-VISIT OUR OTHER FORUMS- OB-GYN-L Ultrasound Ultrasound History Fibroid Forum Physicians-in-Training Tech Talk OBSTET-L (portuguese) OBGIN-L (spanish) Nursing

Re: Conception after miscarriage From: art fougner, md (evsono@pipeline.com) Sun Jan 28 20:26:18 2001 Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ] Next message: Alexandra Borisova: "Bleeding on HRT." Previous message: art fougner, md: "Re: Gyn: complex hyperplasia with atypia--follow up" In reply to: Jane Helwig, MD, FACOG: "Re: Conception after miscarriage" Next in thread: Efrain Ramirez: "Re: Conception after miscarriage" Jane - how about this one? : J Perinat Med 1994;22(3):235-41 Related Articles, Books, LinkOut Relevance of the miscarriage-new pregnancy interval. Wyss P, Biedermann K, Huch A Clinic and Policlinic of Obstetrics, University Hospital of Zurich, Switzerland. There is a wide divergence of opinion concerning the interval a woman should wait after a miscarriage before attempting a new pregnancy ("pregnancy interval"). Many authors recommend waiting 3-4 months in order to reduce the risk of another miscarriage [3, 6, 17, 21]. This retrospective study investigated whether a longer pregnancy interval lowers the risk of repeat miscarriage (R-risk) and/or prematurity. The association between parity and R-risk was also analyzed. Results showed that there are no proven reasons to recommend a waiting period between a miscarriage and a subsequent pregnancy, because the R-risk was around 20% irrespective of interval duration. Prematurity too is not influenced by a waiting period after miscarriage. There was, however, an association between parity and R-risk and risk of prematurity: nulliparae were more likely to have a repeat miscarriage (p < 0.05) or a preterm delivery in the next pregnancy (p < 0.05) than women who had already given birth to a child. hope this is useful. art At Sun, 28 Jan 2001, Jane Helwig, MD, FACOG wrote: > >At Sat, 27 Jan 2001, John Robertson MD wrote: >> >>I would have to disaggree with Jane, for the reasons that Malcolm >>alluded to. I specifically tell patients that although there is no >>physical or phhysiological reason to avoind conceiving immediately after >>a miscarriage, this is a loss and should be grieved like any other loss. >>I therefore counsel them to give themselves some time to grieve prior to >>trying to conceive again. John >> >John, I don't think we disagree. I counsel patients in almost the same >way. We have a discussion about the fact that a miscarriage is a loss >and that they need to grieve their loss. Where we differ is that I >don't give a specific time to wait--some need a week, some much longer. > >On the other hand, if anyone can point us to evidence that there *is* a >physical or physiological reason to avoid conceiving immediately after >miscarriage, I would change my counseling to reflect that information. > >Several of us think we have seen something in the literature to suggest >that there is increased risk but can't remember where or when. Anyone? > >-- >Jane Helwig, MD, FACOG >Private practice >Nassawadox, VA > -- art fougner, md A series of 1000 cases begins with but a single anecdote. Next message: Alexandra Borisova: "Bleeding on HRT." Previous message: art fougner, md: "Re: Gyn: complex hyperplasia with atypia--follow up" In reply to: Jane Helwig, MD, FACOG: "Re: Conception after miscarriage" Next in thread: Efrain Ramirez: "Re: Conception after miscarriage"

Return to

Mail a New Message to the Forum: ob-gyn-l@obgyn.net Forum Administrator: geffrey.klein@obgyn.net Report Technical Problems: webmaster@obgyn.net Last Updated: Wed Dec 2 04:49:17 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.