Inner longitudinal layer in the human oviduct

inner kmgifudinal human oviduct To

layer

layer in the isthmus of the oviduct scribed.

in the

Bernard

the Editors:

I have read with interest the recent article by David and Czernobilsky which appeared in the AMERICAN

JOURNAL

OF OBSTETRICS

AND

GYNE-

101: 417, 1968. The authors stated that the inner longitudinal muscle layer in the human oviduct has been previously described only in the intramural portion of the tube by Lisa and associates, and that Novak and Woodruff described an “incomplete” longitudinal muscie layer “at the uterine end of the tube.” My interest in the oviduct impels me to cite an article published by J. W. Williams in 1891 entitled “Contribution to the Normal and Pathological Histology of the Fallopian Tubes,” which appeared in the American Journal of the JMedical Sciences 102: 377, 1891. In this report, Williams described a well-defined inner longitudinal layer in the isthmic portion of the uterine tube, which was “lost” approximately one inch distal to the cornual end of the tube. This exposition and the accompanying illustrations are exceedingly clear. I agree with Drs. David and Czernobilsky that their anatomic findings may be related to ovum transport in the human oviduct, particularly in view of correlated neuroanatomic observations made by other observers. Carl J. Pauerstein, M.D.

is well

Czernobilsk~,

Hospital of the University Philadelphia, Pennsylvania September 18, 1968

of Pennsylvania 19104

Prenatal serodiagnosis sensitization

OF blood

deU.D.

COLOGY

The University of Texas Medical School at San Antonio 7703 Floyd Curl Drive San Antonio, Texas 78229 August 7, 196%

Reply To

to Dr. Pauersfein

the Editors:

I would like to thank Dr. Pauerstein for drawing our attention to the article of J. W. Williams in 1891 in which the Iongitudina! muscle

To the Editors:

I wish to note a minor mathematics: error in the recent article by Dr. Herbert Bowman, “Prenatal Serodiagnosis of Blood Group Sensitization” (AM. J. OBST. & GYNEC. 101: 623, 1968). In reporting the patient with both anti-D and anti-D&-y antibodies, Dr. Bowman states that about 40 units of suitable Rh-negative biood would need to be cross-matched to find a compatible unit and that most blood banks do not have 40 units of group 0, Rh-negative bIood immediately at hand for such serologic selection. This would be true only if we were blindly crossmatching type 0 blood units with no attention to the Rh type. Approximately 33 per cent of white people and 89 per cent of Negroes lack the Duffy (Fya) factor. Therefore, with random selection of donor blood, one would expect that at least I in 3 group 0, Rh-negative units would be compatible for transfusion to the patient involved. This minor mathematica.1 error does not detract from the value of the study because the proper identification of the atypical antibodies involved promotes a better controiled and more scientific therapeutic approach instead of depending upon blind cross-matching techniques in an emergency situation. Stanley Burrows, M.D. The

Cooper

Department 6th &3 Stevens Camden, New

Hospital of Pathology Streets

Jersey

08103