Quote:
Originally Posted by UGAalum94
I thought that most ectopic pregnancies couldn't progress because they'd get to a point in development where they wouldn't be able to get the nutrients and such that they needed because they wouldn't actually have a placenta, etc.
By "a lot of cases" what percentage are we really talking about?
I don't mean to come across as confrontational so much as really surprised by the medical information. If it's really the case that most ectopic pregnancies are sustainable, why wouldn't there be more interest in just trying to move them to the uterus, rather than just removing them.
I'm thinking of the cases in which people really want to be pregnant and are devastated by having to have the pregnancy removed or even Catholic heath institutions who would probably love to have options to save both.
|
No. The fetus makes a placenta wherever it implants. The problem with ectopics is that if they implant in the fallopian tube is that it will rupture the tupe, causing life threatening bleeding. The ones that implant on the ovary will outlive their blood supply because the placenta doesn't have enough tissue to grow into. Ectopics, however, can grow into bowel, abdominal wall, organs and proceed into normal pregnancies.
The vast majority of ectopics are removed before this happens because women seek prenatal care, have symptoms or die. The ones that don't come to the hospital when they are term and are discovered to have a term ectopic. My mom has actually been involved in an ectopic term delivery for a ectopic that implanted on small bowel. The woman lost a large portion of her small bowel since it is impossible to remove the placenta.
There is no moving an ectopic to the uterus. The whole point I'm making is that trying to differentiate an ectopic pregnancy from this case is fallacious. The fetus in this case would die too when blood flow stopped when mom died just as the ectopic pregnancy will die as soon as mom dies from lack of flood flow when mom dies.
Hybrid Mode
