Too many scans!

[Maaaaaac]

I was talking to a girl in work and she has really terrified me over the amount of scans I've had in pregnancy. She has told me that my baby will be at higher risk for delayed speech, higher chance of defects and i could go into premature labour. Just a whole load of problems with it im really panicked.

I had an early scan to rule out ectopic pregnancy. My dating scan, two anomaly scans (they couldn't get measurements) and I've had two additional scans due to baby having kidney problems and ill have scans now every two weeks before birth because i have gestational diabetes. So that's 6 so far then probably another 3! I haven't had any just for the sake of it all were deemed necessary except the anomaly scans which i felt were necessary at the time. If i didn't have it they might not have detected babies kidney intil after birth causing other issues.

Anyone else had lots of scans and baby is okay or anyone can reassure me. I now dont know if i should let them scan me anymore even with GD but is that silly because obviously theres risks with that. Oh im stressed out now! I hope i haven't stressed anyone else out either.

 

[Robyner]

Hi maaaaaac
This is a small section from the nhs website.


AGNIR says there is no conclusive evidence that ultrasound is dangerous to the developing baby. However, further research is needed to determine if there are any long-term adverse health effects. The chairman of AGNIR, Professor Anthony Swerdlow, said: ‘Ultrasound has been widely used in medical practice for 50 years, and there is no established evidence of specific hazards from diagnostic exposures. However, in the light of the widespread use of ultrasound in medical practice, its increasing commercial use for souvenir foetal imaging and the unconfirmed indications of possible neurological effects on the foetus, there is a need for further research on whether there are any long-term adverse effects of diagnostic ultrasound.
In response, the HPA said “parents-to-be should not hesitate to continue taking advantage of ultrasound scans for diagnostic purposes. However they should consider the uncertainties when deciding whether to have ultrasound scans that do not have a defined diagnostic benefit and provide only keepsake images or ‘real time' scans”.

Its unwise for people to go around saying babies will be at risk when they dont have the facts and evidence.
I had more scans than the average with my little girl as i had lots of issues with my first and they wanted to monitor me closley. My little one has no problems as far as we can tell as a result of a few extra scans.
Life is full of risks but please be reassured, its obviously important that they scan you under these circumstances.

 

[Becky1]

I had about 15 scans, including an MRI scan on baby at 28 weeks. He is now a perfectly happy and healthy baby. The scans had no adverse effects whatsoever. xx

 

[KateK]

I agree that was very irresponsible and a bit thoughtless of her to have said that to you! People are full of opinions often based on half-arsed research and hearsay. The NHS simply wouldn't do them if the risk was proven/significant - can you imagine the law suits?! Not having the scans is more risky than not having them in terms of not being able to diagnose problems. I probably don't wholly agree with 'souvenir' or 'reassurance' scans (as tempting as they are..) as they're unnecessary but you can rest easy knowing you're having yours for the safety of you and your baby. I've heard some outrageous parenting advice over the years from busy bodies who think they know better (especially on vaccines, I won't go there!) Sorry if this lady is a friend, I don't wish to be rude, I just think saying that to a pregnant woman is really careless.. You'll be fine xxx

 

[Phoenix85]

Why are they scanning you every fortnight due to GD???

If the baby's size is an issue they could scan at 37 weeks only (as this is the earliest they'd induce for a large baby anyway).

I realise people are trying to reassure you, but the research is not "half arsed" it's actually quite sound and worrisome that the findings have been largely dismissed by the medical community.

I have done a lot of research into it and seen the same studies your colleague made reference to. I took the decision to not have any scans or doppler (doppler is even worse) during my pregnancy and would do the same again.

Personally I would not consent to all those scans. Maybe you could look into it. Have a look on AIMS etc.

 

[Robyner]

Why are they scanning you every fortnight due to GD???

If the baby's size is an issue they could scan at 37 weeks only (as this is the earliest they'd induce for a large baby anyway).

I realise people are trying to reassure you, but the research is not "half arsed" it's actually quite sound and worrisome that the findings have been largely dismissed by the medical community.

I have done a lot of research into it and seen the same studies your colleague made reference to. I took the decision to not have any scans or doppler (doppler is even worse) during my pregnancy and would do the same again.

Personally I would not consent to all those scans. Maybe you could look into it. Have a look on AIMS etc.

Are you a scientist or has your research actually involved googling?
just interested to know if findings of your research has led to finding proof and evidence?

 

[KateK]

I'm sorry but if you looked into most things we do/eat/come into contact with you would probably find some research or theory to suggest it was dangerous. I would not be able to go through a pregnancy not knowing if there was an issue that we and the doctors needed to be aware of immediately after the birth. If I had a broken bone I wouldn't hesitate in having an x-ray though i'm sure a study in Italy would tell me it will likely give me a pink arm in 15 years.. Yes, I am trying to reassure her because she's already had the majority of her scans and she's clearly now been made to feel awful about it. I'm not denying you've found studies somewhere and they will undoubtedly do more research on ultrasounds in the future but making her feel more panicked now is futile!! I'm sure she'll go away and look into it for herself and cone to a conclusion as to whether she wants the growth scans.

 

[KateK]

Sorry Phoenix I didn't want to come off that strongly.. You were being very diplomatic in your post. You're right I was simply trying to reassure her as what's done is done and the chances are her baby will be absolutely fine. I respect the decision you took I just felt bad for the poster as i'm sure she's beating herself up x

 

[Willow16]

I wish I had more scans with my first, if I had then perhaps they would have identified all the complications with my placenta, that daughter was low gestational age with very little fluid around her. Towards the end I felt like something was not right but was assured all was fine. She was undetected breech and I delivered her by emergency c section. She was tiny and battered had low platelet count and TBH I'm lucky she is here. She is now 2 and has a speech delay if I had more scans perhaps I might have worried the scans were the reason why, or perhaps she would have been delivered earlier and wouldn't have the delay due to lack of nutrition from a poor functioning placenta. At present there is not enough evidence and so many factors at play.
This pregnancy I am being offered more scans as I have a high risk of the same complications and I will definetly take them. Most people only have two scan but obviously some are offered more if there is a medical need. I truly believe that is because it is considered the best course of action to ensure a postitive outcome for the baby.
Each mother has the right to do what is best for her baby weather it is choosing to have scans or not.
Maaaaac I sure the team managing your care are doing what they think is best and for yourself having scans is probably the best way to ensure baby arrives healthy. Try not to worry too much.

 

[Loubalouba]

After my experience take the scans... My baby was stillborn at 36 weeks, my placenta failed but if I had had extra scans he would probably be here today, my consultant said the stillbirth rate could be reduced if they had the capacity to scan everyone more after 20weeks. I will be having either 4 weekly or twice weekly scans from 24 weeks and I will need them to get me through it!! If they feel u need the scans to be monitored then whatever affect they may have I would still have them because that is a much preferred option to having an Angel baby and be living my nightmare... Yes there may be research it may have side effects so do a lot of things in life we don't know all the risks in life but I would choose life over some possible side effects anyday.. Listen to your consultants and your baby xxx

 

[Pambi]

I'm likely to have several more scans than the norm to check the competence of my cervix. Your work colleague is peddling nonsense, there is overwhelming evidence that scans decrease risk overall. Some people really seem to suck up the whole natural is better, anything unnatural/scientific is risky. Speak to your sonographer at your next scan and he/she will confirm that scans are well known to be safe.

 

[FBTTN8079]

I'll be having scans every 4 weeks & if the twins were identical they scan every two weeks from 20 weeks. My sister had identical twins 9 years ago & due to twin to twin transfusion they were scanned every 2 weeks & they are absolutely fine. It's quite irresponsible for your colleague to make passing remarks like that! Id rather have my mind put at rest with the extra scans X

 

[Natnat274]

I've had probably over 20 scans this pregnancy due to my little girl having hydrocephalus, I don't feel that Doctors etc would give that many scans if they thought it to be unsafe, I feel more reassured having them, I started my pregnancy in France and they scan every 4 weeks over there as standard all the way through the pregnancy and there complication rate and stillbirth rate is apparently very low,

I trust the doctors to do right by me and baby and I feel that my baby is better off being monitored via scans regularly than not as I feel more informed and relaxed.
Xx

 

[Maaaaaac]

Thsnk you everyone for all your replies. I was in such a panic this morning just assuming ive harmed my baby some way. Although i do agree it shouldn't be used excessively I dont regret many of my scans as it did pick issues that can now be easily managed and im thankful. Thank you all for your reassurance esp from those who have had problems. I cant even begin to imagine how you feel talking about it.

GD doesn't just affect baby growth although that is most popular it also can cause problems with amniotic fluid which obviously hss its own hosy of complications for baby. In an ideal world i would have been seeing a singlr midwife who would get to know my bump and be able to monitor changes but i dont even see a mw! My hospital scan as they can detect problems with amniotic fluid easier. Not just related to growth.

I will definitely be ssking the obstetrician more about the scans and whether it is completely necessary. Has definitely opened my eyes more. I tried to do sone research on it but it is all small studies and with varying results. Not very reassuring!

Again i cant thank you all enough. Baby has been merrily kicking my ribs all day almost as if it's letting me know alls okay

 

[BlondeP]

I've had a scan nearly every two weeks since about 6 weeks due to complications etc. If there was a risk, they wouldn't do it so openly and would be a lot more strict about how many each woman gets. There is more of a risk to your baby by driving in your car or walking along to street. I wouldn't worry at all xxxx

 

[BunnyN]

I did quite a bit of reasearch on this because I had more scans than normal in my first pregnancy. Yes I did use google and I am not a scientist, but I did read quite a few scientific papers on the subject. My conclusion was that there is pretty solid evidence that scans can be dangerous but that doesnt necessarily mean that they are. Most of the evidence points to the fact that over exposure at high levels probably is dangerous because it creates heat which can cause damage to tissue. However machines are set to be well below those levels and technicians are trained to use the machines correctly.

I'm afraid I don't really have much faith in the "they wouldn't do it if it wasn't safe" thing. All sorts of medical practices through history have later been shown to be dangerous. I mean they used to think doing xrays of the baby inside you was safe (shudder). And lots of medications etc still used have pretty serious known side effects. There is still a place for lots of things when used right though. Its just a case of weighing up any potential benefits and risks. There are no actual proved risks when ultrasound is used correctly and the fact that it has been widely used without evidence of side effects for quite a few years now does help to give me confidence. I still respect someone who decides not to have US or who still has doupts about its safety but I do think your friend was being well over the top.

Personally I feel safe doing US for medical reasons. I think perhaps its biggest danger is over-diagnosis and miss-diagnosis leading to a greater number of interventions like early induction, which sometimes hold greater risks than the original issue. For example being diagnosed with a large baby (even if it turns out to be wrong) has been shown to have higher risks to mother and baby than going into labour naturally with a 'surprise ' big baby.

Anyway sorry for such long post. I'm just sharing my opinions because its something I spent ages looking into myself.

 

[Maaaaaac]

No i really appreciate it, thank you. I really wish i had more midwife contact and things were a little more old fashioned. Not one person has even palpated my stomach or anything. there has been no measuring tape, nothing, not what i expected to be completely honest. Scans was my only contact with any sort of team other than GP who just used a Doppler to listen to heartbeat There has also been noone asking me consent really, ultrasounds and dopplers were just done, I would have liked to have known the risks! I get the impression they probably dont as it just easier if they had pregnant women compliant not having to do it manual for everyone if they were concerned about risks.

I was due to have an abdominal ultrasound for gallstones (thanks pregnancy for thst little bonus extra!) but ive cancelled it and asked to be put back on waiting list. So at least that's one scan that baby won't be exposed to. Its not like they can do anything for it anyway until after.

I was able to hear babys heartbeat on stethscope in work last night very exciting! Was also deafening when i got a swift kick to it too! I am going to go for the scan tomorrow as i have concerns about baby position ( i think the little monkey has turned back around) the heartbeat was very high up above belly button and i can feel the hiccips up there now too. I will be asking them is it completely necessary to have a scan every two weeks. I need to just stand my ground. This is my baby we're talking about It has been making me very stressed so i think a destressed mummy might be far beter as ive been managing my anxiety extremely well with no medication the whole pregnancy.

The post is very long im sorry!

 

[babybee]

With my youngest daughter I had so many scans by 20 weeks due to complications - around 9 in total. Then I was scanned every 4 weeks from 20 weeks due to a rare placenta condition. She's nearly 2 now and speaking very well, potty trained from 18 months and full of beans, no developmental delays to speak of. I dont know if all that scanning will cause issues in later life but the risk of missing a placenta problem which would have significantly blocked the blood flow like it did my eldest far outweighed the potential risk of any damage a scan might have.
If there are medical reasons behind it to prevent any life threatening issues for you and your baby then its all about weighing up the risks.

 

[Eryinera]

I had just the 2 scans with my son he had speaking and development delays but clearly nothing to do with the scans. He is also incredibly bright (according to his teachers I'm yet to see evidence of this at home teehee) so it's not damaged him mentally. I'm having early scans with this pregnancy but after losing 4 they want to check me earlier. I am in no way going to stop them or be forced to feel guilty about having more scans. The stress of not knowing can release a hormone that's known to interfere with progesterone levels in first tri. So reassure me all you can! As long as my baby is born alive I don't give two tosses about anything else. It can be born with 2 heads a tail and breathe fire as long as I dont have to go through yet another miscarriage.

 

[dundermifflin]

Even if your colleague was right (she isn't) she clearly has no emotional intelligence if she is prepared to say something like that to a pregnant woman who has already had a lot of scans. As for the facts, like many things to do with pregnancy, there aren't really any because it is considered unethical to do medical trials on pregnant women for obvious reasons.

Without facts we are left with mere anecdotal evidence. In my opinion the sheer volume of scans conducted means that if there was some sort of link between scans and damage to babies someone in the medical profession would've noticed by now. I had nine scans with my first daughter and have already had nine this pregnancy. I will continue to have fortnightly growth scans as she is measuring behind, particularly in the abdomen measurements which can be a sign of placental failure. To put in bluntly, I would rather have a child will developmental delay than no child at all.