• <tr id="yyy80"></tr>
  • <sup id="yyy80"></sup>
  • <tfoot id="yyy80"><noscript id="yyy80"></noscript></tfoot>
  • 99热精品在线国产_美女午夜性视频免费_国产精品国产高清国产av_av欧美777_自拍偷自拍亚洲精品老妇_亚洲熟女精品中文字幕_www日本黄色视频网_国产精品野战在线观看 ?

    Infant mortality in twin pregnancies following in-utero demise of the co-twin

    2015-12-26 07:49:36BoubakariIbrahimouHamisuSalihuMuktarAliyuGaryEnglishGetachewDagne
    Asian Pacific Journal of Reproduction 2015年3期

    Boubakari Ibrahimou, Hamisu M. Salihu, Muktar H. Aliyu, Gary English, Getachew Dagne

    1Florida International University, Robert Stempel College of Public Health & Social Work, Department of Biostatistics, 11200 S.W. 8th Street, AHC2

    583, Miami, FL 33199, USA

    2Baylor College of Medicine, Department of Family and Community Medicine, 3701 Kirby Drive, Suite 600, Houston, TX 77098, USA

    3Departments of Health Policy and Medicine, Vanderbilt University, 2525 West End Avenue, Suite 750, Nashville, TN 37203, USA

    4Western Kentucky University, College of Health and Human Services, Department of Public Health, 1906 College Heights Blvd., Bowling Green, KY

    42101, USA

    5University of South Florida, College of Public Health, Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, 13201 Bruce B. Downs Blvd., MDC 56, Tampa, FL 33612, USA

    IP Oyeyipo1,2, PJ MaartenSS du Plessis1*

    Document heading

    Infant mortality in twin pregnancies following in-utero demise of the co-twin

    Boubakari Ibrahimou1*, Hamisu M. Salihu2, Muktar H. Aliyu3, Gary English4, Getachew Dagne5

    1Florida International University, Robert Stempel College of Public Health & Social Work, Department of Biostatistics, 11200 S.W. 8th Street, AHC2

    583, Miami, FL 33199, USA

    2Baylor College of Medicine, Department of Family and Community Medicine, 3701 Kirby Drive, Suite 600, Houston, TX 77098, USA

    3Departments of Health Policy and Medicine, Vanderbilt University, 2525 West End Avenue, Suite 750, Nashville, TN 37203, USA

    4Western Kentucky University, College of Health and Human Services, Department of Public Health, 1906 College Heights Blvd., Bowling Green, KY

    42101, USA

    5University of South Florida, College of Public Health, Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, 13201 Bruce B. Downs Blvd., MDC 56, Tampa, FL 33612, USA

    ARTICLE INFO

    Article history:

    Received 17 March 2015

    Received in revised form 15 April 2015

    Accepted 21 April 2015

    Available online 20 September 2015

    Surviving co-twin

    Double programming

    Twin conversion

    Twin pregnancy

    Mortality

    Objective: To assess whether conversion from twin to singleton pregnancy following the demise of a cotwin influences survival. Methods: This retrospective study compared the risk for neonatal, post-neonatal and infant death for converted co-twins versus unconverted co-twins using the US matched multiple file dataset for the period 1995-2000. We also examined the same risks for converted versus same-quantile co-twins, hazard ratios (HR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were computed using Cox Proportional Hazards models. Results: The risk for neonatal (HR=0.18, 95%CI: 0.09-0.34 andHR=0.69, 95%CI: 0.50- 0.96) and infant death (HR=0.22, 95%CI: 0.12-0.42 andHR=0.57, 95%CI: 0.42-0.77) were significantly lower for converted twins than for unconverted twins and same-quantile twins, respectively. For black compared to white, the risk for post-neonatal death increased by 89% (HR=1.89, 95%CI= 1.03, 3.48), and 79% (HR=1.79, 95%CI=1.53, 2.09) for convertedvs. unconverted and convertedvs. samequantile, respectively. For converted black, the risk for neonatal death decreased by 17% (HR=0.83, 95%CI=0.73-0.93) as compared to unconverted. Conclusions: Risks for all mortality types were lower among converted co-twins than their unconverted or same-quantile counterparts. The lower neonatal and higher post-neonatal mortality among black require future research.

    1. Introduction

    Twin pregnancies are high-risk gestations with elevated perinatal mortality rates[1]. Twins, when compared with singletons, have a five-fold risk of fetal death, seven-fold elevated risk of neonatal death, and five-fold risk of infant death[2-4]. Twins also responddifferently from singletons to interventions that are designed to lengthen the gestational age at birth[5-6]. Factors that impact fetal mortality risks include prenatal complications, maternal age, poor obstetric history and Assisted Reproductive Technology (ART) [1-6]. Twins face greater risks for low birth weight, preterm birth, longterm disability and early death than singletons[7].

    Death of one of the twins in a multiple gestation can lead to severe complications in the surviving co-twin, especially in the second or third trimester[8]. The prognosis of the surviving twin in a dichorionic twin pregnancy is better than in a monochorionic twin gestation. The latter has more neurological complicationssuch as neural tube defects, optic nerve hypoplasia, microcephaly, and hemorrhagic or hypoxic lesions of the white matter[9]. Other anomalies include bilateral renal cortical necrosis, unilateral absence of kidney, gastro intestinal tract atresia and hemifacial microsomia [9]. An important consequence of the demise of a co-twin is cerebral palsy in the surviving co-twin, which may be the result of prenatal damage arising from placental vascular anastomoses[10]. Ficheraet al[9] also reported a greater risk of perinatal mortality for the surviving co-twin in monochorionicvs.dichorionic pregnancies following a single intra-uterine, second or third trimester death.

    As a result of in-utero demise of a co-twin, a twin pregnancy may sometimes be converted into a singleton gestation[5]. In these cases, the growth and development of the surviving singleton cotwin depends on the adaptive response and physiological process in the remaining pregnancy period. Salihuet alstudied the fetal programming switch process among surviving co-twins from a twin programming trajectory to that of a singleton during pregnancy[5].

    It is well established that surviving co-twins have higher mortality rates than live-born twin pairs[11]. Surviving co-twins also bear a greater risk for later morbidity, including neuro-cognitive and behavioral problems[11-14]. It remains, however, unknown to what extent exposure to double programming in utero would impact subsequent morbidity and mortality of surviving co-twins. It will be interesting and useful to determine whether conversion to a singleton fetal programming pattern by surviving co-twins influences future survival. We are unaware of any twin study that has examined the contribution of double programming to early mortality among twins. Thus, the objective of this paper is to estimate the risk for neonatal, post-neonatal, and infant death among twins that were able to convert to singleton gestation as compared to those who do not within a large population-based sample of twins.

    2. Materials and methods

    The dataset from the “matched multiple birth file” prepared by the National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS), for the period 1995-2000, was used for this study. This dataset contains matched and linked data for multiple deliveries in the United States. The data files consist of individual records of live births and fetal deaths involving multiple deliveries. In the dataset, siblings were linked to their biological mothers through the use of a unique identifier. The primary outcomes of interest in this study were infant mortality (death of the infant from day 0 to day 364 after birth), neonatal mortality (death from day 0 to day 27 after birth) and post-neonatal mortality (death from day 28 to day 364 after birth).

    Gestational age was determined as the time between the last menstrual period and the time of delivery of the baby (95% cases). When the menstrual estimate of gestational age was inconsistent with the birth weight (e.g. very low birth weight at term), a clinical estimate of gestational age on the vital records was used instead[15]. The precision of using the gestational age as noted on the US birth certificate has previously been validated[16]. The exposure of interest in this study is conversion to singleton programming in the surviving co-twin following the demise of the other twin. The concept of change or turning points was used in order to estimate the point periods in-utero at which the “switch” from a twin to a singleton fetal programming sequence might have occurred following the demise of a co-twin. In a previous study, we reported findings showing that a critical in-utero mass has to be attained by the surviving co-twin for successful conversion to a singleton path during pregnancy. In that pioneer study, it is reported that a critical mass and a specific gestational age (change point) need to be attained for the conversion from twin to singleton to take place. Results of the study showed that a critical mass (80th percentile of the gestational age-specific birth weight distribution for twins of same sex pairs and 70th percentile for opposite sex pairs) have to be attained by the surviving co-twin for successful conversion to a singleton path during pregnancy. The threshold (change point) for the conversion of the surviving co-twin to a singleton programming sequence was approximately at the 27th week of gestation. A surviving co-twin satisfying these conditions will be referred to as “converted twin” throughout this manuscript. Otherwise, we will refer to the surviving co-twin as an “unconverted twin”.

    We consider two comparison groups for our study. In the first case we compare the survival of converted twinsvs.unconverted twins. In second case comparison of survival between converted twins and same-quantile twins (co-twins who reached the same quantile of the birthweight distribution at the same gestational age, but who could not switch to singleton programming because their co-twin also survived and was delivered alive) is considered.

    We selected viable births (20–44 weeks of gestation) for both converted, as well as unconverted and same-quantile twins. We further categorized twin clusters into three groups based on the presence or absence of a stillbirth (defined as intra-uterine fetal demise at 20 weeks’ gestation):

    1. Group A: all members were live births

    2. Group B: one member was a live birth and the other a stillbirth (surviving co-twin model)

    3. Group C: Both members experienced a stillbirth

    We excluded Group C from further analysis. In the first comparison convertedvs.unconverted only Group B is considered. In the second comparison convertedvs.same-quantile twins, both co-twins from Group B and co-twins from Group A who reached the same quantile of the birth weight distribution at the same gestational age, but who could not switch to singleton programming because their co-twin also survived and was delivered alive were considered. The selection pathway for the co-twins used in this analysis is given in detail in Figure 1.

    Study variables included in this analysis comprised: day of birth and death, mode of delivery (cesarean or vaginal), pregnancy and labor complications, method of delivery, maternal sociodemographics (race, age, marital status, educational level) and maternal lifestyle factors (smoking) and infant characteristics (e.g., sex). Maternal race was defined as black, white and others; maternal age was grouped as less than 18 years, 18 to 34 years and ≥35 years. Maternal education level was categorized into two groups: less than 12 years of education and ≥12 years. The study also determined the occurrence of maternal medical complications among both groups. Maternal complications considered included anemia, preeclampsia, chronic hypertension, placental abruption, diabetes and placenta previa.

    The rate of infant mortality was computed by dividing the total number of deaths by the total number of live births and multiplying the outcome by 1 000.Chi-square test was used to assess differences in proportions. The Cox proportional hazard model was employed to perform the survival analysis. We used the Cox proportional hazards regression model to derive adjusted hazard ratios after testing for non-violation of the proportionality assumption in each case. We confirmed this by plotting the log-negative-log of the Kaplan-Meier estimates of the survival function versus the log of time[17]. The resulting curves were found to be parallel, confirming the proportionality assumption. Adjusted hazard ratios were derived by loading all the variables that were considered to be potential confounders into the model. The Cox proportional hazard model is expressed as :

    where h(t) is the hazard function in which h0 (t) represents the baseline hazard; the covariates are (x1,x2...,xp) whose effects are measured by the size of the individual coefficients (b1, b2, ...,bp), and t is the survival time of infancy. The type 1 error rate was set at 5% for all tests of hypotheses. Analysis was conducted using R statistical software, version 3.0.2. This study was approved by the institutional review board at the University of South Florida.

    3. Results

    For the first comparison: Convertedvs.Unconverted, a total of 4 291 co-twins were analyzed. Of this 1 289 (30.04%) were cotwins converted to singleton while 3002 (69.96%) were unconverted and maintained the initial twin programming pattern. For the second comparison: Convertedvs. Same-quantile twins, a total of 390 302 twins were analyzed. Of this number, 1 289 (0.33%) were cotwins converted to singleton while 389 013 (99.67%) were either unconverted co-twins that maintained the initial twin programmingpattern or co-twins who reached the same quantile of the birth weight distribution at the same gestational age, but who could not switch to singleton programming because their co-twin also survived and was delivered alive. The frequencies of socio-demographic characteristics of the study population from the first comparison (converted vs unconverted) are summarized in Table 1. Around 80% of mothers were white, non-smokers and aged between 18 and 34 years. Mothers of converted twins were more likely than those of unconverted twins to be older, white, married and to have at least a high school education (Table 1). Mothers of unconverted twins were more likely than those of converted twins to smoke cigarettes in pregnancy (P<0.001). Also from Table 1, labor complication does not show a significant difference between the two groups (P=0.247)

    Table 1 Socio-demographic characteristics, rates of pregnancy and labor complications of study populations United States, 1995-2000 comparing converted and unconverted twins (n=4291)a.

    Table 2 Rates of neonatal, post-neonatal and infant mortality among twins (converted versus non converted twin births), United States,

    Table 2 Rates of neonatal, post-neonatal and infant mortality among twins (converted versus non converted twin births), United States,

    aSignificant p-values are in bold font.P-values of 0.05 or less were considered significant.

    Rates per 1 000 live birthsn=4291 Converted co-twinn(%) Unconverted co-twinn(%) P-valueaNeonatal death (<28 days) 41(3.18) 954(31.77) <0.001 Post-neonatal death (28-364 days) 5(0.39) 53(1.77) <0.001 Infant death (0-364 days) 46(3.57) 1007(33.54) <0.001

    Infant mortality rates among converted versus unconverted birth (first comparison) are displayed in Table 2. Significant differences were observed in neonatal, post-neonatal and infant mortalities between the two groups. Neonatal mortality rate was lower for converted (3.18%) than for unconverted twins (31.77%) (P<0.0001). Rates of post-neonatal and infant death were also smaller among converted than for unconverted twins (postneonatal death: 0.39% for convertedvs. 1.77% for unconverted twins,P<0.0001; infant death: 3.57% for convertedvs. 33.54% for unconverted twins,P<0.0001).

    Table 3 presents summary estimates for the adjusted hazard ratios for neonatal, post-neonatal and infant deaths in relation to types of twin programming for first comparison (converted versus unconverted) and selected medical risk factors. The risk for all types of mortality was reduced for converted as compared to unconverted twins [Adjusted hazard ratio,HR(95% confidence interval,CI) for neonatal death=0.18(0.09, 0.34), post-neonatal death=0.59(0.06,5.28) and infant death=0.22(0.12, 0.40)]. Although lower, the reduced risk for post-neonatal death is not statistically significant. The most interesting factor associated with subsequent death of the surviving twin was mother’s race. For infants of black mothers as compared to white mothers, the risk for post-neonatal death increased by 89% (HR=1.89, 95%CI=1.03, 3.48), while we see a borderline significance reduction for neonatal death by 10% (HR= 0.90, 95%CI=0.77, 1.05), and for infant death by 6% (HR=0.94, 95%CI=0.80, 1.09). We found

    no significant difference between white versus other (non-black or white races). We found also no statistically significant difference with respect to mother’s age despite the hazard ratio being consistently lower for older mothers. Marital status and place of delivery also show no significant difference.

    Table 3 Hazard ratios (95%CI) for predictors of infant mortality among Convertedvs.Unconverteda surviving co-twins.

    Table 4 Hazard ratios (95%CI) for predictors of infant mortality among Converted co-twinsvsSame-quantile co-twinsa.

    Compared to female babies, males were at 11% lower risk of neonatal death (HR=0.89, 95%CI=0.79, 1.00) and at 12% lower risk of infant death (HR=0.88, 95%CI=0.78, 0.99) but no significant difference for post-neonatal death (HR=0.86, 95%CI=0.40, 1.16). Babies delivered via cesarean section were at lower risk of neonatal death (HR=0.73, 95%CI=0.60, 0.89) and infant death (HR=0.75, 95%CI=0.62, 0.90) than those delivered by vaginal route. High maternal education decreased the risk of neonatal death (HR=0.78, 95%CI=0.67, 0.91) and infant death (HR=0.77, 95%CI=0.66, 0.90).

    Summary estimates for the adjusted hazard ratios for neonatal, postneonatal and infant deaths in relation to types of twin programming for second comparison (converted versus same-quantile twins) and selected medical risk factors are presented in Table 4. As was the case for the first comparison, the risk for all types of mortality was reduced for converted as compared to same-quantile twins [Adjusted hazard ratio,HR(95% confidence interval,CI) for neonatal death=0.69(0.50, 0.96), post-neonatal death=0.66(0.27, 1.58) and infant death=0.57(0.42, 0.77)]. Although lower, the reduced risk for post-neonatal death is not statistically significant. The race of the mother plays an important role. Compare to whites, the risk of post-neonatal death increased for both black (HR=1.79, 95%CI=1.53, 2.09) and Others: non-white or black (HR=1.73, 95%CI=1.29, 2.32). By contract, neonatal death decrease by 8% (HR=0.83, 95%CI= 0.73, 0.93) for blacks compared to whites.

    The risk for all types of mortality was reduced for male as compared to female twins [Adjusted hazard ratio,HR(95% confidence interval,CI) for neonatal death=0.93(0.85, 1.02), postneonatal death=0.81(0.71, 0.92) and infant death=0.89(0.83, 0.96)]. Babies delivered via cesarean section were at higher risk of postneonatal death (HR=1.15, 95%CI=1.01, 1.32) than those delivered by vaginal route. High maternal education decreased the risk of all type of mortality [neonatal death (HR=0.84, 95%CI=0.75, 0.96), post-neonatal death (HR=0.61, 95%CI=0.52, 0.71 and infant death (HR=0.74, 95%CI=0.67, 0.81)]. Deliveries in a clinic were associated with lower risk of neonatal death (HR=0.66, 95%CI= 0.45, 0.97) and infant death (HR=0.66, 95%CI=0.46, 0.95) as compared to those outside a clinic setting. Older mothers show a low risk of all types of infant death (neonatal,HR=0.87, 95%CI=0.74, post-neonatal,HR=0.71, 95%CI=0.57, 0.89, infant death,HR=0.80, 95%CI= 0.71, 0.91) as compare to younger mothers.

    4. Discussion

    The matched multiple birth file was used in this paper to study the impact of intrauterine demise of a co-twin on neonatal, postneonatal and infant mortality of the surviving sibling. Findings from this study suggest that the death of the co-twin confers a survival advantage for the sibling, namely a lower risk of neonatal, postneonatal, and infant death. To our knowledge this is the first study to report an advantage (in terms of survival through infancy) associated with conversion of a twin pregnancy to a singleton gestation.

    Another significant finding of our analysis is the impact of maternal education on survival of surviving co-twins. Maternal education was inversely associated with the risk of death of the surviving cotwin. Offspring of mothers with more than 12 years of education had lower risk of neonatal, post-neonatal and infant death as compared to those born to women with 12 years or less of education. A surprised finding of our study is an increased risk of infant mortality among mothers between 18 to 34 years as to compared to age <18 years. Previous studies have shown that teenage pregnancies, in general, are associated with an increased risk of neonatal mortality[18, 19]. They reported that an increased risk may be linked to biological immaturity[20] although other factors might also play a role[21-22].

    Despite multiple reports of increased mortality associated with complications in twin pregnancies[21-24]. For example, Spellacyet al. [25], found that twin pregnancies were complicated by elevated risk for hypertension, anemia and placental abruption. Our study did not find a significant association between mortality and complications (anemia, preeclampsia, hypertension, placental abruption, diabetes and previa).

    This study confirms findings from previous researchers that twin infants born to black parents are at a higher risk of mortality when compared to their white counterparts[26, 27]. A two fold risk of postneonatal death was observed in infants of black mothers as compared to white mothers. But in contract a low risk of neonatal is observed when converted twins are compared to same-quantile co-twins who reached the same quantile of the birth weight distribution at the same gestational age, but who could not switch to singleton programming because their co-twin also survived and was delivered alive. A decreased risk of neonatal, post-neonatal and infant mortality was observed for male offspring as compared to female. Our finding of an elevated risk of post-neonatal death in convertedvssame-quantile twins comparison after the demise of a twin sibling is also in agreement with prior reports of cesarean delivery being a risk factor for singleton deaths, as a converted co-twin is now analogous to asingleton[28]. But in contrast a low risk is observed when converted are compared to unconverted only.

    This paper shows that mothers’ age plays an important role in the rates of conversion from twin to singleton pregnancy. Rates of conversion to singletons increased with increasing age. Mothers< 34 years old were more likely to deliver unconverted twin than converted twins. Those 35 or older had a greater likelihood of having converted than unconverted twins. This finding could explain the lower risk of all mortality types among surviving co-twins from mothers that were ≥35 years old, as conversion is associated with lower risk of death.

    Our study has limitations. The findings in this study are only applicable to surviving co-twins of already viable twin pregnancies. The pregnancies included in this study were of ≥20 weeks of gestation. This selection excludes application of the findings to spontaneous partial fetal loss before attainment of viability. In addition, Assisted Reproduction Technology (ART) is responsible for approximately 16% of the twin pregnancies in the United States[29]. However, we are unable to comment on the generalizability of our findings to pregnancies conceived through ART, as the database used lacks that specific information. ART-related multifetal pregnancies are considerably more common among whites, and the elective surgical reduction in the number of growing fetuses may be associated with a worse prognosis of the surviving co-twin, therefore a potential confounding by elective fetal reduction by race is also possible. It is known that the prognosis of the surviving twin in a dichorionic twin pregnancy is better than in a monochorionic twin gestation[9]. Unfortunately we lack information on whether the pregnancy is dichorionic or moochorionic.

    A major strength of our study is the substantial sample size of the data used in our analysis. The data was extracted from over 600 000 surviving co-twin birth records, making it the largest populationbased study on co-twin delivery. The use of a national population database also makes our outcome less likely to be influenced by selection bias and provides valuable and reliable information for future studies in surviving co-twin research.

    This study shows that there are survival advantages for the surviving co-twin after the demise of the co-twin. Timely intervention before the 27th week of gestation and helping the fetus reach the critical mass needed for conversion can decrease the likelihood of death for the surviving co-twin. Also, identifying important protective factors and interventions that help in the conversion of the surviving co-twin can help in increasing its survival rate. More research is needed to understand factors associated with neonatal and infant mortality in twin pregnancies complicated by the death of one member of the twin pair.

    Conflict of interest statement

    We declare that we have no conflict of interest.

    Acknowledgements

    The authors declare no financial interests, commercial affiliations, or conflicts of interest.

    [1] Gielen M, Lindsey PJ, Derom C, Loos RJ, Souren NY, Paulussen AD, et al. Twin-specific intrauterine growth charts based on cross-sectional birth weight.Twin Res Hum Genet2008; 11: 224-235.

    [2] Scher Al, Petterson B, Blair E, Ellenberg JH, Grether JK, Haan E, et al. The risk of mortality or cerebral palsy in twins: a collaborative population-based study.Pediatr Res2002; 52: 5: 671-681.

    [3] Misra DP, Ananth CV. Infant mortality among singletons and twins in the United States during 2 decades: Effects of maternal age.Pediatrics2002; 110:6: 1163-1168.

    [4] Tan H, Wen SW, Walker M, Demissie K. The Effect of parental race on fetal and infant mortality in twin gestations.J Natl Med Assoc2004; 96(10): 1337-1343.

    [5] Salihu HM, Ibrahimou B, Dagne G. Intra-uterine exposure to dual fetal programming sequences among surviving co-twins.J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med2010; 24:1: 96-103.

    [6] Rouse DJ, Caritis SN, Peaceman AM, Sciscione A, Thom EA, Spong CY, et al. A trial of 17 alpha-hydroxyprogesterone caproate to prevent prematurity in twins.N Engl J Med2007; 357: 454– 461.

    [7] Center for Disease Control and Prevention.Reproductive and birth outcomes.[Online] Available at: http://ephtracking.cdc.gov/ showRbPrematureBirthEnv.action[Accessed on 06-June-2014].

    [8] Woo HHN, Sin SY, Tang LCH. Single foetal death in twin pregnancies: review of the maternal and neonatal outcomes and management.Hong Kong Med J2000; 6: 293-300.

    [9] Fichera A, Zombolo A, Accorsi P, Martelli P. Perinatal outcome and neurological follow up of the co twins in twin pregnancies complicated by single intrauterine death.Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol2009; 147: 37-40.

    [10] Pharoah PO, Adi Y. Consequences of in-utero death in a twin pregnancy.Lancet2000; 355: 1597–1602.

    [11] Ong SS, Zamora J, Khan KS, Kilby MD. Prognosis for the co-twin following single-twin death: a systematic review.Br J Obstet Gynaecol2006; 113: 992–998.

    [12] Tarnow-Mordi WO, Hau C, Warden A, Shearer AJ. Hospital mortality in relation to staff workload: A 4-year study in an adult intensive-care unit.Lancet2000; 356(9225): 185-189.

    [13] Pharoah PO. Cerebral palsy in the surviving twin associated with infant death of the co-twin.Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed2001; 84: F111–F116.

    [14] Glinianaia SV, Pharoah POD, Wright C, Rankin JM. Fetal or infant death in twin pregnancy: neurodevelopmental consequence for the survivor.Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed2002; 86: F9–F15.

    [15] Taffel S, Johnson D, Heuser R. A method of imputing length of gestation on birth certificates.Vital Health Stat1982; 93: 1–11.

    [16] Piper JM, Mitchel EF Jr, Snowden M, Hall C, Adams M, Taylor P, et al.Validation of 1989 Tennessee birth certificates using maternal and newborn hospital records.Am J Epidemiol1993; 137: 758-768.

    [17] Cox DR. Regression models and life-tables.J Roy Stat Soc1972; 34(2):187-220.

    [18] Chen XK, Wen SW, Fleming N, Kitaw Demissie, George G Rhoads, Mark Walker. Teenage pregnancy and adverse birth outcomes: A large population based retrospective cohort study.Int J Epidemiol2007; 36(2): 368-373.

    [19] Zabin LS, Kiragu K. The health consequences of adolescent sexual and fertility behaviour in sub-Saharan Africa.Stud Fam Plann1998; 29(2): 210–232.

    [20] Olausson PO, Cnattingius S, Haglund B. Teenage pregnancies and risk of late fetal death and infant mortality.Br J Obstet Gynaecol1999; 106(2): 116-121.

    [21] Salihu HM, Chatman LM, Alio AP, Aliyu MH, Kirby RS, Alexander GR. Single motherhood and neonatal survival of twins among Blacks and Whites.J Nat Med Assoc2004; 96: 1618-1625.

    [22] Salihu HM, Mbuba CK, Oluwatade OJ, Aliyu MH. Mortality among twins born to unmarried teens in the United States.Matern & Child Health J2005; 9: 229-35.

    [23] Salihu HM, Kinniburgh BA, Aliyu MH, Kirby RS, Alexander GR. Racial disparity in stillbirth rates among singletons, twins and triplets.Obstet Gynecol2004; 104: 734-740.

    [24] Salihu HM, Bekan B, Aliyu MH, Rouse DJ, Kirby RS, Alexander GR. Feto-neonatal demise among singletons, twins and triplets with abruptio placenta.Am J Obstet Gynecol2005; 193: 198-203.

    [25] Spellacy WN, Handler A, Ferre CD. A case control study of 1253 twin pregnancies from a 1982 – 1987 perinatal data base.Obstetric Gynecol1990; 75(2): 168-171.

    [26] Tan H, Wen SW, Walker M. et al. The effect of parental race on fetal and infant mortality in twin gestations.J Natl Med Assoc2004; 96(10): 1337-1343.

    [27] Salihu HM, Alexander MR, Shumpert MN. Pierre-Louis JB, Alexander GR. Infant mortality among twins born to teenagers in the United States. Black-white disparity.J Reprod Med2003; 48: 257-267.

    [28] MacDorman MF, Declercq E, Menacker F, Malloy MH. Infant and neonatal mortality for primary cesarean and vaginal births to women with “No Indicated Risk,” United States, 1998-2001 Birth Coharts.Birth2006; 33: 175-182

    [29] Dickey RP. The relative contribution of assisted reproductive technologies and ovulation induction to multiple births in the United States 5 years after the Society for Assisted reproductive Technology/ American Society for Reproductive Medicine recommendation to limit the number of embryos transferred.Fertil Steril2007; 88(6):1554 -1561.

    Document heading

    IP Oyeyipo1,2, PJ MaartenSS du Plessis1*

    10.1016/j.apjr.2015.06.007

    *Corresponding author: Boubakari Ibrahimou, PhD, Assistant Professor, Florida International University, Robert Stempel College of Public Health & Social Work, Department of Biostatistics 11200 S.W. 8th Street, AHC2 583, Miami, FL 33199, USA.

    Tel: (305) 348-7524

    Fax: (305) 348-4901

    E-mail: birahim@fiu.edu

    日韩欧美 国产精品| 成人av在线播放网站| 特大巨黑吊av在线直播| 高潮久久久久久久久久久不卡| 国内精品一区二区在线观看| 亚洲国产精品sss在线观看| 黄色视频不卡| 一进一出抽搐动态| 黄色毛片三级朝国网站| 国产高清视频在线播放一区| 国产一区二区激情短视频| 给我免费播放毛片高清在线观看| 亚洲av成人精品一区久久| 精品少妇一区二区三区视频日本电影| 色综合亚洲欧美另类图片| 亚洲av熟女| 精品一区二区三区四区五区乱码| 99久久99久久久精品蜜桃| 麻豆久久精品国产亚洲av| 久久天堂一区二区三区四区| 午夜福利视频1000在线观看| 精品久久久久久久久久免费视频| 午夜视频精品福利| 视频区欧美日本亚洲| 欧美成狂野欧美在线观看| 国产精品 欧美亚洲| 看黄色毛片网站| 国产高清视频在线播放一区| 露出奶头的视频| 好男人在线观看高清免费视频| 精品第一国产精品| 亚洲成人久久性| 亚洲精品色激情综合| www.www免费av| 色尼玛亚洲综合影院| 18禁观看日本| 国产精品日韩av在线免费观看| 好男人在线观看高清免费视频| 99热这里只有是精品50| 少妇粗大呻吟视频| 亚洲人成77777在线视频| 国产精品美女特级片免费视频播放器 | 免费在线观看亚洲国产| 国产午夜精品论理片| 婷婷精品国产亚洲av在线| 久久久久久国产a免费观看| 久久香蕉激情| 国产亚洲精品综合一区在线观看 | 午夜福利成人在线免费观看| 激情在线观看视频在线高清| 久久亚洲精品不卡| 在线观看午夜福利视频| 精品国内亚洲2022精品成人| 日本五十路高清| 久久精品综合一区二区三区| 欧美丝袜亚洲另类 | 99国产极品粉嫩在线观看| 视频区欧美日本亚洲| 中文字幕精品亚洲无线码一区| 日日爽夜夜爽网站| 免费看a级黄色片| 亚洲狠狠婷婷综合久久图片| 国产v大片淫在线免费观看| 午夜日韩欧美国产| 国产真人三级小视频在线观看| 一夜夜www| 久久精品国产99精品国产亚洲性色| 国产伦一二天堂av在线观看| av国产免费在线观看| 亚洲七黄色美女视频| 99热6这里只有精品| 欧美日本视频| 国产精品香港三级国产av潘金莲| 男人的好看免费观看在线视频 | 国产一区二区三区在线臀色熟女| 老司机午夜福利在线观看视频| 欧美乱色亚洲激情| 国产精品av视频在线免费观看| 国产精品 国内视频| 亚洲国产精品久久男人天堂| 亚洲精品中文字幕在线视频| or卡值多少钱| 久久久国产成人精品二区| 日韩国内少妇激情av| 国产在线观看jvid| 黄片大片在线免费观看| 50天的宝宝边吃奶边哭怎么回事| 久久欧美精品欧美久久欧美| 久久人妻福利社区极品人妻图片| 亚洲国产中文字幕在线视频| 不卡一级毛片| 久久久水蜜桃国产精品网| 可以在线观看的亚洲视频| 男男h啪啪无遮挡| 欧美又色又爽又黄视频| 日韩av在线大香蕉| 国产成人av激情在线播放| 每晚都被弄得嗷嗷叫到高潮| 99国产综合亚洲精品| 免费看日本二区| 国产精品一区二区三区四区免费观看 | 亚洲最大成人中文| 18禁国产床啪视频网站| 无人区码免费观看不卡| 亚洲国产精品合色在线| 波多野结衣高清作品| 99在线视频只有这里精品首页| 黄色毛片三级朝国网站| 国产不卡一卡二| 精品久久久久久久末码| 天堂av国产一区二区熟女人妻 | 精品欧美国产一区二区三| 99精品在免费线老司机午夜| 国产精品久久久av美女十八| 一级片免费观看大全| 色尼玛亚洲综合影院| 精品国产超薄肉色丝袜足j| 九色成人免费人妻av| x7x7x7水蜜桃| 国产精品99久久99久久久不卡| 美女黄网站色视频| 99久久精品国产亚洲精品| 不卡av一区二区三区| 久久精品aⅴ一区二区三区四区| 男人的好看免费观看在线视频 | 日日干狠狠操夜夜爽| √禁漫天堂资源中文www| 成人特级黄色片久久久久久久| 免费高清视频大片| 少妇的丰满在线观看| 国语自产精品视频在线第100页| 久久天堂一区二区三区四区| 99久久精品国产亚洲精品| 欧美激情久久久久久爽电影| 免费高清视频大片| 最新在线观看一区二区三区| 韩国av一区二区三区四区| 亚洲精品在线美女| 99re在线观看精品视频| 51午夜福利影视在线观看| 亚洲成a人片在线一区二区| 亚洲精品av麻豆狂野| 欧美成人午夜精品| 黄色 视频免费看| 免费无遮挡裸体视频| 成人三级黄色视频| 免费高清视频大片| 成人手机av| 中文在线观看免费www的网站 | 草草在线视频免费看| 国产黄a三级三级三级人| 欧美成人性av电影在线观看| 亚洲人成伊人成综合网2020| 国产成人av激情在线播放| 亚洲精品一卡2卡三卡4卡5卡| 亚洲欧美日韩无卡精品| 国产av不卡久久| www.www免费av| 国产精品久久电影中文字幕| 特级一级黄色大片| 国产男靠女视频免费网站| 黄色视频不卡| 欧美成狂野欧美在线观看| 成人午夜高清在线视频| bbb黄色大片| 校园春色视频在线观看| 欧美日本视频| av国产免费在线观看| 日本一二三区视频观看| 亚洲自偷自拍图片 自拍| 在线永久观看黄色视频| 97超级碰碰碰精品色视频在线观看| 欧美不卡视频在线免费观看 | 韩国av一区二区三区四区| 国内揄拍国产精品人妻在线| 毛片女人毛片| 国内精品一区二区在线观看| 视频区欧美日本亚洲| 校园春色视频在线观看| 久久久久亚洲av毛片大全| 啪啪无遮挡十八禁网站| 中文字幕av在线有码专区| 午夜a级毛片| 国产熟女午夜一区二区三区| 国产精品99久久99久久久不卡| 九色成人免费人妻av| 婷婷丁香在线五月| 99久久久亚洲精品蜜臀av| 制服丝袜大香蕉在线| 制服人妻中文乱码| 国产在线观看jvid| 欧美色视频一区免费| 国产精品亚洲美女久久久| 免费av毛片视频| 三级毛片av免费| 日韩精品中文字幕看吧| av有码第一页| 久久人妻av系列| 国产亚洲精品第一综合不卡| 亚洲欧美日韩高清专用| 国产乱人伦免费视频| 久久久久久国产a免费观看| 校园春色视频在线观看| 亚洲精品一区av在线观看| 久久精品91无色码中文字幕| 亚洲成av人片在线播放无| 久久99热这里只有精品18| 亚洲人与动物交配视频| 熟女电影av网| 久久中文字幕一级| 久久午夜综合久久蜜桃| 国产不卡一卡二| 亚洲人成电影免费在线| 国产亚洲av高清不卡| 国产精品精品国产色婷婷| 日韩欧美国产在线观看| 美女免费视频网站| 非洲黑人性xxxx精品又粗又长| 777久久人妻少妇嫩草av网站| av有码第一页| 精品久久久久久久久久免费视频| 国产主播在线观看一区二区| 欧美中文日本在线观看视频| 欧美一区二区精品小视频在线| 亚洲一码二码三码区别大吗| 女人爽到高潮嗷嗷叫在线视频| 亚洲,欧美精品.| 欧美3d第一页| 12—13女人毛片做爰片一| 69av精品久久久久久| 国产激情欧美一区二区| 精品国产美女av久久久久小说| 日本撒尿小便嘘嘘汇集6| 日韩精品中文字幕看吧| 日韩欧美免费精品| 国产成人精品久久二区二区免费| 亚洲,欧美精品.| 亚洲第一欧美日韩一区二区三区| 久久精品人妻少妇| 亚洲色图 男人天堂 中文字幕| 欧美绝顶高潮抽搐喷水| 国产精品日韩av在线免费观看| 丰满人妻熟妇乱又伦精品不卡| 亚洲精品一区av在线观看| 久久性视频一级片| 又紧又爽又黄一区二区| 亚洲狠狠婷婷综合久久图片| 中文字幕久久专区| 色综合亚洲欧美另类图片| 国内精品久久久久久久电影| 我的老师免费观看完整版| 一个人观看的视频www高清免费观看 | 观看免费一级毛片| 男女做爰动态图高潮gif福利片| 欧美色欧美亚洲另类二区| 日本黄大片高清| 大型av网站在线播放| 成人一区二区视频在线观看| 久久久久久久久久黄片| 丰满人妻熟妇乱又伦精品不卡| 亚洲美女黄片视频| 老司机午夜十八禁免费视频| 国产高清视频在线播放一区| 午夜精品在线福利| 亚洲成人免费电影在线观看| 麻豆av在线久日| 国产伦在线观看视频一区| 久久精品影院6| 欧美国产日韩亚洲一区| 美女午夜性视频免费| 三级毛片av免费| 亚洲精品在线美女| 国产精品 国内视频| 欧美日韩国产亚洲二区| 露出奶头的视频| 精品一区二区三区av网在线观看| 国产精品,欧美在线| 欧美日韩亚洲国产一区二区在线观看| 此物有八面人人有两片| 亚洲成av人片免费观看| 久久香蕉精品热| 亚洲七黄色美女视频| netflix在线观看网站| 一二三四社区在线视频社区8| www.精华液| 亚洲乱码一区二区免费版| 精品熟女少妇八av免费久了| 老汉色∧v一级毛片| 亚洲精华国产精华精| 欧美绝顶高潮抽搐喷水| 香蕉丝袜av| 精品高清国产在线一区| 黄色视频不卡| 日本一本二区三区精品| 亚洲av美国av| 国产精品一区二区免费欧美| 日韩欧美三级三区| 久久热在线av| 久久99热这里只有精品18| 中出人妻视频一区二区| 日韩欧美精品v在线| 无人区码免费观看不卡| 嫩草影视91久久| 1024手机看黄色片| 两个人的视频大全免费| 国产av又大| av福利片在线观看| 免费人成视频x8x8入口观看| 欧美不卡视频在线免费观看 | 国产精品久久久久久久电影 | 丝袜美腿诱惑在线| 欧美高清成人免费视频www| 九色成人免费人妻av| 黑人欧美特级aaaaaa片| 丰满人妻一区二区三区视频av | 欧美成人一区二区免费高清观看 | 国产高清激情床上av| 中文字幕精品亚洲无线码一区| 精品福利观看| 亚洲一区二区三区色噜噜| 亚洲中文字幕一区二区三区有码在线看 | 成人18禁高潮啪啪吃奶动态图| 99久久99久久久精品蜜桃| 黄色丝袜av网址大全| 在线观看免费视频日本深夜| 久久久久久久久久黄片| 在线看三级毛片| 午夜激情av网站| 国产精品综合久久久久久久免费| 岛国在线免费视频观看| 性欧美人与动物交配| 三级男女做爰猛烈吃奶摸视频| 久久婷婷人人爽人人干人人爱| 亚洲人成电影免费在线| 波多野结衣巨乳人妻| 搡老岳熟女国产| 中文字幕精品亚洲无线码一区| 又紧又爽又黄一区二区| 亚洲av电影在线进入| 99热这里只有精品一区 | aaaaa片日本免费| 欧美zozozo另类| 中出人妻视频一区二区| 国产精品久久久久久久电影 | 色综合欧美亚洲国产小说| 国产爱豆传媒在线观看 | 曰老女人黄片| 欧美日韩中文字幕国产精品一区二区三区| 国产精品 欧美亚洲| 国产99白浆流出| 99国产综合亚洲精品| www国产在线视频色| 每晚都被弄得嗷嗷叫到高潮| cao死你这个sao货| 国产激情欧美一区二区| 国产精品一及| 亚洲欧美激情综合另类| 国语自产精品视频在线第100页| 亚洲精品粉嫩美女一区| 欧洲精品卡2卡3卡4卡5卡区| 久久久久亚洲av毛片大全| 亚洲国产欧美一区二区综合| 黄色a级毛片大全视频| 日韩 欧美 亚洲 中文字幕| 欧美色视频一区免费| 一本大道久久a久久精品| 日本精品一区二区三区蜜桃| 亚洲国产精品久久男人天堂| 亚洲成人精品中文字幕电影| 黄色片一级片一级黄色片| 亚洲人成网站在线播放欧美日韩| 亚洲国产看品久久| 国产一区二区在线观看日韩 | 国产精品98久久久久久宅男小说| 午夜免费观看网址| 最新在线观看一区二区三区| 精品电影一区二区在线| 国产亚洲av嫩草精品影院| 亚洲最大成人中文| 亚洲精品国产精品久久久不卡| xxx96com| 日韩精品免费视频一区二区三区| 精品国产超薄肉色丝袜足j| 国内毛片毛片毛片毛片毛片| 特大巨黑吊av在线直播| av福利片在线观看| 欧美一区二区国产精品久久精品 | 脱女人内裤的视频| 国产三级中文精品| 久久久久国内视频| 欧美乱码精品一区二区三区| 日韩欧美一区二区三区在线观看| 久久久国产成人精品二区| 老熟妇仑乱视频hdxx| 中亚洲国语对白在线视频| 久久天躁狠狠躁夜夜2o2o| 国产麻豆成人av免费视频| 成人永久免费在线观看视频| 国产av一区二区精品久久| 黄色片一级片一级黄色片| 亚洲国产日韩欧美精品在线观看 | 欧美一级毛片孕妇| 精品国产超薄肉色丝袜足j| 欧美一区二区国产精品久久精品 | 日日爽夜夜爽网站| 中文字幕人成人乱码亚洲影| 亚洲五月婷婷丁香| 久久精品亚洲精品国产色婷小说| 五月玫瑰六月丁香| 欧美极品一区二区三区四区| 国产精品 欧美亚洲| 在线观看舔阴道视频| 国产精品免费一区二区三区在线| 久久精品国产99精品国产亚洲性色| 久久婷婷成人综合色麻豆| 亚洲av熟女| 9191精品国产免费久久| 亚洲精品色激情综合| 亚洲av电影不卡..在线观看| www.自偷自拍.com| 欧美成狂野欧美在线观看| 国产精品99久久99久久久不卡| 久久中文字幕人妻熟女| 欧美最黄视频在线播放免费| 久久这里只有精品中国| aaaaa片日本免费| 麻豆久久精品国产亚洲av| 国产精品久久久久久人妻精品电影| 成人精品一区二区免费| 日韩欧美三级三区| 色综合亚洲欧美另类图片| 亚洲国产精品成人综合色| 男女那种视频在线观看| 巨乳人妻的诱惑在线观看| 午夜激情福利司机影院| 丰满人妻熟妇乱又伦精品不卡| 亚洲国产精品合色在线| 色综合站精品国产| 精品第一国产精品| 国产欧美日韩一区二区三| 色av中文字幕| 悠悠久久av| 欧美在线一区亚洲| 国产伦在线观看视频一区| 国产精品一区二区三区四区久久| 日本撒尿小便嘘嘘汇集6| 精品不卡国产一区二区三区| 俄罗斯特黄特色一大片| 一级毛片女人18水好多| 婷婷六月久久综合丁香| 首页视频小说图片口味搜索| ponron亚洲| xxxwww97欧美| 亚洲一区二区三区色噜噜| av超薄肉色丝袜交足视频| 女人爽到高潮嗷嗷叫在线视频| 老汉色av国产亚洲站长工具| 精品久久久久久久久久久久久| 久久人人精品亚洲av| 别揉我奶头~嗯~啊~动态视频| 亚洲精品一卡2卡三卡4卡5卡| 一个人免费在线观看电影 | 国产激情久久老熟女| 国产三级在线视频| 真人一进一出gif抽搐免费| 亚洲国产高清在线一区二区三| 午夜精品久久久久久毛片777| 亚洲国产高清在线一区二区三| 99精品久久久久人妻精品| 久久欧美精品欧美久久欧美| 老司机福利观看| 久久精品国产亚洲av香蕉五月| 91大片在线观看| 亚洲精品粉嫩美女一区| 欧美乱色亚洲激情| 免费看十八禁软件| 日本免费一区二区三区高清不卡| 国产单亲对白刺激| 他把我摸到了高潮在线观看| 可以在线观看毛片的网站| 亚洲九九香蕉| 午夜激情av网站| 两性夫妻黄色片| 日韩欧美国产一区二区入口| 精品午夜福利视频在线观看一区| 在线永久观看黄色视频| 日日摸夜夜添夜夜添小说| 国产精品精品国产色婷婷| 老熟妇乱子伦视频在线观看| 午夜精品在线福利| 欧美日本亚洲视频在线播放| 国产精品久久电影中文字幕| 波多野结衣高清作品| 亚洲av成人一区二区三| 啪啪无遮挡十八禁网站| 999精品在线视频| 亚洲欧美激情综合另类| 日本 av在线| 国产成人av激情在线播放| 国产精品爽爽va在线观看网站| 搞女人的毛片| 在线观看午夜福利视频| 好男人电影高清在线观看| 成年女人毛片免费观看观看9| 精品国产美女av久久久久小说| 成人一区二区视频在线观看| 最近最新中文字幕大全免费视频| 国产亚洲精品久久久久久毛片| 久99久视频精品免费| 亚洲国产精品sss在线观看| 亚洲欧洲精品一区二区精品久久久| АⅤ资源中文在线天堂| 老司机深夜福利视频在线观看| 这个男人来自地球电影免费观看| 伊人久久大香线蕉亚洲五| 91麻豆av在线| 美女黄网站色视频| 亚洲国产日韩欧美精品在线观看 | 香蕉丝袜av| 又紧又爽又黄一区二区| 亚洲人与动物交配视频| 日韩 欧美 亚洲 中文字幕| 亚洲人成网站高清观看| 99精品欧美一区二区三区四区| 一本精品99久久精品77| 91麻豆精品激情在线观看国产| 99热这里只有精品一区 | 久热爱精品视频在线9| 国产精品av久久久久免费| 国产在线精品亚洲第一网站| 亚洲精品久久成人aⅴ小说| 一卡2卡三卡四卡精品乱码亚洲| 国产不卡一卡二| 日本在线视频免费播放| 国产私拍福利视频在线观看| 国产精品久久久久久精品电影| av片东京热男人的天堂| 男人舔女人的私密视频| 国产熟女午夜一区二区三区| 日本成人三级电影网站| 亚洲国产欧美一区二区综合| 国产精品99久久99久久久不卡| 亚洲一码二码三码区别大吗| 国产亚洲精品av在线| 叶爱在线成人免费视频播放| 看黄色毛片网站| 久久中文字幕一级| 欧美精品啪啪一区二区三区| 国产成人精品久久二区二区91| 亚洲一区中文字幕在线| a级毛片在线看网站| 夜夜看夜夜爽夜夜摸| 欧美乱妇无乱码| 亚洲成人久久性| 精品无人区乱码1区二区| 亚洲国产精品sss在线观看| 99热这里只有精品一区 | 久久久久久久久中文| 精品久久久久久久毛片微露脸| 色综合婷婷激情| 一进一出抽搐gif免费好疼| 国产av不卡久久| 日韩大尺度精品在线看网址| 国产精品一及| 成年免费大片在线观看| 日韩欧美国产一区二区入口| 亚洲欧美激情综合另类| 日韩成人在线观看一区二区三区| 日本撒尿小便嘘嘘汇集6| 午夜福利18| 亚洲一区高清亚洲精品| 色噜噜av男人的天堂激情| 亚洲国产中文字幕在线视频| 亚洲成人国产一区在线观看| 脱女人内裤的视频| 天天添夜夜摸| 日韩精品中文字幕看吧| 久久天躁狠狠躁夜夜2o2o| 国产一级毛片七仙女欲春2| 99久久国产精品久久久| 亚洲国产精品999在线| 国产激情久久老熟女| 亚洲,欧美精品.| 亚洲av中文字字幕乱码综合| av在线天堂中文字幕| 亚洲色图av天堂| 久久九九热精品免费| 精品电影一区二区在线| 首页视频小说图片口味搜索| 国内揄拍国产精品人妻在线| 久久人妻av系列| 露出奶头的视频| 国产精品一区二区三区四区免费观看 | 夜夜躁狠狠躁天天躁| 欧美在线一区亚洲| 国产av在哪里看| 亚洲在线自拍视频| 亚洲国产精品成人综合色| av天堂在线播放| 欧美一级a爱片免费观看看 | 99久久久亚洲精品蜜臀av| 欧美国产日韩亚洲一区| 在线观看美女被高潮喷水网站 | 一本久久中文字幕| 五月伊人婷婷丁香| 一区二区三区国产精品乱码| 嫁个100分男人电影在线观看| 欧美在线黄色| 99久久99久久久精品蜜桃| 国产av又大| 久久99热这里只有精品18| 又黄又粗又硬又大视频| 国产真实乱freesex| 国产精品久久久久久精品电影| 又黄又粗又硬又大视频|