Isn't anyone concerned about excessive u/s exposure?

RayRay007 · September 2010

[sorry this turned out longer than I expected]

I'd ask this over on 2nd tri but would probably be told I'm completely stupid. I feel a little safer here. So here goes (please no flaming - let's have a civil discussion): isn't anyone concerned about exessive exposure to u/s?

I understand some people need early or frequent/repeat u/s for various medical reasons, but it seems many ppl get ultrasounds only for dating purposes (not medically necessary), just for fun bc their friend is a tech, or they pay for elective u/s b/c they can't wait for a few more weeks to find out the sex. Don't get me wrong, I'm not totally against u/s. I'm getting one at 20 wks to check fetal morphology.

But there are many risks (or many unknowns) to u/s that nobody seems to think about. Sorry, I'm not a dr. or a tech or in the medical profession at all, so this is from my own research, take it for what you will. Some potential risks include heat transfer, cavitation (bubbling in the cells), and u/s being possibly related to low birth weight (I know a lot of ppl brush these concerns off as hokey). There is annecdotal evidence of excessive u/s exposure being related to more ear/hearing problems in childhood. There has actually been very little testing and long terms effects are unknown. These risks probably don't outweigh any (medical) benefit. My province has put out an advisory against u/s for non-medical purposes, and I think Health Canada has as well. I'm sure there are bodies in the states that have statements on the matter. Think about it, xrays were once considered very safe in pg.

So why expose your baby more than necessary? Just because you can't wait to see it or find out the sex? Again, I'm not talking about medically necessary u/s. And I understand the usual early pg worry and wanting to know that there is a living baby in there. I'm not judging. I am just wondering, and wondering if women are fully informed (or even partially informed) before getting u/s.

Brittanie_1987 · September 2010

There are risks associated w/ almost everything I think I've just become immune to them. I have not done the research but honestly, the risks you talk about have to be so minimal compared to the # of pregnancies. You probably have a better chance of getting in a car accident (again...I've not done research).

If you worry about everything little risk you will won't be able to enjoy life!

Ladydianna · September 2010

I have heard about the risks of too many ultra sounds as well.

However when I was 30 weeks I was diagnosed with Nephritis(sp?) I had to have an u/s of my kidneys and the baby's every two weeks, until 36 and then every week after that. If I hadn't had the u/s's they may not have seen my kidney's getting worse and then at 37 DD's kidneys started to be affected as well. I ended up with a c-sec at 38 wks b/c they didn't want our kidneys to get any worse.

I don't know if the extra u/s affected my DD but she was born with a speech processing disorder.

ShansBride · September 2010

I am. We haven't decided yet if we are going to have any more u/s (I did have one at around 6-7 weeks, but sort of wish I hadn't). I think there are so many things that we don't know the side effects of and take for granted that they are safe.

RayRay007 · September 2010

Ladydianna:

I have heard about the risks of too many ultra sounds as well.

However when I was 30 weeks I was diagnosed with Nephritis(sp?) I had to have an u/s of my kidneys and the baby's every two weeks, until 36 and then every week after that. If I hadn't had the u/s's they may not have seen my kidney's getting worse and then at 37 DD's kidneys started to be affected as well. I ended up with a c-sec at 38 wks b/c they didn't want our kidneys to get any worse.

I don't know if the extra u/s affected my DD but she was born with a speech processing disorder.

I completely understand medically necessary u/s, where the medical benefit clearly wins out.

cdelano · September 2010

I agree, there are risks with almost everything. Most of these risks only come with excessive exposure though. Getting a u/s once a month for a min or two wouldn't be considered excessive. Plus, there are some people with high risk pgs that have to go in more often than normal and I have to think that if the risks outweighed the benefits they wouldn't do this.

I do agree though, that people who go to friends who are techs just for fun or pay for extra u/s because they're impatient are going a little overboard and bordering on what I would consider excessive.

RayRay007 · September 2010

Brittanie_1987:

There are risks associated w/ almost everything I think I've just become immune to them. I have not done the research but honestly, the risks you talk about have to be so minimal compared to the # of pregnancies. You probably have a better chance of getting in a car accident (again...I've not done research).

If you worry about everything little risk you will won't be able to enjoy life!

Yes, absolutely, there are risks to everything. I am not worried about every little thing and I am certainly enjoying life. I have even had a glass of wine (gasp!). I am just wondering why not just wait a couple weeks to find out the sex (for eg.). I just think women should make informed decisions.

TeacherMel · September 2010

I have had 5 u/s done b/c I was seeing an RE prior to pregnancy. I trust that my dr would not put me in harms way by giving me excessive u/s. We might to one elective u/s to find out the gender early, but I'm not going to have multiple elective u/s.

MelCfromMN · September 2010

I'm curious where you got your sources from? Logically, here is my take: there would be no "heat" transfer because it used sound, not heat. Cavitation uses different frequencies (believe me, I did a senior design project on this in high school, it is very hard to get cavitation to happen, you really have to be trying). Not sure why it would cause low birthweight? And as for hearing, it is at a frequency that most humans can not detect, and I would think unless you are having 3 hour long ultrasounds every week, the baby's hearing would not be affected. I am not a professional, but I don't really see how it could harm your baby, someone please correct me if I'm wrong.

kim1730 · September 2010

I think there's a big difference between having a handful of ultrasounds during your pregnancy, and buying an ultrasound machine for your own use like tom cruise. I'd be a lot more concerned about people using their home dopplers as often as I've seen.

MrsMoher · September 2010

Some people (medically necessary) have to have u/s once a week or more and their children are born just fine. And yes there are risks... there are with walking in to work or driving a car or eating lunch meat, but there have been so many u/s in today's world that I feel they are safe enough. However I won't be having those u/s beyond those that are medically necessary (I am high risk and expect quite a few at the end through NSTs) for the sheer fact that I am cheap and they are expensive OOP.

RayRay007 · September 2010

kim1730:
I think there's a big difference between having a handful of ultrasounds during your pregnancy, and buying an ultrasound machine for your own use like tom cruise. I'd be a lot more concerned about people using their home dopplers as often as I've seen.

Yes, this is concerning as well.

RayRay007 · September 2010

MelCfromMN:
I'm curious where you got your sources from? Logically, here is my take: there would be no "heat" transfer because it used sound, not heat. Cavitation uses different frequencies (believe me, I did a senior design project on this in high school, it is very hard to get cavitation to happen, you really have to be trying). Not sure why it would cause low birthweight? And as for hearing, it is at a frequency that most humans can not detect, and I would think unless you are having 3 hour long ultrasounds every week, the baby's hearing would not be affected. I am not a professional, but I don't really see how it could harm your baby, someone please correct me if I'm wrong.

I got some of this info from Gentle Birth, Gentle Mothering, written by an OB who is generally opposed to a lot of different tests in pg. I don't know how u/s causes heat (I'm not a scientist) but I just googled it and this is what wikipedia says (take it for what its worth): Ultrasound energy produces a mechanical pressure wave through soft tissue. This pressure wave may cause microscopic bubbles in living tissues and distortion of the cell membrane, influencing ion fluxes and intracellular activity. When ultrasound enters the body, it causes molecular friction and heats the tissues slightly.

And yes, cavitation is not a major risk. And they don't know why it would cause low birth weight, but there is a correlation. I guess the main point is that a lot of these possible effects are not well studied and long term effects are unknown.

cherryblssm · September 2010

RayRay007:
[sorry this turned out longer than I expected]

I'd ask this over on 2nd tri but would probably be told I'm completely stupid. I feel a little safer here. So here goes (please no flaming - let's have a civil discussion): isn't anyone concerned about exessive exposure to u/s?

I understand some people need early or frequent/repeat u/s for various medical reasons, but it seems many ppl get ultrasounds only for dating purposes (not medically necessary), just for fun bc their friend is a tech, or they pay for elective u/s b/c they can't wait for a few more weeks to find out the sex. Don't get me wrong, I'm not totally against u/s. I'm getting one at 20 wks to check fetal morphology.

But there are many risks (or many unknowns) to u/s that nobody seems to think about. Sorry, I'm not a dr. or a tech or in the medical profession at all, so this is from my own research, take it for what you will. Some potential risks include heat transfer, cavitation (bubbling in the cells), and u/s being possibly related to low birth weight (I know a lot of ppl brush these concerns off as hokey). There is annecdotal evidence of excessive u/s exposure being related to more ear/hearing problems in childhood. There has actually been very little testing and long terms effects are unknown. These risks probably don't outweigh any (medical) benefit. My province has put out an advisory against u/s for non-medical purposes, and I think Health Canada has as well. I'm sure there are bodies in the states that have statements on the matter. Think about it, xrays were once considered very safe in pg.

So why expose your baby more than necessary? Just because you can't wait to see it or find out the sex? Again, I'm not talking about medically necessary u/s. And I understand the usual early pg worry and wanting to know that there is a living baby in there. I'm not judging. I am just wondering, and wondering if women are fully informed (or even partially informed) before getting u/s.

I disagree that dating ultrasounds aren't medically necessary. If there is a discrepancy between your true due date and the date based on your last period, it could be a really big deal because your doctors might be pushing for an induction well before the baby is supposed to come out. I don't think that ALL dating ultrasounds are necessary (and maybe that's what you meant, too??), but I know they are typically given when there are long/irregular periods. I think doctors should trust their patients and not schedule them when a patient has been charting and stuff- but the reality is that they can't really do that without the risk of getting sued if something were to go wrong. In the perfect world, my doctor would have listened to me when I told him that I didn't ovulate until late June even though my last period was in March- but, he still ordered a dating ultrasound "to confirm" my date. I was right.

But to answer your question, no, I don't worry about ultrasounds. There isn't enough research to point to a true correlation between ultrasound exposure and harm to the baby. The thing that I keep in mind is that correlation does NOT equal causation...so even if you found a study that showed a group of women that had a lot of ultrasounds had low birth weight babies, it does NOT mean that the ultrasounds caused the low birth weight. It could have been a number of other factors (nutrition/health of mothers/whether they smoked/etc), you know?

And really, you could drive yourself nuts with all of the "possible" things that could be harmful to your baby. I'm sure 30 years from now there will be things that we do now that we didn't even think about that are harmful to unborn babies. All you can do is make the best decision for YOU and your baby with all of the information you have and with the information that your doctor tells you.

P.S.- I read the book "How to Lie with Statistics" and it really helped me understand the difference between correlation and causation. Just wanted to throw it out there if anyone is interested.

Sorry my reply was so long!

psychgal · September 2010

I am a little concerned but not enough to do research on it. I've only had 2 u/s so far - one at 7 weeks because I had a previous m/c and had a D&C so they wanted to make sure everything was working fine in there. And I had the NT scan at 12 weeks. Both were great for my peace of mind and it was fun to see the LO moving around but for my next pg I don't know if I'll do an early u/s unless there's a medically necessary reason.

Artsywife07 · September 2010

I am not worried, I too think the risk is minimal compared to the benefits. I don't like to spend my life worried about every little thing. I won't use a crib bumper (or a 100 year old crib, for anyone who saw that post!) but I won't hesitate to eat pasteurized feta and get an early u/s that will probably last about 10 minutes.

voeux · September 2010

I for one think that you would be putting your baby at a higher risk by not having an u/s than you would be getting one. I am well aware of the literature that you mentioned and truthfully it doesn't hold a lot of value. (Lack of clinical proof/research) Currently there are ZERO trials being conducted in the US looking at the risks of ultrasound during pregnancy. I also haven't seen any reliable documentation that women who have frequent u/s during pregnancy have more complications or have babies with LBW than mothers who only have one ultrasound or no ultrasounds. I am a medical professional and I do imaging regularly. I have had 3 ultrasounds (all necessary) and not for a second did I think I was harming my baby. I also don't sit at work and do my own for sh!ts and giggles. I think like everything, use common sense.

RayRay007 · September 2010

Cherryblssm, I can understand the dating example you give. It is sad that dr's don't trust women isn't it? I had a hard time convincing my MW of my O dates.

And you are absolutely correct and ppl should be aware, correlation =/= causation.

I guess I just don't understanding being so impatient to find out the sex that I would go through another medical procedure, with minimal medical benefit.

The same goes for, for eg., GD testing. I have no risk factors and unless I'm exibiting symptoms, I'm not going to get tested just b/c it's routine. (Ok, that is sort of off topic).

RayRay007 · September 2010

Artsywife07:
I am not worried, I too think the risk is minimal compared to the benefits. I don't like to spend my life worried about every little thing. I won't use a crib bumper (or a 100 year old crib, for anyone who saw that post!) but I won't hesitate to eat pasteurized feta and get an early u/s that will probably last about 10 minutes.

LOL! I didn't get to read all of it before it was DD'd.

RayRay007 · September 2010

voeux:
I for one think that you would be putting your baby at a higher risk by not having an u/s than you would be getting one. I am well aware of the literature that you mentioned and truthfully it doesn't hold a lot of value. (Lack of clinical proof/research) Currently there are ZERO trials being conducted in the US looking at the risks of ultrasound during pregnancy. I also haven't seen any reliable documentation that women who have frequent u/s during pregnancy have more complications or have babies with LBW than mothers who only have one ultrasound or no ultrasounds. I am a medical professional and I do imaging regularly. I have had 3 ultrasounds (all necessary) and not for a second did I think I was harming my baby. I also don't sit at work and do my own for sh!ts and giggles. I think like everything, use common sense.

That is part of my point, there are so many unknowns. Anyway, I agree that having no ultrasounds may not be wise. My B and SIL had no u/s with either of their two (w/ the support of their MW) and they turned out just fine thankfully.

cherryblssm · September 2010

RayRay007:
Cherryblssm, I can understand the dating example you give. It is sad that dr's don't trust women isn't it? I had a hard time convincing my MW of my O dates.

And you are absolutely correct and ppl should be aware, correlation =/= causation.

I guess I just don't understanding being so impatient to find out the sex that I would go through another medical procedure, with minimal medical benefit.

The same goes for, for eg., GD testing. I have no risk factors and unless I'm exibiting symptoms, I'm not going to get tested just b/c it's routine. (Ok, that is sort of off topic).

I agree that I also think that I don't "get" women who want to have an ultrasound done at 15 weeks- even though they are having one at 20 or 22- just to find out the sex but more from a "Really, you can't wait 5 weeks?" stand point than a view that they might be harming their baby.

And I'm also against testing for things just because "it's routine"; however, I think the benefits of the GD test far outweigh the annoyance I have over having to get it even if I don't have any risk factors or symptoms. The low carb diet does nothing but help you so I figure- why not? Yeah, it sucks to have a blood test and sit around the lab, but it's not something I would consider an invasive procedure. Now, if an amnio was the only way to determine GD, that would be a different story. And I'm not concerned about the sugary drink they give you either...mostly because I don't see how I can eat 5 hostess cupcakes in 2 hours but complain about how the baby is going to handle a sugary drink in my system. Wink But, that's just my opinion- to each their own.

mrswright2006 · September 2010

Dating can be a real issue ... my last cycle would have been 52 days long, and I wasn't charting, so I had no clue how far along I was. It may sound frivolous to you, but it is important, so that they are able to do things like screenings at the appropriate times ... Certain tests are supposed to be within certain weeks, and I would have been 4+ weeks late on them all if I had just gone with my LMP.

I wouldn't have more than absolutely necessary, because they are expensive, but not because I am worried about my child.

beachbride5 · September 2010

i am, so i only do the ones my doc deems necessary. she advises against the 3d/4d u/s and especially the places that offer them not run by medically trained professionals. supposedly the amount of heat used for those pictures is significantly higher and of greater risk. i hope this time around, this babe will make his or her appearance on time or early so i can avoid the two i had late with my son to check his dropping amniotic fluid levels. i would also like to avoid them when i can, though got the nt and will be getting the 20 week growth scan.

RevJG · September 2010

I have had 4 ultrasounds so far, and will likely have at least 12 to 15 more. It worries me, but not as much as not having them would. I would not do an ultrasound just to see the baby or find out the sex.

Magical95 · September 2010

I think that it is possible that there is some truth to your theory, but also that your sources may be a little one sided and may be relying on scare tactics.Please dont take this personally either okay? My first reaction when you told me that your providence was only recommending one? You guys have universal health care so of course they would only want one. Less for them to pay for and also free up some room in the waiting list for everyone else. That could be completely wrong, but it was the first thing that I thought of.

FemmeNat01 · September 2010

I don't worry about it. I do agree to a certain degree that unnecessary u/s shouldn't happen but I mean, it's not my place to judge. I can only control what I do and the medical care I receive. With that being said, I am high risk and I do get multiple u/s so.. I think, in situations like mine, the benefits outweigh the risks.

RayRay007 · September 2010

Magical95:
I think that it is possible that there is some truth to your theory, but also that your sources may be a little one sided and may be relying on scare tactics.Please dont take this personally either okay? My first reaction when you told me that your providence was only recommending one? You guys have universal health care so of course they would only want one. Less for them to pay for and also free up some room in the waiting list for everyone else. That could be completely wrong, but it was the first thing that I thought of.

I didn't say they recommend only one, they advise against medically unnecessary u/s. So the ones you would be paying for out of pocket, like 3d.

Sheas · September 2010

IMO, there are risks to EVERYTHING. U/S are used to prevent and detect so many different things. If they weren't safe, the doctor's would not use them. I hate how much crap there is all over the news/internet about how people should worry about this and worry about then. And then double that x100 for pregnant women. Your baby is going to be just fine, and the U/S given during prenatal care are used to make sure baby is growing appropriately, and nothing is wrong. If they were going to cause severe harm to the baby, I just don't think the doctor's would use them so much.

RayRay007 · September 2010

Sheas:

IMO, there are risks to EVERYTHING. U/S are used to prevent and detect so many different things. If they weren't safe, the doctor's would not use them. I hate how much crap there is all over the news/internet about how people should worry about this and worry about then. And then double that x100 for pregnant women. Your baby is going to be just fine, and the U/S given during prenatal care are used to make sure baby is growing appropriately, and nothing is wrong. If they were going to cause severe harm to the baby, I just don't think the doctor's would use them so much.

A lot of ppl say this, but, like I pointed out in my OP, they used the think xrays were safe, and they did them all the time and probably every pg woman said "well, if they weren't safe, they wouldn't do it". Fast forward several years, after they had some time to study long term effects, and it turns out they weren't safe at all and caused childhood cancers. Same goes for some drugs they used to commonly give pg ladies. One, I forget the name of, was for m/s and ended up causing birth defects. Of course they thought it was safe at the time of prescribing it. Just saying.

ShansBride · September 2010

Sheas:

IMO, there are risks to EVERYTHING. U/S are used to prevent and detect so many different things. If they weren't safe, the doctor's would not use them. I hate how much crap there is all over the news/internet about how people should worry about this and worry about then. And then double that x100 for pregnant women. Your baby is going to be just fine, and the U/S given during prenatal care are used to make sure baby is growing appropriately, and nothing is wrong. If they were going to cause severe harm to the baby, I just don't think the doctor's would use them so much.

I disagree. I don't think doctors care as much about our safety as we think they do. I think they care more about protecting their butts and not getting sued.

There are things that doctors do all the time that can cause severe harm to us and our babies but they still do them. I will say that sometimes the benefits of these things outweigh the risks, but not always and they also usually don't tell you the risks so we assume they are safe.

ShansBride · September 2010

RayRay007:
Sheas:

IMO, there are risks to EVERYTHING. U/S are used to prevent and detect so many different things. If they weren't safe, the doctor's would not use them. I hate how much crap there is all over the news/internet about how people should worry about this and worry about then. And then double that x100 for pregnant women. Your baby is going to be just fine, and the U/S given during prenatal care are used to make sure baby is growing appropriately, and nothing is wrong. If they were going to cause severe harm to the baby, I just don't think the doctor's would use them so much.

A lot of ppl say this, but, like I pointed out in my OP, they used the think xrays were safe, and they did them all the time and probably every pg woman said "well, if they weren't safe, they wouldn't do it". Fast forward several years, after they had some time to study long term effects, and it turns out they weren't safe at all and caused childhood cancers. Same goes for some drugs they used to commonly give pg ladies. One, I forget the name of, was for m/s and ended up causing birth defects. Of course they thought it was safe at the time of prescribing it. Just saying.

Exacty! Sometimes they know drugs aren't safe but give them anyway. Cytotec is what is coming to mind now. It is an ulcer medication I beleive but is often used to induce labor even though the manufacturer says it should never be given to a pregnant woman and can cause fetal and maternal death. On the bottle there is a picture of a pregnant woman with a big "X" through it and they still give it. It's really scary.

RayRay007 · September 2010

ShansBride:
Sheas:

IMO, there are risks to EVERYTHING. U/S are used to prevent and detect so many different things. If they weren't safe, the doctor's would not use them. I hate how much crap there is all over the news/internet about how people should worry about this and worry about then. And then double that x100 for pregnant women. Your baby is going to be just fine, and the U/S given during prenatal care are used to make sure baby is growing appropriately, and nothing is wrong. If they were going to cause severe harm to the baby, I just don't think the doctor's would use them so much.

I disagree. I don't think doctors care as much about our safety as we think they do. I think they care more about protecting their butts and not getting sued.

There are things that doctors do all the time that can cause severe harm to us and our babies but they still do them. I will say that sometimes the benefits of these things outweigh the risks, but not always and they also usually don't tell you the risks so we assume they are safe.

Yes! I think women should take some responsibility for their own care, and not blindly follow dr's orders. I have always liked to inform myself and make my own decisions. That doesn't change b/c dr.s are dr.s. BTW, I'm a lawyer and I am no expert on anything I advise my clients about. Half the time I'm talking out of my *ss. Just food for thought.

perplexed59 · September 2010

I have some concerns about ultrasounds, dopplers etc. I will have an ultrasound at 18 or 20 weeks. I'm really excited to see the baby. I however will not be doing any "extra" ultrasounds unless there seems to be a problem.

I have done some research on ultrasounds and found information about the slowing down of cell divison. In Canada I do have the option of having more "free" ultrasounds. My main decision for not having more based on the fact that I don't always trust modern medicine. I try to stay away from medications and extra interventions unless I'm in medical distress. What I mean by this is I try to deal with health problems in a more natural way (prunes instead of laxatives) unless there is a serious problem. Many "safe" medications and practices have turned out not to be safe. I think that research is often onesided depending on who is footing the bill. Unless there is a problem I'm just going to stay away.

tistampsup · September 2010

I guess I shouldn't get in my car at all either.

hispenguin · September 2010

I understand all the concerns that you have mentioned, and am aware that there are risks with excessive u/s exposure. As someone who will have had 5 u/s by the time we have the anatomy scan in one month, there are some things that I'm just not going worry about. All of my u/s's were either ordered by my RE in addition to the IPS scan (which I feel is necessary) and anatomy scan.

I know other people who had to have many u/s's done during their pregnancies to rule out possible medical problems with the baby, and their children are perfectly fine.

Want a personalized experience?

Isn't anyone concerned about excessive u/s exposure?

Re: Isn't anyone concerned about excessive u/s exposure?

Choose Another Board

Search Boards