In extremely rare case, doctors remove fetus from brain of 1-year-old

Article
Archive

In extremely rare case, doctors remove fetus from brain of 1-year-old​


A young child had the remnants of her absorbed twin removed from her head.

1678720044693.png
Doctors found a malformed fetus in an infant's brain. (These brain scans are stock images and not from the case report described below.)

1678719444237.png
Brain Scans and Fetus Removed From Brain. (Spoilered due to nature of image.)

In an extremely rare case, doctors surgically removed a fetus from the brain of a 1-year-old child. Doctors found the fetus after the child showed delayed motor skill development, an enlarged head circumference and a buildup of fluid in the brain.

The report, published Dec. 12, 2022, in the journal Neurology, noted that the mass in the young child's head was a "malformed monochorionic diamniotic twin," meaning in the womb, the fetuses had once shared the same placenta but had separate amniotic sacs, the thin-walled, liquid-filled sacs that surround fetuses as they develop. These types of twins come from the same fertilized egg, meaning they're identical.

The anomaly in which one fetus becomes enveloped by another is known as "fetus in fetu," or sometimes "parasitic twin." The absorbed twin typically stops developing while the other continues to grow, the Miami Herald reported.

The phenomenon occurs in an estimated 1 in 500,000 live births; usually, the malformed fetus appears as a mass in the other fetus's abdomen, wedged behind the tissues that line the abdominal wall. However, in this case, the mass appeared in the "host" fetus's head, and likely arose very, very early in development, at the stage when the fertilized egg forms a cluster of cells called a blastocyst.

Brain scans of the 1-year-old child's head revealed that the fetus contained a vertebral column and two leg bones (the femur and tibia), and that the malformed fetus had spina bifida, a condition in which part of the spinal cord is exposed, rather than covered by tissues of the back, due to a problem during development. Once removed, the fetal mass was also determined to have "upper limb and finger-like buds."

The brief case report does not include details of the 1-year-old's condition following surgery.
 
Yeah, I'm... sadly not optimistic about the poor kid's chances. I know the brain is very plastic in infancy, so there's a chance they'll be okay... At least for some definition of okay... But I'm not going to put money on it.

Also, I think I saw this on an episode of X-Files. Thankfully they took care of it before it started eating people.
 
Found a bit more info:

"In this case report, a 1-year-old girl presented with motor delay; she was unable to sit independently. On examination, she had an enlarged head circumference of 56.5 cm. She had no sign of intracranial hypertension (nausea, vomiting, irritability, or deviated downward eyes) and exhibited full range of motion in four extremities with normal muscle tone.

Head CT and MRI revealed that the infant girl had hydrocephalus, a compressed brain, and an intraventricular fetiform mass. The mass had a vertebral column, femur, and tibia. Imaging showed the fetus-in-fetu had spina bifida; when further examined, it also had upper limbs and finger-like buds."
 
Repugnicans consider this kind of life-saving operation murder
You're getting rated dumb but there's people who genuinely think that aborting an ectopic pregnancy is murder, it's wild. Removing an embryo from a 1 year old's brain is obviously a life-saving and necessary operation, so why can't pro-life extremists extend that logic to ectopics, septic uteruses, and the like? Either way you're removing a non-viable embryo from a non-healthy-uterus environment to save the life of the host.
 
You're getting rated dumb but there's people who genuinely think that aborting an ectopic pregnancy is murder, it's wild. Removing an embryo from a 1 year old's brain is obviously a life-saving and necessary operation, so why can't pro-life extremists extend that logic to ectopics, septic uteruses, and the like? Either way you're removing a non-viable embryo from a non-healthy-uterus environment to save the life of the host.
Every single state that has abortion restrictions has exceptions for medical complications that endanger the life of the mother.
 
Ouchies. That's a big chunk of the brain. Is the kid a potato?
Young children, especially those under the age of 4 or 5, can recover from brain damage exceptionally well. This kid should make a full recovery.

There is even a procedure where half of the brain is removed from children to treat epilepsy and they make a full recovery.

 
You're getting rated dumb but there's people who genuinely think that aborting an ectopic pregnancy is murder, it's wild. Removing an embryo from a 1 year old's brain is obviously a life-saving and necessary operation, so why can't pro-life extremists extend that logic to ectopics, septic uteruses, and the like? Either way you're removing a non-viable embryo from a non-healthy-uterus environment to save the life of the host.

There are people who genuinely believe the world is flat, too. Nobody gives a fuck about them, either. They aren't a meaningful amount of people and have no meaningful impact on things.

As the poster above me said, there are always medical exemptions to abortion laws.
 
Every single state that has abortion restrictions has exceptions for medical complications that endanger the life of the mother.
That's a nice rule on paper, but in reality it's not always immediately apparent that the medical complication will endanger the mother's life. Issues like heart failure and infection for example, doctors could deliberate for some time on how best to treat... if it seems the issue can be treated with medications then they will delay the abortion, but what if the mother ends up not responding to medicine and she suddenly becomes too critically ill to undergo surgery, and the doctors missed their chance to terminate the pregnancy? Where does the line get drawn? If you're not a medical professional, you don't understand how fuzzy complications can get, and how fast things can change... it's not so cut and dry.

Anyway, this is off topic. I'm glad that the baby received their life-saving treatment. Just wish women could also receive their life-saving treatments with such decisiveness, and universal agreement that it was the right call... :optimistic:
 
That's a nice rule on paper, but in reality it's not always immediately apparent that the medical complication will endanger the mother's life. Issues like heart failure and infection for example, doctors could deliberate for some time on how best to treat... if it seems the issue can be treated with medications then they will delay the abortion, but what if the mother ends up not responding to medicine and she suddenly becomes too critically ill to undergo surgery, and the doctors missed their chance to terminate the pregnancy? Where does the line get drawn? If you're not a medical professional, you don't understand how fuzzy complications can get, and how fast things can change... it's not so cut and dry.

Anyway, this is off topic. I'm glad that the baby received their life-saving treatment. Just wish women could also receive their life-saving treatments with such decisiveness, and universal agreement that it was the right call... :optimistic:
Can we stop turning this thread into abortion sperging and talk about the scientific implications of this whole thing instead. This is a very interesting article and yet you are all acting like retards instead.
 
Back