<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Amniotic Fluid Infection Triggers Premature Birth</title>
	<atom:link href="http://medheadlines.com/2008/08/27/amniotic-fluid-infection-triggers-premature-birth/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://medheadlines.com/2008/08/27/amniotic-fluid-infection-triggers-premature-birth/</link>
	<description>Medical news updated 24 hours</description>
	<pubDate>Fri, 19 Mar 2010 03:07:25 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.7.1</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: cures for bacterial vaginosis</title>
		<link>http://medheadlines.com/2008/08/27/amniotic-fluid-infection-triggers-premature-birth/comment-page-1/#comment-12436</link>
		<dc:creator>cures for bacterial vaginosis</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 22 Sep 2009 20:18:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://medheadlines.com/?p=1343#comment-12436</guid>
		<description>Yeast infections are not considered to be sexually transmitted infections (STI) because a celibate woman can develop them, but having unprotected sex can pass them along. A man who has unprotected sex with a woman who has an active yeast infection can get a penile yeast infection. Transmission of genital yeast infections from woman to man is uncommon, but it does happen.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Yeast infections are not considered to be sexually transmitted infections (STI) because a celibate woman can develop them, but having unprotected sex can pass them along. A man who has unprotected sex with a woman who has an active yeast infection can get a penile yeast infection. Transmission of genital yeast infections from woman to man is uncommon, but it does happen.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: annie</title>
		<link>http://medheadlines.com/2008/08/27/amniotic-fluid-infection-triggers-premature-birth/comment-page-1/#comment-9762</link>
		<dc:creator>annie</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 21 Sep 2008 04:09:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://medheadlines.com/?p=1343#comment-9762</guid>
		<description>How were these samples collected?  There is evidence that suggests that amniocentisis alone can trigger preterm labor- even if an infection were present it would be impossible to determine wether labor was further stimulated by an infection or an invasive amnio test.  
Actually any feasible method of RETREIVING the amniotic fluid could relate more to the findings of this study than just the postulation that infection within the amniotic fluid caused pre-term labor in each of these cases.  If they had some method of vaginal collection due to pPROM how can we be sure that this collection was not contaminated by vaginal flora? If the collection was made endocervically- was infection introduced, or did collection produce an inflammatory response that further stimulated preterm labor?                                     

(the rate of every woman delivering within a day after testing is worrisome for me)

Other questions need to be answered- did these women also have ruptured membranes? If so, these infections could be both maternal, or nosocomial (not simply appearing within the amniotic fluid)- and labor could also be related to a local prostaglandin response that occurs after pprom- research show that most women deliver within 48 hours of membrane rupture.

A closed womb, without PPROM, and uninterrupted by invasive procedures- is still a safe fetal environment- and it is difficult for me to believe otherwise simply because one questionable study says-so, a study that seems to contradict an incredibly larger amount of other.. more well thought out studies.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>How were these samples collected?  There is evidence that suggests that amniocentisis alone can trigger preterm labor- even if an infection were present it would be impossible to determine wether labor was further stimulated by an infection or an invasive amnio test.<br />
Actually any feasible method of RETREIVING the amniotic fluid could relate more to the findings of this study than just the postulation that infection within the amniotic fluid caused pre-term labor in each of these cases.  If they had some method of vaginal collection due to pPROM how can we be sure that this collection was not contaminated by vaginal flora? If the collection was made endocervically- was infection introduced, or did collection produce an inflammatory response that further stimulated preterm labor?                                     </p>
<p>(the rate of every woman delivering within a day after testing is worrisome for me)</p>
<p>Other questions need to be answered- did these women also have ruptured membranes? If so, these infections could be both maternal, or nosocomial (not simply appearing within the amniotic fluid)- and labor could also be related to a local prostaglandin response that occurs after pprom- research show that most women deliver within 48 hours of membrane rupture.</p>
<p>A closed womb, without PPROM, and uninterrupted by invasive procedures- is still a safe fetal environment- and it is difficult for me to believe otherwise simply because one questionable study says-so, a study that seems to contradict an incredibly larger amount of other.. more well thought out studies.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
