Ok i'll try to keep this simple because I
know how confusing it is.
First off in a "normal" woman when
ovulation occurs the eggs are released
from the ovary and the fallopian tubes
have these little fingers on the end that
encourage the egg into the tube (the egg
doesn't always make it intot he tube) and
the tubes are not attached to the ovary
but they are connected to the uterus.
Sperm and egg usually meet up in the tube
but sometimes it happens as late as in the
uterus itself.
The uterus is shaped like and upside down
pear (fruit).
In a complete hysterectomy they take the
whole pear and sew up the top of the
vagina leaving a "cuff" of scar tissue.
In a partial hysterectomy they only take
the fat part of the pear and leave the
thinner bit (cervix). Then they sew up
the open part of the uterus to form a
"pocket".
The tubes are usually removed because
there isn't any need for them after a
hysterectomy, but some surgeons leave them
in place.
Removal of tubes and or avaries is nothing
to do with a hysterectomy, a hyst deals
with the uterus only.
Now, the scar line either at the top of
the vagina or the pocket of the cervix can
either not heal fully leaving a small
fistula (hole/tract) or it can develop one
in later years as the "skin" of the
internal sexual organs becomes thinner.
A sperm is only 40microns (that is 0.0016
inches and there are 1000microns in one
millimetre), a fistula may only be a
millimetre or two and not noticeable but
it sure as heck can let a lot of little
spermies through, and we all know how many
little spermies it takes to fertilise an
egg - 1!
An egg from a woman who has had a hyst is
viable for approx 36 hours (same as any
other woman really) if after this time it
is not fertilised then it will be absorbed
back into the body.
Now from the pocket/cuff to the ovaries is
a matter of maybe a inch or a couple of
inches.
Sperm swim at a rate of 30 inches per
hour.
They can easily pass through a fistula and
"flood" the lower abdomen and if there
happens to be an egg released from the
oavery around that time then bam - you got
an ectopic pregnancy on your hands.
Incidentally some ectopics occur in women
when the sperm swim all the way up the
fallopian tube before meeting an egg and
the fertilised egg fails to enter the
fallopican tube and instead embeds itself
outside the uterus.
So to sum up - for joanna to be pregnant
is not likely but is very very possible.
If you have any questions on this don't
hesitate to ask, but please don't be
ignorant and assume.
I have a wealth of research and if I ever
went on mastermind it would be my chosen
topic.
|
DylanJacob
Active User, Really EHEALTHy
Joined: 17 Apr 2006 Posts: 559
Posted: 04-18-06 05:18am
Wow - did .N.O.T know that. Didn't assume
anything in the first place mind you.
|
Ingi
Supporter
Joined: 09 Mar 2006 Posts: 8901 Location: Grinning like a Cheshire Cat,
Thanks: 171
Thanked:197
Posted: 04-18-06 09:58am
How many pregnancies without uterus have
lasted throught to full term? Where does
the placenta attach? How many live births
from this sort of pregnancy?
I am fully aware that there have been
abdomenal pregnancies in woman with uteri,
i'm asking about women without. Not women
who have recently had a hysterectomy, mind
you, but women who have gone nearly 2
decades after a hysterectomy.
|
AlliE_18
Extremely EHEALTHy
Joined: 20 Dec 2005 Posts: 2129 Location: uk
Posted: 04-18-06 10:05am
I agree its possible. But her babies
would be dead by now kia, shes what 3
weeks past her due date? You know she'll
still be here in a year saying shes been
pregnant 2 years and god hasnt decided the
time is right for them to be born yet
.S.T.I.L.L
how do you make some words bold on here?
|
BelieveinMiracles
New User, Becoming EHEALTHy
Joined: 10 Apr 2006 Posts: 25
Posted: 04-18-06 10:17am
Thanks kia for all the information. I
recently had a vaginal hysterectomy where
they left my tubes and ovaries in place.
4 weeks after the hysterectomy I set up a
bad infection and my doctor had to go back
in and do an incision and drainage this
has been a very rough experience for me.
He informed me that he wanted me to wait
an additional 4-6 weeks before intercourse
and now I see why. I really dont like to
ask my doctor alot of questions because
his bed side manner is not the greatest
but I really appreciate you for explaining
this in detail.
Bridgett
|
Kia
Supporter
Joined: 23 Jun 2004 Posts: 6594 Location: Planet Tampaxia,
Posted: 04-18-06 14:48pm
ingi
wrote:
how many pregnancies without
uterus have lasted throught to full term?
Where does the placenta attach? How
many live births from this sort of
pregnancy?
I am fully aware that there have been
abdomenal pregnancies in woman with uteri,
i'm asking about women without. Not
women who have recently had a
hysterectomy, mind you, but women who have
gone nearly 2 decades after a
hysterectomy.
if a woman sought medical attention it is
most likely that the pregnancy would be
removed in the early stages as a
preventative measure.
The placenta can attach to pretty much any
of the internal organs, but most commonly
seems to attach to the bowel
(neccessitating a colostomy in most cases)
although it can even attach to the inner
muscle wall of the abdomen itself.
There have been a couple of live births in
pregnancy post hysterectomy.
Also note-worthy is that intra-abdominal
pregnancy with live birth is statistically
the same whether the woman has had a hyst
or not because the uterus is factored out
any way by the very nature of the
pregnancy.
The fact that this "occurence" has
happened so long after a hyst is what
makes me think the "pregnancy symptoms"
are actually menopause symptoms.
But the sheer fact that the case is not
impossible is why I am unable to
conclude.
*goes off digging in her achives on an old
hard drive for case studies*
|
Kia
Supporter
Joined: 23 Jun 2004 Posts: 6594 Location: Planet Tampaxia,
Posted: 04-18-06 16:03pm
Ok I need to find my old hard drive but
here are some links I found in a quick
google search - some you might not be able
to fully read as they require
subscriptions but you should be able to
see a brief or abstract of the article.
Some are intra-abdomnal, some
extra-uterine, but they all relate to
pregnancy outside of a uterine environment
- there seems to be some confusion
surrounding the true number of cases
recorded late post hysterectomy.
Remember some may need you to alter the
caps in the link.
arnold l. Sperling, md,
mph, mba,
assistant clinical professor ob/gyn tufts
medical school
boston, mass
wrote:
i read dr sloan's article, "abdominal
pregnancy revealed following vaginal
hysterectomy" [sloan d. The female
patient. Most interesting case: abdominal
pregnancy revealed following vaginal
hysterectomy. 2003;28(5):55-56]. Dr
sloan's case is the twenty-second case of
pregnancy after hysterectomy reported in
the english literature.
Most of the cases were found immediately
after hysterectomy was performed, but one
case from australia occurred more than 10
years postoperatively.
I evaluated one case in new york city in
which the proximal end of one fallopian
tube was visible in the vagina at the
vaginal cuff. This conception occurred 3
months postoperatively.
All of the reported cases had at least one
tube remaining along with ovarian
function.
It was obvious that most of these cases
occurred with transuterine sperm
migration, but it is also apparent that
conception can occur without a uterus.
Certainly these cases are so rare that
there is no need to change our practices
regarding either abdominal or vaginal
hysterectomy, but Dr. Sloan makes us
clearly aware that pregnancy can, and
occasionally does, occur
post-hysterectomy.
marcus filshie, dm,
frcog, mffp
wrote:
there's a failure rate of any method of
contraception including sterilization, as
you know, and just to remind everybody,
there are 23 cases of pregnancy following
hysterectomy so you can't get a zero
failure rate. If you look at all the
studies that have been published, either
in reference journals or in ordinary
articles, and you look at all the figures
that are available, the overall failure
rate including the best which have got no
failures or the worst which have got some
failures, the overall failure rate is 2.7
per 1,000 patients during their lifetime.
We call it a lifetime risk, it's not an
annual risk - it's a lifetime
risk.
|
Ingi
Supporter
Joined: 09 Mar 2006 Posts: 8901 Location: Grinning like a Cheshire Cat,
Thanks: 171
Thanked:197
Posted: 04-18-06 16:16pm
Interesting articles. Thank you.
None of these articles contain live births
19 years post hysterectomy. The 8 months
post op, I can actually believe. But 19
years and for it to have gone
un-diagnosed, for so long with so many
tests is, to me, unbelieveable. She may
have had me on the hpt not being picked
up. I may have been able to believe that.
However, multiple ultrasounds and drawn
on (very large) baby in the rib cage? No
way. The facts that no one can find the
baby/ies and they are now over 2 weeks
late is quite fishy.
Considering her age, I would have to say
the menopause theory is just as good as
the .Cushing's disease theory. Whatever
the case, as everyone has said every
single thread, this person needs some kind
of help.
|
Kia
Supporter
Joined: 23 Jun 2004 Posts: 6594 Location: Planet Tampaxia,
Posted: 04-18-06 16:57pm
There is one in there (i think I found it
and posted it) that was 11 or 13 years
post op.
But anyway my point was not to say joanna
is or isn't pregnant but that the
possibility isn't impossible.
I mean if I ever had an ectopic that
wasn't tubal (mine was growing in scar
tissue and the beginings of the placenta
were mal-formed so was a no-go) but
otherwise I would definately, knowing what
I know now comapred to 2 years ago, would
hold out and hope.
Albeit I would definately be seeking
medical observance.
|
AlliE_18
Extremely EHEALTHy
Joined: 20 Dec 2005 Posts: 2129 Location: uk
Posted: 04-18-06 17:19pm
ingi
wrote:
whatever the case, as
everyone has said every single thread,
this person needs some kind of
help.
[allie quit posting such abominable
statements - it is not big or clever and
quite simply will not be tolerated]
|
AlliE_18
Extremely EHEALTHy
Joined: 20 Dec 2005 Posts: 2129 Location: uk
Posted: 04-19-06 07:08am
allie_18
wrote:
ingi
wrote:
whatever the case, as
everyone has said every single thread,
this person needs some kind of
help.
[allie quit posting such abominable
statements - it is not big or clever and
quite simply will not be
tolerated]
[allie quit it ok. Telling people to
commit suicide is abhorrent and you should
be ashamed - post removed for that reason
and if you re-post it again it will be
reported]
ok i'll try to keep this
simple because I know how confusing it
is.
<snip>
so to sum up - for joanna to be pregnant
is not likely but is very very possible.
very *very* *possible? That's stretching
it. *remotely*
one-chance-in-a-billion-possible?
Perhaps.
Hysterectomy was done as a means of
sterilization in years past for women who
did not wish to bear more children. A
woman without a uterus is considered
sterile, infertile, as is a woman who has
had tubal ligation. Yes, doctors could
give hormones to increase egg production,
gather eggs, fertilize them invitro, then
]implant them in another womans uterus,
but the woman who has no uterus or has
clipped/tied/cauterized fallopian tubes is
infertile - unable to bear children.
Women with deformed (septate, large
fibroids) etc) uterii, congenitally
absent uterii, are classified as
infertile, and need reproductive
technology and assistance to become
mothers. Even if they have working
ovaries, they are infertile.
There is also research that indicates that
women who have undergone hysterectomy (but
not oophorectomy), and do not take hrt go
into menopause sooner than intact women -
something about not having a uterus makes
the ovaries kick off earlier.
So, in fatfamilys case - a woman in her
mid-40's, 18 years post-hyst, is
statically more likely to be going through
menopause than she is to be pregnant.
|
Ingi
Supporter
Joined: 09 Mar 2006 Posts: 8901 Location: Grinning like a Cheshire Cat,
very *very* *possible? That's stretching
it. *remotely*
one-chance-in-a-billion-possible?
Perhaps.
Hysterectomy was done as a means of
sterilization in years past for women who
did not wish to bear more children. A
woman without a uterus is considered
sterile, infertile, as is a woman who has
had tubal ligation. Yes, doctors could
give hormones to increase egg production,
gather eggs, fertilize them invitro, then
]implant them in another womans uterus,
but the woman who has no uterus or has
clipped/tied/cauterized fallopian tubes is
infertile - unable to bear children.
Women with deformed (septate, large
fibroids) etc) uterii, congenitally
absent uterii, are classified as
infertile, and need reproductive
technology and assistance to become
mothers. Even if they have working
ovaries, they are infertile.
There is also research that indicates that
women who have undergone hysterectomy (but
not oophorectomy), and do not take hrt go
into menopause sooner than intact women -
something about not having a uterus makes
the ovaries kick off earlier.
So, in fatfamilys case - a woman in her
mid-40's, 18 years post-hyst, is
statically more likely to be going through
menopause than she is to be
pregnant.
this sounds so much more plausible than
the possibility of pregnancy, it is
unbelieveable to me that anyone would
still *believe*.
Right, there is a very *very* remote
chance that a pregnancy could have
happened. But to go undiagnosed - after
xrays and ultrasounds!! - for 10 months
already and be 18 days overdue? No way.
That is not even realistic by the largest
stretch of the imagination.
Notice how she backtracked on the 'twins'
in her last statement. Now it is probably
just a singleton. Whatever. Still not
within the realm of reality.
|
AlliE_18
Extremely EHEALTHy
Joined: 20 Dec 2005 Posts: 2129 Location: uk
Posted: 04-20-06 03:57am
Um ok whoever wrote that! It was kinda
funny though
|
Kia
Supporter
Joined: 23 Jun 2004 Posts: 6594 Location: Planet Tampaxia,
so, in fatfamilys case - a
woman in her mid-40's, 18 years post-hyst,
is statically more likely to be going
through menopause than she is to be
pregnant.
and if you bothered to read my posts you
would see that I have already said that it
is more likely that her symptoms are
menopause or delusional related but that
pregnancy, while unlikely isn't
impossible.
I was asked to post information related to
pregnancy not contained within a uterus
and of the rare (but yes very possible -
ie real) occurences of pregnancy where the
woman doesn't have a uterus.
I have several case studies but they are
on an old hard drive and I need to go find
the drive (which I haven't used in over 12
months) and haven't had time to find
because I work a full time job, have a
relationship and a life, and look after
several forums of various backgrounds as
well.
If you bothered to read you would see I
had said I was not defending joanna, that
I was still on the fence purely because I
can not knowledgeably rule out the chance
of a pregnancy, and that this was for
general background information not a case
study to convince anyone either way on
joanna's case, but to simply disprove the
myth that hysterectomy is always the end
of a womans fertility and to show people
what a hyst really is.
frankly, I skimmed it, because I am
familiar with the material. I simply
take issue with you stating that pregnancy
after hysterectomy is "very very"
possible, when in reality the odds are
vanishingly miniscule, and that a women
without a uterus is still considered
fertile. If this were so, why aren't
doctors putting them on birth control
afterwards?
Infertility is defined as the inability to
conceive and/or bear children by natural
means.
A women without a uterus is infertile.
|
Kia
Supporter
Joined: 23 Jun 2004 Posts: 6594 Location: Planet Tampaxia,
no, she quite simply isn't. A woman
without ovaries is infertile but
hysterectomy does not remove the
ovaries.
Yes, sometimes the ovaries are removed at
the same time as a hyst but they are not
part of the same operation.
You evidentally are not familiar with the
material, else you would know this.
|
Sunflower_pie81
Especially EHEALTHy
Joined: 17 Jan 2006 Posts: 5041 Location: to hell with this crap
Posted: 04-20-06 10:29am
A total hysterectomy removes the overies
as well at the uterus.
|
Ingi
Supporter
Joined: 09 Mar 2006 Posts: 8901 Location: Grinning like a Cheshire Cat,
Thanks: 171
Thanked:197
I'm Going to Turn This Forum Around And Take You Two Home! Posted: 04-20-06 10:34am
Let's just, for giggles and fits,
say that in some weird tubesock
world, this person did get pregnant
without a uterus. Mmkay? Can we do
that?
Ok, so there is a pregnancy now and
what would be the likelihood of going
nearly three weeks post term? Or even
that a pregnancy would go this long
without being noticed by anyone even
remotely medically trained? -- i'm not
talking the girl at the grocer store
asking when your baby is due because you
are fat, I mean an actual medical doctor
who told you to take vitamins and come
back next month so he can weigh you and
take more of your urine and blood. Yeah,
none of these things happened.
This is what the confusion is, kia. If
there were feelings of a pregnancy, what
in .God's name does anyone have any
business believing that the baby (remember
it is only one now) could still exist?
Ok, pregnancy was *possible* we get that.
what about now?
|
fatfamily02
Extremely EHEALTHy
Joined: 20 Jul 2005 Posts: 3050 Location: Georgia, USA
Posted: 04-20-06 10:54am
She has said many times-----she is not
defending me. She is just stating the
fact that abdominal or ectopic pregnancy
is possible after hysterectomy.
Why cant you just let it go? What is
your obsession????? You come over here
just to talk crap on me---more than anyone
else has ever said about me. Why cant
you just drop it????
I am pregnant, I have either one or 2
babies in my abdomen. I do not know!!
So what if they are late? I was late
with all my children.
I know of a christian woman who carried
her baby for 12 months!! .God is .God
and .He is the one in control--whether we
recognize that or not.
