Advanced search

Anyone had a nuchal measurement of 3.0?

(16 Posts)
MarketingMonkey Mon 18-Mar-13 14:18:32


Had my 12 week scan today. Baby wasn't playing ball and it took some time to get him into a position to do the measurements. The measurements were 2.7, 3.5 and 2.9 but the measurement on my notes is 3.0 so assume they have averaged them. They said they were within normal ranges but 3.0, and especially the 3.5, are worrying me.

I know I need to wait for bloods back but was wondering if anyone had the same but had been low risk?

I'm 32 and this is baby number 1

RufousBartleby Mon 18-Mar-13 19:13:24

Hello OP - didn't want you to go unanswered so:

Have you thought about having a private scan for reassurance? The scanning equipment tends to be a lot clearer than the NHS ones and they would probably be able to give you a more accurate measurement, as it sounds like they have taken several guesses.

It really depends how anxious you are, it may be that if the blood work is fine you will be able to relax, but it is a difficult one as no-one can tell you definitively from a nuchal scan that everything will be fine as it is a screening test rather than a diagnostic test.

I am sure there are mumnetters that have had a nuchal of 3.0 and come back with a reasonably low risk and equally those that have come back high risk. I was told that if the nuchal measurement was likely to be inaccurate it might be better to have the 16 week blood test? Have you talked this through with your midwife?

AuntPepita Mon 18-Mar-13 19:18:08

I had a 4.6 and came back high risk, but all normal on amnio. Good luck x

MarketingMonkey Mon 18-Mar-13 20:23:25

Thanks for your replies. I haven't spoken to midwife but might give them a call and see what they say/suggest. Will stay away from Google in the meantime!

lozster Mon 18-Mar-13 22:23:39

Yes, mine was 3. Was also told it was in the normal range only go google and find other people concerned over far lower results. With bloods I got a 1:4 risk but an amnio was completely clear.

MarketingMonkey Tue 19-Mar-13 08:28:01

Thanks Lozster Glad you had positive news in the end. Kind of resigning myself to being high risk at the moment.

massagegirl Tue 19-Mar-13 12:22:35

Mine was 3.9. Risk was 1:12. Amnio all clear. Good luck x

MissRainbowBrite Tue 19-Mar-13 12:31:27

I had a measurement of 3.6 and got the all clear after a CVS, my DD has just turned one.

Artichook Tue 19-Mar-13 12:45:14

I have been in your position twice. The overall risk will depend on your bloods but also, crucially, on the length of the baby (the longer the crown to rump length, the thicker they expect the nuchal to be).

With my second pregnancy the nuchal was 3.2mm but the measurement was taken when I was about 12+4 and the baby was long, my bloods were near perfect, therefore my overall risk was something like 1 in 800. My daughter was born with no issues at all.

With my current pregnancy the nuchal was 3.1mm but I was only 11+3 and the baby was short, I was also older than with my previous baby (last time I was 29, now I am 34). My risk factor came back as 1 in 10. I was terrified and opted to have a new kind of non-invasive DNA testing at a private clinic in London (the Fetal Medicine Centre: a world renound clinic). My risk factor on that test came back as 1 in 10,000. The private clinic also redid the combined test and as the baby was a week older and somewhat longer plus the nuchal had decreased to something just under 3mm, my combined risk at the private clinic was something like 1 in 3,000 without even taking into account the DNA test.

There is nothing you can do but wait for your combined result to come through. If you do get a high risk result do consider the DNA test I referred to, there is a thread in this section about it, it is called Harmony and is meant to be the next huge advance in prenatal testing. I also found the helpline of the Antenatal Tests and Choices charity very helpful.

Artichook Tue 19-Mar-13 13:00:44

If you are interested in the Harmony test this is the thread with lots of information and experiences:

Mindboggle Tue 19-Mar-13 13:38:42

I was more or less the same, they had to scan me 5 times over 2 days before they got the measurements, I think it was something like 2.7, 2.9 and 3.2. I think that they chose the best quality image, or where they thought the baby was best positioned - so the 2.7 one.
I remember one of the sonographers saying that some people took average readings but that she didn't think that was an accurate method. Another sonographer saidour reading was higher than average but that they didn't start to worry until it was over 4mm.
With the bloods I got 1/189 risk (both HCG and PAPP A were 2x average), had a CVS and everything was fine.
I do remember how worrying it is, but remember that in most cases, even if you get high risk, it's unlikely that there's a problem.
Hope everything turns out well for you.

Wingdingdong Tue 19-Mar-13 13:59:17

We had a measurement of 4.2mm, with a suspected cystic hygroma of 9mm on top (basically the nuchal fold measurement was >13mm at thickest). They didn't even do bloods as it would have made no difference to the odds (<1% chance of viability according to one study).

Amnio was clear, cardiac scans were fine, all the fluid gradually reabsorbed. and our very healthy, robust DS celebrated his first birthday last month.

Scan for DD also came back higher than ave risk, can't remember the final measurement (2.9 and 3.2 were two of them), but nobody was at all concerned, just did a re-check of all the things they check in the scan anyway. She's also fine.

Hope all is ok for you.

MarketingMonkey Tue 19-Mar-13 14:31:07

Thanks all for your reassurance and thanks for the information on the Harmony test etc. I'm at work at the moment but will try and have a look at that tonight.

It's times like this that I'd normally have couple of wines but that's obviously off the cards at the moment!

AnisotropicWeetabixFTW Tue 19-Mar-13 14:38:58

DS was in a bloody awkward position. Had to 'let out a bit of wee' 3 times (fun when pregnant) and the three measurements were between 2.7 and 3.2. She went with either 3 or 3.1. I can't remember. She wasn't worried and said his odd position and my bladder were obscuring things a bit.

Odds came back at 1/156 iirc which is low risk.

DS is perfick.

MarketingMonkey Sat 23-Mar-13 14:49:20

Hi thought I would update. Had the letter through this morning which just said baby is low risk - no ratio given which is probably for the best to save me googling statistics!

Thanks again to everyone for your reassurance

AuntPepita Thu 28-Mar-13 22:04:39

Hurrah, well done! Relax and enjoy the rest of your pregnancy!

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, watch threads, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now »

Already registered? Log in with: