It might be overstating things a little bit to say NT gives an extremely accurate picture. When combined with maternal age, it will let about 1 in 5 DS babies through screening as "low risk". And at the same time, it will class 5 out of every 100 tested as "high risk" while most (~99%) of these high risk ones will actually be fine. Is a "high risk" 1 in 240 chance really that much worse than a "low risk" 1 in 260? I'd only call something extremely accurate if it gave a definitive answer - amnio and CVS are extremely accurate, NT is not - it can only give an estimate of your risk using statistics, not an actual answer.
NT scans, and other soft markers are just hints. Some babies (differs depending on the study but say about 20%) with chromosome problems have normal NT and no soft markers. The presence of soft markers also doesn't mean the baby definitely has a problem.
Bookmarks