or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Archives › Pregnancy and Birth Archives › Due Date Clubs 2009 - 2012 › November 2011 ›  Interesting study about placenta location and gender in early ultrasounds
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Interesting study about placenta location and gender in early ultrasounds

post #1 of 9
Thread Starter 

 

source :  http://www.obgyn.net/ultrasound/ultrasound.asp

 

Quote:
This is a multi-center prospective cohort study of 5376 pregnant women that underwent ultrasonography from 1997 to 2007. Trans-vaginal sonograms were performed in 22% of the patients at 6 weeks gestation, and Trans-abdominal sonograms were used at 18-20 weeks gestation, at this time the fetal gender were confirmed in 98-99%. The fetal sex was confirmed 100% after delivery.

 

 

 

Quote:
Dramatic differences were detected in chorionic villi / placental location according to gender. 97.2% of the male fetuses had a chorionic villi/placenta location on the right side of the uterus whereas, 2.4% had a chorionic villi/placenta location to the left of the uterus. On the other hand 97.5% of female fetuses had a chorionic villi/placenta location to the left of the uterus whereas, 2.7% had their chorionic villi/placenta location to the right side of the uterus.

 

 

 

Quote:
Ramzi’s method is using placenta /chorionic villi location as a marker for fetal gender detection at 6 weeks gestation was found to be highly reliable. This method correctly predicts the fetus gender in 97.2% of males and 97.5% of females early in the first trimester.

 

 Would be interesting to see if it's correct 

post #2 of 9

Crashing from Oct!  I have read this study and started a thread here on MDC asking if it was legit.  There are a lot of grammatical and usage errors in the article and the dedication would never be included in a formal medical journal.  But, my last baby who I lost was a girl and very much implanted on the left, this one is on the right, so we will see what the gender is!!

post #3 of 9
Thread Starter 

I'm sorry for the loss of your baby girlhug.gif

 

 I had my first u/s today and baby was camped out in the top left side so it should be interesting to see if it's correct.

post #4 of 9

That is interesting.  How can you tell where the embryo is located on the uterus?  On my sonogram the fetus is on the left side, but I can't tell how they would be referencing it. 

post #5 of 9

This is fascinating, but I can't see how it would be possible to be correct.  I mean, how could a clump of cells know whether it's male or female and then decide to implant on a specific side of the uterus?  Why?  It doesn't make alot of sense.

 

Maybe we should test it.  Anyone who has an early ultrasound and finds out what side of the uterus the placent is can post it here and nine months from now we can check if it's correct or not.  My u/s isn't for another 4 weeks, so I'll find out then! 

post #6 of 9

I'm confused.  At six weeks, the placenta hasn't formed, yet.  A six-week ultrasound would show a baby (albeit small) and the yolk sac.  What am I missing?

post #7 of 9


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by bluebunny View Post

I'm confused.  At six weeks, the placenta hasn't formed, yet.  A six-week ultrasound would show a baby (albeit small) and the yolk sac.  What am I missing?



yeahthat.gif I had an ultrasound done last week at 6 weeks 2 days. I'm not quite sure what I'm looking for here...

post #8 of 9

Why would it not exist? It might not be complete, but it's the point of attachment and it begins to form at the same time that the baby implants.  Look at this completely adorable picture, awwwww!

post #9 of 9

Although it would exist, I think it's very difficult to see on an ultrasound at only 6 weeks?  I have no personal experience with this, but I know most of the internet sites I've read so far say that six-week ultrasounds don't show the placenta well because it's too small.

 

The spelling and grammar errors do lead me to be a bit suspicious of the findings, but medical know-how and ability to speak English well are not necessarily related - it's clearly not peer-reviewed or someone would have fixed the poor fellow's grammar, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's inaccurate either.

 

To be honest, and here's where I show my bias, the thing that makes me the most suspicious is that this study is from out of High Level, Alberta.  That is a small, horrible town.  It has very little to recommend it, and it is a total backwater.  I have a strong bias against that town, having worked out of it more than once.  I have a hard time believing that any new finding of value could come out of that town.  But that is a completely ridiculous reason to distrust it, and I know it.  Especially because my observations of that town lead me to believe that probably the doctors there get to deal with more pregnancies than almost anything else (except perhaps alcoholism, but most people don't go to the hospital for that).  I really can't get past the town . . . I hate knowing I'm prejudiced, and knowing it's unfair, and being unable to keep it from seeping into my consciousness.

 

It's an interesting idea, and not completely impossible . . . our bodies are not perfectly symmetrical, and it is the baby's genetic code that determines placental growth - it's conceivable that there is some chemical or other difference between the two sides of a uterus, and that Y chromosomes could have a gene that encourages or discourages attachment in those differing conditions.  It doesn't sound overly likely to me, but that's no basis for judging science.

 

I read the methods and results (after the incredibly long and irrelevant front matter), and it looks pretty clear-cut.  But it also looks sloppy - the main results table has an error, where the "male-right" table and the "female-left" table both are labeled "right" throughout - neither one is labeled left.  It's funny, I have a husband who makes lots of spelling and grammar errors and sometimes substitutes words, and I know he does it even when he knows exactly what he's talking about, but the inability of the author to find someone to proofread his stuff makes me think he isn't all that careful.

 

I love the idea of us asking our u/s technicians which side the placenta is looking like it's on, and then seeing if it lines up with our baby's sexes!  Ooh, citizen science!

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: November 2011
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Archives › Pregnancy and Birth Archives › Due Date Clubs 2009 - 2012 › November 2011 ›  Interesting study about placenta location and gender in early ultrasounds