this post was submitted on 03 Oct 2024
68 points (98.6% liked)

And Finally...

1089 readers
150 users here now

A place for odd or quirky world news stories.

Elsewhere in the Fediverse:

Rules:

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

A woman from China’s northwest region has made headlines after giving birth to twins from two separate uteruses, a rare occurrence that has captured the attention of the medical world. The woman, known only by her surname Li, delivered the twins in September at a hospital in Shaanxi province, according to a report by the South China Morning Post (SCMP).

The woman was diagnosed with uterus didelphys, a rare condition that affects only 0.3 per cent of women worldwide. This condition results in a woman having two fully formed uteruses, each with its own set of ovaries and oviducts. While it is already uncommon, Li’s case was even more remarkable because she managed to naturally conceive and give birth to twins—a boy and a girl—each from a different womb.

The twins were born when Li was eight and a half months pregnant, adding a unique chapter to the limited cases of such births across the globe.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Rhaedas@fedia.io 8 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Even just the condition being called "rare" is odd, since that's 12 million women. I have no idea how to do odds on fertilization of two different eggs, but I can't see it as unlikely unless it's a factor of the periods of each set of ovaries being usually offset.

Another recent US case has other info. The "hyperovulation" is the key component here, as normally the ovaries in even someone with two uteruses release one at a time. I read the first article as saying two ovaries per uterus, but that doesn't seem to be the case, it's just a duplication of the uterus and sometimes each ovary connects to its own, leading to these odds.

[–] Anticorp@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago (2 children)

12 million out of 8 billion is pretty fucking rare.

[–] bizarroland@fedia.io 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

That's 1 in 667 roughly. Slightly better odds than winning over $100 in the lottery.

[–] Anticorp@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)
[–] bizarroland@fedia.io 2 points 1 month ago

Simple math.

8 billion divided by 12 million.

A billion is a thousand millions, so let's reduce this to 8 thousand divided by 12, which is 666.667.

Rounded up to 667.

[–] ScreamingFirehawk 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

There isn't 8 billion women last time I checked

[–] Anticorp@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago

Ha! That’s a great point that I completely overlooked.