Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dsjbd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T15:09:08.577Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Twin Differences and Similarities of Birthweight and Term in the French Romulus Population

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 August 2014

C. Charlemaine ,
M. Duyme ,
F. Guis ,
B. Camous ,
Y. Brossard ,
A. Aurengo ,
Le Groupe Romulus ,
R. Frydman  and
J. C. Pons
C. Charlemaine*
Affiliation:
INSERM - U. 155, Laboratory of Biological Anthropology -University of Paris VII
M. Duyme
Affiliation:
INSERM - U. 155, Laboratory of Biological Anthropology -University of Paris VII
F. Guis
Affiliation:
Antoine Béclère Hospital, Clamart
B. Camous
Affiliation:
Antoine Béclère Hospital, Clamart
Y. Brossard
Affiliation:
Saint Antoine Hospital, Paris
A. Aurengo
Affiliation:
INSERM - U. 66, Paris
R. Frydman
Affiliation:
Antoine Béclère Hospital, Clamart
J. C. Pons
Affiliation:
Obstetrics Gynecology Department, CHU Grenoble, France
*
INSERM - U. 155. Laboratoire d'Anthropologie Biologique -, Université Paris VII, Tour 16 - 3éme étage - Case 7041 - 2, Place Jussieu - 75251, Paris 05, France. E.mail <[email protected]>

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.

This study was performed to examine the main characteristics of the French Romulus twin population: zygosity, chorionicity, sex, term and birthweight. A sample of 104 pairs of twins was distinguished by zygosity, chorionicity and sex, and divided into concordant and discordant birthweight groups. Fifty-three % (n = 55) of the fetus pairs studied were born at “ideal term” (35-38 weeks), and 25% (n = 26) were delivered at “preterm” (28-34 weeks). The very preterm (< 28 weeks), and “postterm” (> 38 weeks) represented altogether 22% (n = 23) of the sample. Of the 104 twin pairs, 68% (n = 71) differ by less than 15% in birthweight, and 32% (n = 33) have a birthweight difference higher than 15%. In dizygotic (DZ) pairs females had more tendency to be in the discordant group (p = 0.01) while in monochorionic-monozygotic (MC-MZ) pairs males were more discordant (p = 0.07). We found a significant interaction between sex and zygosity type (p = 0.02). Males had a birthweight difference significantly weaker than that of females in dichorionic-monozygotic (DC-MZ) and DZ twins whereas it was higher than that of females in MC-MZ twins. There were no MZ twin pairs with DC placentation over than 15% birthweight difference. Log linear analysis demonstrated a three-way interaction (p < 0.05) between term type, zygosity type and hypotrophy. Our data indicate that in the group of twins born between 35 and 38 weeks' gestation the crucial question still remains unsettled on how term and birhweight are related to zygotism and/or chorionicity.

Keywords

ZygosityChorionicityBirthweightConcordanceDiscordance“Ideal term”PrematurityHypotrophy
Type
Research Article
Information
Acta geneticae medicae et gemellologiae: twin research , Volume 47 , Issue 1 , January 1998 , pp. 1 - 12
Copyright
Copyright © The International Society for Twin Studies 1998

References

REFERENCES

1.Alexander, GR, Kogan, M, Martin, J, Papiernik, E (1998): What Are the Fetal Growth Patterns of Singletons, Twins, and Triplets in the United States? Clinical Obstetrics and Gynecology 41 (1): 115–125.Google Scholar
2.Blickstein, I, Shoham-Schwartz, Z, Lancet, M, et al (1987): Characterization of the Growth Discordant Twin. Obstet Gynecol 70: 11.Google ScholarPubMed
3.Blickstein, I, Lancet, M (1988): The Growth Discordant Twin. Obstet Gynecol Surv 43: 509–515.Google Scholar
4.Blickstein, I (1991): The Definition, Diagnosis, and Management of Growth Discordant Twins: An International Census Survey. Acta Genet Med Gemellol 40: 345–351.Google ScholarPubMed
5.Boklage, CE (1987): Twinning, Nonrighthandedness, and Fusion Malformations: Evidence for Heritable Causal Elements Held in Common. Am J Med Genet 28: 67–84.Google Scholar
6.Botting, BJ, MacDonald Davis, I, MacFarlane, AJ (1987): Recent Trends in the Incidence of Multiple Births and Associated Mortality. Arch Dis Child 62: 941–950.Google Scholar
7.Brown, CE, Guzick, DS, Leveno, KG, Santos-Ramos, R, Whalley, PJ (1987): Prediction of Discordant Twins Using Ultrasound Measurement of Biparietal Diameter and Abdominal Perimeter. Obstet Gynecol 70: 677–81.Google ScholarPubMed
8.Caravello, JW, Chauhan, SP, Morrison, JC, Magann, EF, Martin, JN Jr, Devoe, LD (1997): Sonographic Examination Does Not Predict Twin Growth Discordance Accurately. Obstetrics & Gynecology 89(4): 529–33.Google Scholar
9.Charlemaine, C, Pons, JC (1998): What Monozygotic Twins Tell Us About Genetic Determinism. Race, Gender & Class 5(3): 10–38.Google Scholar
10.Crane, JP, Tomich, PG, Kopta, M (1980): Ultrasonic Growth Patterns in Normal and Discordant Twins. Obstet Gynecol 55: 678.Google Scholar
11.Derom, R, Derom, C, Vlietinck, R (1995): Placentation. In Keith, LG, Papiernik, E, Keith, DM, Luke, B (eds): “Multiple Pregnancy: Epidemiology, Gestation & Perinatal Outcomes”. New York: The Parthenon Publishing Group 113–128.Google Scholar
12.Derom, C, Vlietinck, R, Derom, R, van den Berghe, H, Thiery, M (1988): Population-Based Study of Sex Proportion in Monochorionic Twins. N Engl J Med 319: 119–120.Google Scholar
13.Deter, RL, Harrist, RB (1993): Assessment of Normal Fetal Growth. In Chervenak, FA, Isaacson, G, Campbell, S (eds): “Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology”. Boston: Little & Brown 361–385.Google Scholar
14.Divon, MY, Weiner, Z (1995): Ultrasound in Twin Pregnancy. Seminars in Perinatology 19(5): 404–12.Google Scholar
15.Driscoll, SG (1964): Why Are Twin Dissimilar? Pediatrics 33: 325–26.Google Scholar
16.Erkkola, R, Ala-Mello, S, Piroinen, O, Kero, P, Sillampaa, M (1985): Growth Discordancy in Twin Pregnancies: A Risk Factor Not Detected by Measurements of Biparietal Diameter. Obstet Gynecol 66: 203–206.Google Scholar
17.Fisk, NM, Bryan, E (1993): Routine Prenatal Determination of Chorionicity in Multiple Pregnancy: A Plea to the Obstetrician. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 100: 975–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
18.Gedda, L, Brenci, G, Gatti, I (1981): Low Birth Weight in Twins versus Singletons: Separate Entities and Different Implications for Child Growth and Survival. Acta Genet Med Gemellol 30: 1.Google Scholar
19.Gerhard, J. et al (1987): Weight Percentile at Birth. I. Clinical Data of Pregnancy and Relevance for Early Childhood Development. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 26: 303–311.Google Scholar
20.Goldenberg, RL, Cutter, GR, Hoffman, HJ, Forster, JM, Nelson, KG, Hauth, JC (1989): Intrauterine Growth Retardation: Standards for Diagnosis. Am J Obstet Gynecol 161: 271–77.Google Scholar
21.Goldenberg, RL, Cliver, SP (1997): Small for Gestational Age and Intrauterine Growth Restriction: Definitions and Standards. Clinical Obstetrics and Gynecology 40 (4): 704–714.Google Scholar
22.Gross, SJ (1997): Intrauterine Growth Restriction: A Genetic Perspective. Clinical Obstetrics and Gynecology 40 (4): 730–739.Google Scholar
23.Hill, LM, Guzick, D, Chenevey, P, Boyles, D, Nedzesky, P (1994): The Sonographic Assessment of Twin Growth Discordancy. Obstet Gynecol 84: 501–504.Google Scholar
24.James, WM (1980): Sex Ratio and Placentation in Twins. Ann Hum Biol 7: 273–276.Google Scholar
25.Keith, L, Machin, G (1997): Zygosity Testing: Current Status and Evolving Issues. The Journal of Reproductive Medicine for the Obstetrician and Gynecologist 42 (11): 699–707.Google Scholar
26.Lanni, R, Fusco, D, Marinacci, C, Grimaldi, V, Corchia, C, Mastroiacovo, P (1998): Birth Weight Discordancy in Twins: New Definition and Standard. Obstetrics & Gynecology 76: 37–40.Google Scholar
27.Leroy, B, Lefort, F, Neven, P, et al (1982): Intrauterine Growth Charts for Twin Fetuses. Acta Genet Med Gemellol 31: 199.Google Scholar
28.Leveno, KJ, Santos-Ramos, R, Duenhoelter, JH, et al (1979): Sonar Cephalometry in Twins: A Table of Biparietal Diameter for Normal Twin Fetuses and a Comparison with Singletons. Am J Obstet Gynecol 135: 727.Google Scholar
29.Leveno, KJ, Santos-Ramos, R, Duenhoelter, JH, et al (1980): Sonar Cephalometry in Twin Pregnancy: Discordance of the Biparietal Diameter after 28 Weeks' Gestation. Am J Obstet Gynecol 138: 615.Google Scholar
30.Luke, B, Minogue, J, Witter, FR, Keith, LG, Johnson, TRB (1993): The Ideal Twin Pregnancy: Patterns of Weight Gain, Discordancy, and Length of Gestation. Am J Obstet Gynecol 169: 588–597.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
31.Machin, G, Bamforth, F, Innes, M, McNichol, K (1995): Some Perinatal Characteristics of Monozygotic Twin Who Are Dichorionic. American Journal of Medical Genetics 55(1): 71–6.Google Scholar
32.Messer, J, Klein, P, Schlaeder, G (1993): L'Hypotrophie Foetale. In Schlaeder, G, Messer, J, Haddad, J, Langer, R (eds): “Précis de Médecine Foetale et Néonatale”. Paris: Springer Verlag.Google Scholar
33.Naeye, RL (1964): The Fetal and Neonatal Development of Twins. Pediatrics 35: 546–553.Google Scholar
34.O'Brien, WF, Knuppel, RA, Scerbo, JKet al (1986): Birth Weight in Twins: An Analysis of Discordancy and Growth Retardation. Obstet Gynecol 67: 483.Google Scholar
35.Ohel, G, Granat, M, Zeevi, Det al (1987): Advanced Ultrasonic Placental Maturation in Twin Pregnancies. Am J Obstet Gynecol 156: 76–8.Google Scholar
36.Ooki, S, Asaka, A (1993): Physical Growth of Japanese Twins. Acta Genet Med Gemellol 42: 275–287.Google ScholarPubMed
37.Papiernik, E, Richard, A (1991): Le Moment Optimal de la Naissance des Jumeaux. In Papiernik Berkhauer, E, Pons, JC (eds): “Les Grossesses Multiples”. Paris, France: Doin Editeurs 203–209.Google Scholar
38.Phillips, DJW (1993): Twin Studies in Medical Research. Lancet 342: 52.Google Scholar
39.Pons, JC, Duyme, M, Brossard, Y (1996): Jumeaux Monozygotes et Dizygotes: Génétique et Environnement in Utero. Synthèse du Rapport d'Activité du Projet de 1992. En collaboration avec Frydman R, Ville Y, Doumerc S, Tremblay R, Capron C, Charlemaine C, et le Groupe Romulus, unpublished.Google Scholar
40.Pons, JC, Suares, F, Duyme, M, Pourade, A, Vial, E, Papiernik, E, Frydman, R (1998): Prévention de la prématurité au cours du suivi de 842 grossesses gémellaires consécutives. J Gynecol Obstet Biol Reprod 27.Google Scholar
41.Powers, WF, Kiely, JL, Fowler, MG (1995): The Role of Birth Weight, Gestational Age, Race and Other Infant Characteristics in Twin Intrauterine Growth and Infant Mortality. In Keith, LG, Papiernik, E, Keith, DM, Luke, B (eds): “Multiple Pregnancy”. NY: The Parthenon Publishing Group 163–174.Google Scholar
42.Price, R (1950) Primary Biases in Twin Studies: A Review of Perinatal and Natal Difference Producing Factors in Monozygotic Twins. Am J Hum Gen 2: 293–352.Google Scholar
43.Rydhstrom, H (1992): Gestational Duration and Birth Weight for Twins Related to Fetal Sex. Gynecol Obstet Invest 33: 90–93.Google Scholar
44.Sepulveda, W, Sebire, NJ, Hugues, K, Odibo, A, Nicolaides, KH (1996): The lambda sign at 10-14 weeks of gestation as a predictor of chorionicity in twin pregnancies. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 7 (6): 421–423.Google Scholar
45.Shah, YG, Sherer, DM, Gragg, LA, Casaceli, CJ, Woods, J Jr (1994): Diagnosis Accuracy of Different Ultrasonographic Growth Parameters in Predicting Discordancy in Twin Gestation: A Different Approach. American Journal of Perinatology 11 (3): 199–204.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
46.Socol, MI, Tamura, RK, Sabbagha, REet al (1984): Diminished Biparietal Diameter and Abdominal Circumference Growth in Twins. Obstet Gynecol 64: 235.Google Scholar
47.Sonntag, J, Waltz, S, Schollmeyer, T, Schuppler, U, Schroder, H, Weisner, D (1996): Morbidity and Mortality of Discordant Twins Up to 34 Weeks of Gestational Age. Eur J Pediatr 155: 224–229.Google Scholar
48.Storlazzi, E, Vintzileos, AM, Campbell, WA, Nochimson, DJ, Weinbaum, P (1987): Ultrasonic Diagnosis of Discordant Fetal Growth in Twin Gestations. Obstet Gynecol 69: 363–367.Google Scholar
49.Vetter, K (1993): Considerations on Growth Discordant Twins. J Perinat Med 21: 267–272.Google Scholar
50.Weissman, A, Achiron, R, Lipitz, S, Blickstein, I, Mashiach, S (1994): The First-Trimester Growth Discordant Twin: An Ominous Prenatal Finding. Obstet Gynecol 84: 110–114.Google Scholar
51.Wood, SL, St Onge, R, Connors, G, Elliot, PD (1996): Evaluation of the twin peak or lambda sign in determining chorionicity in multiple pregnancy. Obstet Gynecol 88 (1): 6–9.Google Scholar
52.Xu, B, Deter, RL, Milner, LL, Hill, RM (1995): Evaluation of Twin Growth Status at Birth Using Individualized Growth Assessment: Comparison with Conventional Methods. Journal of Clinical Ultrasound 23 (5): 277–286.Google Scholar