Pathologic uterine ring associated with fetal head trauma and subsequent
cerebral palsy.
--
Obstet Gynecol. 2007 Feb;109(2 Pt2):495-7
Lauria MR, Barthold JC, Zimmerman RA, Turrentine MA. Department of Obstetrics
and Gynecology, Dartmouth Hitchcock Medicine Center, Lebanon, New Hampshire
03756, USA. Michele.R.Lauria@Hitchcock.org
BACKGROUND: Pathologic uterine rings, also called Bandl's ring, are historically
associated with obstructed labor and good neonatal outcomes. CASE: Two cases are
presented involving a pathologic uterine ring identified at cesarean delivery,
which led to fetal cranial trauma. At delivery, pathologic uterine rings were
found to encompass the heads of both fetuses, with gross features of traumatic
head deformity. Radiologic studies demonstrated intracranial hemorrhage
predating delivery. Both infants developed cerebral palsy, which was initially
attributed to hypoxic-ischemic encephalopathy from delivery despite normal
umbilical arterial pH. Further investigation linked the intracranial bleeding
to compressive trauma from the uterine rings. CONCLUSION: Although rare,
pathologic uterine rings may cause traumatic cranial deformity and subsequent
cerebral palsy.
PMID: 17267871
-- and --
Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2004 Jul;86(1):35-6
Ultrasonographic observation of Bandl's contraction ring.
Buhimschi CS, Buhimschi IA, Weiner CP. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology,
Wayne State University, Detroit, MI, USA. atalin.buhimschi@yale.edu
PMID: 15207670 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
- - - -
From: robert berg <robert.berg@nyu.edu>
Subject: Re: --> OB: Bandl's ring
Date: Dec 16, 2007 1:02 PM
On Dec 16, 2007 1:29 PM, <DoctorJoe@aol.com> wrote:
In a message dated 12/16/07 11:46:11 AM, robert.berg@nyu.edu writes:
Anyway, 2 questions:
1. Will she need an elective repeat?
2. Am I really that old?
--
1. Not necessarily. How big was the baby? Where did they cut?
7#10oz; hysterotomy in the well ballooned out LUS; no difficulty with the
delivery.
2. Well, Bandl's ring was in the first Williams I bought (olive green one --
about 1977 or 1978, I forget). I'm not sure if it's still there. I didn't
notice if it was in the very first one (that I reviewed as a nostalgia thing,
not when it first came out). Is it in the current edition?
I guess what I'm saying is, I don't know if you are that old or if all of "them"
are really just that dumb. I'd have to research it.
Hmmmm. How would you do that? Is there a Cochrane Database of dumb?
_________________________________
Robert E. Berg, MD, FACOG, FACS
_________________________________
And this affects me, how?
