Interesting study about placenta location and gender in early ultrasounds - Mothering Forums

Forum Jump: 
 
Thread Tools
#1 of 9 Old 03-21-2011, 04:56 PM - Thread Starter
 
SoCaliMommy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Southern California
Posts: 3,982
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)

 

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 


Kami(31)DH(35)Alex(11),(4/05) (7/05),Ryker(8)(11/10) 
Harlan (11/4/2011)http://www.desertreadingloft.com--Independent Usborne Books Consultant
SoCaliMommy is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
#2 of 9 Old 03-21-2011, 05:04 PM
 
frugalmum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 496
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)

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!!

frugalmum is offline  
#3 of 9 Old 03-21-2011, 05:10 PM - Thread Starter
 
SoCaliMommy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Southern California
Posts: 3,982
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)

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.


Kami(31)DH(35)Alex(11),(4/05) (7/05),Ryker(8)(11/10) 
Harlan (11/4/2011)http://www.desertreadingloft.com--Independent Usborne Books Consultant
SoCaliMommy is offline  
#4 of 9 Old 03-21-2011, 06:01 PM
 
Rachelette's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 50
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

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. 


Rachel (39) married to DH (47), expecting our first in November 2011 after 2+ years of trying!  Living happily with 2cat.gifs and a dog2.gif!
***4****8***1sttri.gif***16***20***24***28***32***36***4
 
Rachelette is offline  
#5 of 9 Old 03-23-2011, 01:27 PM
 
Xerxella's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Chicagoland
Posts: 2,106
Mentioned: 207 Post(s)
Tagged: 2 Thread(s)
Quoted: 54 Post(s)

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! 


Married to one of the last good guys left Jim
Mom to AJ 4/07 and Genevieve 5/09

And then: I'm really, really tired of making angels.

But wait, could it really be true?


The whole story at: www.xerxella.blogspot.com
Xerxella is online now  
#6 of 9 Old 03-23-2011, 06:52 PM
 
bluebunny's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 499
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

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?


Mama to DS 10/04, DD 12/06, and DD 11/09 my baby
Missing DS 10/08
bluebunny is offline  
#7 of 9 Old 03-23-2011, 08:23 PM
 
Mal85's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 2,352
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)


 

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...


Mallory. Happily married to Joe since 6/25/05. Loving my adventure with my girls, Owyn Samantha, born 3/1/09. dust.gif and Greta June, born 11/2/11  babygirl.gif

Mal85 is offline  
#8 of 9 Old 03-23-2011, 08:25 PM
 
Lula's Mom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Roswell, GA
Posts: 4,412
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

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!


~*Kristi*~
Tallulah Dare 8-01,  Marcos Gael 12-04, Cormac Mateo 9-09, Leonidas Ronan 11-11

Lula's Mom is offline  
#9 of 9 Old 03-24-2011, 09:48 PM
 
Hykue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Saskatchewan, Canada
Posts: 590
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

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!


On a farm with our kiddo (nearly 2), two dogs, two cats, ten goats, two donkeys, nine sheep, a bunch of chickens, and a husband (in the winters). We have another on the way!
Hykue is offline  
Reply

User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off