Ultrasound Risks - Discuss

cmb2 · August 2013

So, I'm 7 weeks along with #2, and came across a lot of interesting information yesterday regarding ultrasounds that I wasn't aware of with DD. I'll try to summarize the best I can:

Based on previous animal testing, scientists are concerned about the ultrasound exposure to fetuses and the impacts it can have on their neurological development. Basically the sound waves produce heat, and increased temperature in unborn babies has been shown in the animal studies to cause neurological and other impairments. the other specific concerns with ultrasound are that they were recently (w/in 20 years) allowed to use a much higher rate of (whatever it is they use), specific training on the safety is not required, and licenses/calibrated machines are also not required in most states (especially for the "keepsake" ultrasound places). They're wondering if this may correlate to the rise in autism during this same time frame - and saying that all around the world, it's hard to show similar other environmental factors that can account for ASD, but all of these places have ultrasound. Here's one of the more in depth stories:

https://www.midwiferytoday.com/articles/ultrasoundrodgers.asp

I'm hesitant to let this get to me too much because obviously correlation does not equal causation - however, they make a really good case for this - or at least the impacts of prolonged/many exposures to ultrasound. It's currently being studied more in depth in the CDC SEED study. What does everyone think?

sdlaura · August 2013

I don't believe that there is much concrete evidence that ultrasounds are harmful. I will have an ultrasound when my doctor recommends one and for screening purposes, like the NT scan and anatomy scan. I choose not to have additional elective ultrasounds just for fun/to find out gender early or whatever.

rp-chicago-mom · August 2013

I think you should stay away from too many elective ultrasounds, not because of autism but because who knows. I have read it sounds like a subway train charging into the station every time to them. But I don't think the risk, minor if any, should deter high risk moms from having them. I bled, like a full period sometimes, from week 5-13. I had tons of ultrasounds because of it. you do hat you have to do.

cmb2 · August 2013

I agree Scout - I had to have multiple ultrasounds due to IUGR, and DD seems fine. I think it's also a matter of weighing benefits/risk, when ultrasounds can be very beneficial in diagnosing conditions and keeping LOs safe before they're born. It obviously needs more research - but it doesnt seem outrageous. I also think it's probably a matter of determining exposure level/times, etc.

Cheerilee · August 2013

Scout2005 said:

I think we are grasping at straws trying to find causes for autism, and none of the research I've read thinks this is an overly credible theory.

I was high risk, had many u/s for both kids, and they appear to be fine. I understand limiting unnecessary u/s - more for cost than any other reason - but like the vaccine ridiculousness, it concerns me that these theories are being put forth before there is hard evidence as it will likely dissuade people from receiving proper and necessary medical care.

=D>

cmb2 · August 2013

Additional Sources: (Again though, nothing is proven, but it's credible, and at least you can say you're informed)

https://www.fda.gov/Radiation-EmittingProducts/RadiationEmittingProductsandProcedures/MedicalImaging/ucm115357.htm

"Even though there are no known risks of ultrasound imaging, it can produce effects on the body. When ultrasound enters the body, it heats the tissues slightly. In some cases, it can also produce small pockets of gas in body fluids or tissues (cavitation). The long-term effects of tissue heating and cavitation are not known.

Because of the particular concern for fetal exposures, national and international organizations have advocated prudent use of ultrasound imaging. Furthermore, the use of diagnostic ultrasound for non-medical purposes such as fetal keepsake videos has been discouraged."

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12509108

"Acoustic exposure from modern ultrasonographic devices is capable of disturbing biological tissue to varying extent depending on the type of ultrasound examination and the particular tissue under investigation. There is no strong evidence that these biological effects present a serious health hazard, however, knowledge is incomplete, particularly from human studies."

sdlaura · August 2013

cmb2 said:

Additional Sources: (Again though, nothing is proven, but it's credible, and at least you can say you're informed)

https://www.fda.gov/Radiation-EmittingProducts/RadiationEmittingProductsandProcedures/MedicalImaging/ucm115357.htm

"Even though there are no known risks of ultrasound imaging, it can produce effects on the body. When ultrasound enters the body, it heats the tissues slightly. In some cases, it can also produce small pockets of gas in body fluids or tissues (cavitation). The long-term effects of tissue heating and cavitation are not known.

Because of the particular concern for fetal exposures, national and international organizations have advocated prudent use of ultrasound imaging. Furthermore, the use of diagnostic ultrasound for non-medical purposes such as fetal keepsake videos has been discouraged."

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12509108

"Acoustic exposure from modern ultrasonographic devices is capable of disturbing biological tissue to varying extent depending on the type of ultrasound examination and the particular tissue under investigation. There is no strong evidence that these biological effects present a serious health hazard, however, knowledge is incomplete, particularly from human studies."

These additional links and bolded text just seem to confirm everything that all of us have written in our responses.

amaite · August 2013

I can only hope for the best. I was high risk, so I had lots of ultrasounds. Since being born, ds has had lots of xrays. And synagis injections. I do worry about the effect of all of this in the future, but the immediate benefits outweighed the long term risks. I just hope everything will be ok.

I did not have elective ultrasounds, and will not for future pregnancies.

cmb2 · August 2013

L12541 said:

These additional links and bolded text just seem to confirm everything that all of us have written in our responses.

Yes, they do - not trying to convince anyone that it is the cause at all - the only thing it has really impacted was I was considering getting an at home fetal dopper but I was ok without one last time, and willbe this time as well! I'll still be getting my nt scan, as scan, and anything else that is determined medically necessary during my pregnancy.

bigbootyjudi · August 2013

I think it's all bullshit, honestly.

I went down to ultrasound at least once every two weeks throughout my entire pregnancy at the request of the main technician who was teaching students. We do not have an OB unit and there were three of us pregnant at the time, so they used the three of us to help the students learn how to do fetal ultrasounds. The class ran for 8 out of the 9 months I was pregnant...and I was high risk so I had about one ultrasound every month during first trimester and one every 6 weeks during the second on TOP of the ones I was getting every two weeks at work.

And my kid is fine. My OB knew I was helping out this class and had no problems with it...and I was ordered not to swim during third trimester...so, I have a careful OB.

AggieDaner · August 2013

As a rule, I don't believe in unnecessary medical procedures, so I didn't get any elective ultrasounds. This study/idea probably won't turn out to be anything that definitively causes or is linked to autism, but I am all about continued research on even the most well-trusted medications and instruments of medical technology. In my eyes, there is no such thing as too much objective information.