Hi ladies,
a friend of mine recently told me about recent studies telling that more than 4 u/s during pregnancy imply risks for the baby. I still don't get the reference for that friend, but I have found other articles sharing that concern:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/pregnant-women-get-more-ultrasounds-without-clear-medical-need-1437141219What do you think? Any of your ob/gyn agreeing with that? Do you think the risk worth it?
Re: Risk for baby after too many ultrasounds
FWIW, I had 3 with DD and she's just fine. Just driving me a little crazy today but I think that's normal.
I was was also told by my OB that there has not been any clear evidence on the effects of frequent ultrasounds and harm to the baby.
1/7/2015 Twins born @ 34 weeks
EDD: 06/25/2006 M/C: 11/03/2005
EDD: 04/08/2012 M/C: 09/03/2011
EDD: 12/27/2012 Born Sleeping: 07/19/2012
EDD: 12/07/2013 M/C 05/30/2013 & 05/31/2013
EDD: 07/01/2016 Born sleeping: 03/02/2016
BFP #1 12/23/12 EDD 9/3/13 DD #1 8/26/13
BFP #2 2/25/16 EDD 11/5/16 MMC 4/15/16
BFP #3 8/31/16 EDD 5/12/17 It's a GIRL!
Married 8/27/2011
BFP #1 9/28/2011 DS born 5/22/2012
BFP #2 4/24/2013 m/c 4/25/2013 at 4w
BFP #3 1/31/2014 DD born 10/14/2014
BFP #4 1/20/2016 m/c 2/12/2014 at 7w2d
BFP #5 8/19/2016 DS2 born 4/29/2017
BFP #6 3/7/2018 EDD 11/18/2018
For what it's worth, my dr does an ultrasound every appointment for everyone, because he doesn't want to accidentally miss anything.
Because of all my previous miscarriages my doctor is keeping a close eye and I've already had three and one scheduled next week!!
Disclaimer - this is long. For a quick TL;DR — anecdotes about healthy babies after intervention x, y, or z are great for mom but not for evidence-based medicine, ultrasound seems to be safe based on research so far, and being open to questioning the utility / safety of interventions in obstetrics is VITAL to better care for moms and babies.
Now the long version:
While I am wholeheartedly a fan of not having “one more thing to worry about” and thus having healthy trust in your body and your provider, I think that it is incredibly important to be open to scientific inquiry. Especially in the field of obstetrics, which has been mired in little evidence-based practice until quite recently (doing research of pregnant mamas and babies is inherently ethically and statistically challenging). Often the rationale for practice is that everyone is comfortable with “the way we’ve always done it.” Thankfully, that is changing.
However, practice does not change because people (consumers, providers, and researchers) are complacent and want to protect themselves from unnecessary stress. And research (at least the better-quality studies, of which none are perfect) is not based on anecdotes. I sincerely appreciate that everyone’s prior babies “turned out okay” but using that logic as rationale to ignore an important question is not scientifically sound.
While you (mamas, partners, etc) may not perform the research studies (or think that the result will change your perspective or that of your provider), your opinions DO carry weight. Health care is increasingly becoming driven by consumer preferences, especially in the world of obstetrics. Check out www.childbirthconnection.org to see a prime example of how educated consumers have driven (and continue to drive) evidence-based maternity care. Trusting your provider is so incredibly important, but being able to understand the basics of the decisions and choices that you are faced with is crucial in health care. I’m not advocating for second-guessing your doctor or midwife, but going into a conversation with more than just blind trust is not trivial. Providers who are committed to patient-centered, evidence-based care will listen, consider that maybe they don’t know everything about a topic, and admit their infallibility before doing a little more research of their own. That, along with self-directed continuing education (mandated by all specialties), is how practice changes.
I don’t see a lot of compelling evidence that ultrasound is harmful, but I think that there are some question marks (as there have been with many other medical interventions / tests in our recent history). Despite our (I’m narrowing my definition of “our” to America - apologies [or not] to international Bumpies) love affair with technology, we haven’t seen significant improvements in maternal mortality (https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/22/health/maternal-mortality.html?_r=0); we are still too sick of a population in terms of chronic disease for technology to make a difference. But what about infant mortality? Isn’t that what we are talking about when we think about the value of ultrasounds and electronic fetal monitoring and level 4 NICUs? Unfortunately, technology is still not the answer - our unfortunately high infant mortality rate likely has more to do with factors that require much lower-tech but higher-touch (e.g. prenatal and postpartum nurse home visits) interventions (https://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/07/upshot/the-us-is-failing-in-infant-mortality-starting-at-one-month-old.html).
On a quick review of PubMed looking at the search string “ultrasound fetal harm,” there isn’t much, understandably. Why does that make sense? There are no x-rays, large magnetic fields, medications, or other potentially scary factors (with known harm) involved in ultrasound. There are a few articles that have tried to either posit why ultrasound might potentially be harmful (mechanistic hypotheses), why the proposed mechanisms really don’t carry as much risk as one might think, and how non-medical ultrasound fits into the risk:
Mechanisms — https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22325988
Aiken CE, Lees CC. Long-term effects of in utero Doppler ultrasound scanning--a developmental programming perspective. Med Hypotheses. 2012 Apr;78(4):539-41. doi: 10.1016/j.mehy.2012.01.030. Epub 2012 Feb 10.
Opinion article re: mechanisms — https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22700164
Abramowicz JS, Kremkau FW, Merz E. [Obstetrical ultrasound: can the fetus hear the wave and feel the heat?]. [Article in German] Ultraschall Med. 2012 Jun;33(3):215-7. doi: 10.1055/s-0032-1312759. Epub 2012 Jun 14.
Non-medical ultrasound — https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19671649
Leung JL, Pang SM. Ethical analysis of non-medical fetal ultrasound. Nurs Ethics. 2009 Sep;16(5):637-46. doi: 10.1177/0969733009106655.
None of this should change that a high-risk pregnancy deserves additional attention (whether that is surveillance of blood sugar, thyroid hormone level, fetal growth, umbilical blood flow, or numerous other factors). But additional ultrasound tests for “reassurance” of the provider (not grounded in any particular warning sign or for “medical entertainment” (non-medical ultrasound facilities) are outside of the boundaries agreed upon by numerous organizations (American College of Radiology, American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine, and the US FDA).
Another helpful resource when making decisions about tests/interventions in medicine is the Choosing Wisely campaign. Specifically, regarding non-medical ultrasound: https://www.choosingwisely.org/clinician-lists/american-college-obstetricians-gynecologists-prenatal-ultrasounds-for-non-medical-purposes/
As I noted initially as a TL;DR summary, the OP raises a question that merits attention, not to elicit stress but to consider whether what we are doing is medically and ethically sound. An anecdote is a sample size of 1, and while powerful for the individual family, does not drive evidence-based medicine. Providers, while highly-educated and deserving of patient trust, are not perfect and should always be looking to new scientific information to help drive better care. Ultrasound, based on current research, appears safe. It has its place in monitoring both low-risk (for accurate dating and placental location) and high-risk (surveillance of multiples, abnormal growth, etc etc etc) pregnancies. Are there still unanswered questions? Of course, as there are with many medical interventions. Should you add it to the list of things to worry about? No, but encouraging the ongoing process of answering scientific questions should be promoted, not discouraged. [I'm a family physician - this is my soapbox, and I wholeheartedly take responsibility for it.]
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
May17 Siggy Challenge
Labor
Did I use too much science?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
May17 Siggy Challenge
Labor
DS1 7/24/15
DS2 5/7/17
My first thought, without reading the article (so take it with a grain of salt), was the same as @Squirtgun -- people who have lots of ultrasounds usually need them more than people who don't, for other reasons that might put their pregnancies at risk. That said, I did read the scanned in article here from @clebl24 and the science dump from @mdlorenz . It's not necessarily a non-issue, but also not something to worry ourselves about. Just get the ultrasounds you need and no more.
B born 7/15/13, C born 3/2/15, #3 on the way May '17
I’m a modern man, a man for the millennium. Digital and smoke free. A diversified multi-cultural, post-modern deconstruction that is anatomically and ecologically incorrect. I’ve been up linked and downloaded, I’ve been inputted and outsourced, I know the upside of downsizing, I know the downside of upgrading. I’m a high-tech low-life. A cutting edge, state-of-the-art bi-coastal multi-tasker and I can give you a gigabyte in a nanosecond! I’m new wave, but I’m old school and my inner child is outward bound. I’m a hot-wired, heat seeking, warm-hearted cool customer, voice activated and bio-degradable. I interface with my database, my database is in cyberspace, so I’m interactive, I’m hyperactive and from time to time I’m radioactive.
I've definitely heard this subject come up when my girlfriend's were both pregnant last year.
Being the person that I am, I will not be reading the article, and freak myself out. **Sorry
I will agree with @JCWhitey , I will get US through my trusted doc. lol
23 y/o;
First time mommy [05/06/17]
90% of the way there