![]() |
||||
|
|
||||
|
|
||||
Re: Luteal phase ?, Dr. MontgomeryFrom: Lynn D. Montgomery, MD (anonymous@obgyn.net)Tue, 8 Aug 2000 18:13:35 -0500 (CDT)
At Tue, 8 Aug 2000, Kris wrote: > >I think it was about a week ago that I first read your take on "luteal >phase defects". I'm still a bit confused by it. If I'm understanding >correctly, a woman does not have LPD if she ovulates. If that's the >case, than an 8 day LP is normal if ovulation has been documented, >right? If this is what your saying, than I'm lost. Don't you need a LP >longer than that to have a chance at pregnancy? > >I'm not trying to be difficult here. I really want to understand, since >this directly affects me. Maybe it's just the words being used. I >suppose you could call a short luteal phase "normal", and just not >"acceptable" or "functional". > >If you've got the time to clarify this, I'd really like to know. Is >there some place that I can read the logic behind this way of thinking? >Thanks, Kris Kris, Actually what I am saying is that if you have ovulation, then you will have a normal luteal phase (14 days). If you don't ovulate, you will have a luteal phase that is shorter, like 8 days. I would ask what information tells you that indeed you are ovulating. The only SURE way to determine ovulation is literally to have folliculograms (ultrasounds) done daily around the expected time of ovulation and follow the developing follicle(s). Without this, there is no definitive way to prove ovulation-certainly not with ovulation predictor kits or basal temp charts... Lynn
-- Lynn D. Montgomery, MD Director, Maternal-Fetal Medicine Rocky Mountain Perinatal Center Missoula, Montana
|
|
Return to ![]()
Report TECHNICAL Problems ONLY to: webmaster@obgyn.net
Last Updated: Mon Nov 2 06:11:31 2009
Women's Insurance Checklist from Auto Insurance Quote
home | medical professionals | women | industry | forums | international