or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Archives › Pregnancy and Birth Archives › Due Date Clubs 2009 - 2012 › May 2011 › To ultrasound or not ultrasound?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

To ultrasound or not ultrasound? - Page 2

post #21 of 65
As a note: doppler is also MUCH MORE powerful per minute than a plain ultrasound. I can't remember the exact number, but I want to say it's 30x as powerful? Don't quote me on that.
post #22 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by littleteapot View Post
As a note: doppler is also MUCH MORE powerful per minute than a plain ultrasound. I can't remember the exact number, but I want to say it's 30x as powerful? Don't quote me on that.
Really? Wow that's interesting, I hadn't heard that before. Hmmm something else to look into now I suppose.
post #23 of 65
We will do one at 20 week.. and if there is any true necessity before after.

I think U/S can be an amazing tool if used judiciously.
post #24 of 65
Well, I'm definitely on the other extreme of the U/S question, seeing as how I'm already scheduled for 10 of them. Mine is a high-risk pg with multiple complications, though, so I'm okay with it, especially since I've already had one baby with IUGR and another with a cord defect, both problems that were discovered on u/s.
post #25 of 65
I will be getting a viability u/s around 8 - 9 weeks. I had a missed abortion two pregnancies ago, and have no desire to walk around with a dead, deteriorating fetus inside of me again.

Most likely, I will also get the 20 weeker. Significant problems can be identified there (particularly if you are seeing an OB, who may not be skilled at diagnosing a previa etc without one.)
post #26 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeminijad View Post
Significant problems can be identified there (particularly if you are seeing an OB, who may not be skilled at diagnosing a previa etc without one.)
Just a note: the vast majority of previa cases resolve themselves, and early diagnostic and continuous monitoring has not been shown to improve outcomes... actually quite the opposite! Early diagnosis increases the chances of cesarean section or induction (unnecessary, that is), stress for mother and other issues... none of which are related to the previa itself, but rather fear of it "getting worse" despite the fact that it's incredibly unlikely. It's kind of like a cervical lip: the only problem is being aware of it, and therefore thinking it's a problem.
I was just reading the data on pubmed last night, actually. Very interesting stuff!
post #27 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by kwilki8 View Post
Actually, I did not at all intend to imply that it's just for my personal comfort. What I am personally comfortable with is following the advice of my doctor that it is in the best medical interest of my baby to ensure that he or she is not starving.
You sound really defensive. Please know that I'm not attacking you, I'm genuinely just curious! In another thread you said you were having difficulty reconciling a want for low intervention with a high risk pregnancy that requires constant monitoring and interventions... so I was just asking about the data showing how 10 ultrasounds (or more) were proven to improve outcomes. I'm not trying to be a jerk, but just satisfy both my own curiosity, and maybe help you feel better about your choices!
This is a thread about the personal choices regarding ultrasound use, and has lots of interesting POVs... so I'm just learning from a situation I'm unfamiliar with, that's all!
post #28 of 65
I am so glad this thread was started here!

I have struggled with this US or no US thing for the whole pregnancy so far!

(Just a note that this post includes some very traumatizing/dramatic feelings from a past US..just so you are warned!)



My second pregnancy (first miscarriage) had a few episodes of spotting. I was shocked that "something could be wrong" and did a blood test and it showed my HCG wasn't going up very much and my progesterone was low. I did a US..and they showed a heartbeat..and said the baby looked great (even though I KNEW it was measuring less than it should of...but chalked it up to tech error).

Two weeks later, I started spotting again. Had another US...and the tech couldn't tell me ANYTHING. I could see the screen myself...I'm not stupid. There was no heartbeat. There was a lot of blood above my cervix. And the tech gave me blank looks and wouldn't look at me in the eye as I am hysterically sobbing for her to tell me what is going on.

She told me to get dressed, and the doctor would come and see me. No picture. No smile like the first time. Nothing. There I laid, with my 3 year old daughter in the room and my poor husband not knowing what just happened, first to his wife, and second to his unborn child, as I am hysterically crying more than I have ever done so in my life. I cry even as I write this it was that terrible.

Traumatizing to say the least.

Having had a US where they said everything was fine.......when it wasn't (the baby died like RIGHT after the first US) was enough for me to not ever want to go through that again. How could I possibly ever believe the US again? How would it ever give me peace?

So we've chosen no US. I've had days of wanting to go get one IMMEDIATELY....and panicking, and crying, and being scared, and begging my DH to take me to get the US. But I've taken a warm bath, meditated, prayed....and felt better the next day.

I will listen to the baby's heartbeat with a doppler once or twice though. There is no way I could go until 20 weeks or so when I could hear the HB with a fetoscope that I would make it that long. Once I hear it....I'll feel as if I am in the clear since I have not had any signs or symptoms that this pregnancy is failing in anyway. I won't be using the doppler often though..and will get a fetoscope and use that for the rest of the pregnancy.

For me, having problems in pregnancy so early on, I will feel immensely better after hearing the heartbeat. Then it's only a few more weeks until movement!
post #29 of 65

*


Edited by maotmsmi - 5/21/11 at 12:19pm
post #30 of 65
yep...anxiety disorder over here!

we want to know the sex...i want to see her/him move...
post #31 of 65
We're also planning to get at least 2 ultrasounds this time around. I have a history of m/c (so want the reassurance of an early scan), and our last pregnancy was complicated by a velamentous cord. We had lots of extra follow-up (additional scans and weekly stress tests) to ensure that the baby was growing properly. Maybe this was overkill, but it was very reassuring. Also, if they had not known about the cord issue, and they had put any traction on the cord during the third stage, I could have been in VERY serious trouble. This is, in fact, the reason that my DH wants us to get OB care during the pregnancy but is comfortable with a MW for the birth.
post #32 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by littleteapot View Post
As a note: doppler is also MUCH MORE powerful per minute than a plain ultrasound. I can't remember the exact number, but I want to say it's 30x as powerful? Don't quote me on that.

I wanted to clarify this because frankly, I get tired of seeing this misinformation constantly on these forums.

Colorflow and spectral doppler.. ie, visual doppler/ doppler ultrasound.. not handheld dopplers/ doptones are much more powerful then plain ultrasound.

Colorflow and spectral doppler are high frequency pulsed doppler using a transducer that is anywhere from 3-12Mhz, where handheld is a continuous wave at 2 or 3 mhz using a 9 volt battery

Yes, there is ultrasound, but no, the doppler your midwife uses is NOT more powerful then an ultrasound.. much less 20 or 30 x more powerful as Ive seen quoted on these boards repeatedly.
post #33 of 65
Mamachef, can you cite a source on that? I'm not saying you're wrong (because, as I said, I can't remember my sources) but I would love to read about it! I'm pretty sure I first read that within one of my midwifery texts, but to be honest I'm too lazy to go searching... however, you seem to be in the know - do you mind sharing?


Quote:
Originally Posted by MamaChef View Post
I wanted to clarify this because frankly, I get tired of seeing this misinformation constantly on these forums.

Colorflow and spectral doppler.. ie, visual doppler/ doppler ultrasound.. not handheld dopplers/ doptones are much more powerful then plain ultrasound.

Colorflow and spectral doppler are high frequency pulsed doppler using a transducer that is anywhere from 3-12Mhz, where handheld is a continuous wave at 2 or 3 mhz using a 9 volt battery

Yes, there is ultrasound, but no, the doppler your midwife uses is NOT more powerful then an ultrasound.. much less 20 or 30 x more powerful as Ive seen quoted on these boards repeatedly.
post #34 of 65
I'm curious as well. What I remember reading is not necessarily that the frequency is more powerful in a doppler; it's the fact that a handheld doppler is a continuous wave, where a visual ultrasound is a pulsed(?) wave. So even though you're getting a lower frequency, you're getting a lot MORE of it... if that makes sense. Anyone, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.
post #35 of 65
I had 2 with my first but I was mainstream all the way back then. I had 1 with my second because I was told I had to if I wanted to avoid vag. exams in Romania. Sadly, that ended up making no difference to them and they did as many if not more vag. exam during labor which was horrible for me.

This time, I forgot why I didn't like ultrasounds and I looked at those articles that people put up and I am fully convinced I don't need to get an ultrasound unless something horrifying was happening or something. So, although I'm dying to see my baby and see if there's only one baby (more than likely but you never know) but I would rather protect my baby from harm than allow my curiosity to be more important. That's what I've personally decided.
post #36 of 65
I had a missed m/c before I had my son, and had thought next time I was pregnant I'd get an early scan, but realized I wouldn't relax until 12wks anyway, so I should just wait until then. So I planned on two (12 wk nuchal scan, and the standard 20wk), I ended up w/ 4 because

a) I had appendicitis at 20 wks (they used u/s to make sure my intense abdominal pain wasn't pregnancy-related, but further used the u/s to try and see if it indeed was appendicitis, I ended up getting an MRI since the u/s wasn't clear enough, and it was, I got it out before it burst, thank god, since if it had, there is a 20% fetal loss rate.
b) The last one was because I went so late (they did a 41wk scan to make sure there was enough amniotic fluid)

I really trust my ob/gyn, who is as midwife-y as one could get (I knew I'd like her when I saw she had tibetan prayer flags hanging in her office) she treks to Nepal yearly to offer medical services to women there every November. She thinks there is no reason not to feel safe w/ an u/s. I've done my own reading as well, I can see the points people offer, but if I had refused that (or the MRI) my son would be dead, and perhaps me as well. I can see the arguments for not getting a 'routine' scan if everything is going fine, I guess, and its true that I am not comfortable getting a vaginal u/s.

I do think I'd want the option to terminate the pregnancy if we found something that was non-compatible w/ life (if the 12wk scan indicates further testing for that) Having lost a babe at 12wks, and having carried a babe to term, I know I do not want to lose one after a full term pregnancy if I can opt to end it earlier. I know that's probably not a popular opinion on here but I'd like that option.

So this time I am also planning on two, the 12wk, and the 18-20wk, and I know at least I can't get appendicitis again, and hopefully I don't go super late either
post #37 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by littleteapot View Post
Mamachef, can you cite a source on that? I'm not saying you're wrong (because, as I said, I can't remember my sources) but I would love to read about it! I'm pretty sure I first read that within one of my midwifery texts, but to be honest I'm too lazy to go searching... however, you seem to be in the know - do you mind sharing?

I'll do some digging when I get the chance, all my midwifery texts have been put up save varneys, williams and anne frye... but we had a serious debate on it at Seattle Midwifery when I attended and I just remember how annoyed a couple of the instructors were that this information was circulated so fear mongeringly in the NBC.

I would not by any stretch of imagination consider this a source but it's all I could find quick...
http://www.fetaldopplerfacts.org/fac...und-safety.php

but it does explain a bit about the difference in the power of the transducers. That site also explains about continuous vs pulsed.. Pulsed doppler is a higher frequency, so it might not be continuous, but it is more powerful and more focused. http://www.babycentre.co.uk/pregnanc...lersafeexpert/

If you think about it logically, you are talking about something that works on a 9 volt battery, vs something that is plugged into a wall.

I will say that during our study group research outside of perhaps Gloria Lemay or some of Anne Frye's stuff, which no offense, but we chose to take with a grain of salt, we werent able to find any scientific studies of the 30x or 20x more powerful number and all of us had heard it over and over.

ETA
Did a couple more searches and here is a good one.
http://www.naturalchildbirth.org/nat...ventions27.htm

[Vol 2 Issue 9 March 3, 2000]:

Do most midwives regularly make use of the Doptone? Also, shouldn't each
woman be made fully aware that the Doptone is ultrasonic? Even though the
exposure periods are usually brief, I heard that 1 min. of Doptone is much
stronger--equal to 30 min of the other full-image type ultrasound. Is this
true?
Anon.
====

[Vol 2 Issue 10 March 10, 2000]:

I work for Nicolet Vascular (formerly Imex Medical). Following are excerpts
from a letter written to another person with the same concerns.
-Diane Rugh
..........
In addition, I would like to point out that the FDA limit for power
intensity emitted by a continuous wave ultrasound for fetal use is 0.094
watts per square centimeter. The FDA power intensity limit for pulsed wave
ultrasound for fetal use is 190 watts per square centimeter. The power
emitted by a Doppler can be 2,000 times less than an imager! Imex 3 MHz
probes emit 0.009 watts per square centimeter, a factor of ten times less
than the FDA limit.


Reprinted from Midwifery Today E-News (Vol 2 Issue 10 March 10, 2000)
To subscribe to the E-News write: enews@midwiferytoday.com
For all other matters contact Midwifery Today:
PO Box 2672-940, Eugene OR 97402
541-344-7438, midwifery@aol.com, Midwifery Today


Edited by MamaChef - 12/21/10 at 10:44am
post #38 of 65
I would certainly hope that no one assumes to know better than a woman's OBGYN what is best for her pregnancy.

I have not found one study, not even a retroactive study, that can link ultrasounds with negative human outcomes.

And most of us know a person/are a person wherein an US dx an issue with the fetus wherein interventions could be put into place to improve the chance of a positive outcome, be it as simple as bedrest or delivering at a hospital with a level III NICU.
post #39 of 65
Thanks Mamachef, that was very informative! I stand corrected.


Quote:
Originally Posted by geekgolightly View Post
I would certainly hope that no one assumes to know better than a woman's OBGYN what is best for her pregnancy.
That must be why we have a 32% cesarean rate (and rising) along with the absolute worst maternal and newborn outcomes (and care) of any industrialized country. It must be because OBGYNs are always right and know what's best for all women... right?
post #40 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by geekgolightly View Post
I would certainly hope that no one assumes to know better than a woman's OBGYN what is best for her pregnancy.

I have not found one study, not even a retroactive study, that can link ultrasounds with negative human outcomes.

And most of us know a person/are a person wherein an US dx an issue with the fetus wherein interventions could be put into place to improve the chance of a positive outcome, be it as simple as bedrest or delivering at a hospital with a level III NICU.
i posted earlier in this thread a link with negative outcomes from u/s.

I have gone head to head with an OBGYN before over ACOG recommendations that state ultrasound is NOT right for every pregnant woman and is not necessary in every pregnancy. This particular OBGYN then refused to see me as a client because I refused an ultrasound stating that I would then be considered high risk. Keep in mind here, this was for no reason other than the very fact that I was pregnant. There were no issues and i was simply interviewing her for my pregnancy. IMO, that OBGYN was putting her own desires above what was recommended and not allowing for individuality. She specifically told me that ALL of her clients did exactly what she said or else they were not her clients. Obviously, we did not work together and she stormed out of the office on me.

Therefore, I CAN SAY, sometimes a mother does know best over the OBGYN. Like all Doc's, occasionally they lose sight of the fact that they are not Gods and they are not capable of demanding people to follow them like drones.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: May 2011
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Archives › Pregnancy and Birth Archives › Due Date Clubs 2009 - 2012 › May 2011 › To ultrasound or not ultrasound?