Ultrasound studies?

[aidanraynesmom]

I have a "mainstream" acquaintance that asked me for some facts on the safety (or more specifically studies that show it may not be) of ultrasound.

I mentioned in passing that we would be declining any routine u/s bc I was afraid it hurt their little ears. She then told me that she had gone on a hunt for anything supporting this and couldn't find any facts, only "people's opinions on 'blogs'" (which has me wondering if any searches brought up this particular website )

So, anybody got anything that shows that it may be harmful? I don't need anything definitive or that comes out and says, "yes, it damages hearing in the fetus" or anything. Just something that addresses it as a distinct possibility in a factual way.

Thanks so much! If anything, I made her think! (Unless I can't come up with anything to support my accusations and then I look like an idiot! )

[MaerynPearl]

I have never heard of it affecting hearing in particular... since it is ultrasonic frequency, not something they can actually hear...

The majority of the argument I hear is against cavitation of the fetal tissues (aka it could possibly cause it to heat up, causing damage) though the anti-argument on that is that the frequency used for fetal imaging is much smaller than the frequency used in ultrasonic therapy (like where they break up a mass of some sort in your body using ultrasound)

Though, I don't think you really need an excuse not to get an ultrasound or to have to back up your reasoning... you shouldn't be judged on that.

And I don't think anyone is particularly a bad person for getting one if they feel it is necessary (after all I had to have several with DS and DD to be sure they were okay and neither of them seem to be damaged in any way from it)

[aidanraynesmom]

Well I meant more like backing up the claims I made when she asked me to elaborate, not necessarily my choice for not having one.

I certainly don't judge someone for having one, I'm pretty sure I didn't say anything to the effect that someone is a "bad person" if they had one. I think they can be useful. I just said that I wouldn't be having a routine u/s. I'm not "down" on them, just questioning things and was asked to elaborate. I also don't buy the "i did it with my kids and they turned out fine" response from anyone with anything but older adult children bc unless they are adults they haven't "turned out" to be anything.

I do realize that there is a concern for damaging cells, but I meant the idea that it could be painful at the time (why they squirm when the probe is aimed at them) and that its possible that it could cause hearing damage in the long term. However I'm sure it has to do with cumulative exposure to those waves.

So...back to the original question...does anyone know where I can find something that talks about hearing damage and ultrasound?

[emnic77]

I never looked for studies...my main reasons for declining this time (had 2 with my first, 3 with my second) were 1) my babies ALWAYS seemed to move away from the ultrasound, without fail, and would start frantically moving during it. I didn't like that. 2) DH is a materials engineer and is wary of ultrasound for a variety of reasons, none of which I could drop the science on without getting it wrong. 3) I just plain didn't see the need. With both my other two, ultrasound did nothing but cause 2-3 weeks of completely needless worry based on something measuring .002 mm off or some such nonsense, and I decided to spare myself that this time.

[claddaghmom]

I thought there was a study that found ultrasound use increases the temperature...I do not remember any specific numbers...but it was something like every 10 minutes of scanning raised the temperature by 1 degree F.

Back when it was something I was paying attention to, I tried to base my argument in that context b/c all the mamas I know are terrified of having a fever while pregnant...but then they all go in for monthly scans...some of which run into 20-40 minutes long! And then some of them get the cutesie scans at the free standing centers...and those can run up to an hour long!

[claddaghmom]

Just did a brief search...

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...d61c7534184c15


http://www.jultrasoundmed.org/cgi/co...tract/27/4/541


http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...e43e031e8a3539

[claddaghmom]

Articles of interest that might not speak to mainstream people:

http://www.midwiferytoday.com/articl...undrodgers.asp

http://www.ob-ultrasound.net/studies.html (list of studies)

http://www.alternamoms.com/ultrasound.html

http://www.people.com/people/archive...150322,00.html

[MaerynPearl]

Originally Posted by aidanraynesmom

I certainly don't judge someone for having one, I'm pretty sure I didn't say anything to the effect that someone is a "bad person" if they had one.

I do realize that there is a concern for damaging cells, but I meant the idea that it could be painful at the time (why they squirm when the probe is aimed at them) and that its possible that it could cause hearing damage in the long term. However I'm sure it has to do with cumulative exposure to those waves.

So...back to the original question...does anyone know where I can find something that talks about hearing damage and ultrasound?

Sorry, I didn't mean that to sound like I was accusing you of having that stance... just that I didnt want anyone thinking I think its bad...

This is all I can find by someone other than a blog specifically stating the fetus can hear the sound: http://www.acfnewsource.org/science/...ing_fetus.html

and it isn't that it damages their hearing but that it just bothers them because its a loud noise they aren't used to so its an argument that what we see on ultrasound is not necessarily the state our fetuses are in in normal conditions.

[outlier]

This is one of my favorite websites on the subject: http://www.midwiferytoday.com/articles/ultrasound.asp

I read over the website Maeryn posted above and did a quick search for any published studies on their claims that fetuses can hear ultrasounds. I couldn't find anything, even when just searching for those doctors' names, and surely if they had good evidence to support their claims it would have been published somewhere. It is true that humans lack the neurons necessary to hear the actual sound waves put out by u/s machines, but that doesn't mean fetuses don't feel something happening during scans and react to it, whether it's from the heat generated or something else. There are simply no definite answers yet.

Personally, I find the studies on altered neuron growth done in rats and mice a more compelling reason to decline routine ultrasounds.

[Kidzaplenty]

[Gingercat]

Dr Sarah Buckley in her new book Gentle Birth, Gentle Mothering: A Doctor's Guide to Natural Childbirth and Gentle Early Parenting Choices has a whole chapter discussing the safety with ultrasounds, backing most of her arguments with scientific studies.

She has also written an excellent article about the safety of ultrasounds in the past for Mothering magazine. I believe this is available through her website (sorry I'm not at home at the moment to give you the link) and I have also seen it in Dr. Mercola's website.

There are a lot of concerns with ultrasounds; the research is still quite limited so nobody could ever claim that they are safe! We just do not know this and there's certainly enough evidence that question their safety. Be especially wary of the early intra-vagina ones and of the Doppler ones.

[emnic77]

Originally Posted by claddaghmom

I thought there was a study that found ultrasound use increases the temperature...I do not remember any specific numbers...but it was something like every 10 minutes of scanning raised the temperature by 1 degree F.

Back when it was something I was paying attention to, I tried to base my argument in that context b/c all the mamas I know are terrified of having a fever while pregnant...but then they all go in for monthly scans...some of which run into 20-40 minutes long! And then some of them get the cutesie scans at the free standing centers...and those can run up to an hour long!

Yes, it was the temperature increase that was one of my husband's biggest issues with it.

[Sorin]

From what I understand, there are no definitive studies that "prove" that ultrasounds are 100% safe. The evidence that we do have to prove their safety is the fact that they have been used for many many many years with no indication of any harm to the fetus. You simply would not find a credible scientific, double-blind, NIH funded, blah blah blah etc. study done on this subject because to run a study like that would be unethical. You can't expose pregnant women and their fetuses to excessive ultrasounds simply to prove a hypothesis. So, any decision that you make to get an ultrasound or not is solely up to your discretion.

[Kidzaplenty]

And, too, even if you could produce a study, how could you qualify it? Because each child is different, there would be no way to tell if there was damage (beyond the extreme). I don't think that even if we were to be able to put ethics aside and do such a study that it would prove anything at all.

For me, I think the possible benefit totally out weighs the risk. And I have never seen any problems in my babies because of the u/s's.

I have never heard of the temperature increase, but even that does not mean anything. Normal body temp is 98.5 and it would seem that you would have to have an excessively long scan to do any amount of actual temp increase. And even then, a very short term increase is not likely to cause any problems.

If those numbers were absolutely correct (10 min=1 degree) then it would mean a one hour scan would raise the temp to about 104. I have had multiple near hours scans in the past and my womb never reached that temp (I am very sensitive to temps). It would also seem that to actually raise the temp the scan should remain still and constant in one area. Whereas all the scans I have had have been constantly moving, multiple breaks for measurement imputs and readjustments, and just general picking up the thing (don't know what it is called) and moving it to another place.

I envision it like boiling water on the stove. If I keep the pot flat on the burner, the temperature rises quickly. However, if I am constantly moving the pot and picking it up and putting it down, it actually takes a much longer time to increase the temperature; sometimes double or triple the time.

Anyways, I am no expert, just thought I would toss my two cents in.

[Jelinifer]

This doesn't come from a study and am not sure about Nat. Geo's credibility as a reliable source of scientific info, but this documentary:

http://shop.nationalgeographic.com/n...-the-womb-dvd-

claims that ultrasounds are as loud to an unborn child as standing next to a passing freight train is to us.... the video still had tons of 3 and 4D ultrasound shots so I'm not sure what they were trying to accomplish with the mixed message, but it did make DH and I think a bit longer about getting u/s done....

[Kidzaplenty]

I wonder how they determine what levels the child is hearing at.

I have had scans where the baby is looking at or even his ear is right where the device is for the scan. He neither jumps or moves out of the way. It would seem to me that if the sound were so loud (even a moderately loud sound) suddenly bombarding the quiet pulsing gushy sounds the lives in, there would be some sort of startle or sudden movement away from it.

Now, I know that there are times when the baby seems to move away from the device, but then again with the near constant movement, I am not certain they are actually trying to get away from it. And there are just as many times when the baby will sleep right through the u/s or never move away at all. That makes me wonder if they are hearing any of the supposed freighttrain sounds at all.

[Sorin]

Originally Posted by Kidzaplenty

And, too, even if you could produce a study, how could you qualify it? Because each child is different, there would be no way to tell if there was damage (beyond the extreme). I don't think that even if we were to be able to put ethics aside and do such a study that it would prove anything at all.

For me, I think the possible benefit totally out weighs the risk. And I have never seen any problems in my babies because of the u/s's.

I agree with you. Plus, there would be no way to control for any results being solely based on the extensive ultrasound scan. There are so many factors in play--genetics, environment, maternal health, etc.--that even if something were different about a baby who was exposed to extensive ultrasounds, there would be no way to tie that something directly back to the ultrasounds as the cause.

I'm a benefit outweights the risk person as well. I had the 8 week and the 20 week scan.

[Gingercat]

Originally Posted by Sorin

The evidence that we do have to prove their safety is the fact that they have been used for many many many years with no indication of any harm to the fetus.

How can anyone claim that there's no indication of harm to the fetus? How is "harm" defined?

For example it has been argued that early ultrasound scans (especially the vagina ones since the baby is "unshielded") are especially risky because the baby's vital organs are being developed during that time so exposure can lead to growth abnormalities and even death.
Now we know that a great number of miscarriages occur during the first trimester, so how can anybody rule out the possibility that an ultrasound scan is not the cause of a miscarriage?

And yes ultrasounds have been used for many years but it is only very recently that we've seen an increase in routine scanning and also the widespread use of these high-tech 3D and 4D scans.

Finally there's has been no research that actually proves that the benefits of an ultrasound scan outweigh its risks.

Here's a link to Sarah Buckley's Mothering article which is updated in her latest book: Ultrasound Scans- cause for concern

This is not to say that I do not get ultrasounds: I got an early vagina one during my first pregnancy which I deeply regret now, and then the 20-week scan followed by 2 Dopplers (because I went overdue).
During this pregnancy I know much more about the benefits and risks of ultrasound scans so I had one during the fifth month because of I was spotting and then the 20-week scan (I'm ashamed to admit that the main reason I had this scan was to find out the gender ). But if things progress well I'd refuse any other scans, especially the Doppler ones (I'm lucky to have a naturally oriented OB who is OK with me not having unnecessary scans).

[Kidzaplenty]

Originally Posted by Gingercat

Now we know that a great number of miscarriages occur during the first trimester, so how can anybody rule out the possibility that an ultrasound scan is not the cause of a miscarriage?

This argument would not stand since first trimester mc have not drastically increased with the use of the u/s. It would stand to reason that if u/s caused mc then the rate would have been ever increasing over the last decade, paralleling the early u/s increase. Interestingly, the only mc and stillbirths I have had have been in pgcies when I had no u/s's.

[WingonWing]

I found Sarah Buckley to be very informed on the subject and read her work with interest.

It's not only the rise in temp. It's the qualifications necessary to become a u/s tech--do any of you know what they are? It's the frequency of the calibration of the machine, it's the (apparent) fact that we are using FAR more powerful machines with FAR more powerful waves than we did even a decade ago. All for no good reason, in a lot of cases. I wish that dating a pregnancy using a machine wasn't necessary, but that speaks to women not knowing enough about their own cycles OR the problem of not believing them when they do.

Basically, it's a billion dollar industry supported by insurance companies and OBs. Safety hasn't really been the prime issue, which is why ultrasound is referred to as the largest human medical experiment ever.

I have heard that in Europe the sound is not turned on when using u/s and doppler machines for finding the heartbeat, because it is thought to be incredibly loud to the baby. (Don't know if that's factual, but it's interesting nonetheless).

Even the FDA, which I don't often agree with, does not stand by ultrasounds as a routine procedure and states clearly that they are for medical need ONLY.