Nuchal translucency scan at 12 weeks or triple test at 16 weeks

[Beatie]

My health authority offers the 16 weeks scan but I could get the 12 week scan done privately. What are the benefits of each?

Is it worth paying for the 13 week scan? I have already had an 8 week scan as I have a history of miscarriage so I am perfectly happy to wait until 16 weeks to see the baby but I want to go for whichever option is best for the baby and for us.

Please help.

Wanda I wasn't given a blood test when I went for my NT at Queen Charlottes.

I just had the nuchal test. After discussing it with the sonographer, understood that the blood test could alter the risk upwards or downwards. We agreed to review after the nuchal test alone results. Was happy with that so didn't bother with blood test. Did have the 16 week test though but more out of curiosity.

Plus, it was another £30 just for the blood test. Was already pissed off that had to pay £120 already just for the scan

omg I paid £90 and thought that was enough.

prices sure have gone up since i had mine in april 2003

Tinker You are right the blood test could adjust the rate up or down but it would be more accurate. I had mine at the MUMS (MIdland Ultra Sound something or other) they didn't give me the option of doing the blood test after the scan. I had the blood test a few days before and after the scan they ran all the results through the computer to give me my final result. I dont know what I would have done if they had done the scan and then said I could have had the blood test to adjust it one way or the other, I dont think thats a very helpful way of doing it. Flippin minefield isn't it?

wanda - it was my choice to do it like that. Think they might have preferred the cash

Too right. They convinced me I was getting a great deal when they threw the video in. I watch it every night.

Actually, I'm being unfair. This was through a place listed on the Fetal Medicine Centre site. My understanding is that the scan and the test are looking at different things. Scan obviously is physical check so the most accurate. Blood test combined with this gives a "more accurate" measure because it is 2 factors rather than one but that blood tests are notoriously unreliable. The hormones being tested for can be higher or lower for reasons not necessarily to do with teh baby. Since my measurements were fine and nasal bone seen etc felt as reassured as I could be. Didn't see the point, for me, to have the blood test. And I was 40 when I had it.

In truth I have no complaints either. MUMS send all their blood tests to the Fetal Medical Center and the whole experience was as pleasant as you could hope. I'm 39 and was convinced I was going to be a real high risk. The staff were really lovely and went through the whole process thoroughly. I dont think I really understood what they were looking at until then.That said I'm glad I won't be going through it again!

Hi Beatie, we are 14+1 with our first, and I researched the NT scan / combined test a lot when deciding what to go for.

I would agree with others about thoroughly exploring your attitude to risk / termination before having tests done.

FYI, we went for an NT scan with a highly experienced sonograher at the Royal Free in London. At the same time we also did the bloods for the combined test. Cost was £135.

You can check if a particular institution / sonogrpaher has been accredited by the Fetal Medicine Foundation on this page here It also has a link to a 200 page pdf completely detailing all elements of the NT scan / combined test (it's the training manual for sonographers seeking the 12 week NT scan accreditation !

BTW, when we called, the Fetal Medicine Centre had a 2 week lead time on appointments for a NT scan / combined blood test. (I have no association with the FMF)