or Connect
Mothering › Groups › August 2014 Due Date Club › Discussions › Anyone getting first trimester u/s

Anyone getting first trimester u/s - Page 3

post #41 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by SureyaSun View Post

why wouldnt anyone want an ultrasound? Im 8 week pregnant with my first ever and I cant wait for my first US in about a week.... every week is exciting and all i want is to connect visually with this little bean growing inside me

I don't! I think there are risk factors and I've read in more than one study that shows the noise in-utero (when they listen for the heartbeat) is equivalent to being in the front row of a rock concert for our little ones! Have you ever noticed that they move sporadically when you do an ultrasound? It's because you're bothering them! It's supposed to be this beautiful, peaceful environment and we're interrupting It to just "see" them! I think that ultrasounds should only be used when medically necessary. Otherwise, trust your baby and your body and let them just be peaceful in there... Only hearing mamas heartbeat and the other sounds our bodies were made to hear in-utero. There is a correlation with hearing problems and mothers who have had more than 5 ultrasounds. Do your research and choose wisely!
post #42 of 88
Wendy, I'm going to have to ask for your citation on the study you're referencing. I'm an ear doc, and this is not something I've read or can find in any current scholarly lit. In fact, the only "references" I'm seeing in a non-scholarly basic Google search of articles are things written by chiropractors, of all people, and they aren't "studies" by any interpretation of the word. One article states baldly that ultrasound is WELL KNOWN to cause hearing loss in adults and gives a footnote ... which is a textbook for lay midwives. That is not how research works.

The human auditory system is theoretically capable when perfect (ie not in anyone past the age of about 10) of hearing sounds from 20-20,000Hz. Modern ultrasounds happen at 5-8MHz. The difference there is that the median of our hearing range for normal speech is about 1KHz - one kilohertz - and ultrasounds are at 5+MHz - 5 megahertz. That is the difference between 1000 cycles per second, and 5,000,000 cycles per second. Simply put, we cannot physically hear ultrasound, period, it is beyond the range of our sensory cells to detect. In fact, it would be like saying that you can physically see radio waves. If we see the babes wiggling and jiggling during assessment, it's more likely that we are lying flat on our backs, our uterus is being prodded physically ... and that's what fetuses do.

The ear is also not finished forming in the very most basic ways until 9-10 weeks, and doesn't start to work mechanically until the middle of the second trimester. As far as what a fetus DOES hear in utero once their ears become somewhat functional, they hear primarily (A) their own placenta (very very loud), (B) mom's blood rushing (very very loud), (C) mom's digestive noises, and (D) mom's voice. Those sounds put together are in the neighborhood of 80-90 decibels. The uterus is not a "quiet peaceful" place - it's not supposed to be, it's supposed to be stimulating - sound, movement, changes in perception of gravity - to jump-start the connection between the sensing organs and the sensory areas of the cortex.

Gestate in peace, ladies, you aren't blowing up your babies' ears.
post #43 of 88
I didn't think it was a hearing issue, but rather one of cavitation, and heating of the tissues.
post #44 of 88

I also researched those two issues - noise concerns and heating - and from the scholarly magazines that were available to me through our university databases both seem very much unfounded. You're probably refering to the Yale University mice study (Pasko Rakic) which exposed mice to daily u/s of 30 minutes and longer in the last days of pregnancy and later found some neuronal changes. The authors of that study claim that they can't tell if that is even significant and if / how it would transfer to human fetuses. The authors say that no influence at all was seen from exposures under 30 minutes. I don't know about you, but my u/s are about 2 minutes max. and I don't get them daily.

As pudlenka statet, at our current stage of pregnancy our fetus isn't even capable of hearing yet. And the heating aspect would mean prolonged periods of concentrated exposure on a very small spot, just to raise the amniotic fluid temperature one degree. Our bodies and babies are totally capable of dealing with that since our body temps fluctuates during a day and according to weather conditions, from sports activities, warm baths and such. I wouldn't tell anyone that the have to get an ultrasound if they don't want to, but I don't agree with the fear-mongering that happens around the procedure. There just hasn't been any epidemiologic study in the decades of u/s use in humans that has shown that it poses a danger.

post #45 of 88

when they first started doing u/s many dr's (my grandfather was a pedi and founded a local women/children's hospital) were not comfortable w/ many ultrasounds, and certainly not long ones, and the sound thing was certainly a part of the worry.  many docs avoided ultrasounds b/c they didn't think the risk was necessary for most pregnancies and that was a generation ago. kinda like dentists who had been putting gold in people's teeth (as a safe/non-reactive metal) didn't like putting in 50/50 mercury/silver fillings- but later generation ones didn't have the same qualms.  

 

i don't worry about it, but i see no reason personally to have them.

 

i'm gonna have this baby, whatever is okay or not okay w/ the wee one. and have had WAY too much stress/worries over ultrasounds (unwanted) in past pregnancies.

post #46 of 88

Other soul, I went through the same thing last year as well. I went for my 7 week ultrasound only to find out that the baby stopped growing at 5 wks and 4 days. I didn't have any bleeding till week 8. It was the worst. So I have my ultrasound booked for tomorrow. I think I will be 7 weeks and 2 days along. I am so nervous. I don't know how I am going to sleep tonight.

post #47 of 88

The FDA and the ACOG and other groups recommend that u/s only be used when medically necessary because there haven't been enough studies on the possible risks, which include heating and cavitation. I am normally skeptical of the FDA because they approve of things that I think shouldn't be approved but since even they are recommending that u/s only be used when medically necessary, I feel that questioning the routine use of "dating" u/s is perfectly normal.

post #48 of 88
I will get out my Gentle Birth, Gentle Mothering book and cite references and studies (written by Sarah J Buckley, MD). I do have a personal friend who had 8 ultrasounds with her baby who has significant hearing loss. Their audiologist did tell them he's seen more cases of children with hearing loss and high ultrasound numbers. Many ultrasounds are done during ear formation and after, so I don't see why labeling when the ears form and auditory nerves are active changes anything. I'm not fear mongering, I'm speaking from personal experience.

There are risks involved with ultrasound. Period. Anyone who tells you differently is lying. They have never been labeled "completely safe" and most likely never will be because of the legalities of testing on unborn fetuses. Take it as you will and make your own choices. I don't get them for a variety of reasons unless medically necessary.
post #49 of 88

I care not a fig if someone chooses to have zero ultrasounds for their own pregnancy and absolutely support every mama's right to gestate in the way she finds most comfortable. But I do care about what I perceive to be sensationalistic fear-mongering (which is what I was addressing).  Of course there could be risks with atypical exposures to ultrasound - so far, exceptionally tiny ones like there appears to be a slight tendency of heavy-use-of-modern-u/s boys to be left-handed - but typical ultrasound use (e.g. once in 1st tri for dating so that blood tests will be accurate, once in 2nd tri to determine any physical deformities so that interventions can be planned as needed pre or post birth) during a healthy pregnancy by trained health care professionals on clinical equipment has never been shown to cause hearing loss or any other birth defect. We can find correlations with just about anything we want in pregnancy but it doesn't mean it's causative.  I can't speak to the observations made by one aud and reported heresay/third-hand, though I would be suspicious of any aud making a casual claim like that to worried new parents desperate to find a cause for the struggle they're experiencing.  But I would suspect that in a pregnancy with abnormally frequent or extended ultrasound evaluations, there would more than likely be other medical factors at work as well.  Of note, many of the 2nd & 3rd trimester extended or repeated u/s studies are focused on problems with cardiac and kidney development, both of which are heavily linked with (both syndromic and non-syndromic) genetic hearing loss.

post #50 of 88
I appreciate your address of fear mongering, I don't support it either myself. I did say that more than 5 ultrasounds (not the typical 2-3 scans) is where research has shown risk correlations.

I also must add that when being palpated by my midwife, (lying on my back and my uterus being moved around), my babies don't jerk and roll and try to get away from her hands... Take that as you will.
Edited by WendyJo410 - 1/13/14 at 10:57pm
post #51 of 88
Ladies, I've really appreciated this discussion. Thank you. I personally haven't decided whether to have the 20-week anatomy scan us and this conversation is helping me weigh it. My general inclination is to just leave it alone, but given that I'm having a homebirth and can be a bit of a worrywart it might be nice to have the reassurance that placenta is in right place and babe looks unlikely to need any help after birth. No other scans this pg unless something medical necessitates it. We shall see...

At this point I'm a little more concerned about my mid wife's routine use of a Doppler to check babe's heartbeat. This is my third baby with her and with the first two she checked every appointment. So weekly in the last few months! I remember asking about it at one point with DD2 and she was very adamant that it was safe and not as powerful as the Doppler they use during a sonogram (she has one of those little wands age just runs over the belly and gets audio but no visual). She usually takes at least 30 seconds... From my own very limited reading, I'm a little concerned about it and am thinking requesting it only as medically necessary--she also uses it a lot during birth but I think that's prolly non-negotiable...thoughts?
post #52 of 88

I was thinking the same thing.

 

I am on a more mainstream group as well on another site and all the women there check their baby's heartbeats with the doppler every single day. I am sure a lot of women do it. I was wondering what the harm is of that. I never even thought about it.

post #53 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by BallardBaby View Post

Ladies, I've really appreciated this discussion. Thank you. I personally haven't decided whether to have the 20-week anatomy scan us and this conversation is helping me weigh it. My general inclination is to just leave it alone, but given that I'm having a homebirth and can be a bit of a worrywart it might be nice to have the reassurance that placenta is in right place and babe looks unlikely to need any help after birth. No other scans this pg unless something medical necessitates it. We shall see...

At this point I'm a little more concerned about my mid wife's routine use of a Doppler to check babe's heartbeat. This is my third baby with her and with the first two she checked every appointment. So weekly in the last few months! I remember asking about it at one point with DD2 and she was very adamant that it was safe and not as powerful as the Doppler they use during a sonogram (she has one of those little wands age just runs over the belly and gets audio but no visual). She usually takes at least 30 seconds... From my own very limited reading, I'm a little concerned about it and am thinking requesting it only as medically necessary--she also uses it a lot during birth but I think that's prolly non-negotiable...thoughts?

Do what you need to be at peace.  My friend who is a Dr called me when she found out about Doppler and was SCANDALIZED that they used it at every visit (she's a foot surgeon, but was able to use her knowledge of radar from medical school to apply it to pregnancy) and said she didn't want it.  She then asked me how 'normal' moms handle prenatal care, when she as a Dr was consistently dismissed and condescended to by her Dr's.  Her Dr told her there was no such thing as a fetoscope....  We had a fun back and forth over that whole shift in her life.

 

My midwife uses a fetoscope during pregnancy.  I don't mind if she uses the Doppler during labor (she has used both, but especially if it's not a lot of time between contractions, I'd rather she use what she's comfortable w/ b/c i trust her).  But this is my 4th pregnancy w/ her.  We've been through this a few times.  She's very hands off, so i expect her to make that decision and she always asks if i'm okay w/ her using the Doppler before using it.  Plus, by the time we're in labor, it seems that the dangerous phase of listening is not the huge issue.  I'm getting so much less radiation than just BEING in a hospital, and the baby has had far fewer disturbances than so many, that it's just another part of that crazy ride called birth....

post #54 of 88
I've been ok with short Doppler use at a majority of my prenatals but plan on using a fetoscope this pregnancy unless a Doppler is warranted.

Remember, a midwife can find your placental location with a fetoscope or Doppler, ultrasound isn't necessarily needed for this.
post #55 of 88
I've been ok with short Doppler use at a majority of my prenatals but plan on using a fetoscope this pregnancy unless a Doppler is warranted.

Remember, a midwife can find your placental location with a fetoscope or Doppler, ultrasound isn't necessary.

http://www.midwiferytoday.com/articles/ultrasoundwagner.asp I realize the source of this article, but I have read before articles that discuss the results of midwife palpation versus ultrasound. The results are typically the same with an experienced midwife. Remember that many ultrasound techs have 2-3 years of schooling, compared to decades of learning with midwives.
post #56 of 88

I was surprised when my ultrasound tech said that she wouldn't let me listen to the heartbeat at such a young age (5 weeks 6 days) because they didn't know the risk. 

 

The reason that I didn't do any ultrasounds with my second was because of the possible risk (not really proven, but for a long time it was common practice to x-ray pregnant women to see the baby until they found out there were some major problems with that) and the high risk of false positives when they do find something wrong. So unless there's a medical need (e.g. my bleeding in this pregnancy), why would I do something that may have risks and doesn't necessarily have benefits? I don't think finding out my baby's sex is worth it. 

post #57 of 88
Lactatinggirl, I totally understand and respect your reasoning for not wanting an ultrasound, I had an ultrasound at 5w5d in the ER, I had an UTI, but was also having alot of ovarian pain which we later found out was due to a luteal cyst. The Dr ordered an ultrasound to make sure the pregnancy wasn't etopic. The ultrasound technologist explained to us that we would not hear the heartbeat because the embryo was the size of a sesame seed. We were only able to see the gestational sac as it was also too soon to see the fetal pole etc. Believe it or not one week does make a difference in hearing the heartbeat, but even at 6wks they warn you that it is early and they still may not be able to pick it up. Your ultrasound technologist may truely believe what she told you about risk, and I know from following this thread that there has mot been a lot of research on ultrasounds on pregnant humans etc, so I totally respect your care and concern for not wanting to put your child at risk, but I think your technologist was a little misleading in the way she presented her opinion to you. Just my two cents ( all this being said I am totally open to my my two cents could also be totally wrong smile.gif
post #58 of 88
There won't ever be research of ultrasounds in humans because it's considered unethical to test anything on pregnant women. I guess my point is that I don't want to do it if I don't have to and we don't clearly understand the risk.

I also get what you're saying, but I think the ultrasound technician stated it correctly. They just don't know the risk, so it's not common practice to do that. I'd rather them err on the side of caution anyway.
post #59 of 88

For any mother who is stressed about her pregnancy, suffered miscarriages, has any pain/bleeding or just simply needs the reassurance then an ultrasound is probably better than all the stress she would be under without it. Peace of mind can go a long way. 

post #60 of 88

So I just had my first ultrasound done and everything went great. The baby's heartbeat is at 153 and they have confirmed that I am 7 weeks and 3 days. so I am due on August 31. I am so excited. My last pregnancy ended in a miscarriage and I found out at my 7 week ultrasound....so needless to say I was super nervous and hoping for the best. I am so happy I past my first hurdle with flying colors!

  Return Home
  Back to Forum: August 2014 Due Date Club
Mothering › Groups › August 2014 Due Date Club › Discussions › Anyone getting first trimester u/s