Skip to main content

Selective termination of the fetus in multiple pregnancies using ultrasound-guided radiofrequency ablation

Abstract

Background

To evaluate the perinatal outcomes in women with selective termination using ultrasound-guided radiofrequency ablation (RFA).

Methods

Complicated monochorionic (MC) twin pregnancies and multiple pregnancies with an indication for selective termination by ultrasound-guided coagulation of the umbilical cord with RFA under local anesthesia between July 2013 and Jan 2020 were reviewed. We analyzed the indications, gestational age at the time of the procedure, cycles of RFA, duration of the procedure, and perinatal outcome.

Results

Three hundred and thirteen patients were treated during this period. Seven of whom were lost of follow-up. The remaining 306 cases, including 266 pairs of monochorionic diamniotic (MCDA) twins (86.93%), two pairs of monoamniotic twins (0.65%), 30 dichorionic triamniotic (DCTA) triplets (1%), and three monochorionic triamniotic (MCTA) triplets (0.98%), were analyzed. Indications included twin-to-twin transfusion syndrome (TTTS) (n = 91), selective fetal growth restriction (sFGR) (n = 83), severe discordant structural malformation (n = 78), multifetal pregnancy reduction (MFPR) (n = 78), twin reverse arterial perfusion sequence (TRAPS) (n = 19), and twin anemia-polycythemia sequence (TAPS) (n = 3). Upon comparison of RFA performed before and after 20 weeks, the co-twin loss rate (20.9% vs. 21.5%), the incidence of preterm premature rupture of membranes (PPROM) within 24 h (1.5% vs. 1.2%), and the median gestational age at delivery [35.93 (28–38) weeks vs. 36 (28.54–38.14) weeks] were similar (p > 0.05).

Conclusions

RFA is a reasonable option when indicated in multiple pregnancies and complicated monochorionic pregnancies. In our experience, the overall survival rate was 78.76% with RFA in selective feticide, and early treatment increases the likelihood of survival for the remaining fetus because the fetal loss rate is similar before and after 20 weeks.

Peer Review reports

Introduction

In the last three decades, the rapid development of assisted reproduction techniques (ARTs), including in vitro fertilization (IVF) and ovulation stimulation, led to a rapid rise of the incidence of multiple gestations, which are correlated with a remarkably higher risk of perinatal morbidity and mortality and, preterm delivery and a growing risk of maternal complications such as gestational diabetes, gestational hypertension, and postpartum hemorrhage [1]. Multiple pregnancies are associated with a fivefold increased risk of stillbirth and a sevenfold increased risk of neonatal death. They are associated with more complications of prematurity than singleton pregnancies [2]. The management of multiple pregnancies, discordant fetal anomalies and other complications is a clinical dilemma. Unlike the dichorionic (DC) twin placenta, where there is no vascular anastomosis, the shared placenta of the MC twins contain multiple vascular communications [3].

MC twin-specific complications such as twin-to-twin transfusion syndrome (TTTS), selective intrauterine growth restriction (sFGR), twin reverse arterial perfusion sequence (TRAPS), twin anemia-polycythemia sequence (TAPS), and conjoined twins are related to increased complications to these pregnancies [4]. Moreover, the incidence of discordant structural anomalies is more common in MC twins (6–8%) than in DC twins (1–2%). In some of these situations, selective termination of one of the fetuses may have to be considered to minimize the risk to the other fetus or to maximize the chance of the surviving fetus. In situations where there is a risk of death in the womb, choosing to terminate the affected twin may be beneficial to the healthy twin because it prevents the consequences of exsanguination of the healthy fetus into the deceased twin.

Different invasive procedures, including bipolar cord coagulation (BCC) [5], RFA, intrafetal laser coagulation [6], and microwave ablation (MWA) [7], have been described. The outcome and the survival rate of fetuses are the concern. In the literature now, few systematic reviews or meta-analyses are evaluating RFA and other reduction methods. One systematic review and meta-analysis of 481 cases of BCO and 320 cases of RFA in 17 studies showed that the overall survival rate of the fetus was 76.8% (67.6–87.2%; 238/310) for the RFA group and 79.1% (71.3–87.5%;362/459) for the BCO group [8]. Another systematic review reported that the overall survival rate after umbilical cord occlusion for selective feticide in complicated MC twins was 86% for RFA, 82% for BCC, and 72% for laser irradiation [9]. The purpose of this study is to presents our personal experience with using RFA for the selective fetal reduction in multiple gestations for different indications with large sample size. These data can add more information to the literature to reference clinical management and counseling for patients.

Methods

This is a retrospective cohort study of consecutive cases treated with RFA from July 2013 to December 2020 at the Third Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou Medical University in Guangzhou, the regional referral center for prenatal diagnosis and fetal medicine.

All fetuses were assessed with a detailed ultrasound examination before RFA. Fetal echocardiography and measurement of the cervical length were performed at the same time. We excluded patients who failed to follow up and included only patients with complete perinatal outcomes.

The indications for the procedure included sFGR, TRAPS, TAPS, discordant fetal anomalies, MFPR, and TTTS that cannot be treated by laser coagulation because of placental position or technique problems. Most of the TTTS cases were Quintero stage -III (80%), with a few cases of the stage -II (15%) and stage -IV (5%). For TRAPS cases, a growing acardiac mass similar in size to or larger than the normal twin was the main indication. A diagnosis of chorionicity was made according to the standard sonographic criteria [10, 11]. The indications and complications for intervention were based on ultrasound examinations. All patients were informed of the details of surgical procedures of RFA and the possible risks of the operation, such as miscarriage, preterm delivery, co-twin demise, and neurological injury in the surviving twin.

Two fetal medicine specialists performed the procedures using the same technique. The procedure was performed in an operating theatre and strictly abided by the aseptic technique. The patient was given an intravenous infusion of 1 g preventive cefazolin 1 h before surgery followed by skin antisepsis with 10% povidone-iodine, and then the operation was started. Ten milliliters of 1% lidocaine were administered locally down to the myometrium under ultrasound guidance. A small incision was made on the skin ahead of the percutaneous introduction.

A 17-gauge radiofrequency needle with a length of 15 cm and eight expandable tines at the top (MedSphere S-1500, California, USA) was used. The tines are deployed from the needle probe tip to a variable length to create a spherical space with a maximum 2-cm diameter where the thermal effects are focused.

Under ultrasound guidance, the RFA probe was inserted into the abdomen of the target twin, aiming at the region beneath the umbilical cord insertion. The device’s tines were posed within the fetal body after ascertaining the correct location. The precaution was taken to ensure that all the deployed tines were within the fetal body. A 20–40 wattage of energy generates a target temperature of 100 to 110 °C. Once the average goal temperature is reached, the device maintains the output for a defined time interval of 2 min and then shuts off to enable tissue cooling. The procedure was repeated for an additional one to two cycles until fetal bradycardia and cessation of cord blood flow were confirmed using power color and pulsed Doppler ultrasound. It is critical to keep the device away from the membranes and uterine wall to avoid thermal injury. Before the device is removed, the tines should be retracted [12].

The middle cerebral artery peak systolic velocity (MCA-PSV) was assessed within 24 h after the procedure to detect fetal anemia in the surviving twin. All women were discharged 48 h after surgery. Ultrasound examination was performed 1 week after the procedure and then every 2 weeks. Each scan involved evaluation of the fetal biometry and middle cerebral artery peak systolic velocity (MCA-PSV) of and utilized umbilical artery Doppler assessment and ductus venous (DV) Doppler in the non-targeted fetus. Fetal brain magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is a recommended but not routine practice in the third trimester to detect brain damage in non-targeted fetuses. Most patients delivered their progeny in other hospitals in South China. Pregnancy outcomes were recorded by retrieval from the database (Astraia Software Gmbh, Ismaning, Bayern, Germany) or telephone interviews. Neonatal information and pediatric outcomes were obtained by complete clinical evaluation from the referring pediatrician and direct contact with the parents. We performed a systematic literature search in PubMed, EMBASE and clinicaltrials.gov for previous RFA studies between 2008 and 2021 and compared the data with our results.

Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS version 23 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, United States). Categorical variables were compared using Fisher’s exact test or the chi-square test, as appropriate. Continuous variables were compared using unpaired Student’s t-test or the Mann–Whitney U-test. Kaplan–Meier survival curves were plotted for the time interval from RFA to delivery to compare outcomes between the RFA ≤ 20 weeks and > 20 weeks groups. The log-rank test was used to determine whether there was any difference between the two groups. A P value below 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Influencing factors for fetal loss after RFA were studied by binary regression analysis, including the gestational age at RFA, chorionicity, RFA indications, cycles of RFA coagulation, and duration of RFA.

Results

Three hundred and thirteen patients were treated during this period, but 7 cases were missed of follow-up. In the remained three hundred and six patients, including 266 pairs of MCDA twins, two sets of MA twins, 30 sets of DCTA triplets, and eight sets of MCTA triplets, the median gestational age of the fetuses at the time of the procedure was 20.57 (17.82–23.29) weeks. The mean maternal age was 32.71 ± 6.07 years, and the mean birth weight was 2570 ± 736 g. Indications for reduction included severe discordant structural malformation in one twin (n = 78), TTTS (n = 91), sFGR (n = 83), MFPR (n = 32), TRAPS (n = 19) and TAPS (n = 3). Figure 1 shows the indications and fetal survival rate following RFA. The demographics and obstetric characteristics are described in Table 1.

Fig. 1
figure 1

Flow chart of indications and the fetal survival rate following RFA

Table 1 The characteristics of cases that underwent selective termination with RFA before and after 20 weeks of gestational age

The commonly reported complications associated with RFA include preterm delivery, preterm premature rupture of membranes (PPROM), and miscarriage. In our study, seventeen intrauterine fetal deaths (IUFDs) (5.56%) occurred 24 h after the procedure, and 4 (1.31%) occurred two weeks later. The total number of cases of PPROM and miscarriage after the procedure was 37 (12.1%). In 6 cases, the couples opted for termination of pregnancy. Approximately one-half of these PPROM cases occurred more than two weeks after the operation.

The total fetal survival rate after RFA was 78.76%. SFGR had the best outcome in the cohort, with fetal loss in only 8 of 83 cases. Surgical failure was defined as a procedure that could not stop the blood flow in the umbilical cord, which occurred only once (0.33%). The case was a TRAPS in which the diameter of the acardiac mass exceeded the abdominal circumference of the unaffected fetus at 23 weeks. Blood flow in the acardiac mass could not be stopped successfully, so the woman was monitored weekly. She spontaneously delivered a 3000 g baby. The fetal demise of the healthy twin within 24 h following RFA occurred in 17 cases (5.56%) and 2 weeks after RFA in another 4 cases. Termination of pregnancy was performed in 6 cases at the couples’ request. In two cases of TTTS, subsequent examination of the surviving co-twin revealed evidence of cerebral atrophy, which was confirmed by MRI. Three cases developed mild anemia within 48 h after the procedure, but there was no obvious neurological damage at long-term follow-up.

Table 2 shows the univariable and multivariable logistic regression analysis of the potential factors affecting co-twin loss after the procedure. Compared to the co-twin alive group, the co-twin loss group was associated with the indication itself. There was no statistically significant correlation with the gestational age at the time of RFA, the chorionicity of fetuses, cycles of RFA coagulation, or the duration of RFA.

Table 2 Univariable and multivariable logistic regression analyses were used to confirm several possible factors affecting co-twin fetal loss after RFA

The median gestational age at RFA was 17.43 (16.39–18.78) weeks and 23 (21.18–24.29) weeks in the groups undergoing RFA before 20 weeks and after 20 weeks, respectively (Table 1). The median gestational age when PRROM occurred in the two groups was [21.9 (15.6–26) weeks vs. 25.6 (23.8–26.7) weeks; p = 0.145], respectively. The mean gestational age of preterm delivery before 34 weeks was similar between the two groups (30 ± 1.6 vs. 30.7 ± 1.72; p = 0.142) (Table 3). There was also no difference in the median gestational age at delivery [35.93 (28–38) weeks vs. 36 (28.54–38.14) weeks; P = 0.253] or mean birth weight (2528 ± 776 g vs. 2605 ± 705 g; p = 0.438) (Table 3).

Table 3 Comparison of the outcomes of selective termination with RFA performed before and after 20 weeks of gestational age

The Kaplan–Meier survival curve showed the proportion of cases continuing the pregnancy after RFA in the two groups (Fig. 2). The two curves show that the gestational age at the time of RFA had no significant difference in the pregnancy outcome (P = 0.882).

Fig. 2
figure 2

Kaplan–Meier survival curve showing the proportion of cases continuing the pregnancy after RFA was performed before and after 20 weeks of gestational age

Table 4 summarises the results of this current study and compares with those of 22 previous studies that have evaluated RFA. The overall survival rates, gestational age at the time of the procedure, and gestational age at delivery were reported in all studies. However, most of the studies did not specifically evaluate the birth weight, cycles of RFA coagulation, or duration of RFA. The combined data show that the mean fetal survival rate was 76.55 ± 8.01%.

Table 4 Review of RFA studies

Discussion

Our study demonstrated that the indications of RFA were the potential risk factors for co-twin loss after RFA, while gestational age at RFA, chorionicity, cycles of RFA coagulation, and the duration of RFA were not. Other studies concluded that the number of ablation cycles was inversely associated with the fetal loss rate [15, 21]. Our study compared the fetal death rate between cases where RFA was performed before 20 weeks and after 20 weeks (26.4% vs. 27.4%, respectively). Based on these similar results, we concluded that it is best to intervene early to minimize complications.

In Table 4, the two highest fetal survival rates, 91.9% and 88.6% were reported by Shinar et al. [14] and Paramasivam et al. [33], respectively. We combined the survival data from all the included articles, and the final mean survival rate was 76.55 ± 8.01%. In the current study, the overall survival rate was 78.76%, which is consistent with the final mean survival rate of the combined studies. Our result is also in accordance with that of Gaerty et al., who performed a systematic review and meta-analysis and found that the survival rate of the RFA group was 76.8% (67.6–87.2%; 238/310) [8]. This study and previous reports provide accurate information for couples’ counselling about this procedure [15, 21].

As experience in using RFA to treat fetuses with TRAPS has increased, RFA has been considered a viable alternative to treat TRAPS [32]. One review reporting 98 registry cases on the outcomes of using RFA to treat TRAPS from 1998 to 2008 suggested that the survival rate was 80% in the overall cohort and that the mean gestational age at delivery was 36 weeks [35].

In our 19 cases of TRAPS, 14 co-twins survived. And 61 infants from 78 cases of MFPR survived. The perinatal outcomes were better in the sFGR than the TTTS cases (75/83 (90.36%) vs. 60/91 (65.93%)). Another review also concluded that pregnancies with TTTS appear to have a lower overall survival rate than pregnancies treated for other indications [8]. Compared to reduction for severe TTTS, selective reduction due to sFGR is associated with a more favorable perinatal outcome. One possible reason for this phenomenon could be that both fetuses are affected by TTTS, and the presence of polyhydramnios increases the risk of preterm delivery. Another explanation could be that the fetuses affected by TTTS had prolonged exposure to massive hemodynamic changes, contributing to worse perinatal outcomes, whereas only the smaller fetus is affected by sFGR.

Iatrogenic PPROM is another major complication. There is evidence that the use of smaller devices to enter the amniotic cavity may be associated with a lower risk of PPROM [32]. The PPROM rate risk is 25–50% when a 3.3-mm trocar of BCC is used. The main advantage of RFA over BCC is the introduction of a minor membrane defect less than 3.3 mm owing to the 17-gauge needle. As Table 3 shows, more than half of the cases (12/17) developed PPROM within 4 weeks after the RFA procedure. This complication contributes to significantly elevated rates of adverse perinatal outcomes. Selective termination in MC pregnancies has also been associated with other perioperative complications, including late miscarriage, amniotic band syndrome, chorioamnionitis, and other procedure-related fatal injuries [12]. The fetal reduction is also a better choice to reduce the maternal-fetal complications for multiple pregnancies. Chaveeva et al. reported the outcome of DC triplet pregnancies reduced to DC twins by laser ablation and concluded that fetal reduction has a lower miscarriage rate and a lower preterm birth rate of < 33 weeks’ gestation compared with expectant treatment [36]. A meta-analysis suggests that multifetal pregnancy reduction of triplet pregnancies to twin pregnancies is associated with a better pregnancy outcome than that of non-reduced triplets [37]. For the interval from RFA to delivery, because the gestational age of the two groups at delivery is similar, the interval between the operation and delivery will be longer for women who had the fetal reduction before 20 weeks of gestation.

Accurate placement of the needle under ultrasound guidance is crucial to the success of the procedure. Sometimes it is difficult to place the probe in the ideal site, especially when the fetus is facing down during the surgery, which may increase the failure rate and risk of the procedure. We rarely place the needle multiple times because we track the exact position of the needle from the initial insertion under the ultrasound guidance. After ablation, visualization of the scorched area is usually poor, making it challenging to observe blood flow [38]. For TTTS in this cohort of patients, we chose the RFA because fetoscopic laser treatment is often hindered by technical difficulties such as reduced visibility due to stained amniotic fluid or poor accessibility of some anastomoses due to placenta location or the position of fetal parts on the vascular equator [39]. In addition, the couples preferred to keep a healthy singleton than to keep babies with neurological damages in monochorionic twins. Three surviving fetuses were anemic following the procedure, and twenty-one cases were associated with fetal demise after the procedure. In MC pregnancies, the life-threatening condition of one twin can cause a severe hemodynamic imbalance, at least a 25% chance of intrauterine death of the healthy co-twin and neurological sequelae in approximately 25% of surviving twins [15]. This is assumed to be due to the exsanguination of the normal twin into the affected twin in the presence of placental vascular anastomoses [9]. These results may be due to incomplete coagulation of the cord in the affected twin to a large extent. Power color Doppler and pulsed Doppler are useful for monitoring the quality of coagulation as soon as the target fetus dies, suggesting that it is necessary to follow up cases closely using MCA Doppler [40]. Although selective feticide aims to protect the life and well-being of the co-twin, the primary concern after an intervention is the risk of intrauterine death of the co-twin. Abdel-Sattar et al. reported that 33.3% of co-twins died after the procedure [22]. The period of highest risk is within 24–48 h after the operation. In our cohort, the percentage of co-twin intrauterine deaths was 6.9% (21/306), with the most likely causes of acute transfer of intravascular volume from the co-twin to the hypotensive, dying fetus of unsuccessful or incomplete coagulation of the target vessels. Sometimes intrauterine death of the co-twin may occur late, several weeks after surgery, and the underlying reason remains unknown [40].

It has been reported that the fetus suffered thermal damage after RFA [26]. In our cohort, we found no instances of uterine or fetal heat injury. Proficient operative experience and careful preoperative assessment play a significant role in the development of complications. The studies by D’Antonio F et al. and Schou KV et al. confirmed that skills and experience could improve surgical outcomes [41] [5]. Therefore, only after sufficient professional technical training should physicians perform selective termination reduction operations.

One of the strengths is that this report reviews all RFA studies in recent years and compares them with ours. Second, the sample size of this study was relatively large, and almost every kind of complication was included, although the number of some complications (such as TAPS and TRAPS) was relatively small. One limitation of this paper is that it is a single-center retrospective study, and there may be bias in the data interpretation. Further multicenter prospective studies are needed to more effectively identify risk factors for co-twin fetal loss following RFA.

Conclusion

In summary, RFA is a relatively safe technique for selective fetal reduction, and the indication for RFA is a risk factor of fetal loss. The survival rate of co-twins was similar when RFA was performed before and after gestational age 20 weeks. Early detection and timely treatment for MC complications is likely to increase the chance of survival for fetuses.

Availability of data and materials

The datasets generated and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Abbreviations

MC:

Monochorionic

RFA:

Radiofrequency ablation

MCDA:

Monochorionic diamniotic

MCTA:

Monochorionic triamniotic

DCTA:

Dichorionic triamniotic

TTTS:

Twin-to-twin transfusion syndrome

sFGR:

Selective fetal growth restriction

MFPR:

Multifetal pregnancy reduction

TRAPS:

Twin reversed arterial perfusion sequence

TAPS:

Twin anemia-polycythemia sequence

ARTs:

Reproduction techniques

IVF:

In vitro fertilization

BCC:

Bipolar cord coagulation

MWA:

Microwave ablation

MCA-PSV:

Middle cerebral artery peak systolic velocity

MRI:

Magnetic resonance imaging

PPROM:

Preterm premature rupture of the membranes

References

  1. 1.

    Sebghati M, Khalil A. Reduction of multiple pregnancy: Counselling and techniques. Best practice & research Clinical obstetrics & gynaecology. 2021;70:112–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    No PB. 169: multifetal gestations: twin, triplet, and higher-order multifetal pregnancies. Obstet Gynecol. 2016;128(4):e131–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Khalil A, Rodgers M, Baschat A, Bhide A, Gratacos E, Hecher K, et al. ISUOG practice guidelines: role of ultrasound in twin pregnancy. Ultrasound in obstetrics & Gynecology. 2016;47(2):247–63.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Wimalasundera RC: Selective reduction and termination of multiple pregnancies. Semin Fetal Neonatal Med, 15(6):327–335.

  5. 5.

    Schou KV, Jensen LN, Jorgensen C, Sogaard K, Tabor A, Sundberg K. Ultrasound-guided bipolar umbilical cord occlusion in complicated Monochorionic pregnancies: is there a learning curve. Fetal Diagn Ther. 2018;44(1):65–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    O'Donoghue K, Barigye O, Pasquini L, Chappell L, Wimalasundera RC, Fisk NM. Interstitial laser therapy for fetal reduction in monochorionic multiple pregnancy: loss rate and association with aplasia cutis congenita. Prenat Diagn. 2008;28(6):535–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Meng X, Yuan P, Gong L, Wang X, Wu T, Wei Y, et al. Forty-five consecutive cases of complicated monochorionic multiple pregnancy treated with microwave ablation: a single-center experience. Prenat Diagn. 2019;39(4):293–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Gaerty K, Greer RM, Kumar S. Systematic review and metaanalysis of perinatal outcomes after radiofrequency ablation and bipolar cord occlusion in monochorionic pregnancies. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2015;213(5):637–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Rossi AC, D'Addario V. Umbilical cord occlusion for selective feticide in complicated monochorionic twins: a systematic review of literature. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2009;200(2):123–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Alhamdan D, Bora S, Condous G. Diagnosing twins in early pregnancy. Best Practice Res Clinical obstetrics & gynaecology. 2009;23(4):453–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Dias T, Arcangeli T, Bhide A, Napolitano R, Mahsud-Dornan S, Thilaganathan B. First-trimester ultrasound determination of chorionicity in twin pregnancy. Ultrasound in obstetrics & Gynecology. 2011;38(5):530–2.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Bebbington M. Selective reduction in multiple gestations. Best practice & research Clinical obstetrics & gynaecology. 2014;28(2):239–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Wang H, Zhou Q, Wang X, Song J, Chen P, Wang Y, et al. Influence of indications on perinatal outcomes after radio frequency ablation in complicated monochorionic pregnancies: a retrospective cohort study. BMC pregnancy and childbirth. 2021;21(1):41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Shinar S, Agrawal S, El-Chaar D, Abbasi N, Beecroft R, Kachura J, et al. Selective fetal reduction in complicated monochorionic twin pregnancies: a comparison of techniques. Prenat Diagn. 2021;41(1):52–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Ting YH, Poon LCY, Tse WT, Chung MY, Wah YM, Hui ASY, et al. Outcome of radiofrequency ablation for selective fetal reduction before vs at or after 16 gestational weeks in complicated monochorionic pregnancy. Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecol. 2021;58(2):214–20.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Rahimi-Sharbaf F, Ghaemi M, Nassr AA, Shamshirsaz AA, Shirazi M. Radiofrequency ablation for selective fetal reduction in complicated Monochorionic twins; comparing the outcomes according to the indications. BMC pregnancy and childbirth. 2021;21(1):189.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Liu Q, Shi X, Fang L, Rao T, Shi L, Wu J. A cohort study of the perinatal outcome of radiofrequency ablation in complicated monochorionic multiple pregnancies based on a different needle insert angle. The Journal of international medical research. 2021;49(5):3000605211018432.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Dadhwal V, Sharma KA, Rana A, Sharma A, Singh L. Perinatal outcome in monochorionic twin pregnancies after selective fetal reduction using radiofrequency ablation. International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics. 2021.

  19. 19.

    Gabby LC, Chon AH, Korst LM, Llanes A, Chmait RH. Risk factors for co-twin fetal demise following radiofrequency ablation in multifetal Monochorionic gestations. Fetal Diagn Ther. 2020:1–7.

  20. 20.

    Dadhwal V, Sharma AK, Deka D, Chawla L, Agarwal N. Selective fetal reduction in monochorionic twins: preliminary experience. J Turk Ger Gynecol Assoc. 2019;20(2):79–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Sun L, Zou G, Yang Y, Zhou F, Tao D. Risk factors for fetal death after radiofrequency ablation for complicated monochorionic twin pregnancies. Prenat Diagn. 2018;38(7):499–503.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Abdel-Sattar M, Chon A, Llanes A, Korst L, Ouzounian J, Chmait R. Comparison of umbilical cord occlusion methods: radiofrequency ablation versus laser photocoagulation. Prenat Diagn. 2018;38(2):110–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Wang HM, Li HY, Wang XT, Wang YY, Li L, Liang B, et al. Radiofrequency ablation for selective reduction in complex monochorionic multiple pregnancies: a case series. Taiwanese journal of obstetrics & gynecology. 2017;56(6):740–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    Peng R, Xie HN, Lin MF, Yang JB, Zhou Y, Chen HQ, et al. Clinical outcomes after selective fetal reduction of complicated Monochorionic twins with radiofrequency ablation and bipolar cord coagulation. Gynecol Obstet Investig. 2016;81(6):552–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    Yinon Y, Ashwal E, Weisz B, Chayen B, Schiff E, Lipitz S. Selective reduction in complicated monochorionic twins: prediction of obstetric outcome and comparison of techniques. Ultrasound in obstetrics & gynecology : the official journal of the International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology. 2015;46(6):670–7.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    Kumar S, Paramasivam G, Zhang E, Jones B, Noori M, Prior T, Vasudeva A, Wimalasundera RC: Perinatal- and procedure-related outcomes following radiofrequency ablation in monochorionic pregnancy. American journal of obstetrics and gynecology 2014, 210(5):454 e451–456.

  27. 27.

    Berg C, Holst D, Mallmann MR, Gottschalk I, Gembruch U, Geipel A. Early vs late intervention in twin reversed arterial perfusion sequence. Ultrasound in obstetrics & gynecology : the official journal of the International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology. 2014;43(1):60–4.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

    van den Bos EM, van Klink JMM, Middeldorp JM, Klumper FJ, Oepkes D, Lopriore E. Perinatal outcome after selective feticide in monochorionic twin pregnancies. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2013;41(6):653–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. 29.

    Lu J, Ting YH, Law KM, Lau TK, Leung TY. Radiofrequency ablation for selective reduction in complicated monochorionic multiple pregnancies. Fetal Diagn Ther. 2013;34(4):211–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. 30.

    Cabassa P, Fichera A, Prefumo F, Taddei F, Gandolfi S, Maroldi R, et al. The use of radiofrequency in the treatment of twin reversed arterial perfusion sequence: a case series and review of the literature. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2013;166(2):127–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. 31.

    Bebbington MW, Danzer E, Moldenhauer J, Khalek N, Johnson MP. Radiofrequency ablation vs bipolar umbilical cord coagulation in the management of complicated monochorionic pregnancies. Ultrasound in obstetrics & gynecology : the official journal of the International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology. 2012;40(3):319–24.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  32. 32.

    Roman A, Papanna R, Johnson A, Hassan SS, Moldenhauer J, Molina S, et al. Selective reduction in complicated monochorionic pregnancies: radiofrequency ablation vs. bipolar cord coagulation. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2010;36(1):37–41.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  33. 33.

    Paramasivam G, Wimalasundera R, Wiechec M, Zhang E, Saeed F, Kumar S. Radiofrequency ablation for selective reduction in complex monochorionic pregnancies. BJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology. 2010;117(10):1294–8.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  34. 34.

    Moise KJ, Jr., Johnson A, Moise KY, Nickeleit V: Radiofrequency ablation for selective reduction in the complicated monochorionic gestation. American journal of obstetrics and gynecology 2008, 198(2):198 e191–195.

  35. 35.

    Lee H, Bebbington M, Crombleholme TM. The north American fetal therapy network registry data on outcomes of radiofrequency ablation for twin-reversed arterial perfusion sequence. Fetal Diagn Ther. 2013;33(4):224–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. 36.

    Chaveeva P, Peeva G, Pugliese SG, Shterev A, Nicolaides KH. Intrafetal laser ablation for embryo reduction from dichorionic triplets to dichorionic twins. Ultrasound in obstetrics & Gynecol. 2017;50(5):632–4.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  37. 37.

    Zipori Y, Haas J, Berger H, Barzilay E. Multifetal pregnancy reduction of triplets to twins compared with non-reduced triplets: a meta-analysis. Reprod BioMed Online. 2017;35(3):296–304.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. 38.

    Chen M, Leung TY: Selective Termination of One Fetus in Monochorionic Twin Pregnancies. In: Fetal Therapy: Scientific Basis and Critical Appraisal of Clinical Benefits. 2 edn. Edited by Johnson A, Oepkes D, Kilby MD. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2020: 418–425.

  39. 39.

    Chalouhi GE, Essaoui M, Stirnemann J, Quibel T, Deloison B, Salomon L, et al. Laser therapy for twin-to-twin transfusion syndrome (TTTS). Prenat Diagn. 2011;31(7):637–46.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  40. 40.

    Robyr R, Yamamoto M, Ville Y. Selective feticide in complicated monochorionic twin pregnancies using ultrasound-guided bipolar cord coagulation. BJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology. 2005;112(10):1344–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. 41.

    D'Antonio F, Khalil A, Dias T, Thilaganathan B: Early fetal loss in monochorionic and dichorionic twin pregnancies: analysis of the Southwest Thames Obstetric Research Collaborative (STORK) multiple pregnancy cohort. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol, 41(6):632–636.

Download references

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank all participants and their families and the Fetal Medicine team staff.

Funding

The work was supported by the National Key Research and Development Program of China (2018YFC1004104).

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

MC and NL designed the study. MC, NL and WJ performed ultrasound examinations. MC and NL performed the selective termination. YFL and FC assisted the data collection. JMS, JYW, YHM and XQY were responsible for data management and statistical analysis. MC, NL and JMS drafted the manuscript. MC, JL and DJC revised the manuscript. All authors have read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Min Chen.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

All procedures performed in the study involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. This study was reviewed and approved by the Research Ethics Committee of the Third Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou Medical University (approval number: 2021007). Written informed consent was obtained from all participants.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

None of the authors have any conflicts of interest to declare.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Li, N., Sun, J., Wang, J. et al. Selective termination of the fetus in multiple pregnancies using ultrasound-guided radiofrequency ablation. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 21, 821 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12884-021-04285-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12884-021-04285-4

Keywords

  • Selective termination
  • Ultrasound-guided radiofrequency ablation
  • Multifetal pregnancy reduction
  • Twin-to-twin transfusion syndrome
  • Selective fetal growth restriction
  • Discordant structural malformation