Slashdot Mirror
Cutting Umbilical Cord Early Eliminates Stem Cells
GeneralSoh writes "Delaying clamping the umbilical cord at birth may have far-reaching benefits for your baby, according to researchers at the University of South Florida's Center of Excellence for Aging and Brain Repair — and should be delayed for at least a few minutes longer after birth. This new recommendation published in the most recent Journal of Cellular and Molecular Medicine (14:3) notes that delaying clamping the umbilical cord allows more umbilical cord blood and crucial stem cells to transfer from mama to baby."
Is there an upload progress bar on the umbilical cord?
And they said she was crazy for keeping me attached for a year and breastfeeding me until I was 9. WHO'S LAUGHING NOW, NOSY SOCIAL WORKERS???
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
Oh, if only they had done extensive research on it, instead of just saying "Sounds reasonable, lets publish!" then they would have caught that major flaw! Too bad you weren't around to keep them honest!
ASCII stupid question, get a stupid ANSI
I would think that newborns are at a critical developmental stage and need all the help they can get. If I sucked out a significant portion of your blood, it would set you back a bit and you've been around more than 9 months.
There are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
A few minutes longer than.. what?
When my son was born a few years ago, the Doc didn't clamp the cord very quickly. Our baby also ended with a pretty decent case of jaundice and had to be under the "bili lights" for a few days, extending our hospital stay.
This can sometimes happen when the baby gets a big dose of red blood cells because he's a lot lower than the placenta (gravity) or because the cord isn't clamped very quickly. All those red blood cells die in a day or two, baby cannot break down/metabolize the dead RBCs correctly, and POOF, jaundice.
Just be careful. Jaundice can cause pleasant things like brain damage in neonates (due to immature blood/brain barrier).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bilirubin#Toxicity
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kernicterus
With the first link, the chain is forged.
There are quite a few things relating to circulation that don't happen until a few moments after birth (i.e. blood pressure, heart rate, heart valve changes). Perhaps a stem cell transference has something to do with that...
I judt got a nre Kinesis keybiartf so please excusr ant egregiou typos.
"The kid's been attached to it for 9 months, and the last 2 minutes make _THAT_ much difference?"
To be safe, use the Helicopter Parent method and leave it on until age 18.
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
Yes!
When the baby is pushed out through the birth canal it is *compressed* and blood is *sqeezed out* from the baby into the umbilical and placenta. I can't believe it took researchers so fucking long to figure out *basic physics*.
I was born premature and apparently needed a blood transfusion. The reason for the latter is probably because some doctor didn't want to wait a minute or so and wanted to be more "efficient". So DO NOT allow a doctor to clamp the chord for a minute or two after the baby is born. The baby needs that blood to thrive.
My wife and I decided to have our child at a birthing center, and this was one of the reasons.
I was very skeptical of not delivering in a hospital, but after doing some research I was intrigued. We went to the orientations at both a local hospital, and at a local birthing center. In both orientations I asked how long they leave the umbilical cord attached. The hospital doctors didn't see any reason not to cut it immediately, and kind of looked at me like "oh, you are one of THOSE people." The midwife at the birthing center said something like "We follow the most recent lifelong study completed by in which recommends leaving the cord on for due to the increased supply of stem cells." where X was something between 2 and 5 minutes, I forget the number now.
The linked article does a great job of pointing out that this isn't new. What is shocking is that most OBs don't know it. The only disadvantage of this is that it makes it harder to harvest fetal stem cells from the placenta. In our case, I don't think our donation met the minimum requirements (although we sent it in anyway). I love the idea that our son got a head start because we did what science has already known to be correct, and that perhaps someone else's life could be saved by the donation.
If you plan on having a child, it is worth every moment to do your research. And don't blindly trust the doctors.
It's also old news that giving birth on your back without moving around is just about the most painful and inconvenient way to do it, but birth wards continue to promote this because it is also the most convenient position for the doctor.
"The ability to delude yourself may be an important survival tool" - Jane Wagner -
There are quite a few things relating to circulation that don't happen until a few moments after birth (i.e. blood pressure, heart rate, heart valve changes). Perhaps a stem cell transference has something to do with that...
There are several valves in the embryo's heart (such as the foramen ovale) which allows a lot of the blood passing through the heart to avoid the lungs. A lot of the blood coming into the heart before birth is oxygenated from the umbilical cord, so it can get pumped right out without going to the lungs.
When the lungs become functional, pressure changes cause at least some of those valves to close immediately, so that the blood is now forced to go through the lungs before getting pumped back out to the body. These valves should close almost immediately to avoid deoxygenated blood being pumped out. That's really too quick to be directly affected by the stem cells. They -might- have something to do with later changes, where those valves permanently fuse shut, I don't know.
could it be because our doctors have the skill to allow babies to be born that would be stillborn elsewhere, but then subsequently die from complications? This is a misleading statistic that doesn't take the whole picture into account.
I don't know, I think newborns should be exposed to the free market system. If they cannot offer goods and services, they must not receive them. Providing free food, free shelter, and free healthcare to newborns is a slippery slope to a welfare state. /s
"Probably" just doesn't cut it. While delayed clamping of the umbilical cord may have a number of benefits to premature newborns, there are several other reasons for neonatal anemia (and hence, your need for a transfusion of RBCs) that have nothing to do with the timing of clamping.
Also, several of the reasons for prematurity may cause birth with low Apgar scores. When a baby is born with low/zero heart rate or does not breathe soon after delivery, keeping it attached to the placenta is not going to give you better results than prompt clamping and institution of proper resuscitation.
Please try to exercise more common sense when you leave your opinions in a public forum. Oh, forget that last sentence, this is slashdot, after all.