Should I skip the 20 week ultrasound?

[lotsofpumpkins]

I'm going to have this baby at a birth center with a midwife, and she asked me if I'm going to have an ultrasound (so, apparently it's optional). My first response was yes, since I've always gotten one before. I went ahead and scheduled it for June (over at their backup OB's office), but now dh and I have been discussing whether it's really necessary. I realize that occasionally ultrasounds will pick up on a serious problem and it's helpful to know ahead of time. But, how often is this the case? If we don't want to know the gender of the baby, then should we just skip the ultrasound? I do love getting to see the baby on that screen, but I am not looking forward to the 2 hour wait that I've been warned about (this particular OB is VERY busy). Plus it'd be nice to save the money (it's actually not too expensive, but if it's really not medically necessary, then we aren't sure if we should go ahead and do it). Anyway, opinions?

Edited May 3, 2010 by lotsofpumpkins

[calandalsmom]

With my dd I decided I didnt want one- we had a scary "hard to visualize something" thing with ds2 which led to 5 weeks of worry about spina bifida.

 

We chose to forgo all testing with dd. I LOVED not doing the glucose screening.

[Dandelion]

Congrats on your pregnancy!

 

I've heard that ultrasounds are optional, unless there's a specific concern and the ultrasound is used as a diagnostic tool. If there are no concerns and your pregnancy is progressing normally, then you may not need it. Disclaimer: I'm not a medical professional - just basing this on what I've heard from a few different sources. :)

[cathmom]

I had one pregnancy that I didn't have any ultrasounds with at all. At the time I didn't think it was necessary. However, I have since read of various things that were picked up as a result of the ultrasound. I am all in favor of birth center births (3 of my children were born at one), so I would want the ultrasound just to verify that the baby is healthy, since you will not be at the hospital. So I say yes! :)

[athena1277]

I would have the ultrasound. It is always comforting to me to further verify that baby is developing normally. Fewer worries during pregnancy is a good thing.

[AHASRADA]

Personally, I wouldn't turn down an ultrasound if it was offered, but that's just me. With my 2nd child, I had to fight tooth and nail to get one.

 

I had decided to go with the midwives at my OB's office, and they refused to schedule me for an ultrasound with no medical reason. I had done the blood testing (I think it's called triple marker?), and since that didn't show anything abnormal, there was no reason to do the ultrasound. I came up with every excuse in the book (I breathed paint fumes, I might have taken Advil before I knew I was pregnant, etc.), but they wouldn't budge. I just wanted to know the darned gender, and to be reassured that everything was OK.

 

I finally saw one of the OBs, and she had no problem scheduling the ultrasound, but by then my little precious bundle was 8 months and so bound up in there they couldn't see anything, so her gender was still a surprise! Nice, but I really wanted to know!!!

 

If money is really an issue, you might want to think twice about it, but other than that, I can't see any reason not to do it.

[abbeyej]

Personally, I only do an US if I have reason to be concerned. So with two kids, I had one US (which reassured us that nothing was wrong).

[kmacnchs]

I'm going to have this baby at a birth center with a midwife, and she asked me if I'm going to have an ultrasound (so, apparently it's optional). My first response was yes, since I've always gotten one before. I went ahead and scheduled it for June (over at their backup OB's office), but now dh and I have been discussing whether it's really necessary. I realize that occasionally ultrasounds will pick up on a serious problem and it's helpful to know ahead of time. But, how often is this the case? If we don't want to know the gender of the baby, then should we just skip the ultrasound? I do love getting to see the baby on that screen, but I am not looking forward to the 2 hour wait that I've been warned about (this particular OB is VERY busy). Plus it'd be nice to save the money. Anyway, opinions?

 

ultrasounds are included for us (as far as cost goes) so it's a no-brainer for me - we want to see the baby and we want to know the sex. if you don't care about either and you don't want to pay the $$$, sure, skip.

 

I know everyone has a story but let me just tell you my SIL's: at her 18 week ultrasound, they thought something was wrong w/the heart so they scheduled one for a month later. At that next ultrasound, they found out that the heart was fine but that she was missing 1/2 of an arm and a whole leg. She had this baby 1 month ago. Just imagine the baby coming out of you missing an arm and a leg! What an adjustment to have to make not to mention the other "normal" adjustments a new mom has to make! As it was, she and my brother had 4 months to soak in the info, get used to it, talk to pediatricians who specialize in this area, etc...just food for thought...

[lotsofpumpkins]

We chose to forgo all testing with dd. I LOVED not doing the glucose screening.

 

I was happy to do all of the initial testing, just to make sure there's no issues with my health (but I do always decline that quad screen or whatever they are calling it these days). Turns out the urine culture showed a UTI I didn't even know I had. Last time I had a symptom-less UTI it moved into my kidneys and I got VERY sick. So, I'm thankful for the testing that is available. As for the glucose screening, at the birth center there's the option to eat a specific menu for breakfast that day, and it has the same carb load as that nasty drink. So, I'm planning on going that route so I don't have to go through the yucky feeling that drink always gives me.

Edited May 3, 2010 by lotsofpumpkins

[lotsofpumpkins]

I know everyone has a story but let me just tell you my SIL's: at her 18 week ultrasound, they thought something was wrong w/the heart so they scheduled one for a month later. At that next ultrasound, they found out that the heart was fine but that she was missing 1/2 of an arm and a whole leg. She had this baby 1 month ago. Just imagine the baby coming out of you missing an arm and a leg! What an adjustment to have to make not to mention the other "normal" adjustments a new mom has to make! As it was, she and my brother had 4 months to soak in the info, get used to it, talk to pediatricians who specialize in this area, etc...just food for thought...

 

That's the kind of thing I think I'd want to know in advance. But since you can't actually do anything about it, all you are doing is removing the surprise element. I'm wondering how often they find things in an u/s that can actually be treated prenatally or affect the birth. (For example, if they see that you have placenta previa, then they know to monitor that and be prepared for a c-section. But doesn't previa usually cause some bleeding, in which case you would already know something wasn't right and you would schedule an u/s anyway?)

[littlebug42]

My daughter was born with a clubfoot and a cyst on her right kidney both of which were seen on prenatal ultrasounds. After having been through that, personally I would not skip a prenatal ultrasound especially if I were planning to deliver somewhere that may or may not be able to handle a serious complication.

[lotsofpumpkins]

My daughter was born with a clubfoot and a cyst on her right kidney both of which were seen on prenatal ultrasounds. After having been through that, personally I would not skip a prenatal ultrasound especially if I were planning to deliver somewhere that may or may not be able to handle a serious complication.

 

We'll be about 5 minutes away from an excellent hospital.

[littlebug42]

We'll be about 5 minutes away from an excellent hospital.

 

Then I probably wouldn't worry about it as much. If you aren't concerned about anything, then I am sure it would be fine. If I get pregnant again, I would probably have to do it anyway as my pregnancies are considered somewhat high risk and I couldn't not know if we were having another birth defect issue. I know I would have been completely freaked out if dd6 had been born with her clubfoot and I didn't know about it prior. However, I have talked to many moms that said that knowing ruined the rest of their pregnancy. Different issues for different personalities, I guess.

[Sebastian (a lady)]

That's the kind of thing I think I'd want to know in advance. But since you can't actually do anything about it, all you are doing is removing the surprise element. I'm wondering how often they find things in an u/s that can actually be treated prenatally or affect the birth. (For example, if they see that you have placenta previa, then they know to monitor that and be prepared for a c-section. But doesn't previa usually cause some bleeding, in which case you would already know something wasn't right and you would schedule an u/s anyway?)

 

While not everything detected or indicated in an U/S would be something to treat prenatally (or correctable at all), it would seem that the majority of things that could be corrected prenatally would be something that had an indication on an U/S.

 

I did 20 week u/s on two kids. The one I did skip was the one offered that would have been for dating the pregnancy, but too early for effective diagnostics. I just didn't see the point to that one other than to make it easier for the hospital to schedule deliveries.

 

I did pay for one of these 20 week u/s tests.

[Pippen]

I realize that occasionally ultrasounds will pick up on a serious problem and it's helpful to know ahead of time. But, how often is this the case? ?

 

I passed on that second sonogram with one of my children and greatly regretted it as I had a placenta previa which ruptured when the intake nurse was checking me to see how far I was dilated at the hospital. That sonogram may or may not have picked it up depending on when it occured, but I will always be sorry that I passed on it.

 

I have a friend who's OB picked up an anomaly on her baby's kidney during that second sonogram. It was something that likely wouldn't have come to anyone's attention until if/when it became quite serious, but by knowing in advance they were able to follow up with a pediatric urologist shortly after the baby was born.

[Mommyof4ks]

I just like to see my little munchkins lol. The ultrasounds never picked up on anything, and I don't know how medically necessary it really was, but again I love to see baby.

[lotsofpumpkins]

I passed on that second sonogram with one of my children and greatly regretted it as I had a placenta previa which ruptured when the intake nurse was checking me to see how far I was dilated at the hospital. That sonogram may or may not have picked it up depending on when it occured, but I will always be sorry that I passed on it.

 

I have a friend who's OB picked up an anomaly on her baby's kidney during that second sonogram. It was something that likely wouldn't have come to anyone's attention until if/when it became quite serious, but by knowing in advance they were able to follow up with a pediatric urologist shortly after the baby was born.

 

Those are both good reasons to go ahead and have the u/s! I didn't realize that previa could be a surprise. I guess I always figured there'd be some bleeding here and there.

[Carol in Cal.]

I passed on that second sonogram with one of my children and greatly regretted it as I had a placenta previa which ruptured when the intake nurse was checking me to see how far I was dilated at the hospital. That sonogram may or may not have picked it up depending on when it occured, but I will always be sorry that I passed on it.

 

 

 

My SIL had placenta previa. Her OB told her that she could not go more than 20 minutes from a hospital for the rest of her pregnancy, and that they would induce early. This was because if she actually went into labor, the uterus would be trying to push the baby THROUGH the placenta, and she would be in great danger of bleeding to death. In her case, the placenta moved back out of the way later in her pregnancy, and she could deliver normally, but knowing about that possibility is what convinced me to get that ultrasound. I waited longer than normal, though. I think my OB wanted me to have it around 20 weeks and I waited until about 24 or 26. I was living in a city near several hospitals, and not travelling, so I wasn't really worried about it until I had to fly to the Northwest for Easter because of a family Baptism. I got the US shortly before that trip.

[Pippen]

Those are both good reasons to go ahead and have the u/s! I didn't realize that previa could be a surprise. I guess I always figured there'd be some bleeding here and there.

 

Not a single drop, and I had cooked up a 10 pound, 5 ounce baby so there was plenty of pressure. The one clue (we realized in hindsight) is at my last checkup it wasn't a head presenting but soft, as in possibly a cheek. There wasn't too much room in there to turn around so that wasn't a big surprise. The labor nurse told me afterwards that she was suspicious when she was checking me and I was furious because if that was the case she should have stopped and called my doctor.

 

I passed on the sonogram because 1) we wouldn't consider terminating a pregnancy so we didn't see any reason to know in advance and 2) the one scenario they did suggest as helpful to know in advance (neurological problems such as spina bifida) were something we felt we'd just deal with when the time came if it came our way.

[Leola]

Having had placenta previa (that was dx by u/s), I would never skip the 20 week u/s. Placenta previa is reason enough to have an u/s IMO.

[IsabelC]

I don't do ultrasounds because I don't believe that they offer any benefits sufficient to offset the risk and inconvenience.

[Jennifer in MI]

I went through four pregnancies and had 2 u/s. I had one with my third because he was measuring big and we wanted to test for twins. It was a quick look.

 

With my fourth, I had a number of u/s. I bled for the entire first trimester. But, all were VERY quick looks. At 20 weeks, I was offered the u/s and I agreed for a quick check - my placenta had been low and we wanted to make sure it was moving up. Could you ask for a quick look? To check for limbs, brain, and placenta?

[Quickbeam]

Ultrasound is an unproven technology (I suspect you know this). I think you should do it if you feel there is a need. Congratulations on your pregnancy:001_smile:.

[lotsofpumpkins]

I went through four pregnancies and had 2 u/s. I had one with my third because he was measuring big and we wanted to test for twins. It was a quick look.

 

With my fourth, I had a number of u/s. I bled for the entire first trimester. But, all were VERY quick looks. At 20 weeks, I was offered the u/s and I agreed for a quick check - my placenta had been low and we wanted to make sure it was moving up. Could you ask for a quick look? To check for limbs, brain, and placenta?

 

Well, a "quick look" isn't possible at the birth center, since they don't have an u/s machine there. I have to go to the OB's office for that (it's the OB who is backup for the midwives in case of emergency transfer to the hospital). I've been told I'll probably have to wait for up to 2 hours. So, once I get in there, I'm not going to settle for a quick look. Might as well be thorough at that point!

[IsabelC]

I think it might be useful for some people, I am just strongly opposed to it being used en masse, automatically, without properly considering the pros and cons as you would with any other medical procedure. Eg if you think it would be a good idea so that you can feel reassured that everything is OK, have you looked at the stats on how many major and minor problems are missed? Now that you know the odds of being reassured that everything is fine when it actually isn't, do you still feel that this is a worthwhile benefit? Or if you would like to be warned that your baby will be profoundly disabled, are you aware of the rate of false positives? Have you considered the further testing you may be offered, and are you aware of the risks pertaining to these? Do you know about the increased risk of miscarriage the more tests you undergo? How does this risk compare with the risk of having a problem that is not diagnosed because you declined the ultrasound? The risk benefit analysis may vary according to your medical history and your feelings about the possibility of having a sick or disabled baby. But these sorts of questions should be considered by every pregnant woman. The is no evidence that widespread use of scanning results in any improvement in outcomes, so the decision should be made in a case by case basis by the woman in consultation with her medical advisers and the baby's father (if involved).

[Greeny]

I was happy to do all of the initial testing, just to make sure there's no issues with my health (but I do always decline that quad screen or whatever they are calling it these days). Turns out the urine culture showed a UTI I didn't even know I had. Last time I had a symptom-less UTI it moved into my kidneys and I got VERY sick. So, I'm thankful for the testing that is available. As for the glucose screening, at the birth center there's the option to eat a specific menu for breakfast that day, and it has the same carb load as that nasty drink. So, I'm planning on going that route so I don't have to go through the yucky feeling that drink always gives me.

 

What a great alternative for the blood glucose drink! Glad you are having that test, it's an important one.

[Veritaserum]

I always did the 20-week scan, even with my four home births. It gave me peace of mind WRT to things like placenta previa and congenital abnormalities (my brother is disabled). We also like to find out the sex in advance.

[Allison TX]

I vote to have the ultrasound. I had a complete placenta previa with my second dc, and would not have known about it, if not for the ultrasound.

[Peela]

Well, what do you feel about it yourself? If ultrasounds were a "necessity" I think we were doomed long ago...since they have only been around a few decades.

I know people who dont do ultrasounds because there is some evidence that the baby doesnt like it- that it can disturb the baby. And they know they will have the baby anyway, rater than abort if there are problems...so they go without.

For myself, I am really against unecessary medical treatments and the medicalisation of pregnancies.... but I would still probabyl do the ultrasound for my own peace of mind and just plain old curiosity. I still didnt know the gender of either of my kids even though I had ultrasounds.You can ask them not to tell you. We asked them to tell us and they coulndt! I did love not knowing till the birth.

But...whats your gut feeling about it? Is it necessary for you? You will always get people playing into your fears, and people who would never dream of not doing an ultasound, and all the what if's and maybes. But if you have a gut feeling its all ok and an ultrasound is superfluous...go for it.

[Laura Corin]

Calvin was picked up as having urinary tract problems on his 20 week ultrasound. He was put on antibiotics at birth in order to avoid kidney damage. It turned out to be a false positive, but I was glad to have been safe not sorry.

 

Laura

[Melissa in Australia]

I loved having an ultrasound.. I always stated right from the beginning that I didn't want to know the sex of the baby, and please don't even look there. I Just loved looking at the baby.

 

I do have to tell you about the ultrasound I had with my 5th baby.

 

Somehow I thought I had to drink 1 1/2 litres of water 1 hour before the ultra sound. I drank all the water straight, hoped in the car and drove the 100km to the hospital to have the ultrasound. When I was almost at the hospital, I was that busting that I was literally jumping around in the seat. I pulled up in the car park and ran into the hospital, I kept running all the way through the corridor, to the ultrasound receptionist desk. I ran to the front of the que and said I'm busting I need the toilet. The receptionist left the desk and que of people and ran with me to show me where it was. I was too uncomfortable to be embarrassed.

 

I came back to a whole waiting room of laughing people! 10 minutes later, when I was having my ultrasound, the technician asked me to go and empty my bladder as it was too full. It turns out I only had to drink 1 1/2 glasses not litres.

[Carrie12345]

It's a very personal choice that only you can make.

 

I'm picky about what procedures I chose.

I do get the 20wk ultrasound though. We specifically want to check for cleft palate and heart problems. My favorite birthing location is not my favorite NICU location. And I have complicated child care issues. For me, being well-prepared would keep me at (relative) ease for the remaining 20+wks in those departments.

[springmama]

My last two babies were homebirths and I had the ultrasound. I wanted to know that the baby was normal (or as normal as one can tell from an ultrasound) before giving birth at home. If a major birth defect, or a life threatening condition would have been present I would have birthed at a hospital instead.

 

I know not all abnormalities can be found on an ultrasound, but it made me feel better, so I did it. Plus it was fun.

[mgl]

I know that for everyone the decision is different, but for me I would need at least one u/s to rule out as many potential problems at birth as possible (although I get many more than one during my pregnancies). I also work in the newborn nursery at a hospital (I'm an RN), so we see the babies that need immediate care upon delivery for issues discovered in ultrasounds.

 

I will always be greatful for my "unnecessary" u/s. With my first baby I had the option of an extra u/s after my 19 week. We went ahead and had it done at 23 weeks and the u/s tech noticed that my cervix was not doing what it should. That led to 3 months of hospital bedrest and the birth of my miracle full-term baby. All of the high risk doctors where certain that I would have delivered within a week or two, and I had no other signs of problems.

[IsabelC]

I do have to tell you about the ultrasound I had with my 5th baby.

 

Somehow I thought I had to drink 1 1/2 litres of water 1 hour before the ultra sound. I drank all the water straight, hoped in the car and drove the 100km to the hospital to have the ultrasound. When I was almost at the hospital, I was that busting that I was literally jumping around in the seat. I pulled up in the car park and ran into the hospital, I kept running all the way through the corridor, to the ultrasound receptionist desk. I ran to the front of the queue and said I'm busting I need the toilet. The receptionist left the desk and queue of people and ran with me to show me where it was. I was too uncomfortable to be embarrassed.

 

I came back to a whole waiting room of laughing people! 10 minutes later, when I was having my ultrasound, the technician asked me to go and empty my bladder as it was too full. It turns out I only had to drink 1 1/2 glasses not litres.

 

Sorry but I have to laugh.

 

Hehehehe :lol::lol::lol:

[sassenach]

Let me give you my medical/birth philosophy credentials before answering this. I am against u/s for sizing, amnio, induction, and other interventions. I am pro midwife, a 2-time vbac'r, and am generally pretty non-medical when it comes to birth.

 

My 2nd child was born with gastroschisis (his intestine were not enclosed in his abdomen at birth. We learned this at his 20 week u/s. Without the extra monitoring that we did leading up to his birth, he would have likely died in utero. Catching birth defects on u/s verses at the birth could potentially save your child's life. It also allows you to make informed decisions about your child's medical needs that you would otherwise not have the time to make. If you don't research treatments in advance, you are pretty much at the mercy of the doctors to guide you. I don't know about you, but I HATE being at the mercy of doctors. I want TIME when I have big decisions to make. I want the opportunity to get multiple medical opinions. Also, it's true that you are close to a medical center, but do you want your newborn to possibly be in pain while everyone scrambles to get him or her there? To me, this is an easy test which poses no harm to the baby, and can potentially make a huge difference in this child's life. This is looking both ways before you cross the street. There probably won't be a car, but if you see one, what a difference it makes in your next step.

 

Stepping off soapbox.....

[manylilblessings]

I have 2 acquaintances who found out at their 20 week US about life defining ilnesses in their babies. Both of these were last month (April). If that would be something you would want to know ahead of time (to prepare your mind and heart), then I would have the US. I know it's infrequent; it just seems more real to me at this moment.

[Laurie4b]

Our OB told me that the reason to have an ultrasound was that if the child had spina bifeda with an opening, it is better for the child (less risk of infection in the spine) to be delivered via C-section. Once I knew there was a benefit to the child, I did the ultrasound.

[Mommy22alyns]

(For example, if they see that you have placenta previa, then they know to monitor that and be prepared for a c-section. But doesn't previa usually cause some bleeding, in which case you would already know something wasn't right and you would schedule an u/s anyway?)

 

 

Not necessarily by 20 weeks. When I was diagnosed, it was a complete shock. I would absolutely take the ultrasound.

[wapiti]

Calvin was picked up as having urinary tract problems on his 20 week ultrasound. He was put on antibiotics at birth in order to avoid kidney damage. It turned out to be a false positive, but I was glad to have been safe not sorry.

 

Laura

 

Similar situation here - hydronephrosis diagnosed on prenatal ultrasound. Kidney surgery to repair UPJ obstruction at 8 months old; prophylactic antibiotics in the meantime from birth. If it weren't for that ultrasound, we would not have known about the easily fixable condition until he had become sick, i.e., until there probably would have been permanent kidney damage.

[Sara in AZ]

I never had an ultrasound with my second. I resisted with my third until the near the end and ended up doing one as part of a non-stress test. And ended up being glad we did it because it turned out I had a lot of extra amniotic fluid which would have posed serious risks if we induced labor through breaking my water. (Which is what we did with the first two births due to a terrible pregnancy condition I usually get.) We were debating inducing the 3rd time around, but could have ended up with a prolapsed cord. So the ultra sound helped us make that decision.

 

That being said, I'll probably skip ultrasounds next time around...

[LittleIzumi]

We debated but decided to this time--but will probably not next time. My anxiety issues appreciate it :lol: but my midwife only requires one if there are particular issues that make indicate a problem.

[IsabelC]

It's far from proven safe though. Here's an extract from an article by Dr Sarah Buckley:

 

Biological effects of Ultrasound Ultrasound waves are known to affect tissues in two main ways. Firstly, the sonar beam causes heating of the highlighted area by about one degree celsius. This is presumed to be non-significant, based on whole-body heating in pregnancy, which seems to be safe up to 2.5 degrees Celsius.19

The second recognised effect is cavitation, where the small pockets of gas which exist within mammalian tissue vibrate and then collapse. In this situation

…temperatures of many thousands of degrees celsius in the gas create a wide range of chemical products, some of which are potentially toxic. These violent processes may be produced by micro-second pulses of the kind which are used in medical diagnosis….19

The significance of cavitation effects in human tissue is unknown.

A number of studies have suggested that these effects are of real concern in living tissues. The first study suggesting problems was a study on cells grown in the lab. Cell abnormalities caused by exposure to ultrasound were seen to persist for several generations.20 Another study showed that, in newborn rats, (who are at a similar stage of brain development to humans at four to five months in utero), ultrasound can damage the myelin that covers nerves,21 indicating that the nervous system may be particularly susceptible to damage from this technology.

Brennan and colleagues, reported that exposing mice to dosages typical of obstetric ultrasound caused a 22 percent reduction in the rate of cell division, and a doubling of the rate of aptosis, or programmed cell death, in the cells of the small intestine.22

Mole comments

If exposure to ultrasound… causes death of cells, then the practice of ultrasonic imaging at 16 to 18 weeks will cause loss of neurones [brain cells] with little prospect of replacement of lost cells…The vulnerability is not for malformation but for maldevelopment leading to mental impairment caused by overall reduction in the number of functionning neurones in the future cerebral hemispheres.23

Studies on humans exposed to ultrasound have shown that possible adverse effects include premature ovulation,24 preterm labour or miscarriage,15 25 low birth weight,26 27 poorer condition at birth,28 29 perinatal death,28-30 dyslexia,31 delayed speech development,32 and less right-handedness.33-36 Non right-handedness is, in other circumstances, seen as a marker of damage to the developing brain.35 37 One Australian study showed that babies exposed to 5 or more doppler ultrasounds were 30% more likely to develop intrauterine growth retardation (IUGR)- a condition that ultrasound is often used to detect.26

Two long-term randomised controlled trials, comparing exposed and unexposed childrens’ development at eight ti nine years old, found no measurable effect from ultrasound.38 39 However, as the authors note, intensities used today are many times higher than in 1979 to 1981. Further, in the major branch of one trial, scanning time was only three minutes.40 More studies are obviously needed in this area, particularly in the areas of Doppler and vaginal ultrasound, where exposure levels are much higher.

A further problem with studying ultrasound’s effect is the huge range of output, or dose, possible from a single machine. Modern machines can give comparable ultrasound pictures using a lower, or a 5 000 times higher dose,8 and there are no standards to ensure that the lowest dose is used. Because of the complexity of machines, it is difficult to even quantify the dose given in each examination.41 In Australia training is voluntary, even for obstetricians, and the skill and experience of operators varies widely.

A summary of the safety of ultrasound in human studies, published in May 2002 in the prestigious US journal Epidemiology concluded

…there may be a relation between prenatal ultrasound exposure and adverse outcome. Some of the reported effects include growth restriction, delayed speech, dyslexia, and non-right-handedness associated with ultrasound exposure. Continued research is needed to evaluate the potential adverse effects of ultrasound exposure during pregnancy. These studies should measure the acoustic output, exposure time, number of exposures per subject, and the timing during the pregnancy when exposure(s) occurred.42

[nd293]

I had complete placenta previa with my second child. I kept up normal activity levels (which goes against medical advise) and had no bleeds until 36.5 weeks, but it was certainly helpful to be prepared and to know what was going on and that we had to get to hospital urgently for an emergency C-section. It was scary as it was, but it would have been absolutely terrifying if I did not know to expect it. Fore-warned is fore-armed, as they say...