Advertisement

Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics

, Volume 298, Issue 6, pp 1107–1114 | Cite as

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

  • Elad Barber
  • Eran Weiner
  • Ohad Feldstein
  • Ann Dekalo
  • Yossi Mizrachi
  • Damla Celen Gonullu
  • Jacob Bar
  • Letizia Schreiber
  • Michal Kovo
Maternal-Fetal Medicine
  • 60 Downloads

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.

Keywords

Small for gestational age Placental pathology Twin gestations Di-chorionic Di-amniotic 

Notes

Author 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.

Funding

There was no funding in this study.

Compliance with ethical standards

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.

References

  1. 1.
    Khoury MJ et al (1988) Congenital malformations and intrauterine growth retardation: a population study. Pediatrics 82(1):83–90PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 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):4–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Campbell MK et al (2012) determinants of small for gestational age birth at term. Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol 26(6):525–533CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Redline RW (2008) Placental pathology: a systematic approach with clinical correlations. Placenta 29(Suppl A):S86–S91CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 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.e7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kibel M et al (2017) Placental abnormalities differ between small for gestational age fetuses in dichorionic twin and singleton pregnancies. Placenta 60:28–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kinzler WL (2008) Fetal growth restriction: a modern approach. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol 20(2):125–131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Parra-Saavedra M et al (2013) Placental findings in late-onset SGA births without Doppler signs of placental insufficiency. Placenta 34(12):1136–1141CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Low JA et al (1978) Intrauterine growth retardation: a preliminary report of long-term morbidity. Am J Obstet Gynecol 130(5):534–545CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Stanek J, Biesiada J (2016) Clustering and classical analysis of clinical and placental phenotypes in fetal growth restriction and constitutional fetal smallness. Placenta 42:93–105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 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):67–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 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 1–5Google Scholar
  13. 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 1–5Google Scholar
  14. 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):856–862CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 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 e5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 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.e6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Weiner E et al (2017) The placental factor in spontaneous preterm birth in twin vs. singleton pregnancies. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 214:1–5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Jahanfar S, Lim K, Ovideo-Joekes E (2017) Birth weight discordance and adverse perinatal outcomes. J Perinat Med 45(5):603–611CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Tauzin M et al (2017) About twins: epidemiological, genetic, and obstetrical aspects, specific risks, and outcome. Arch Pediatr 24(12):1299–1311CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Blickstein I et al (2006) The Northwestern twin chorionicity study: testing the ‘placental crowding’ hypothesis. J Perinat Med 34(2):158–161CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Dollberg S et al (2005) Birth weight standards in the live-born population in Israel. Isr Med Assoc J 7(5):311–314PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    ACOG Practice Bulletin No (2018) 190 Summary: gestational diabetes mellitus. Obstet Gynecol 131(2):406–408CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 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 84:357–362CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Khong TY et al (2016) Sampling and definitions of placental lesions: Amsterdam placental workshop group consensus statement. Arch Pathol Lab Med 140(7):698–713CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Redline RW (2015) Classification of placental lesions. Am J Obstet Gynecol 213(4 Suppl):S21–S28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Khong TY (2010) Evidence-based pathology: umbilical cord coiling. Pathology 42(7):618–622CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 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):487–492CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Khong Y, Brosens I (2011) Defective deep placentation. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol 25(3):301–311CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Scifres CM et al (2017) Placental maternal vascular malperfusion and adverse pregnancy outcomes in gestational diabetes mellitus. Placenta 49:10–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 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–S868CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Parks WT (2015) Placental hypoxia: the lesions of maternal malperfusion. Semin Perinatol 39(1):9–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Raymond W, Redline DS, Sakar H, Schluchter M, Salvator A (2001) Placental lesions associated with abnormal growth in twins. Pediatric Dev Pathol 4:473–481CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, The Edith Wolfson Medical Center, Affiliated with Sackler Faculty of MedicineTel Aviv UniversityTel AvivIsrael
  2. 2.Department of Pathology, Wolfson Medical Center, Affiliated with Sackler Faculty of MedicineTel Aviv UniversityTel AvivIsrael

Personalised recommendations