3d/4d scans?

[lisaf]

Lol, I don't blame you, I'm getting scanned tomorrow at 6 weeks, can't imagine waiting until 9!! Let alone 13!!

But then again, we're all about instant gratification over here Lol!

 

[UkCath]

One of my friends had the 4D scan. I found the pictures a bit spooky really, kind of like looking in to another world. They absolutley loved it though.

 

[UkCath]

Lol, I don't blame you, I'm getting scanned tomorrow at 6 weeks, can't imagine waiting until 9!! Let alone 13!!

But then again, we're all about instant gratification over here Lol!

I know, the wait been driving me mad. Finding out it's going to be more like 13 weeks than 12 was the last straw.

Good luck with your scan tomorrow.

 

[lisaf]

My friend put the 4D pictures on her baby shower invite.. really creeped me out as the picture was framed by the sillouhette of a pregnant lady and the 4D picture was a close up on the face of the baby... so really it was like a giant baby head in a pregnant lady's belly
And most of them are a little creepy to me.

 

[Mummy2Angel.]

I'll defo be getting scanned regulalry, so am i putting my baby at risk? .

I had one at 7 weeks, should be having another one this coming monday, then have one on the 26th , and then i'll have my Dating scan, we will pay for a private gender scan at 16 weeks, and then i will have 20 week scan, to me my baby dying before and me not knowing about it.....is alot more tough than those stupid 'medical proffesional websites'. Knowing my baby is still alive means a hell of a lot more, than that. I'm sure of it was so dangerous, private scans wouldnt be allowed!

 

[Alexp]

Ive had three scans in two weeks and the sonographer didnt seem concerned about keep scanning me. As I have a bad history of MMC they offered me a scan every two weeks. Had my first at 8wk.4days, 9wk.4 days & 11 weeks.
I have a scan this Friday where I will be 12wk.5days. My scans have shown a twin sac, fibroids increasing on each scan and heamorrage.
Thats at the hospital EPU unit.

 

[juhesihcaaa]

I don't plan to. Our insurance doesn't cover it and I'm content with the old school scans. Besides the 3D/4D make them look like little aliens to me lol

 

[MADLYSBOYS]

I intend to have a 3d/4d scan about 25wks seems to be the recommend time here in the uk and I have already sourced a great clinic highly recommended by other bnb ladies local to me.....I may also have to have extra scans to keep an eye on beanie babys size due to probs with my 1st pregnancy! This was recommended by my gynae cons last pregnancy surely this wouldnt have been suggested if it put my baby at risk?

 

[KandyKinz]

I intend to have a 3d/4d scan about 25wks seems to be the recommend time here in the uk and I have already sourced a great clinic highly recommended by other bnb ladies local to me.....I may also have to have extra scans to keep an eye on beanie babys size due to probs with my 1st pregnancy! This was recommended by my gynae cons last pregnancy surely this wouldnt have been suggested if it put my baby at risk?

I think you missed my comment regarding weighing the benefits against the risk on page 2. The risks of not monitoring a baby at risk of abnormal growth is greater then the potential risk of ultrasound.

 

[KandyKinz]

I'll defo be getting scanned regulalry, so am i putting my baby at risk? .

I had one at 7 weeks, should be having another one this coming monday, then have one on the 26th , and then i'll have my Dating scan, we will pay for a private gender scan at 16 weeks, and then i will have 20 week scan, to me my baby dying before and me not knowing about it.....is alot more tough than those stupid 'medical proffesional websites'. Knowing my baby is still alive means a hell of a lot more, than that. I'm sure of it was so dangerous, private scans wouldnt be allowed!

The society of obstetricians and gynecologists are currently working with the Canadian Society of Diagnostic Medical Sonographers to ban the use of non-medical ultrasounds in Canada. There is also a movement in the US to do the same and this is supported by ACOG, the FDA and AIUM. Non-medical ultrasounds have already been banned in connecticut. So I guess, the potential dangers only exist for the fetuses who reside in that state

 

[lisaf]

Is it at all possible that the medical community is fighting non-medical ultrasounds so hard because they lose money on it? It seems like they are a little offended that someone else without a medical degree is stepping in and performing these ultrasounds.

I do agree that a beautiful baby on an ultrasound is not a guarantee of health or a reason to skip other screenings. I do see the worry that someone who is not trained to interpret what they are viewing could miss something important or see something bad and not know it... or see something bad and freak the parents out without having the medical knowledge to support them.

But if parents doing the scans know of these risks and are willing to take them, then the only concern is the unknown effect on the fetus of the ultrasound waves, right?
Again, if the parent is willing to take that risk as many have to take other risks that MIGHT harm their babies... or mothers who drink the occasional coke while pregnant.... what is the big deal to the medical community?

I just think they are coming down SO hard because of $

 

[KandyKinz]

i've actually looked at risk prior to deciding i wanted to get the scan done, as im diabetic there are increaased risk to physical development of my baby which can be seen with more detail in a 4d/3d scan so in reality the benifits of having one of these sccans will be outwieghed by the risks. appearance of my baby is not important to me...its my child and i will think the world of him/her no matter what...i am greatful that people are concerned with both risks to baby and worries/doubts that can come from posting links but i must ask please dont argue, the natural worries cause enough stress and to read people having a go at eachother is stressfull to read....THESE THREADS ARE SUPPOSED TO BE UPLIFTING/FUN/SUPPORTIVE NOT BITCHING...thanks ladies x x x

Is your 3D/4D ultrasound being done by a medical facility or by a non-medical organization (if it is a medical u/s... none of my comments actually relate to you)

Anyways, I certainly understand your concern due to the increased risk caused by diabetes, but having the scan done by a trained sonographer would be much more beneficial. The sonographers who work for recreational ultrasounds do not require training in detecting abnormalities. And since up to 20% of abnormalities are missed by technicians who are trained to detect them can you imagine how many abnormalities are missed by untrained sonographers. Anyways, again ultimately it's your decision what you do but if I were in your shoes I would discuss with my care provider the possibility of being referred for a high risk ultrasound.

 

[KandyKinz]

Is it at all possible that the medical community is fighting non-medical ultrasounds so hard because they lose money on it? It seems like they are a little offended that someone else without a medical degree is stepping in and performing these ultrasounds.

I do agree that a beautiful baby on an ultrasound is not a guarantee of health or a reason to skip other screenings. I do see the worry that someone who is not trained to interpret what they are viewing could miss something important or see something bad and not know it... or see something bad and freak the parents out without having the medical knowledge to support them.

But if parents doing the scans know of these risks and are willing to take them, then the only concern is the unknown effect on the fetus of the ultrasound waves, right?
Again, if the parent is willing to take that risk as many have to take other risks that MIGHT harm their babies... or mothers who drink the occasional coke while pregnant.... what is the big deal to the medical community?

I just think they are coming down SO hard because of $

But the reality of it is they don't lose money. They don't do any less or more ultrasounds because of the existence of recreational ultrasounds... Just now women are having their regular u/s's in addition to the extra just for fun ones.

If you dig deeper into it the primary concern is the effect the wavelengths have on brain tissue. While the warming of the tissue may sound harmless in mice it has been demonstrated to show that just 30 minutes of u/s exposure at the same wavelengths that are permitted for human use impairs the brain cells ability to migrate to the appropriate location creating similar abnormal brain pathways in the mice as seen in humans with autism and schizophrenia. And while many fetuses may cope just fine for a loss of a few brain cells there's no denying that frequent ultrasound do in fact have an effect on the brain as demonstrated by the study which showed that babies who were exposed to many u/s in utero were significantly more likely to be left handed then those babies with minimal u/s exposure. So I acknowledge that left handed doesn't actually matter in the grand scheme of things... but I still find the fact that these brain changes occur concerning.

Then when you add in the use of non-medical sonographers using non-regulated equipment using potentially more then the recommended strengths to obtain better images I get even more concerned.

The worst of it is, the governing bodies of sonographers and obstetricians do not deny that potential damage from ultrasounds can occur.... It's not like the "I" thing where study after study fails to demonstrate the associations immunization has on things like brain changes and autism... Ultrasounds are considered to have real potential risks that they have yet to disprove which is why regulation is deemed as being so important... They want and need to minimize potential risk.

So while every individual is different and our fetal development is superior to that of mice and I feel that most babies can likely tolerate some exposure to ultrasound... I do believe that there are babies out there who are more susceptible to these wavelengths then others and fear that these babies are going to suffer because of these extra scans and it makes me sad that these babies may suffer primarily due to the cuteness factor of these recreational ultrasounds.

And I think one of the main reasons there has not been more media coverage regarding this issue is that physicians are concerned about scaring women away from medical ultrasounds. Cause like I said time after time is you have to weigh the benefits against the risk... And some people don't seem to get that concept. And I admit whole heartingly that ultrasounds do have benefits.. Without ultrasound, most placenta and vasa previa's would not be diagnosed until massive hemorrhage occurs. Ectopic pregnancies would go undetected. There would be more stillbirths as abnormal fetal growth and placenta deficiencies would not be monitored. There'd be severely compromised babies born at home when they should have been born in a tertiary care center. But again.... it's the balancing act....

 

[lisaf]

Wow, thats very thought-provoking. And to be honest, the information you just provided has pretty much convinced me not to get the recreational one.
And you're right about the scare factor!
I'm not going to worry about the few 'extra' scans I get here since the US is just does more scans in general it seems, and the scans are mostly very short (I know mine tomorrow will be around or less than 15 minutes so the exposure is minimal).

As you know, I'm not against doing something just because it has an 'unknown' risk, but that animal data you mentioned is very interesting...
the left-handed thing does seem to indicate there is some kind of effect.
Do you have any articles on it? It sounds interesting!

 

[KandyKinz]

Here's a link to the Yale rat fetal brain migration study.
https://www.midwiferyservices.org/Prenatal US impacts neuronal migraton in mice.pdf

Some stuff on male left handedness and u/s.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11679787
https://www.earlyhumandevelopment.com/article/S0378-3782(97)00097-2/abstract

Ultrasound exposure of the foetal chick brain: effects on learning and memory
International Journal of Developmental Neuroscience (November 2009), 27 (7), pg. 677-683 (Result: extended exposure to pulsed Doppler ultrasound can adversely affect cognitive function in the chick when exposure occurs close to the time of hatch.)

https://journals.lww.com/epidem/Abs...ety_of_Prenatal_Ultrasound_Exposure_in.4.aspx

"American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine Consensus Report on Potential Bioeffects of Diagnostic Ultrasound" (a good albeit difficult read if you can get your hands on it - the AIUM website holds a wealth of information as well)

https://jjap.ipap.jp/link?JJAP/37/3070/
(a cow study)

 

[KandyKinz]

It's probably against copyright laws to post entire journal articles online huh????

 

[lisaf]

Lol, probably!

 

[KandyKinz]

https://ult.rsmjournals.com/cgi/content/full/18/2/52

Just found that from the Royal Medical Ultrasound Society... Thought it was a really neat read, learned quite abit... though I'm a geek

 

[lisaf]

One of the links redirected me to another medical site that abbreviates its name PNAS... I have such a dirty mind, lol! It amused me though.
One of the left-hand studies said it could not find a link, and the other said that in the first group it examined there was no link between left-handed and ultrasounds but that the 2nd group did? Not very conclusive, but still interesting, and something I at least CAN avoid if its not beneficial, lol. Unlike my medication etc.

 

[KandyKinz]

One of the links redirected me to another medical site that abbreviates its name PNAS... I have such a dirty mind, lol! It amused me though.
One of the left-hand studies said it could not find a link, and the other said that in the first group it examined there was no link between left-handed and ultrasounds but that the 2nd group did? Not very conclusive, but still interesting, and something I at least CAN avoid if its not beneficial, lol. Unlike my medication etc.

Ummmm both links worked for me... hmmmmm... anyways there's been a bunch of studies on it and the association has only been found in boys. The association tends to be weak but significant though, suggesting to me that certain individuals are more susceptible to ultrasound exposure... Which (hang on... gotta see if prince poppycock makes it!!!! Yay! he made it! ) Okay.... as I was saying it makes sense that boys are more vulnerable as they are deemed medically to be the weaker sex. (They are more likely to miscarry, more likely to be a still birth, more likely to suffer congenital defects.....)

LOL and I never even noticed the PNAS thing. HA HA HA... You're awesome!