Experience in different modes of delivery in twin pregnancy.

BACKGROUND/
PURPOSE: Vaginal delivery, compared with Cesarean delivery, remains a less chosen mode of delivery for twin pregnancy. We studied the maternal and perinatal outcomes of twin pregnancy with different modes of delivery.
METHODS: A retrospective study with data collected from a regional hospital, including vital twin pregnancies delivered at gestational age of 32 weeks and above. Medical charts were reviewed for prenatal conditions and postpartum outcomes.
RESULTS: Ninety-eight pairs of twins were included and 44.9% were delivered via vaginal delivery. Women in the vaginal delivery group were significantly younger (32.5 ±4.3 years versus 34.8 ±4.6 years, p < 0.01), multiparous (34.1% versus 18.5%) and with more twins in vertex-vertex presentation (70.5% versus 33.3%) compared with women in the Cesarean delivery group. There were no differences between maternal postpartum complications and neonatal outcomes in both groups. The outcomes showed longer inter-twin delivery time interval (5.7 ± 5.6 versus 1.5 ± 0.9 min, p < 0.01), less estimated blood loss (198.7 ± 144.1 versus 763.2 ± 332.3 mL, p < 0.01), and shorter maternal hospital stay (3.0 ± 0.5 versus 5.7 ± 0.5 days, p< 0.01) in the vaginal delivery group. Twenty newborns had Apgar score below seven at birth. Logistic regression analysis revealed that low Apgar score was independently related to younger maternal age, maternal obstetric diseases and fetal non-vertex presentation. Gestational weeks and mode of delivery were not related to low Apgar score.
CONCLUSION: With careful case selection, vaginal delivery could be safely performed in twin pregnancies with less estimated blood loss and better recovery than Cesarean delivery.

Introduction

The birth rate of twins in Taiwan has risen substantially over the past decade, accounting for 3.67% of births in the year of 2017 [1]. The rising birth rate of twin pregnancies largely attributes to the thriving of assisted reproductive technology [2]. Twin pregnancies lead to elevated risks for maternal medical and obstetrical complications, including gestational diabetes, hypertensive disorders, and postpartum hemorrhage [3, 4]. Twin pregnancies also contribute to higher perinatal and infant mortality and morbidities, mostly due to increased risk of prematurity [5, 6].

The optimal mode of delivery for twin pregnancies has been a topic of debate. It has been proposed that planned Cesarean delivery for twins may decrease the risk of adverse perinatal outcomes [7, 8]. Based on the United States birth data collected from the National Center for Health Statistics, the rate of Cesarean delivery climbed all the way up to a peak of 75.3% in 2009, and then stabilized with a slight but significant decrease to 74.8% in 2013 [9, 10]. Barrett et al., however, reported in the international randomized trial, “the Twin Birth Study,” that planned vaginal delivery showed comparable neonatal mortality and morbidity to planned Cesarean delivery in twin pregnancies [11].

Following the publication of “the Twin Birth Study”, both the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) and the guideline of National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) suggested vaginal delivery for women with uncomplicated diamniotic twin pregnancies at 32 weeks or later whose presenting fetus is in the vertex position [12, 13]. Despite guideline recommendation, the Cesarean delivery rate for twin pregnancies remains high.

Our study presents birth data from a regional teaching hospital with high vaginal delivery rate in twin pregnancies. We analyzed patient characteristics and the perinatal and maternal outcomes of twin deliveries. We aim to set criteria for safe twin vaginal delivery.

Methods and materials

Twin pregnancy

We reviewed all chart records of patients with viable twin pregnancy at gestational weeks of 32 or above, whom delivered their twin babies in Hsin-Chu Branch of National Taiwan University Hospital, a local teaching hospital, from Nov 2013 to Sep2019. Delivery methods, either vaginal or Cesarean section, were stated in chart records based on suggestion of obstetrician and patients’ choice after comprehensive explanation of risks and benefits at the outpatient prenatal clinic and during the onset of labor.

Other essential clinical characteristics, including maternal age, body mass index (BMI, calculated as weight in kilograms divided by the square of height in meters), parity, history of previous pregnancy, maternal obstetric diseases (ex. diabetes, gestational diabetes, hypertensive disorder, preeclampsia), underlying maternal medical conditions (ex. hyperthyroidism, uterine myoma, previous myomectomy), and fetal presentations at the last outpatient prenatal visit and during delivery were obtained from medical records. Twin A was defined as the first newborn delivered and twin B the second newborn. Apgar scores of both newborns were recorded at 1 and 5 minutes after delivery. Time intervals between each newborn delivered were recorded. Estimated blood loss (EBL) in Cesarean section was calculated from the amount of fluid loss, including blood and amniotic fluid, collected from the evacuation bottles and on the gauzes used. In vaginal delivery, the amount of amniotic fluid was not included in EBL since most amniotic fluid could not be collected during membrane rupture at time of delivery. All conversions from vaginal delivery to Cesarean section were recorded. After delivery, length of maternal hospital stay and incidence of immediate intra-operative and postoperative maternal complications such as postpartum hemorrhage and postoperative fever were recorded as well.

Neonatal outcomes were recorded, including admission to neonatal intensive care unit (NICU), respiratory distress syndrome (RDS), transient tachypnea of newborn (TTN), intracranial or intraventricular hemorrhage (ICH or IVH), and neonatal death. The criteria of NICU admission included low birth body weight (<1500 g), respiratory distress that needed continuous positive airway pressure or ventilator, unstable vital signs, shock, and neonatal seizure.

Statistical analysis

Statistical analysis was performed using Statistical Analysis System (SAS) version 8.0 (SAS Institute, Cary, NC). Continuous variables were reported as mean and standard deviation, while discrete variables were reported as percentages. All comparisons of continuous variables were analyzed using t-test, and all discrete variables were analyzed using chi-squared test or Fisher’s exact test when sample size was less than five. Logistic regression analyses were performed to identify factors related to poor Apgar score of 7 or lower at either 1 or 5 minutes after delivery. A two-tailed p-value of < 0.05 was considered as statistically significant.

Statement of ethics

This study was approved by the Institutional Review Board of the National Taiwan University Hsin-Chu Hospital (reference no. 108-119-E). All data were fully anonymized before assessment. The ethics committee waived the requirement for informed consent.

Results

Fig 1 shows the study flow chart. A total number of 98 twins were included. Onewoman with scheduled Cesarean delivery was rearranged to vaginal delivery because her first twin changed spontaneously from breech presentation to vertex presentation at the onset of labor. Three other women’s first twins changed to non-vertex presentation during labor onset and were re-scheduled for Cesarean delivery. In total, 44 (44.9%) twins were delivered via vaginal delivery successfully.

Fig 1

Flow chart of study population.

* Shift of delivery modes were due to change of first fetal presentation just before delivery.

Table 1 shows the basic characteristics of these cases in both groups. Women in the vaginal delivery group were significantly younger and showed relatively higher parity than women in the Cesarean delivery group. There were no differences in maternal BMI, obstetric diseases, medical underlying conditions, or gestational age in both groups. During delivery, women in the vaginal delivery group showed significantly more twins in the vertex-vertex presentation. In fact, all first twins in the vaginal delivery group were in the vertex presentation at the time of delivery. There were no significant differences in the presentation of the second twins. In the vaginal delivery group, there were two cases where the second twin received an internal conversion from transverse presentation to a footling or vertex presentation. In six cases, the second twin changed from vertex to either a breech or footling presentation during delivery. No conversions to Cesarean section occurred in the vaginal delivery group. In the Cesarean delivery group, there were five cases where the second twin received an internal conversion from a transverse presentation to either a footling or a vertex presentation. In one case, the second twin was converted from breech presentation to transverse presentation. In nine cases, the second twins were converted from either vertex to breech or breech to vertex presentation during delivery. There were no placenta abnormalities such as abruptio or velamentus placenta during delivery.

Table 1

Clinical characteristics of the patients.

	Vaginal delivery (n = 44)	Cesarean delivery (n = 54)	p value
Maternal Age, years	32.5±4.3, 20–41	34.8±4.6, 26–51	0.01*
Parity			0.13
Nulliparous	29 (65.9)	44 (81.5)
Multiparous	15 (34.1)	10 (18.5)
BMI, kg/m2, range	27.5 ±4.1, 18.5–40.2	27.0 ± 6.0, 18.7–37.9	0.72
Gestational age, weeks			0.50
Preterm (<37wk)	23 (52.3)	33 (61.1)
Term (≥37wks)	21 (47.7)	21 (38.9)
Maternal obstetric diseases
Hypertensive disorders	4 (9.1)	10 (18.5)	0.25
GDM or DM	4 (9.1)	5 (11.1)	1.00
Other medical underlying conditions	1 (2.3)	3 (5.6)	0.63

Abbreviations: BMI, body mass index; GDM, gestational diabetes mellitus

* p < 0.05

Data were shown as mean ± standard deviation, range or n (%)

aTwo patients in the Cesarean delivery group have hypertensive disorders and GDM; other medical underlying conditions include hyperthyroidism, uterine myoma, previous myomectomy

Table 2 shows the outcome of the mothers and the twin fetuses in both delivery groups. There were no differences in birth weights. There were significantly longer delivery time interval (DTI), less amount of estimated blood loss, and shorter maternal hospital stays in the vaginal delivery group compared with the Cesarean delivery group. Vacuum-assisted delivery was performed in twenty vaginal deliveries. In the four cases where DTI was longer than 10 minutes in the vaginal delivery group, the second twins required an internal conversion to change their presentations from the vertex or transverse presentation to either a footling or breech presentation for fetal extraction. There were no differences in the 1 and 5-minute Apgar scores, set at a cut-off value of 7, in the first and second twins. No neonatal death occurred in either group. TTN was only noted in fetuses of the Cesarean delivery group. There were no significant differences in the rates of other neonatal complications. As for maternal postpartum complications, there was a significantly higher PPH rate in the Cesarean delivery group, but no differences in maternal ICU admission rate or postpartum infection rate.

Table 2

Maternal delivery and neonatal outcome.

	Vaginal delivery (n = 44)	Cesarean delivery (n = 54)	p value
Fetal presentation			<0.001***
Vertex/Vertex	31 (70.5)	18 (33.3)
Vertex/Non vertex	13 (29.5)	12 (22.2)
Non-vertex/vertex	0	11 (20.4)
Non-vertex/non-vertex	0	13 (24.1)
Birth weight, gm
Twin A	2277.7 ± 349.3, 1675–3210	2291.5 ± 427.7, 965–3084	0.86
Twin B	2273.0 ± 378.4, 1446–3386	2275.6 ± 457.7, 690–3110	0.98
Delivery time interval, min	5.7 ± 5.6, 1–33	1.5 ± 0.9, 0–5	< 0.01**
Twin A 1’ Apgar Score			0.29
<7	2 (4.6)	6 (11.1)
≥7	42 (95.4)	48 (88.9)
Twin A 5’ Apgar Score			1.00
<7	0	1(1.9)
≥7	44 (100)	53 (98.1)
Twin B 1’ Apgar Score			0.54
<7	6 (13.6)	5 (9.3)
≥7	38 (86.4)	49 (90.7)
Twin B 5’ Apgar Score			0.45
<7	1 (2.3)	0
≥7	43 (97.7)	54 (100)
Estimate blood loss, mLǂ	198.7 ± 144.1, 100–1000	763.2 ± 332.3, 200–1300	< 0.01**
Maternal complications
3- or 4-degree perineal laceration	0	NA
PPH	1 (2.27)	19 (17.59)	<0.0001
ICU admission	0	1
Infection	0	0
Maternal Hospital stay, day	3.0 ± 0.5, 1–4	5.7 ± 0.5,5–7	< 0.01**
Neonatal outcome Ɨ
Admission to NICU	23 (26.14)	32 (29.63)	0.59
ICH/IVH	1 (1.13)	3 (2.78)	0.42
RDS	6 (6.81)	9 (8.33)	0.69
TTN	5 (5.68)	18 (16.67)	0.02
Neonatal death	0	0	N/A

Abbreviations: ICU, intensive care unit; ICH, Intracranial hemorrhage; NA, not applicable; NICU, newborn intensive care unit; PPH, postpartum hemorrhage; RDS, respiratory distress syndrome; TTN, transient tachypnea of the newborn

*p< 0.05;

** p< 0.01;

*** p< 0.001

Data were shown as mean ± standard deviation, range or n (%)

Ɨ: total case number of evaluation of neonatal outcome were 88 in vaginal delivery and 108 in Cesarean section

ǂ Estimated blood loss in Cesarean delivery group included amniotic fluid

Twenty newborns reported Apgar scores below 7 at either 1 or 5-minute, or both. Logistic regression analysis revealed that low Apgar score was independently associated with younger maternal age, maternal obstetrical diseases, and fetal non-vertex presentation during delivery. On the contrary, low Apgar score showed no correlation to gestational age or the mode of delivery. The result is shown in Table 3.

Table 3

Logistic regression analyses for determinants of low Apgar Score.

Independent variables	Univariate Logistic Regression			Multivariable Logistic Regression
	OR	95% CI	p-value	OR	95% CI	p-value
Age	0.915	(0.822–1.018)	0.104	0.866	(0.753–0.997)	0.045*
Maternal obstetric disease (PIH, preeclampsia, DM, GDM versus none)	3.000	(1.134–7.939)	0.027*	4.732	(1.464–19.292)	0.009*
Parity (multiparous versus primiparous)	0.970	(0.334–2.821)	0.956	1.422	(0.417–4.856)	0.574
Fetal presentation (Non-vertex versus vertex)	3.780	(1.458–9.800)	0.006*	3.192	(1.031–9.881)	0.044*
Gestation age	0.694	(0.552–0.871)	0.002*	0.766	(0.525–1.119)	0.168
Neonatal birth weight	0.998	(0.997–1.000)	0.005*	1.000	(1.000–1.001)	0.634
Types of delivery (Vaginal delivery versus Cesarean delivery)	0.800	(0.312–2.053)	0.643	1.012	(0.304–3.371)	0.985

Abbreviations: CI, confidence interval; DM, diabetes mellitus; GDM, gestational diabetes mellitus; OR, odds ratio; PIH, pregnancy induced hypertension

*: p< 0.05;

**: p< 0.01

aLow Apgar Score was defined as Apgar Score at 1 or 5 min < 7 in either twin.

Discussion

Our study presents a high vaginal delivery rate of 44.9% in twin pregnancies in a regional teaching hospital in Taiwan. This rate is exceptionally high compared to data collected from other hospitals in Taiwan, in the Asian countries and even in the world. The vaginal delivery rate in twin pregnancies was reported as 18% in Hong Kong [14], 23–28% in Japan [15], and 25% in the United States [9]. More impressively, our data includes no combined vaginal-Cesarean delivery, no neonatal deaths, and equal complication rates between vaginal and Cesarean deliveries.

A successful and safe delivery for both the mother and twin fetuses is the target goal for clinical service providers. We compared the two groups of patients to determine the characteristics for successful vaginal delivery in twin pregnancies. In concordance with the current ACOG and NICE guidelines, we identified vertex presentation in the first twin as an essential inclusion criterion for patients to receive vaginal twin delivery. In this study, we further identified older maternal age, maternal obstetric diseases, and non-vertex presentation, to be positively related to low Apgar score. Mothers in the vaginal delivery group were significantly younger than the mothers in the Cesarean delivery group. Moreover, multiparity, gestational age, fetal weight, and the mode of delivery were not related to low Apgar score.

However, there was limited data on maternal conditions associated with successful twin vaginal delivery. A prospective cohort study reported that multiparty and spontaneous conception best predicted successful twin vaginal birth [16]. Another study reported that advanced maternal age (odds ratio: 2.36) and nulliparity (odds ratio: 5.78) were independently associated with increased likelihood of Cesarean delivery in a univariate analysis [17]. These results correspond with findings in our study.

The presentation of the first twin was an inclusion criterion for vaginal delivery in our study. We found a frequent change of presentation in the second twin during time of delivery in both groups. Houlihan et al. also reported a 20% rate of position change of the second twin in planned deliveries [18]. Successful management of the second twin demands surgical experience. In some conditions, the second fetus needs to be repositioned for a safe and quick delivery. It has been suggested that the high Cesarean delivery rate in twin pregnancies around the world mainly attributes to concern for management of non-vertex presented second twins [19]. Many retrospective studies on vaginal delivery for twin pregnancies were not designed to overcome such situation during patient enrollment. Consequently, planned Cesarean delivery was adopted to reduce the risk of intrapartum anoxia in the second twins [8, 20, 21]. In our study, we have no vaginal Cesarean delivery cases under the technique of internal conversion for safe extraction of the second twin. Luckily, the Twin Birth Study reported no causative relationship between vertex versus non-vertex presentation of the second twin and neonatal mortality and morbidity between the two delivery groups [11].

Twin-to-twin delivery time interval was reported to be negatively correlated to the umbilical cord blood pH, and shorter DTI might improve the neonatal outcome for the second twins [22, 23]. It was reported that DTI over thirty minutes was strongly associated with higher risks of fetal acidosis and low Apgar score in the second twin [24]. However, current guidelines for twin delivery, as stated in ACOG and NICE, offers no specific recommendations regarding optimal DTI [12, 13]. The mean DTI in our vaginal delivery group was 5.7 minutes. The longest DTI was 33 minutes. In the case with the longest DTI, an inexperienced delivery assistant pushed the second twin into a transverse lie after delivery of the first twin. The attending obstetrician performed an internal conversion and delivered the second twin in the breech presentation. The vaginal delivery was successfully without the need for converting into a Cesarean delivery. The Apgar score of the first twin was 6 at 1 minute and 8 at 5 minutes, and 8 at 1 minute and 9 at 5 minutes for the second twin. Both twins were sent to the neonatal intensive care unit for close observation and were later discharged uneventfully. Skillful obstetrical maneuvers such as internal conversions are an essential to prevent combined vaginal-Cesarean delivery and to reduce neonatal morbidity and mortality rates of the second twins. These maneuvers have been reported as standard practice in earlier decades, resulting in a low combined vaginal-Cesarean delivery rate of 0.5% [25]. Unfortunately, many young obstetricians are not familiar or as confident with performing these maneuvers.

As for neonatal outcome, we found more TTN in the Cesarean delivery group. Many previous reports have proved that Cesarean section was a risk factor for TTN. Fluid accumulation in the fetus’ lungs after Cesarean delivery due to absence of labor is associated with an increase in TTN [26, 27]. Rates of other severe neonatal complications including RDS and ICH showed no significant difference. These findings are compatible with previous studies that indicated that both modes of delivery were safe for newborns [28, 29]. In our cohort, we found a higher PPH rate in the Cesarean delivery group, which can be attributable to the amount of the blood loss that included amniotic fluid.

The limitation of our study is that it is a non-randomized retrospective study with a small case number. In addition, cases appointed for vaginal delivery were highly selected, such that the first twin must be in the vertex presentation. Despite so, there were no significant differences in fetal weight and gestational week at time of delivery between the two groups. To perform a randomized study with strict criteria of either Cesarean or vaginal delivery in twin pregnancy can be difficult since many unknown events can occur after case recruitment. In our study, we found that a low Apgar score is significantly related to non-vertex presentation (either in the first or the second twin), maternal age, and maternal obstetric diseases. Maternal obstetric diseases can also occur after case randomization. More importantly, as mentioned, fetal presentation can change during delivery. The attending obstetrician must be alert and skillful to handle these situations that can happen in only a few minutes of time. In comparison, in the Twin Birth Study, the rate of Cesarean delivery in the planned vaginal delivery group was as high as 43.8% due to a too early timing of randomization [11, 19].

It should be quite informative if we performed subgroup analyses between the age, parity and presentation matched groups to see possible differences in vaginal delivery and Cesarean delivery. Again, due to limited case number, we failed to obtain significant results on these matters.

Apart from these limitations, we did not have follow-up data of these newborns after delivery. All of the newborns sent to NICU returned home uneventfully. The conditions of these newborns after being discharged were not traced.

The strength of our study is that this is a single regional teaching hospital studywith many experienced attending obstetricians as well as a high percentage of twin vaginal delivery with high success rate. To our knowledge, our study provides a useful and complete presentation of a comprehensive data of twin deliveries in Taiwan.

Conclusions

Our study provides some suggestions for successful vaginal delivery in twin pregnancies. Presentation of first twin is not only the major factor for successful vaginal delivery in twin pregnancies but also an important factor related to Apgar score. With careful case selection and adequate clinical experience, vaginal delivery could be safely performed in twin pregnancies with the additional benefits of less blood loss and better recovery compared with Cesarean delivery.

(XLSX)

Click here for additional data file.

9 Oct 2021

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Guillaume Ducarme, MD, MSc, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Thank you for including your ethics statement: "The ethical committees of National Taiwan University Hospital, Hsin-Chu Branch (reference no. 108-119-E)"

a) Please amend your current ethics statement to include the full name of the ethics committee/institutional review board(s) that approved your specific study.

b) Please provide additional details regarding participant consent. In the ethics statement in the Methods and online submission information, please ensure that you have specified (1) whether consent was informed and (2) what type you obtained (for instance, written or verbal, and if verbal, how it was documented and witnessed). If your study included minors, state whether you obtained consent from parents or guardians. If the need for consent was waived by the ethics committee, please include this information.

If you are reporting a retrospective study of medical records or archived samples, please ensure that you have discussed whether all data were fully anonymized before you accessed them and/or whether the IRB or ethics committee waived the requirement for informed consent. If patients provided informed written consent to have data from their medical records used in research, please include this information.

Once you have amended this/these statement(s) in the Methods section of the manuscript, please add the same text to the “Ethics Statement” field of the submission form (via “Edit Submission”).

For additional information about PLOS ONE ethical requirements for human subjects research, please refer to http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-human-subjects-research.

3. In your Data Availability statement, you have not specified where the minimal data set underlying the results described in your manuscript can be found. PLOS defines a study's minimal data set as the underlying data used to reach the conclusions drawn in the manuscript and any additional data required to replicate the reported study findings in their entirety. All PLOS journals require that the minimal data set be made fully available. For more information about our data policy, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability.

"Upon re-submitting your revised manuscript, please upload your study’s minimal underlying data set as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and include the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers within your revised cover letter. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories. Any potentially identifying patient information must be fully anonymized.

Important: If there are ethical or legal restrictions to sharing your data publicly, please explain these restrictions in detail. Please see our guidelines for more information on what we consider unacceptable restrictions to publicly sharing data: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. Note that it is not acceptable for the authors to be the sole named individuals responsible for ensuring data access.

We will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide in your cover letter.

4. PLOS requires an ORCID iD for the corresponding author in Editorial Manager on papers submitted after December 6th, 2016. Please ensure that you have an ORCID iD and that it is validated in Editorial Manager. To do this, go to ‘Update my Information’ (in the upper left-hand corner of the main menu), and click on the Fetch/Validate link next to the ORCID field. This will take you to the ORCID site and allow you to create a new iD or authenticate a pre-existing iD in Editorial Manager. Please see the following video for instructions on linking an ORCID iD to your Editorial Manager account: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xcclfuvtxQ.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Partly

Reviewer #4: No

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: No

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The manuscript makes a retrospective study of twin pregnancies in the regional hospital by comparing the vaginal and Cesarean deliveries. This paper is in a good quality to discuss the potential effects of delivery modes on the maternal characteristics as well as the neonatal outcomes.

Major comments:

1. Are there any other placental parameters collected from these Cesarean deliveries?

2. What are the differences between twin A and twin B? Or are they just randomly named? The authors should mention this point.

3. What is the definition of “longer period” in 265?

4. The authors have given an excellent discussion for a retrospective study. However, the advantages of this regional hospital in twin pregnancies can be mentioned by combining with the general local data (ie. historical data from Taiwan or Asia), if applied.

Minor comments:

Please keep a space between the number and the unit. For example, it is suggested to use “<1500 gw” in line 115, and so on.

Reviewer #2: There are differences in age, parity and presentation between groups. This poses a problem in comparing the results between the two groups. Although logistic regression analysis was performed, it would be better to compare subgroup analysis (between the age, parity and presentation matched groups).

Reviewer #3: I must confess: after thoroughly reading this paper a number of times, its potential value chases me. I can foresee this paper as a very interesting contribution, in a field plagued with a considerable lack of evidence. Nonetheless, it has serious drawbacks that preclude its publication in its current form. First of all, the sample size is extremely small for such a large study period (12/13-09/19) in a high reference University Hospital. As being a retrospective cohort, no recruiting data is provided. This, notwithstanding, could be hiding a selection bias. To address this issue I suggest providing further info on the actual amount of twin deliveries at the center during the study period.

The introduction is correct, well written, and coherent. The materials and methods section drove my attention as it suggests they prepared the data collection in a prospective way. Under such a statement this study becomes more of a cross-sectional study, rather than a cohort, even a retrospective one. In my opinion, the entire section should be re-written coherently with what already happened at the study instead of what they think the editor should read.

In the results section, I think the authors devote too much space to explain nonscheduled changes in the fetal presentation at the moment of delivery. Then comes the result that strikes me the most: In the vaginal delivery group TOTAL blood loss was 198 +/- 144 ml, compared to, a far more acceptable value of, 763 +/- 332 ml in the CS group. This is quite an unsustainable finding, dramatically different from those already published by groups studying blood loss during twin births (Whittington JR, et al. AJP Rep. 2020:e330-e334,. Frolova AI, et al Obstet Gynecol. 2016;127:951-956. . Blitz MJ, et al. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med.;33:3740-3745.). Also, the rate of postpartum hemorrhage in the vaginal delivery group is far too low for being credible unless, again, there is a selection bias underneath.

The discussion is interesting and well sustained. However, it is in a strong need of a style revision by a native English speaker. Also, there is an unnecessary allusion to a particular delivery (lines 226-234) that clearly does not belong there.

The conclusion is far too long and could be summarized in the last paragraph

Reviewer #4: The manuscript entitled "Experience in Different Modes of Delivery in Twin Pregnancy" by Jackie Jung Chen et al. is a retrospective study, which included the data from a regional hospital in Taiwan. The current manuscript compared the difference in the outcome of 98 pairs of twin pregnancy on vaginal delivery and cesarean section. The study revealed that there is not much difference in outcome when compared between vaginal pregnancy and cesarean section. There are multiple grammatical and spelling errors throughout the manuscript.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: Yes: Juan Carlos Bello-Munoz

Reviewer #4: Yes: Sangappa B Chadchan

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

13 Feb 2022

Thank you for your letter on 29 Jan 2022. I am resubmitting my revised manuscript entitled “Experience in Different Modes of Delivery in Twin Pregnancy.”

In this revised manuscript, I have made corrections follow reviewer A’s comments. Attached please also find my response to reviewer A’s comment, which is very helpful to improve this manuscript. Please kindly express my sincere gratefulness to the peer-reviewers.

I am looking forward to hearing from your decision.

Submitted filename: Responce to reviewers.docx

Click here for additional data file.

28 Feb 2022

Experience in Different Modes of Delivery in Twin Pregnancy

PONE-D-21-17824R1

Dear Dr. Torng,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Guillaume Ducarme, MD, MSc, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional): All reviewers comments have been addressed, and that improved the quality of the manuscript.

Reviewers' comments:

3 Mar 2022

PONE-D-21-17824R1

Experience in Different Modes of Delivery in Twin Pregnancy

Dear Dr. Torng:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Guillaume Ducarme

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE