Talk:Potter sequence

Discussion

This is the first (!) sentence of Potter syndrome:

"Potter syndrome is a term used to describe a typical physical appearance which is due to a dramatically decreased amniotic fluid volume, oligohydramnios or absent amniotic fluid, anhydramnios secondary to renal diseases such as bilateral renal agenesis (BRA)."

PLEASE! <KF> 12:15, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

{{sofixit}} JFW | T@lk 23:37, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hi, remember the days when you were a six-year-old? Do you remember how much medical knowledge you had at the time? Well, that would equal mine at this point in time. Whatever I know about medicine I know from the patient's point of view, and if I'm not mistaken I'm not likely to develop Potter syndrome. That's about all I could figure out. I have been fixing all kinds of articles, but I know my limits. That's the reason for my appeal to the scientific community. All the best, <KF> 00:15, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

KF,

I'm sorry that you didn't find the article informative. I can see your point and I feel that you are probably not the only one who feels this way. I will make appropriate changes to the article in order to clarify the matter. Thank you for your input.

--Jasonclk 13:49, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Potters Syndrome - a parent's viewpoint

KF - you have obviously misread the initial t the heading of this encyclopaedic reference. It clearly states:

"Potter Syndrome is a term used to describe the typical physical appearances of a fetus or neonate due to a dramatically decreased amniotic fluid volume oligohydramnios, or absent amniotic fluid anhydramnios, secondary to renal diseases such as bilateral renal agenesis (BRA). Other causes of Potter Syndrome can be obstruction of the urinary tract, polycystic or multicystic kidney diseases, renal hypoplasia and rupture of the amniotic sac. The term Potter Syndrome was initially intended to only refer to cases of BRA, however, it has been mistakenly used by many clinicians and researchers to refer to any case that presents with oligohydramnios or anhydramnios regardless of the source of the loss of amniotic fluid."

Therefore, to synopsify this, you will now no doubt be aware that Potters Syndrome occurs in-utero and is not something that you can develop post-natally. Please check what you read before posting to the discussion.

Jason - Many thanks for assisting in clarifying this to KF. I hope your wonderful research work at UofM continues.

Thankyou.

Lynda Wilson (Leeds, UK). Potters Parent of Elliott, born and died Jan 14, 2000. (www.remembering-elliott.co.uk).

Making this article even more accessible

I've added the technical tag here, the content is very inaccessible to anybody without pre-knowledge of the syndrome or a sufficiently detailed medical background. It is probable that people directly or indirectly affected will be visiting this page. They will be of differing ages, educational levels and social backgrounds, and not necessarily able to follow the article in it's current form.

I'd suggest a review of the article vs. WP:MEDMOS, whilst I'm not suggesting that any of the content should be removed, a more physically descriptive introduction and summary using fewer technical terms would benefit this a lot. Some images/illustrations would also aid understanding but I would not want this to become a freakshow.

In particular I think it needs a common language description of how the syndrome manifests, is identified, and clarification on it's affects to the foetus (and possible physical/social/practical effects to parents). For instance it is not clear to me as a layman if it is always fatal, or, if not, produces visible effects at birth.

EasyTarget 09:23, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Potter sequence is one of the classic "dead baby" pictures found in medical textbooks. Any image put up about it is bound to be disturbing to many. Just pick up a medical embryology book, they are infamously filled with pictures of dead babies. A photo would certainly be instructive, since Potter sequence has a classic phenotype, but it may make the page less accessible for other reasons.

Potter sequence results in profound morphological changes in the fetus that are almost always incompatible with life. Often it is the result of bilateral kidney aplasia (no kidneys at all). You can't live without kidneys. If the infant has kidneys, Potter sequence may still develop from other causes (ureter or urethral atresia, amnion rupture, etc.). In that case, the pressure on the chest wall of the fetus causes pulmonary hypoplasia (underdeveloped lungs) that cannot be fixed and results in death. I am not aware of Potter sequence being something that a baby can survive from. As far as I know, it is generally always a post mortem diagnosis made after a stillbirth. Mba123 (talk) 23:23, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Move to "Potter Sequence"

Although this is often referred to as a "syndrome," technically, it is a sequence. Potter syndrome should redirect to this page, but Wikipedia doesn't need to be contribute to misuse of terms.

From Robbins "Pathologic Basis of Disease" 7th edition, p. 471-472 -- a sequence is "a pattern of cascade anomalies," whereas a syndrome is "a constellation of congenital anomalies believed to be pathologically related, that, in contrast to a sequence, cannot be explained on the basis of a single, localized, initiating defect."

Potter sequence has a single defect...oligohydramnios. Oligohydramnios may be caused by a variety of different things, such as amniotic fluid leakage from rupture of the amnion, uteroplacental insufficiency or renal agenesis, but the resulting phenotype is caused by fetal compression resulting from oligohydramnios. Mba123 (talk) 04:04, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

All Wikipedia references to Potter "syndrome" that could be found (and weren't on someone's talk page) have been changed to reflect proper terminology. Mba123 (talk) 18:10, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually, to be really up on the modern trends in nomenclature, the eponymous term "Potter" sequence would be entirely replaced with "Oligohydramnios sequence." Perhaps that should be the name of this page, and "Potter sequence" should redirect to Oligohydramnios sequence instead of the other way around, as it is now set up. Thoughts? Mba123 (talk) 18:32, 17 May 2009 (UTC)