The study is consistent with what doctors have long suspected, and why women of childbearing age are always asked about the possibility of pregnancy before being x- rayed.

A UK-US collaborative study found small increases in risk of cancer for children who had x-rays at ages less than three months and in children whose mothers had undergone an x-ray while pregnant. These increases were not statistically significant. The researchers report no increased risk from ultrasound scans.

Researchers studied the childhood cancer risk associated with exposure to radiation and ultrasound scans during gestation and in early infancy.

Previous studies of children born between the 1940s and the 1970s, when radiation doses were likely to be higher, found in utero x-ray exposure to be associated with an increased risk of childhood cancer, particularly leukemia. The effect of medical radiation on young children has been less clear.

Although diagnostic x-rays and other radiological imaging procedures to the abdomen and pelvis of pregnant women are rare, there are concerns about the growing use of computed tomography (CT) scans and other types of higher-dose imaging procedures on younger children.

Researchers compiled data on 2,690 children with cancer and 4,858 healthy children from the UK Childhood Cancer Study (UKCCS). All children were born between 1976 and 1996. Data on exposure to radiographic and ultrasound examinations were collected from medical records.

A total of 305 children received 319 radiographic and related examinations while in utero and 170 children received 247 diagnostic x-ray examinations in early infancy. A total of 13,723 in utero and 138 early infant ultrasound scans were carried out.

Researchers measured the risk of childhood cancer overall, and leukemia, lymphoma, and central nervous system tumors specifically.  Results showed a heightened risk following in utero exposure to x-rays for all cancers and for leukemia, though neither was statistically significant.

Exposure to diagnostic x-rays in early infancy was found to be associated with a small, non-significant extra risk for all cancers and leukemia, as well as increased risk of lymphoma, but this finding was based on small numbers (only seven cases).

The researchers conclude: “Our results, which indicate possible risks of cancer from radiation at doses lower than those associated with CT scans, suggest a need for cautious use of diagnostic radiation imaging procedures to the abdomen/pelvis of the mother during pregnancy and in children at very young ages.”

For more on health safety issues, see the library of articles by Daytona Beach personal injury lawyer.

Research has linked over-the-counter cough and cold products to poisoning or death in hundreds of children, ages 2 and younger. And studies have  shown that these medicines do little to control symptoms. As a result, in 2008, the  FDA formally recommended that OTC cough and cold products not be given to children under age 2.

A new poll released  last week by the C.S. Mott Children’s Hospital National Poll on Children’s Health shows that 61-percent of parents of children, ages 2 and younger, gave their children OTC cough and cold medicine within the last 12 months. The poll also shows that more than half of parents report that their child’s doctor says these OTC medications are safe for children under 2; half of their physicians said they are effective.

“FDA warnings about OTC cough and cold medicines prompted a voluntary recall of products marketed for children younger than 2 years,” says Dr. Matthew Davis, director of the poll and associate professor in the Child Health Evaluation and Research Unit at the U-M Medical School. “We wanted to see how well parents and physicians were adopting those recommendations. Unfortunately, this latest poll indicates that the FDA warnings have gone unheeded by the majority of parents, and surprisingly, many physicians.”

In January 2011, the C.S. Mott Children’s Hospital National Poll on Children’s Health asked randomly selected parents across the U.S. with children, ages 6-months to 2-years, about using OTC cough and cold medicines.

Parents were asked: “When was the last time you gave your … child an over-the-counter medicine for cold, cough and/or flu symptoms?”

The poll also found:

• Use of such medicines differs by race/ethnicity with higher use reported among black (80 percent) and Hispanic (69 percent) than among white parents (57 percent).

•Use also differs by income — highest (80 percent) in families with annual income of less than $30,000 and lowest (41percent) in families with income of $100,000 or more.

•Use is not different if the parent had older children at home.

•When deciding whether to use an OTC medicine, two-thirds of parents report wanting their child to be able to sleep better or to be more comfortable during the day as “very important” reasons for using the
medications.

•56 percent of parents say having their child’s health care provider recommend the medicine was very important.

“There are challenges to informing parents about this topic,” says Davis, in a press release. “The FDA warning is specific to young children, age 2 and under — but parents of those kids may not have heard the warnings issued more than two years ago. Each year a ‘new generation’ of parents must be educated about a wide variety of health care issues for their children.

“Physicians are a valuable source of information for parents about this issue, but it appears that physicians are not heeding FDA warnings about OTC cough and cold medicines either,” Davis said “Kids will be safer when parents and doctors are all on the same page in limiting these medicines to older children.”

For more on child safety issues, see the library of articles by Daytona Beach child injury lawyer.

A recent Archives of Surgery report finds that a group of 6,000 Colorado doctors reported 27,230 unfavorable events over six years 2002-2008. Of those, 25 were the wrong patient getting the wrong surgery and 107 patients were operated on in the wrong place.

Of the 25 patients who received the wrong surgery, five suffered serious medical malpractice injury. Of the 107 patients whose surgery was on the wrong side of their body, 38 suffered serious medical malpractice injury.

Shoulder dystocia describes a birth in which the baby’s shoulder gets stuck behind the mother’s pubic bone, thus preventing the baby’s delivery. If the shoulder is not freed in a timely manner or is freed in a negligently manner, serious injury and death will occur. In fact, 20 percent of births involving shoulder dystocia result in the baby suffering serious injury. Examples include birth asphyxia, fractures of the humerus or collarbone, cuts, bruises or damage to the brachial plexus nerves, which can lead to paralysis of the arm and hand.

However, if a baby is determined to be at high risk for shoulder dystocia, preemptive c-sections can be performed to avoid the dangers associated with delivering a baby with shoulder dystocia. CALM is the tool of choice to predict this dangerous condition and give expecting parents some peace of mind about at least one aspect of birth. In making its prediction, the program weighs such factors as maternal history including previous shoulder dystocia and gestational diabetes, gestational age, estimated fetal weight, maternal weight and maternal height.

Though not perfect, CALM is the best tool we have to predict shoulder dystocia and can provide a measure of ease to expecting parents.

To make matters worse for medical malpractice plaintiffs, of those 27-36 percent of courthouse winners, fewer that half receive any money at all. So only 13.5-18 percent of medical malpractice victims who win their case in court receive any money to compensate them for their medical bills and other damages. That I why I will never guarantee that I can recover money to help pay a medical malpractice victim’s medical bills.

Medical malpractice cases are some of the toughest around. That’s why we accept very few of them for representation. They are so expensive to litigate that it is not cost-effective for victims to bring lawsuits in all but the most serious cases. I’ve seen many cases with legitimate, substantial injuries caused by negligence that I decided not to accept because I did not think that I could recover enough money to cover the costs of bringing the case. I always feel badly explaining to people that I’m not saying their injury is trivial or small (it never is to them) but that it is just not catastrophic enough to warrant filing suit in this harsh medical malpractice climate.

Every so often though, we do accept a medical malpractice case. The only strategy in a medical malpractice suit (and most lawsuits for that matter) that affords a victim with any degree of control over the outcome is to settle out of court before trial. If you go to trial, you are submitting your fate to a group of strangers whose only qualification to render judgment on your case is that they hold driver’s licenses.

Whether a malpractice case settles or goes to trial, it is tough road to hoe. Make sure you work with an attorney you trust to handle your case.

If you give birth in America, chances are good your doctor will use a fetal monitoring device during delivery. In fact, doctors use fetal monitoring devices in more than 85 percent of births in this country. They do this despite any evidence the devices are beneficial in any way.

“Honestly, the technology got rolled out before we knew if it worked or not,” said one St. Louis obstetrician.

In use since the early 1970s, fetal monitors have failed to reduce the risk of either cerebral palsy or newborn deaths. In addition, fetal monitors have significantly increased the incidence of both Cesarean surgeries and forceps deliveries.

Cesarean surgeries are much more costly than traditional births and extend the new mother’s recovery time.

Fetal monitoring technology was supposed to reduce the risk of either cerebral palsy or newborn death by giving doctors early warning signs of when a baby was not receiving enough oxygen to its brain during child birth. The thinking was that the early warning would give doctors more time to take corrective action and save the baby from injury or death.

The flaw in that reasoning is that 70 percent of cerebral palsy cases are caused before labor begins. Only 4 percent of cerebral palsy is caused solely from a mistake during childbirth. The remaining 26 percent of cases are caused by a combination of factors that can occur before, during or after childbirth.

In summary, fetal monitoring has the potential to prevent only 4 percent of cerebral palsy children and it has failed to do even that. Physicians’ new understanding of the technology is not expected to result in a lower incidence of cerebral palsy, but hopefully it will result in a lower incidence of unnecessary, costly Cesarean surgeries.

The reason for such hope is that the new guidelines refine what once were two categories of fetal monitor data into three categories. Previously, data was categorized as “reassuring” and “nonreassuring” so doctors would err on the side of caution and often intervene in the “nonreassuring” cases when in fact the babies would have been perfectly healthy without intervention.

Now the categories are “normal,” “nonreassuring” and “abnormal.” The “normal” babies clearly do not require intervention like Cesarean surgery or forceps delivery. The new guidelines go as far as to say that “abnormal” babies do not require immediate intervention but should instead be quickly evaluated for other means of providing the baby with oxygen such as giving the mother oxygen, changing her position, treating her low blood pressure or ceasing the artificial induction of labor.

The “nonreassuring” category now calls for much more thorough evaluation of additional factors before doctors are encouraged to intervene. Previously, where a doctor was apt to intervene in “nonreassuring” cases based solely on the fetal monitoring data, the guidelines now call for doctors to “look at the entire clinical picture, not just the [fetal monitor data].”

The entire clinical picture includes things like the mother’s blood pressure, heart rate and temperature, what medicines she might have been given, the frequency of contractions and how fast labor is progressing.

Immediate delivery is discouraged by the guidelines so hopefully that will save future mothers from the pain and costs of unnecessary Cesarean surgery. Further refinements of the guidelines are expected to be released next year.

The cooling method has been used successfully since the 1950s in to reduce damage to the brain and other organs caused by heart attacks. More recently it has been used on neurological patients, and about two years ago, doctors began treating newborn infants who have suffered brain injuries.

Babies can suffer brain damage during childbirth for any number of reasons but it almost always stems from a lack of oxygen to the brain. Often, the child does not get enough oxygen because the umbilical cord becomes pinched.

Every year, about 2 to 4 of every 1,000 babies suffer oxygen deprivation at birth. However, doctors will not currently treat their brain injuries with hypothermia therapy unless the infants have reached 36 weeks gestation because premature babies are too fragile for the procedure.

The treatment reduces the infant’s body temperature to 92 degrees. After doctors feel the appropriate amount of time has passed, they gradually warm the infant to a normal body temperature over the course of six hours. As of yet, there are no significant, known side effects to infant cooling.

One hospital has used the therapy on eight oxygen deprived babies to date and only one has died. That infant died not from the cooling itself, but because his birth injuries were so severe. Of course, the full measure of the children’s brain injuries cannot be known until they grow out of the newborn phase.

MRIs can reveal some damage, but not the full extent. Some of the babies who have been treated so far have partial brain injury, and some do not.

The treatment works because cooling reduces swelling, slowing the injury and preventing a cascade of events that causes cell death. The technique saved the life of a newborn that had too little oxygen for almost 15 minutes. That is almost three times longer than it takes for brain damage to occur.

In 2005, an 18-year-old who was cooled amazingly maintained normal brain function after he lost his leg in a boating accident and his heart stopped for 45 minutes.