|
|
 |
 |
 |
|
|
|||
|
||||
|
||||
comment for discussion on case synechialFrom: JT & JL Tomko (buddy@redrose.net)Mon Dec 8 21:51:18 1997
At 02:59 PM 12/8/1997 -0600, you wrote: >Ok, folks. We now have a bit of case history with the images. You can >view these first two examples that most have thought looked like uterine >synechia. What do you think? Please send comments to: >Ultrasound@OBGYN.net > For those who missed a theory that somewhat crossed my mind with Dr. Mamula's recent case and the one I listed. How can we really define twin ~ empty sac versus singleton with synechia in the early first trimester? Interesting point to ponder...is vanishing twin truely as common as we once thought? Of course we cannot include the documented two yolk sac and two embryo within this group. Any suggestions? Should we not call twins in this instance until a two week follow-up exam? Seems to place the patient in an unecessary grieving process if they are told they lost a twin that was really never there. Janet Tomko RDMS
|
|
Return to
|
Mail a New Message to the Forum: ultrasound@obgyn.net Forum Administrator: terry.dubose@obgyn.net Report Technical Problems: webmaster@obgyn.net Last Updated: Mon Nov 2 05:38:25 2009 |
The American Medical Association is no longer designating CME hours for AMA Category II CME credit. However, physicians themselves may self designate learning activities as Category II CME credit hours if they feel it is of sufficient educational merit and meets the formal definitions of continuing medical education. OBGYN.net believes these interaction in this forum meets these criteria. For further information see the AMA web site.