ultrasound scans - any reliable info on safety and accuracy?

[mummypig]

hi everyone

I'm currently pg with number 3, and I remember looking into this when pg with ds1 and deciding to go for the scans anyway. I found a great site that seemed to have some very good, well founded info about how accurate the dates were from ultrasound scans. It's quite important for me as my cycles are extremely variable.

So I had early dating scans for both boys.

But I'm just wondering what the current state of knowledge is at the moment, about how precise the scans are and how safe they are. For example, I'm sure I remember reading some research that said there was a higher frequency of left-handedness amongst babies who had had ultrasound scans than among un'scanned' babies... which seems to imply that the ultrasound does have some effect on neurological development, doesn't it?

There are so many www sites discussing ultrasound that Google searches aren't throwing up anything useful. So if anyone already knows some good sites, do let me know

ta

here's quite an interesting article

I did have another couple but can't find them right now. I have never had a scan and don't intend to but it's not down to the articles - I just personally don't feel them necessary in my circumstances.

HTH

I had several scans with DD for various reasons and she's right handed. Same with this pregnancy so we'll see if this little one is corrie-fisted.

I believe that the increase in lefthandedness was small enough that it is still quite unlikely a child will be born lefthanded, even if they have had many scans, jbck. I just think that the difference shows scans may have an effect on the brain of the developing foetus.

Thanks for the link, asur. I hadn't read that one. I also found this press release about a talk done by a prominent sonographer suggesting that the nuchal fold test and the screening tests done at 20 wk approx are of limited usefulness and that the research doesn't back up their routine use in normal pregnancies.

I still have to decide whether it's worth going for a scan just for a more accurate idea of due date...

As someone who scans for a living I'm talking myself out of a job here- but the machines we use now ( as recommended by RCOG) are not more than 5 yrs old- and each generation of machines is more powerful than the older ones. That means a higher 'dose' than to babies scanned even 10 years ago, more recently than the research mentioned in the article asur links us to. I think the lack of evidence basis for my day to day job is appaulling- and last week my trust decided to offer dating scans to all women, not just specific groups. Saying all this, the majority of scans are done at the mums request, and we get complaints and agression directed at us if parents feel they 'deserve' another scan, with the usual implication we are lazy and can't be bothered. Trying to get a safety message across in these situations is hopeless.
Another area of concern are these dopplers you can buy to listen to baby's heartbeat- that's all ultrasound too.If they counted all the times the midwives listen to heartbeat as scans each bump has loads!
However I live in the real world, and have no willpower whatsoever. Knowing the risks, I (in serious breach of rules and regs) scanned myself in early pregnancy roughly weekly- to prepare myself if I was miscarrying. No good reason for it- just because I had the oppertunity and no will power. I am having an anatomy scan- this is so hubby can see baby. Last time around he said he felt differently about it all when he saw it on screen, so having a legit scan is so he can see it.
Scans miss loads of things (the one that really scares me is over 75% of heart defects get missed in general hospitals) and there are no guarentees of what you will get. Most ladies I scan feel relieved and relax a little about that worry- but only for a few weeks. By 2 months afterwards the anxiety levels (with regards to 'normal' baby) are up again- and that's ignoring all the other worries you might have!
I do not do the nuchal scans as I believe Hilton Miere ( the guy in your press release- he did a talk at the last BMUS conference that turned into that article). He worked with the guys who 'made' medical ultrasound. He gets me nicely back to the serious lack of research. No large scale study- because they think most women would demand a scan!!!
Sorry, rant over.
The actual question about safety- we sonographers ( not drs who have just picked up a probe or anyone who hasn't actually properly trained- that's another rant)are trained to scan for as short a time as necessary and to use appropriate power levels to obtain the information required. The scan should be as safe as the sonographer can make it using the equipment. The usual line is as far as anyone knows there is no proven harm definately caused by this type of scan, and that ultrasound has been in use for 30+ yrs. Regarding the research mentioned in the article, there are also numerous papers (funded by whom?) disputing that ultrasound is DEFINATELY causing anything.
I wonder if its a bit like proving smoking causes lung cancer- it'll take 80 odd years to prove anything? My other question is there a problem with being left handed?
Sorry, i've gone on for far too long.I really shouldn't get on here when I can't sleep.
DD is 2 and looks like being left handed (as much as anyone can tell at this stage) and my bump is 15 wks.
Sorry for the offence I've probably caused someone, and I've probably made some glaring mistakes- but it is 4 am and I should be sleeping!!
Good luck whatever you decide to do!
Hmm, perhaps I need a career change?!!!
mumofk

thanks mumofk for your long and interesting comments. Dp has said he wants me to have a scan and I think in previous pregnancies it has helped for him to see what is going on inside me - of course I am aware of it most of the time (especially with my current nausea). So on that basis I think I will go for what is the 'usual' dating scan in our area, at around 10-14 weeks, when they probaby will do the nuchal fold calculation. If I specifically ask them not to, would I be considered really wierd and have scribbles written in my notes warning all other practicioners?

Then I probably won't have the 20 week scan as I'm not sure how useful it will really be. My digging around suggests the detection rate for lots of conditions is pretty low, and I'm not going to go and have an abortion at that stage anyway. Plus with false positives I wouldn't want to spend the rest of the pregnancy worrying about the baby when they turned out to be completely normal upon delivery.

No, I really wasn't aiming to offend lefthanded people at all, I know some pretty clever lefthanded people myself (and isn't the average IQ higher in LH people than RH??) but just mentioned that study as the implication to me is that the ultrasound might have some effect on the developing brain.

thanks again for your responses