Re: OB: Multifetal nomenclature
From: art fougner, md (evsono@pipeline.com)
Thu May 18 09:02:40 2000
Ashley -
i have to say i agree with Steve here - this seems to violate the
K.I.S.S. principle.
art
At Thu, 18 May 2000, Steve & Eryl Raymond wrote:
>
>My first reaction was ( and still is) "why does it matter"? Surely
>the delivery order takes precedence after delivery?
>Steve
>
>On 17 May 2000, at 21:12, J. Hellriegel wrote:
>
>> Seems OK.
>>
>> Note: Even for a vaginal delivery the order could become;
>> A1, B3 and C2.
>>
>> J. Hellriegel
>>
>> At Wed, 17 May 2000, D. Ashley Hill, MD wrote:
>> >
>> >We are thinking of devising a nomenclature system for delivery of
>> >multifetal pregnancies at our institution. Let's say the patient has
>> >triplets, with A presenting first, then B and C. At c/section, baby
>> >C (for example) may actually be delivered first, because his feet
>> >popped out of the incision first. Baby A might even be delivered
>> >last.
>> >
>> >Some of the Peds folks want to call the firstborn A regardless of
>> >it's antepartum position. (In the example above baby C would now be
>> >called A by the neonatology team). I am concerned that "renaming"
>> >the babies is confusing. Perhaps the perinatologist was following
>> >"C" for a cardiac defect. Now everyone is calling that one A because
>> >she was born first. How about leaving the original, antepartum letter
>> >intact, but adding a number to designate birth order? Using the above
>> >delivery, the nomenclature would read C1, B2, A3. Any thoughts?
>> >Thanks,
>> >
>> >Ashley
>> >
>> >--
>> >David Ashley Hill, MD
>> >Associate Director
>> >Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology
>> >Florida Hospital Family Practice Residency
>> >http://home.mpinet.net/dahmd
>> >
>>
>> --
>> John Hellriegel, MD, PhD
>>
--
art fougner, md
A series of 1000 cases begins with but a single anecdote.
|
|
