 2004;191:864‐71. - PubMed
Wilcox 1996
    1. Wilcox LS, Kiely JL, Melvin CL, Martin MC. Assisted reproductive technologies: estimates of their contribution to multiple births and newborn hospital days in the United States. Fertility and Sterility 1996;65:361‐6. - PubMed
Wilson 1996
    1. Wilson PD, Herbison RM, Herbison GP. Obstetric practice and the prevalence of urinary incontinence three months after delivery. British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology 1996;103:154‐61. - PubMed
Zetterström 1999
    1. Zetterström JP, López A, Anzén B, Dolk A, Norman M, Mellgren A. Anal incontinence after vaginal delivery: a prospective study in primiparous women. British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology 1999;106:324‐30. - PubMed

References to other published versions of this review

Crowther 1996
    1. Crowther CA. Caesarean delivery for the second twin. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 1996, Issue 1. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD000047] - DOI - PubMed
Hofmeyr 2011
    1. Hofmeyr GJ, Barrett JF, Crowther CA. Planned caesarean section for women with a twin pregnancy. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2011, Issue 12. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD006553.pub2] - DOI - PMC - PubMed

Publication types