How many u/s do you have & can they harm the babay?

[bellabub]

I am new to this - with #1 due 4th May 2007 and I was wondering how many u/s you have for your pregnancy. I am booked in for a scan next week to "check everything is ok" as I conceived on Clomid. I have read some scary stuff about u/s causing brain damage and resulting in learning problems, so would like to know how regularly you have them and if they are really necessary at all?

[shampagne]

Hi there, with DS2 I had quite a few u/s to check him, as I had gestational diabetes and they needed to monitor his size. Ends up I also had low amniotic fluid so had more u/s for this. They are really no risk. So in the end I reckon I had about 6. I would say they are necessary if you have an underlying condition that requires monitoring, better that than not monitor and have something bad happen. Good luck!!

shampagne

[Michelle71]

They are not essential - in years gone by there were no ultrasounds. I have *issues* that will require regular U/S throughout a subsequent pregnancy but the *normal* can range from none to a dating scan (or viability scan) at about 6-8 weeks, nuchal translucency scan at 12 weeks, anomaly scan at 18-20 weeks or a combination of one or all of them. Check with your specialist as to what is required for you. You need to consider what you would do with the results. In my last pregnancy I chose not to have the nuchal translucency and only had an early scan to ensure the pregnancy was not an ectopic due to some pain that I was experiencing. I then had the 18-20 week anomaly scan.

There is a wide range of opinions as to whether U/S causes damage to the unborn child. Do some independent research and make an informed decision. Talk to your health care provider and decide what is the best management plan for your pregnancy. Clomid has a small chance of multiple birth which may also need to be considered.

Congratulations on your pregnancy - I hope it continues happy and healthy!!

[bellabub]

Hi Michelle!
Thank you for your advice. I come from a family that have a very stong belief about how many modern things can effect one's health. LIke radiation from wireless tachnology etc and I really don't want to expose my bub to anything unnecessarily. I will see how the scan next week goes (althogh I am going reluctantly as I would prefer to wait till 12 weeks). I also have twins in my family (my father is an identical twin) so I definitely have to discover just how many bubs have taken up house!

[Tigergirl1980]

I had 2 one at 19 weeks (policy of the imaging place I went to) and one again at 24 weeks I think because they needed to check the heart because they didn't get a good view in the first u/s. I think the only reason some have more than others is if they have medical issues or there are possible issues with bubs. I believe if you are part of some kind of study they can give you u/s too. You will be told if you need them though, however you can have them if you feel it's necessary but you'd need to discuss that with your dr.

ETA: I haven't heard much about u/s effecting babies, some have u/s all the way through their pg's and they've had perfectly healthy babies.

HTH

[jja]

The general theory is you should limit ultrasounds to when they are required for medical reasons, ie no ultrasounds for your own entertainment a la Tom Cruise buying his own ultrasound machine... 3d/4d scans expose the baby to higher ultrasound levels.

There's not really any concensus on whether ultrasound increases the chances of real problems yet, its very difficult to prove. It certainly hasn't been proved that ultrasound is completely harmless. Believe it or not, it took quite a while to prove thalidomide was harmful too! And they used to x-ray pregnant women.

There have been studies showing that ultrasound increases the chances of the baby (particularly males for some reason) being left handed. This at least shows it may be causing some kind of subtle affect. There have been studies showing that ultrasound increases learning difficulties or other problems, but there have also been studies showing that there is no such affect, so this is still under debate. There have been studies showing long exposures can affect the brains of mice fetus but they're not sure how that applies to humans.

Basically, if you have a good reason to have a scan - you should have it, but otherwise try to minimise them to be safe. I would just say, don't have the nuchal translucency scan if you don't intend to act apon the results - an "abnormal" result can also cause you a lot of stress even though the baby turns out to be fine. The scan at 18-20 weeks can be useful to diagnose things like heart problems that will need to be dealt with.

I really don't trust ultrasound and wanted to just have one scan (the 20 week one) ... but having said that ... I've had 3 scans so far, and have another 2 booked for 28 and 36 weeks due to certain medical conditions I have, and I had suspected appendicitus at 14 weeks...

[Tigergirl1980]

If they can't prove that ultrasounds harm babies how can they prove that they wouldn't have been left handed/had learning difficulties and other problems anyway?

[jja]

During studies they showed there was a much higher incidence of left handedness than would otherwise be expected between ultrasound groups and control (non-ultrasounded) groups. The historical issue of "correcting" left handed children and making them use their right hands doesn't come into it because of the use of control groups. But increasing left-handedness doesn't necessarily mean that *harm* was caused - it is just a bit concerning that it can affect 1 thing so they wonder why it happens and what else it could be affecting. That's why I said they haven't proved if ultrasounds cause harm or not.

Wheras the learning difficulties one is a bit more subjective (results of various tests vs a simple left vs right). And there is conflict between some studies showing no affect on intelligence wheras others have. Tigergirl, the study results are over large groups of babies, they don't single out particular babies and say "ultrasound caused them to be left handed", they just say "more babies in the ultrasounded group are left handed than in the non-ultrasounded group".

If they can't prove that ultrasounds harm babies how can they prove that they wouldn't have been left handed/had learning difficulties and other problems anyway?

[Ca Plane Pour Moi]

I had 3, dating, NT and abnormality... well, abnormality is next week, but that's all I'll get (unless something dreadful happens on Wednesday, which I doubt).

I think the only thing that's been "proven" with the scans one way or the other is that the child may be left-handed if it has ultrasounds (which I'm a little sceptical about - probably more to do with children not being punished for being left-handed these days, as happened with my Grandad). As left-handed people are all fantastic (me, my boss, my favourite uncle... the latter two from no ultrasounds) then as far as I'm concerned you can't have too many ultrasounds!

[Tigergirl1980]

Hmmmmmm interesting.

[Ca Plane Pour Moi]

TBH, I don't think the sample sizes were large enough in that study (I have read about it). You need to look over a period of many years to see if anything was masked at birth and also you need to do this with millions to make it worthwhile, not a few thousand. That's not enough (speaking as a biological statistician now LOL, I used to hate doing those exercises but stands me in good stead now!)