Re: OB: Multifetal nomenclature
From: art fougner, md (evsono@pipeline.com)
Thu May 18 10:33:06 2000
well for sure this makes a difference in utero, especially when
amniocentesis results are reported as "Twin A - 46 xx/ Twin B 47 xx+18"
here, you'd really need to know which was A and which was B. in the
outside world one might expect Peds to carefully evaluate all newborns.
but yes, agreed, this might make things easier. but still, imho
complicated nomenclature causes more probs than it solves.
but that's just my opinion. i could be wrong.
Art
At Thu, 18 May 2000, John Robertson MD wrote:
>
>Except it does actually make reference to the prenatal findings easier
>(ie if Baby A had something seen on Ultrasound then we should look at
>baby A3 not baby C1). As to Jacob and Esau, there were no ultrasounds
>so we don't know the prenatal presentation. John
>
>At Thu, 18 May 2000, art fougner, md wrote:
>>
>>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.
>>
>--
>J.G.M.Robertson MD, 109-9181 Main St. Chilliwack, B.C. V2P 4M9
>(604) 793-9988 e-mail john.robertson@obgyn.net
>Who is wise and understanding among you? Let him show it by his good life,
>by deeds done in the humility that comes from wisdom. James 3 vs 13, NIV
>
--
art fougner, md
A series of 1000 cases begins with but a single anecdote.
|
|
