Can I take a poll on ultrasounds and early delivery?? Mini study- Twin mamas please read!! - Page 2

[erigeron]

not a MOM but it seems to me that pregnancies with more problems might lead to BOTH lots of scans and the need for early delivery. nak.

[DoubleDouble]

That's what I thought, too - cause & consequence confusion. Anyway, my two cents - ultrasounds every two weeks since week 5, every week from week 34, three times on week 37, if I remember correctly, was not in labor before cesarean at week 38.

[Gindugirl]

I'm now 36.2 weeks pregnant and except for some contractions, I don't see labor in sight yet.  I agree this is too small of a group and too many variables to gauge whether u/s make a difference in gestation.  I just hope a larger study is done at some point.

[Kokoes]

There is a list at the end of this post with articles that state the possible dangers of too many ultrasounds. Of course, one should also consider the dangers of not having the right amount of u/s when needed (e.g a twin pregnancy with risk of TTTS). So, I guess it is a matter of weighing the pros and cons for each single case...

[baileyandmikey]

Well, I haven't delivered yet, but my first u/s was at 8 weeks, then every 2 weeks since!  Eeek!

[Adaline'sMama]

I'm subbing here for after delivery. Here is my U/S schedule:

7.5 weeks just to make sure everything was ok (after a loss)

10 weeks for viability

13 weeks for nuchal scan

18 weeks for anatomy scan/gender assessment 

22 weeks to check for discordant growth

25 weeks to check for discordant growth 

28 weeks to check for discordant growth/ cervical shortening 

~this is where we are now, but these are scheduled~

32 weeks to check for discordant growth/cervical shortening

36 weeks to check amniotic fluid levels

38 weeks at induction. Also, in the event of natural delivery (likely) there will be an ultrasound machine in the room. 

We'll see when I deliver. 10 ultrasounds, one of them was super long (the nuchal scan at 13 weeks took for.f-ing.ever. 

[SympatheticDad]

That "anthrodoula" blog post is the most shameful sort of deceptive fearmongering.  How the author can sleep at night after telling such horrible lies to worried mommas is beyond me.

Specific lies that leapt off the page at me were her description of sonography as involving "radiation from ultrasound", which is clearly deceptive (as the National Institutes of Health say, "Ultrasound does not involve radiation, such as that used when taking an x-ray.")  One could describe sound as "radiation", but that's sort of like describing water as a "toxin".  Also, I love how she says that left-handed people are brain-damaged.  What a genius.

The best and most recent clinical article I could find on sonography is here:  http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2788813/.  The Too Long Didn't Read version is:  ultrasound has a safety record of going back 50 years.  There are (as with any medical procedure) some risks and unknowns, which is why the FDA recommends against the use of ultrasound in non-diagnostic situations, but there are no independently replicated epidemiologic data exist to suggest harmful effects of ultrasonography in the fetus.  There are some interesting questions about the long-term effects of ultrasounds on mice who are exposed to extended periods of strong waves (30 minutes or more); those are interesting areas for future research but certainly shouldn't be discouraging the use of ultrasound as a diagnostic tool.

The reality is that if you are in a high-risk category for your pregnancy (and carrying multiples generally qualifies as such, if only because of the risk of IUGR), the benefits of ultrasound far outweigh the risks, no matter how you slice it.

On a purely anecdotal note, my little ones were sonogrammed probably a hundred times.  They seem no worse for wear.  And, for the record, they're not left-handed.

[eminvc]

Originally Posted by Kokoes 

There is a list at the end of this post with articles that state the possible dangers of too many ultrasounds. Of course, one should also consider the dangers of not having the right amount of u/s when needed (e.g a twin pregnancy with risk of TTTS). So, I guess it is a matter of weighing the pros and cons for each single case...

I find it disturbing that the references in this post are most recently from 1998. Technology has changed in 14 years, and I think this is a little too fear-mongering. Most of the references are from the early 90's or before....which is nearly 20 years ago now. If ultrasounds are truly so dangerous, why is there no more recent research replicating these "results?"

[mauri456]

I had my twins at 39.6 weeks.

I had an unofficial u/s at 14 weeks cus I suspected 2.  di/di twins

20 week u/s

28 week u/s  growth/cervix/fluid

32 week u/s  growth/cervix/fluid)

35 week u/s  (plan was for 36 weeks but my bp went up)- looked at growth/fluid

36 week u/s fluid/growth

37 week u/s  fluid/growth

38 week u/s growth/fluid and one nst

39 week u/s fluid and nst twice

and 2 ultrasounds in labor to look at positioning.  had my bp not gone up it would have been 36 weeks and 38 weeks.