Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The differences in placental pathology and neonatal outcome in singleton vs. twin gestation complicated by small for gestational age

  • Maternal-Fetal Medicine
  • Published:
Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objective

We aimed to compare placental histopathology and neonatal outcome between dichorionic diamniotic (DCDA) twins and singleton pregnancies complicated by small for gestational age (SGA).

Methods

Medical files and placental pathology reports from all deliveries between 2008 and 2017 of SGA neonates, (birthweight < 10th percentile), were reviewed. Comparison was made between singleton pregnancies complicated with SGA (singletons SGA group) and DCDA twin pregnancies (Twins SGA group), in which only one of the neonates was SGA. Placental diameters were compared between the groups. Placental lesions were classified into maternal and fetal vascular malperfusion lesions (MVM and FVM), maternal (MIR) and fetal (FIR) inflammatory responses, and chronic villitis. Neonatal outcome parameters included composite of early neonatal complications.

Results

The twins SGA group (n = 66) was characterized by a higher maternal age (p = 0.011), lower gestational age at delivery (34.9 ± 3.1 vs. 37.7 ± 2.6 weeks, p < 0.001), and a higher rate of preeclampsia (p = 0.010), compared to the singletons SGA group (n = 500). Adverse composite neonatal outcome was more common in the twins SGA group (p < 0.001). Placental villous lesions related to MVM (p < 0.001) and composite MVM lesions (p = 0.04) were more common in the singletons SGA group. On multivariate logistic regression analysis, the singletons SGA group was independently associated with placental villous lesions (aOR 3.6, 95% CI 1.9–7.0, p < 0.001) and placental MVM lesions (aOR 2.44, 95% CI 1.29–4.61, p = 0.006).

Conclusion

Placentas from SGA singleton pregnancies have more MVM lesions as compared to placentas from SGA twin pregnancies, suggesting different mechanisms involved in abnormal fetal growth in singleton and twin gestations.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Khoury MJ et al (1988) Congenital malformations and intrauterine growth retardation: a population study. Pediatrics 82(1):83–90

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Stipoljev F et al (2001) Correlation of confined placental mosaicism with fetal intrauterine growth retardation. A case control study of placentas at delivery. Fetal Diagn Ther 16(1):4–9

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Campbell MK et al (2012) determinants of small for gestational age birth at term. Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol 26(6):525–533

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Redline RW (2008) Placental pathology: a systematic approach with clinical correlations. Placenta 29(Suppl A):S86–S91

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Benton SJ et al (2012) Can placental growth factor in maternal circulation identify fetuses with placental intrauterine growth restriction? Am J Obstet Gynecol 206(2):163.e1–163.e7

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Kibel M et al (2017) Placental abnormalities differ between small for gestational age fetuses in dichorionic twin and singleton pregnancies. Placenta 60:28–35

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Kinzler WL (2008) Fetal growth restriction: a modern approach. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol 20(2):125–131

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Parra-Saavedra M et al (2013) Placental findings in late-onset SGA births without Doppler signs of placental insufficiency. Placenta 34(12):1136–1141

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Low JA et al (1978) Intrauterine growth retardation: a preliminary report of long-term morbidity. Am J Obstet Gynecol 130(5):534–545

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Stanek J, Biesiada J (2016) Clustering and classical analysis of clinical and placental phenotypes in fetal growth restriction and constitutional fetal smallness. Placenta 42:93–105

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Strauss RS, Dietz WH (1998) Growth and development of term children born with low birth weight: effects of genetic and environmental factors. J Pediatr 133(1):67–72

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Spiegel E et al (2018) The association between birth weight at term and long-term endocrine morbidity of the offspring. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 1–5

  13. Steiner N et al (2017) Small for gestational age as an independent risk factor for long-term pediatric gastrointestinal morbidity of the offspring. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 1–5

  14. Derricott H, Jones RL, Heazell AE (2013) Investigating the association of villitis of unknown etiology with stillbirth and fetal growth restriction—a systematic review. Placenta 34(10):856–862

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Kent EM et al (2012) Placental pathology, birthweight discordance, and growth restriction in twin pregnancy: results of the ESPRiT Study. Am J Obstet Gynecol 207(3):220 e1–220 e5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Bdolah Y et al (2008) Twin pregnancy and the risk of preeclampsia: bigger placenta or relative ischemia? Am J Obstet Gynecol 198(4):428.e1–428.e6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Weiner E et al (2017) The placental factor in spontaneous preterm birth in twin vs. singleton pregnancies. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 214:1–5

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Jahanfar S, Lim K, Ovideo-Joekes E (2017) Birth weight discordance and adverse perinatal outcomes. J Perinat Med 45(5):603–611

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Tauzin M et al (2017) About twins: epidemiological, genetic, and obstetrical aspects, specific risks, and outcome. Arch Pediatr 24(12):1299–1311

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Blickstein I et al (2006) The Northwestern twin chorionicity study: testing the ‘placental crowding’ hypothesis. J Perinat Med 34(2):158–161

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Dollberg S et al (2005) Birth weight standards in the live-born population in Israel. Isr Med Assoc J 7(5):311–314

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. ACOG Practice Bulletin No (2018) 190 Summary: gestational diabetes mellitus. Obstet Gynecol 131(2):406–408

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Biswas Sharmistha (2008) S.K.G., Gross morphological changes of placentas associated with intrauterine growth restriction of fetuses: a case control study. Early Human Dev 84:357–362

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Khong TY et al (2016) Sampling and definitions of placental lesions: Amsterdam placental workshop group consensus statement. Arch Pathol Lab Med 140(7):698–713

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Redline RW (2015) Classification of placental lesions. Am J Obstet Gynecol 213(4 Suppl):S21–S28

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Khong TY (2010) Evidence-based pathology: umbilical cord coiling. Pathology 42(7):618–622

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Apel-Sarid L et al (2010) Term and preterm (< 34 and < 37 weeks gestation) placental pathologies associated with fetal growth restriction. Arch Gynecol Obstet 282(5):487–492

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Khong Y, Brosens I (2011) Defective deep placentation. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol 25(3):301–311

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Scifres CM et al (2017) Placental maternal vascular malperfusion and adverse pregnancy outcomes in gestational diabetes mellitus. Placenta 49:10–15

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. McCowan LM, Figueras F, Anderson NH (2018) Evidence-based national guidelines for the management of suspected fetal growth restriction: comparison, consensus, and controversy. Am J Obstet Gynecol 218(2S):S855–S868

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Parks WT (2015) Placental hypoxia: the lesions of maternal malperfusion. Semin Perinatol 39(1):9–19

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Raymond W, Redline DS, Sakar H, Schluchter M, Salvator A (2001) Placental lesions associated with abnormal growth in twins. Pediatric Dev Pathol 4:473–481

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

There was no funding in this study.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, The Edith Wolfson Medical Center, Affiliated with Sackler Faculty of Medicine, Tel Aviv University, P.O. Box 5, Holon, 58100, Tel Aviv, Israel

    Elad Barber, Eran Weiner, Ohad Feldstein, Ann Dekalo, Yossi Mizrachi, Damla Celen Gonullu, Jacob Bar & Michal Kovo

  2. Department of Pathology, Wolfson Medical Center, Affiliated with Sackler Faculty of Medicine, Tel Aviv University, Holon, Tel Aviv, Israel

    Letizia Schreiber

Authors
  1. Elad Barber
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Eran Weiner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Ohad Feldstein
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Ann Dekalo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Yossi Mizrachi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Damla Celen Gonullu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Jacob Bar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Letizia Schreiber
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Michal Kovo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

EB: project development, data collection and management, data analysis, manuscript writing and editing. EW: project development, data analysis, manuscript writing and editing. OF: data collection and management. AD: data collection and management. YM: data analysis. DCG: data collection. JB: project development. LS: data analysis. MK: project development, data collection and management, data analysis, manuscript writing and editing.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Elad Barber.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Ethical approval

Approval for the retrospective study was obtained from the local ethics committee and did not contain any procedures on human participants.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Barber, E., Weiner, E., Feldstein, O. et al. The differences in placental pathology and neonatal outcome in singleton vs. twin gestation complicated by small for gestational age. Arch Gynecol Obstet 298, 1107–1114 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-018-4921-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-018-4921-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation