Superfetation babies born in UK?

I am not sure if there are any medically proven examples of this happening before, but evidently a woman in the UK, Amelia Spence , has delivered girls on the same day who are not twins but instead were examples of superfetated baby girls. Superfetation is when a woman conceives a fetus while another fetus is already present in the womb (it can also happen if a woman has two uteri). So basically a woman would have to continue menstruating while pregnant in order to have superfetation take place.

The baby girls (I personally feel they should be known as twins) were delivered by c-section as the pregnancy was experiencing some difficulties. Amie was delivered at 29 weeks and weighed 4 lbs, 13 oz., while Lia was born at 32 weeks and weighed 6 lbs, 11 oz. Those are pretty good weights for those delivery dates. I sort of wonder if the pregnancy was misdiagnosed as the story linked below really doesn't offer the type of detail I would have liked to see to confirm this type of rare pregnancy.

http://www.medindia.net/news/Mother-Delive...ins-27229-1.htm

 

4 pounds 13 ounces at 29 weeks? That's huge. My girls were born at 3 pounds and 2 pounds 13 ounces at 29 weeks, and we were told they were pretty big for their GA! Then again, 6 pounds 11 is pretty gigantic for 32 weeks, no? I wonder if there's some confusion in either the DX or the way the story was relayed. The idea that they had an emergency c-section because the babies "were lying awkwardly in the womb" is clearly only part of the story. I'm curious if we'll read any more.

 

I had a dear friend that was much older than me. She had 2 uteri and had periods the entire time she was pregnant with her son. He was born prematurely but did well and thrived. While she was pregnant with her daughter she had a miscarriage - not her daughter but another baby from her other uterus. Her daughter made it nearly to term.

 

Wow, that's interesting. I've never heard of that. I agree that no matter their conceptoin date, they should be considered twins. They were carried at the same time and born at the same time.

QUOTE(Her Royal Jennyness @ Oct 1 2007, 07:34 PM) [snapback]431886[/snapback]
I had a dear friend that was much older than me. She had 2 uteri and had periods the entire time she was pregnant with her son. He was born prematurely but did well and thrived. While she was pregnant with her daughter she had a miscarriage - not her daughter but another baby from her other uterus. Her daughter made it nearly to term.


Wow Jenny, that's an amazing story!

 

4lb 13 oz at 29 wks? wow, that's quite a bit larger than my 34w6d tony! neat story.

 

This happened to friends of mine in high school. They were twins but were a month apart when born. She was def more premature than him. They found out about it during the pg sometime. They both ended up okay obviously.

 

Seeing as my own boys -- who were definitely conceived on the same day (IVF) -- are two weeks apart in growth, I wonder if it is just how the babies developed and not a true medical anomaly such as superfetation.

 

QUOTE
Seeing as my own boys -- who were definitely conceived on the same day (IVF) -- are two weeks apart in growth, I wonder if it is just how the babies developed and not a true medical anomaly such as superfetation.


that is probably the case a lot of times but I know with my friends she had the lungs of a much more premature baby and some other issues I cannot remember. I don't think they just base the diagnosis on size, there are a lot of factors that go into seeing how old gestationally a baby is.

 

QUOTE(SommerNyte @ Oct 2 2007, 01:18 PM) [snapback]432766[/snapback]
Seeing as my own boys -- who were definitely conceived on the same day (IVF) -- are two weeks apart in growth, I wonder if it is just how the babies developed and not a true medical anomaly such as superfetation.


That's why I was disappointed that the news article I originally read didn't offer more details. What led doctors to say these babies were conceived at different times? The article said the 2nd girl was conceived three weeks after the first girl--isn't that a little quick for a woman to supposedly have an ovulating cycle? I really just would have wondered if the babies were misdiagnosed somehow?

Here's another link with some more details and some photos of the now five-month-old girls. This story says the mom had an ultrasound at 12 weeks and one ultrasound was just a blob (the younger girl) and the other showed four limbs. Can you really see limbs at a 12-week ultrasound?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/fema...in_page_id=1879

 

I don't know much about superfetation, but we saw limbs at our 10 week u/s. I remember it SO clearly b/c we were so blown away. We hadn't expected to see that!

 

You can definitely see limbs by 12 weeks. Both articles seem to make it out that the 3 week difference in utero was the determining factor of their different conception dates (as well as birth size, but we know that doesn't mean much). I just don't know if I buy it, personally.

It doesn't mention NICU stays or development of the babies at birth, either. If one was really just 29 weeks, she'd probably have had more issues than her sister. I'll have to look for more news on this one, it's interesting for sure!

 

What about all the moms who get early u/s who find that one twin is behind the other???...many times that baby is just fine and catches up to some extent. Maybe it was just a case of IUGR. 12 week u/s definitely you can see limbs... many times a good u/s tech will also be able to tell gender...although won't usually say 100% sure. A 12 wk u/s would look way different from a 7 week u/s...but I don't know how different it would look from a 10 or 9 week u/s other than the size of the crown to rump length... I bet an experienced u/s tech would be interested in this case!

 

Maybe it was something similar to my girls. Jessy was physically like a 29-30 weeker where Jazzy was on target for a 34 weekers. This sure doesn't mean I concieved them at different times. Jazzy was 34 weeks and also smaller than the "29 weeker"

 

We didn't really see limbs per se, but you can see some little limb-y blobs here at 11 weeks - http://s99.photobucket.com/albums/l284/ogi...1weeks-anon.jpg

I guess if they are basis the diagnosis off the early ultrasound I am more inclined to believe it. My OB said early u/s is much more accurate for dating a pregnancy than later on, when there are more variations in fetal size.

 

So, what exactly is the definition of twins? If two fetuses being carried in one uterus at the same time are not twins, then what is the definition? I would call them twins.

And I don't buy it that a 29 week twin weighed that much. My 27 weekers were just under (Clarissa) and just over (Elliot) 2 lbs, and we were told they were average.

I think someone messed up some calculation somewhere.

-Rachel

 

Here's an interesting story about a woman who has two uteruses giving birth to twin(?) boys 59 days apart!
Here are two different accounts of the same story.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4249203.stm

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6936808/


As for the twins question... I would consider being born on the same day as being twins, but also having shared a uterus... what about when two babies don't share a uterus and aren't born on the same day? twins... or not?

 

QUOTE(ThingNumber1 @ Oct 3 2007, 10:07 PM) [snapback]434645[/snapback]
As for the twins question... I would consider being born on the same day as being twins, but also having shared a uterus... what about when two babies don't share a uterus and aren't born on the same day? twins... or not?


I the two uteri (uteruses?) were in the same women, I'd call them twins.


I also think from what little we know about this case, there was some error somewhere in the dating.

In my own case my girls were born at 35 1/2 weeks. I'm certian that's how long I was pregnant. I had my first appointment at 5 weeks (with an ultrasound). But my doctor was on vacation when they were born. The attending doctors said to me "You were wrong they are 37 weeks" based on their measurments and developmental stage. I wasn't wrong but that was fine by me because it meant my babies were okay and didn't need to be sent by ambulance to an out of town NICU.

 

As Craig posted in the OP, superfetation is the fertilization of two ova in two different menstrual cycles.

And just an FYI - superfecundation is the fertilization of two ova at separate times (in separate acts of sexual intercourse) during the same ovulation period. When the sperm is from different partners, it is called heteropaternal superfecundation and describes twins who have the same mother but two different fathers.

 

The weights also make the dates seem unbelievable 6 11 almost 7 pounds for a 32 weeker, and 4 13 almost 5 pounds for a 29 weeker arent really believable weights to me im inclined the dating of the pregnancy was wrong who knows i guess though

Did anyone here have twins near those weights at 29 and 32 weeks (probably not but if someone else had maybe it would be more believable) My friend had her girls at 39 weeks and the were both in the lower 6 pound range.

 

I'm with you all on the weights of those babies. Those are pretty darn big babies for being so young. And then only 5 days in the hospital. I am thinking somone messed up some dates. At my ultrasound at 29 weeks my babies were 2lbs 10oz and 2lbs 14oz. That would be like 2 more lbs... ODD?????

 

Wow, Josh was 6-14 and Zach 6-5, born at 35 weeks 2 days... supposedly they were HUGE for that gestation... something is not adding up... :nea:

 

I definitely do not believe those babies could weigh those weights at those gestational ages. I am a NICU nurse and in over 7 years have NEVER seen babies that big. There is no way a 29weeker could weigh almost 5lbs. Maybe something got screwed up in the translation of the story. Otherwise they are trying to make a bigger story out of this than it really is- you know, for publibity reasons and just to be in the news for something so rare. I would need some pretty concrete proof to believe this one.

I know the saying anything is possible- however that does not apply in this case.

Tracy
Mom to Griffin & Alex :itwins_boys:
Born 03/14/02 34wks

 

My singleton (he will be 16 next week) was born at 29 weeks....and he weighed in at a whopping 4 pounds and 10 ounces! They had done a sonogram on him at my bed side right before delivery and said he was going to be a 2 pounder.....and I had him within the hour....and boy were they surprised.....the further along with the sonogram...the harder it is to get the lenghts and weights correct!

and....He spent only 17 days in the NICU!

Misssy

 

I'm skeptical about the story, but I do have to say that for this pg my dd was measuring 4 lbs at my 30 week scan. One of my friend's had her ds a bit early last year...at her 30 week scan he measured 5 lbs...when he was born at 34 weeks he weighed close to 7lbs. They had checked and rechecked her dates and her early u/s...she just grows them big!!

 

A good friend of mine gave birth to her son at 32 weeks. He weighed just over 5 pounds but he was very sick and spent 2 months in the special care nursery. The doctors told her that if she had made it to full term, he would've weighed at least 10 pounds. He is now 15.

 

Most of the story is true but i think if i can remember rightly they were born at at 37weeks gestation and 32 weeks. It was in the papers over here and they had not only the doctors speaking but the mother too. x

 

yup very skeptic of the 'real' story here.

Hi to the other Zach and Josh born exactly 2 months after MY Zach and Josh