{"status":"ok","message-type":"work","message-version":"1.0.0","message":{"indexed":{"date-parts":[[2026,3,9]],"date-time":"2026-03-09T09:02:07Z","timestamp":1773046927567,"version":"3.50.1"},"reference-count":26,"publisher":"Wiley","issue":"4","license":[{"start":{"date-parts":[[2015,12,29]],"date-time":"2015-12-29T00:00:00Z","timestamp":1451347200000},"content-version":"vor","delay-in-days":0,"URL":"http:\/\/onlinelibrary.wiley.com\/termsAndConditions#vor"}],"content-domain":{"domain":[],"crossmark-restriction":false},"short-container-title":["J of Obstet and Gynaecol"],"published-print":{"date-parts":[[2016,4]]},"abstract":"<jats:title>Abstract<\/jats:title><jats:sec><jats:title>Aim<\/jats:title><jats:p>The purpose of this study was to investigate neonatal outcome of dichorionic diamniotic twins born beyond 32 weeks\u2019 gestation according to mode of delivery at a major tertiary center in Australia.<\/jats:p><\/jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Methods<\/jats:title><jats:p>This was a retrospective cohort study of women with dichorionic diamniotic twins delivering at \u226532 weeks\u2019 gestation at a large tertiary maternity center in Australia using data from a maternity database. Primary and secondary outcomes included mode of delivery, birthweight, stillbirth, Apgar score, neonatal unit admission, neonatal resuscitation, death and respiratory distress.<\/jats:p><\/jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Results<\/jats:title><jats:p>Of 1261 women, 82.9% (1045\/1261; 2090 babies) delivered at \u226532 weeks\u2019 gestation. The mode of delivery for these babies was as follows: normal vaginal delivery, 419 (20%); instrumental delivery, 179 (8.6%); emergency cesarean section, 658 (31.5%); and elective cesarean section, 834 (39.9%). Babies delivered by emergency cesarean section or instrumental vaginal delivery had worse outcome. In contrast, the lowest complications were seen in the uncomplicated vaginal delivery and elective cesarean section cohorts.<\/jats:p><\/jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Conclusions<\/jats:title><jats:p>Neonatal outcome was worse for those delivering via emergency cesarean section or instrumental vaginal delivery compared with elective cesarean section or uncomplicated vaginal delivery. The rate of uncomplicated vaginal delivery, however, was low, with only 14.8% of women delivering both babies vaginally without any form of intervention.<\/jats:p><\/jats:sec>","DOI":"10.1111\/jog.12918","type":"journal-article","created":{"date-parts":[[2015,12,29]],"date-time":"2015-12-29T08:22:38Z","timestamp":1451377358000},"page":"392-398","source":"Crossref","is-referenced-by-count":5,"title":["Impact of mode of delivery after 32 weeks\u2019 gestation on neonatal outcome in dichorionic diamniotic twins"],"prefix":"10.1111","volume":"42","author":[{"given":"Stephen","family":"Soong","sequence":"first","affiliation":[{"name":"Mater Mothers\u2019 Hospital  South Brisbane Queensland Australia"}],"role":[{"role":"author","vocabulary":"crossref"}]},{"given":"Ristan M.","family":"Greer","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[{"name":"Mater Research Institute University of Queensland  South Brisbane Queensland Australia"}],"role":[{"role":"author","vocabulary":"crossref"}]},{"given":"Glenn","family":"Gardener","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[{"name":"Mater Research Institute University of Queensland  South Brisbane Queensland Australia"},{"name":"Mater Mothers\u2019 Hospital  South Brisbane Queensland Australia"}],"role":[{"role":"author","vocabulary":"crossref"}]},{"given":"Vicki","family":"Flenady","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[{"name":"Mater Research Institute University of Queensland  South Brisbane Queensland Australia"}],"role":[{"role":"author","vocabulary":"crossref"}]},{"given":"Sailesh","family":"Kumar","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[{"name":"Mater Research Institute University of Queensland  South Brisbane Queensland Australia"},{"name":"Mater Mothers\u2019 Hospital  South Brisbane Queensland Australia"}],"role":[{"role":"author","vocabulary":"crossref"}]}],"member":"311","published-online":{"date-parts":[[2015,12,29]]},"reference":[{"key":"e_1_2_6_2_1","unstructured":"LiZ ZekiR HilderL SullivanE.Australia's Mothers and Babies 2010 Perinatal Statistics Series No. 27.Category No. PER 57. Canberra: AIHW National Perinatal Epidemiology and Statistics Unit 2012."},{"key":"e_1_2_6_3_1","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1055\/s-2001-12937"},{"key":"e_1_2_6_4_1","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1111\/j.1471-0528.2007.01556.x"},{"key":"e_1_2_6_5_1","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1016\/j.bpobgyn.2004.04.007"},{"key":"e_1_2_6_6_1","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1016\/j.ajog.2012.08.012"},{"key":"e_1_2_6_7_1","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1056\/NEJMoa1214939"},{"key":"e_1_2_6_8_1","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1111\/j.1471-0528.2005.00631.x"},{"key":"e_1_2_6_9_1","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1136\/bmj.39118.483819.55"},{"key":"e_1_2_6_10_1","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1097\/AOG.0000000000000578"},{"key":"e_1_2_6_11_1","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1097\/AOG.0b013e318163c435"},{"key":"e_1_2_6_12_1","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1111\/j.1600-0412.2011.01130.x"},{"key":"e_1_2_6_13_1","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1016\/0002-9378(91)90216-E"},{"key":"e_1_2_6_14_1","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1186\/1471-2393-14-55"},{"key":"e_1_2_6_15_1","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1111\/j.1471-0528.2008.01899.x"},{"key":"e_1_2_6_16_1","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1097\/01.AOG.0000110248.32558.fb"},{"key":"e_1_2_6_17_1","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.5694\/j.1326-5377.2003.tb05627.x"},{"key":"e_1_2_6_18_1","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1002\/sim.1149"},{"key":"e_1_2_6_19_1","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1179\/174328809X405928"},{"key":"e_1_2_6_20_1","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1136\/bmj.325.7371.1004"},{"key":"e_1_2_6_21_1","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1111\/j.1471-0528.2010.02836.x"},{"key":"e_1_2_6_22_1","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1016\/j.ajog.2014.02.024"},{"key":"e_1_2_6_23_1","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1016\/j.ajog.2010.04.031"},{"key":"e_1_2_6_24_1","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1111\/1471-0528.12635"},{"key":"e_1_2_6_25_1","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1371\/journal.pone.0070549"},{"key":"e_1_2_6_26_1","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1016\/j.ajog.2011.05.033"},{"key":"e_1_2_6_27_1","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1080\/14767050400028592"}],"container-title":["Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Research"],"original-title":[],"language":"en","link":[{"URL":"https:\/\/api.wiley.com\/onlinelibrary\/tdm\/v1\/articles\/10.1111%2Fjog.12918","content-type":"unspecified","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"text-mining"},{"URL":"https:\/\/api.wiley.com\/onlinelibrary\/tdm\/v1\/articles\/10.1111%2Fjog.12918","content-type":"application\/pdf","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"text-mining"},{"URL":"https:\/\/obgyn.onlinelibrary.wiley.com\/doi\/pdf\/10.1111\/jog.12918","content-type":"unspecified","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"similarity-checking"}],"deposited":{"date-parts":[[2023,10,2]],"date-time":"2023-10-02T08:59:12Z","timestamp":1696237152000},"score":1,"resource":{"primary":{"URL":"https:\/\/obgyn.onlinelibrary.wiley.com\/doi\/10.1111\/jog.12918"}},"subtitle":[],"short-title":[],"issued":{"date-parts":[[2015,12,29]]},"references-count":26,"journal-issue":{"issue":"4","published-print":{"date-parts":[[2016,4]]}},"alternative-id":["10.1111\/jog.12918"],"URL":"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1111\/jog.12918","archive":["Portico"],"relation":{},"ISSN":["1341-8076","1447-0756"],"issn-type":[{"value":"1341-8076","type":"print"},{"value":"1447-0756","type":"electronic"}],"subject":[],"published":{"date-parts":[[2015,12,29]]}}}