Offline
Ready for this? A baby girl was born "pregnant" with 8- to 10-week-old twin fetus-like structures, ABC News reports.The baby was born in November 2010, and researchers are just now releasing their findings that what was thought to be a set of tumors in her abdomen were actually fetuses. They weighed in at half an ounce and a third of an ounce and were developmentally far enough along that they each had four limbs, a spine, a rib cage, intestines, and an anusThe nearly 9-pound "pregnant" baby underwent a successful surgery to remove the fetuses when she was just 2 weeks old.The condition is known as fetus in fetu, and there have been 200 documented incidences - ever.Fetus in fetu occurs when a partially developed fetus (or in this case, two of them) becomes incorporated into a normally developing fetus within the womb.
Last edited by Dori (10/25/2015 12:27 pm)
Offline
Good grief, 200 documented cases and this is the first I've ever heard of such a thing. I have been cooped up too much, I need to get out from under my rock more.
Offline
I've heard of the "absorbed twin" phenomena before, but never anything this dramatic. I know that tumours can also grow hair and teeth. Ugh.
Offline
I have heard of this before. Apparently some people may be walking around with their absorbed twin now and have no idea.
Offline
I have heard of conjoined twins and where one baby can absorb the other. I have never heard of the absorbed baby ending up in the womb though, let alone two of them. This was actually triplets as there were two babies in the third babies womb.
Offline
Question : What possessed the doctors to check to see if a newborn was pregnant?
Offline
MamaSqu wrote:
Question : What possessed the doctors to check to see if a newborn was pregnant?
Excellent question!
Offline
I reread the original post, and I find that my last question and the article itself are somewhat at odds. I get that they weren't checking to see if the newborn was pregnant, but what caused them to find the "tumors" in the newborns abdomin ? Would they have been hard lumps that the doctor could press and feel on the child's stomach? I'm still sort of in a fog on this one. Plus, since this happened back in 2010, I would love for the article to give an update on how the child is doing today. Just a thought.
Offline
I am guessing that maybe the baby's abdomen was unusually large indicating something was wrong.
Offline
needtosay wrote:
I am guessing that maybe the baby's abdomen was unusually large indicating something was wrong.
Thank you. I like the way you think and I appreciate your correction of my typo, it didn't look right no matter how I typed it but it looks absolutely correct when you spell out the word. (Wordsmith's worst nightmare, my own typos ) *abdomen, I've got to remember that spelling.
I wish the article had gone into more detail but then in print, space is a commodity. (Why isn't there a spellcheck here?)