{"status":"ok","message-type":"work","message-version":"1.0.0","message":{"indexed":{"date-parts":[[2026,9,29]],"date-time":"2026-09-29T20:31:22Z","timestamp":1790713882528,"version":"4.1.0"},"reference-count":10,"publisher":"Danish Medical Association","content-domain":{"domain":[],"crossmark-restriction":false},"short-container-title":["Dan Med J"],"abstract":"<jats:p>INTRODUCTION. In dichorionic twin pregnancies, the Danish national guidelines recommend induction of labour (IOL) at 38 weeks of gestation. This recommendation is rooted in the heightened risks of caesarean section and perinatal death associated with later gestational ages. Additionally, this procedure demonstrates a rate of successful vaginal delivery well above 60%. However, documentation remains inadequate regarding potential variances in outcomes between induction methods such as amniotomy, prostaglandins and balloon catheter. Therefore, we aimed to address this knowledge gap.\n\nMETHODS. This was a single-centre cohort study encompassing 921 twin pregnancies between 2007 and 2019 at Lillebaelt University Hospital, Kolding, Denmark. The research database was updated prospectively.\n\nRESULTS. Maternal mortality was zero. Perinatal mortality was 100% between weeks 22 and 24, gradually declining to 0% beyond 34 weeks. The overall frequency of caesarean section (planned and emergency) was 35%. Among those who underwent IOL, the rates of emergency caesarean section were 28% (32\/114) for amniotomy, 41% (36\/87) for prostaglandin and 53% (8\/15) for balloon methods.\n\nCONCLUSIONS. The notably high rates of caesarean section associated with IOL by prostaglandin or balloon catheter in twin pregnancies warrant consideration when planning IOL.\n\nFUNDING. None.\n\nTRIAL REGISTRATION. Not relevant.<\/jats:p>","DOI":"10.61409\/a01240010","type":"journal-article","created":{"date-parts":[[2025,3,31]],"date-time":"2025-03-31T10:42:04Z","timestamp":1743417724000},"page":"1-7","source":"Crossref","is-referenced-by-count":1,"title":["Induction of labour in twin pregnancies. A prospective cohort study"],"prefix":"10.61409","author":[{"given":"Erling E.","family":"Andreasen","sequence":"first","affiliation":[],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"given":"Elisabeth E.","family":"Graae","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"given":"S\u00f6ren","family":"M\u00f6ller","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"given":"Niels","family":"Uldbjerg","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"given":"Mohammed Rohi","family":"Khalil","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]}],"member":"40208","published-online":{"date-parts":[[2024,10,1]]},"reference":[{"key":"ref0","unstructured":"Danish Society for Obstetrics and Gynecology. Mode of delivery and criteria for vaginal twin birth at GA > 32+0. Danish Society for Obstetrics and Gynecology, 2020. https:\/\/nfog.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/05\/200510Twins-uring-labor-DSOG.pdf (1 Aoril 2024)l"},{"key":"ref1","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","unstructured":"FIGO Working Group on Good Clinical Practice in Maternal-Fetal Medicine. Good clinical practice advice: management of twin pregnancy. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2019;144(3):330-7. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1002\/ijgo.12742","DOI":"10.1002\/ijgo.12742"},{"key":"ref2","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","unstructured":"Kjeldsen MH, H\u00f8jlund M, Andreasen E, Khalil MR. Neonatal and maternal outcomes with elective cesarean section compared to induction of labor in twin pregnancies: a prospective cohort study. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2023;286:85-9. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1016\/j.ejogrb.2023.05.026","DOI":"10.1016\/j.ejogrb.2023.05.026"},{"key":"ref3","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","unstructured":"Mikaelsen I, Johansen AN, Tappert C, Eggeb\u00f8 TM. Induction of labor in twin pregnancies - a retrospective cohort study. Sex Reprod Healthc. 2022;32:100724. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1016\/j.srhc.2022.100724","DOI":"10.1016\/j.srhc.2022.100724"},{"key":"ref4","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","unstructured":"Oldenburg A, Rode L, B\u00f8dker B et al. Influence of chorionicity on perinatal outcome in a large cohort of Danish twin pregnancies. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2012;39(1):69-74. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1002\/uog.10057","DOI":"10.1002\/uog.10057"},{"key":"ref5","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","unstructured":"Huber G, Sch\u00fctz H, Seelbach-G\u00f6bel B. Induction of labor in twin pregnancies with oral misoprostol versus vaginal dinoprostone - is it effective and safe? J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2015;28(9):1043-6. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.3109\/14767058.2014.942629","DOI":"10.3109\/14767058.2014.942629"},{"key":"ref6","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","unstructured":"Tavares MA, Domingues AP, Nunes F et al. Induction of labor vs. spontaneous vaginal delivery in twin pregnancy after 36 weeks of gestation. J Obstetrics Gynecol. 2017;37(1):29-32. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1080\/01443615.2016.1205554","DOI":"10.1080\/01443615.2016.1205554"},{"key":"ref7","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","unstructured":"Helming RB, Hvidman LE. An audit of oral administration of Angusta\u00ae (misoprostol) 25\u00b5g for oxytocin of labor in 976 consecutive women with a singleton pregnancy in a university hospital in Denmark. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2020;99(10):1396-1402. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1111\/aogs.13876","DOI":"10.1111\/aogs.13876"},{"key":"ref8","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","unstructured":"Korb D, Renard S, Morin C et al. Double-balloon-catheter versus prostaglandin for cervical ripening to induce labor after previous cesarean delivery. Arch Gynecol Obstetrics. 2020;301(4):931-40. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1007\/s00404-020-05473-x","DOI":"10.1007\/s00404-020-05473-x"},{"key":"ref9","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","unstructured":"Sarreau M, Isly H, Poulain P et al. Balloon catheter vs oxytocin alone for induction of labor in women with previous cesarean section: a randomized controlled trial. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2020;99(2):259-66. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1111\/aogs.13712","DOI":"10.1111\/aogs.13712"}],"container-title":["Danish Medical Journal"],"original-title":[],"deposited":{"date-parts":[[2025,5,15]],"date-time":"2025-05-15T06:40:33Z","timestamp":1747291233000},"score":1,"resource":{"primary":{"URL":"https:\/\/ugeskriftet.dk\/dmj\/A01240010"}},"subtitle":[],"short-title":[],"issued":{"date-parts":[[2024,10,1]]},"references-count":10,"URL":"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.61409\/a01240010","relation":{},"ISSN":["2245-1919"],"issn-type":[{"value":"2245-1919","type":"electronic"}],"subject":[],"published":{"date-parts":[[2024,10,1]]}}}