Cesarean Section before Labor for Infants with Meningomyelocele
To the Editor: I am disturbed by the leeway taken by Luthy et al. 1 (and allowed them by the accompanying editorial) 2 in their conclusions focusing on the mode of delivery as the determinant of subsequent motor function in infants with meningomyelocele (March 7 issue). The authors had as their stud...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | The New England journal of medicine 1991-08, Vol.325 (5), p.359-360 |
---|---|
1. Verfasser: | |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
Zusammenfassung: | To the Editor:
I am disturbed by the leeway taken by Luthy et al.
1
(and allowed them by the accompanying editorial)
2
in their conclusions focusing on the mode of delivery as the determinant of subsequent motor function in infants with meningomyelocele (March 7 issue).
The authors had as their study population nearly all the infants with meningomyelocele in the state of Washington over the past 10 years. The mothers fell into two basic groups — those with antenatal diagnoses, who were referred to the study centers, where primary cesarean section without labor was forcefully "offered" (all the women accepted), and . . . |
---|---|
ISSN: | 0028-4793 1533-4406 |
DOI: | 10.1056/NEJM199108013250515 |