determining due date

[Lydia]

My OB used a little paper wheel contraption and the first day of my last
period (5/21/04) to determine my due date of 2/25/05. But that wheel is
based on the "average" 28 day menstrual cycle. MY personal average cycle
length is 33 days so wouldn't I have ovulated later and my due date
consequently be later? Or is that not how it works :).

I have an appointment tomorrow and I'm going to ask about it, but what do
others know about this?

Thanks,
Lydia

[Jamie Clark]

Lydia,
Yep, the wheel is based on the average, and since you know that you aren't
average ; ), then you know that your due date isn't actually going to be
2/25/05. According to the pregnancy calendar at www.parentsplace.com , it
calculates your due date based on the information you gave me -- LMP 5/21/04
and a 33 day cycle, due date is March 3rd, 2005.

This means that your OB may try to pressure you to induce, if you go by this
new due date, you'd already be a week past your due date, according to his
dates.
--

Jamie & Taylor
Earth Angel, 1/3/03

Check out Taylor Marlys -- www.MyFamily.com, User ID: Clarkguest1,
Password: Guest
Become a member for free - go to Add Member to set up your own User ID and
Password

Check out our Adoption Page at http://www.geocities.com/clarkadopt2004/


"Lydia" > wrote in message
...
> My OB used a little paper wheel contraption and the first day of my last
> period (5/21/04) to determine my due date of 2/25/05. But that wheel is
> based on the "average" 28 day menstrual cycle. MY personal average cycle
> length is 33 days so wouldn't I have ovulated later and my due date
> consequently be later? Or is that not how it works :).
>
> I have an appointment tomorrow and I'm going to ask about it, but what do
> others know about this?
>
> Thanks,
> Lydia
>

[Donna Metler]

If you get an ultrasound at any point, they'll recalculate your EDD then
anyway, so I don't know how much it matters. Mine moved 5 days based on the
first ultrasound-but has been very consistent since.

I still like the CNM's response which was "Yep, this little one will be here
sometime in December or thereabouts"-because the difference between the OB's
EDD of Dec 29 and the U/S EDD of Dec 24 really isn't that big of a deal,
anyway.

[medgirl]

"Lydia" > wrote in message
...
> My OB used a little paper wheel contraption and the first day of my last
> period (5/21/04) to determine my due date of 2/25/05. But that wheel is
> based on the "average" 28 day menstrual cycle. MY personal average cycle
> length is 33 days so wouldn't I have ovulated later and my due date
> consequently be later? Or is that not how it works :).

I think the wheels and pregnancy calculators are based on "Nagele's Rule,"
which basically works it out to tell you when the 280 days of pregnancy are
over:

Add 7 to first day of LMP
Count back 3 months to get EDD

For leap year, subtract 1

Avg length of pregnancy: 40 wks. (38 to 42) or 280 days

[Jamie Clark]

"medgirl" > wrote in message
...
> "Lydia" > wrote in message
> ...
>> My OB used a little paper wheel contraption and the first day of my last
>> period (5/21/04) to determine my due date of 2/25/05. But that wheel is
>> based on the "average" 28 day menstrual cycle. MY personal average cycle
>> length is 33 days so wouldn't I have ovulated later and my due date
>> consequently be later? Or is that not how it works :).
>
> I think the wheels and pregnancy calculators are based on "Nagele's Rule,"
> which basically works it out to tell you when the 280 days of pregnancy
> are
> over:
>
> Add 7 to first day of LMP
> Count back 3 months to get EDD
>
> For leap year, subtract 1
>
> Avg length of pregnancy: 40 wks. (38 to 42) or 280 days


Yes, but wouldn't Nagele's Rule still be basically based on the fact that
ovulation would normally have occurred 2 weeks after the LMP that you are
working with? I mean, in an extreme case of a less than average cycle, with
a person who ovulated 4 weeks after their last period, Nagele's Rule would
have their estimated due date a few weeks short, wouldn't it? The average
length of pregnancy is 38 weeks from ovulation, which could be vastly
different than 40 weeks from LMP.
--

Jamie & Taylor
Earth Angel, 1/3/03

Check out Taylor Marlys -- www.MyFamily.com, User ID: Clarkguest1,
Password: Guest
Become a member for free - go to Add Member to set up your own User ID and
Password

Check out our Adoption Page at http://www.geocities.com/clarkadopt2004/

[Lydia]

Thanks! Yeah, that's what I was thinking about... will they be wanting to
induce thinking I'm overdue.

I am going to have an ultrasound at next month's appt. so maybe that will
give a better idea.

Thanks again,
Lydia


"Jamie Clark" > wrote in message
...
> Lydia,
> Yep, the wheel is based on the average, and since you know that you aren't
> average ; ), then you know that your due date isn't actually going to be
> 2/25/05. According to the pregnancy calendar at www.parentsplace.com , it
> calculates your due date based on the information you gave me -- LMP
> 5/21/04 and a 33 day cycle, due date is March 3rd, 2005.
>
> This means that your OB may try to pressure you to induce, if you go by
> this new due date, you'd already be a week past your due date, according
> to his dates.
> --
>
> Jamie & Taylor
> Earth Angel, 1/3/03
>
> Check out Taylor Marlys -- www.MyFamily.com, User ID: Clarkguest1,
> Password: Guest
> Become a member for free - go to Add Member to set up your own User ID and
> Password
>
> Check out our Adoption Page at http://www.geocities.com/clarkadopt2004/
>
>
> "Lydia" > wrote in message
> ...
>> My OB used a little paper wheel contraption and the first day of my last
>> period (5/21/04) to determine my due date of 2/25/05. But that wheel is
>> based on the "average" 28 day menstrual cycle. MY personal average cycle
>> length is 33 days so wouldn't I have ovulated later and my due date
>> consequently be later? Or is that not how it works :).
>>
>> I have an appointment tomorrow and I'm going to ask about it, but what do
>> others know about this?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Lydia
>>
>
>

[Circe]

Donna Metler wrote:
> If you get an ultrasound at any point, they'll recalculate your EDD
> then anyway, so I don't know how much it matters. Mine moved 5 days
> based on the first ultrasound-but has been very consistent since.
>
It may make a difference if your caregiver's policy is not to change the EDD
for U/S vs. LMP discrepancies of less than a week. This is quite common out
there, but it really boggles the mind since even a couple of days can mean
the difference between a spontaneous labor and a (probably unnecessary)
induction for being past the 42 week mark.

Personally, I always wanted the most favorable due date possible, and since
I've tended to go past my EDD more often than to beat it, the later date is
always most favorable. Of course, it you have a history of going early, you
might want the earlier EDD, since it might mean the difference between being
classified as a high-risk preterm birth and a full-term birth.
--
Be well, Barbara
Mom to Sin (Vernon, 2), Misery (Aurora, 5), and the Rising Son (Julian, 7)

This week's suggested Bush/Cheney campaign bumper sticker:
"Four More Wars!"

All opinions expressed in this post are well-reasoned and insightful.
Needless to say, they are not those of my Internet Service Provider, its
other subscribers or lackeys. Anyone who says otherwise is itchin' for a
fight. -- with apologies to Michael Feldman

[Jamie Clark]

Well, you are already about 15 weeks, right? So the u/s at your next
appointment will be your level II? I think the u/s due date calculations
this late in pregnancy are notoriously inaccurate -- they would probably
just assume that your baby is large for dates, and again, move towards
induction as the doctors due date approaches, "because the baby is so big!"
Even if they "let" you go a week late, that's still only when you should be
due. I'd make a point to explain to them about your corrected due date, and
get them to mark it in RED in your chart.
--

Jamie & Taylor
Earth Angel, 1/3/03

Check out Taylor Marlys -- www.MyFamily.com, User ID: Clarkguest1,
Password: Guest
Become a member for free - go to Add Member to set up your own User ID and
Password

Check out our Adoption Page at http://www.geocities.com/clarkadopt2004/


"Lydia" > wrote in message
...
> Thanks! Yeah, that's what I was thinking about... will they be wanting to
> induce thinking I'm overdue.
>
> I am going to have an ultrasound at next month's appt. so maybe that will
> give a better idea.
>
> Thanks again,
> Lydia
>
>
> "Jamie Clark" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Lydia,
>> Yep, the wheel is based on the average, and since you know that you
>> aren't average ; ), then you know that your due date isn't actually going
>> to be 2/25/05. According to the pregnancy calendar at
>> www.parentsplace.com , it calculates your due date based on the
>> information you gave me -- LMP 5/21/04 and a 33 day cycle, due date is
>> March 3rd, 2005.
>>
>> This means that your OB may try to pressure you to induce, if you go by
>> this new due date, you'd already be a week past your due date, according
>> to his dates.
>> --
>>
>> Jamie & Taylor
>> Earth Angel, 1/3/03
>>
>> Check out Taylor Marlys -- www.MyFamily.com, User ID: Clarkguest1,
>> Password: Guest
>> Become a member for free - go to Add Member to set up your own User ID
>> and Password
>>
>> Check out our Adoption Page at http://www.geocities.com/clarkadopt2004/
>>
>>
>> "Lydia" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> My OB used a little paper wheel contraption and the first day of my last
>>> period (5/21/04) to determine my due date of 2/25/05. But that wheel is
>>> based on the "average" 28 day menstrual cycle. MY personal average
>>> cycle length is 33 days so wouldn't I have ovulated later and my due
>>> date consequently be later? Or is that not how it works :).
>>>
>>> I have an appointment tomorrow and I'm going to ask about it, but what
>>> do others know about this?
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Lydia
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

[Cathy]

Lydia wrote:
> My OB used a little paper wheel contraption and the first day of my
> last period (5/21/04) to determine my due date of 2/25/05. But that
> wheel is based on the "average" 28 day menstrual cycle. MY personal
> average cycle length is 33 days so wouldn't I have ovulated later
> and my due date consequently be later? Or is that not how it works
> :).
>
> I have an appointment tomorrow and I'm going to ask about it, but
> what do others know about this?
>
> Thanks,
> Lydia

I had 40-42 day cycles, so worked out my own due date based on date of
conception, which we knew to the day! Of course, that worked out that I was
due 2 weeks later than the initial date the doctors gave me. My midwife
didn't quite believe me at first (due date based on LMP was 26 th December,
and she wanted a day off!) - but DD arrived as planned on the 8th Jan (EDD
was 7th, so I was right with my dates).

Cathy
DD 8 Jan 03
EDD 8 Dec 04

[alath]

"Lydia" > wrote in message >...
> My OB used a little paper wheel contraption and the first day of my last
> period (5/21/04) to determine my due date of 2/25/05. But that wheel is
> based on the "average" 28 day menstrual cycle. MY personal average cycle
> length is 33 days so wouldn't I have ovulated later and my due date
> consequently be later? Or is that not how it works :).
>
> I have an appointment tomorrow and I'm going to ask about it, but what do
> others know about this?
>
> Thanks,
> Lydia


Yes, that is how it works - the wheel is based on the average 28 day
cycle. If you consistently have 33 day cycles, your due date should be
corrected by 5 days. Using Nagele's rule, from LMP 21 may 04 I get EDD
28 February 05 for a 28 day cycle and add 5 days to get 5 March 05.

You may not get instant agreement from your OB on this. Most don't
bother correcting EDD's by menstrual history - they'll usually just
correct if your ultrasound shows a clinically significant discrepancy.

If not being induced is a priority for you, you might want to push the
issue a bit (so you don't get the 'let's induce' speech for an extra 5
days).

[medgirl]

"Jamie Clark" > wrote in message
...
>
> Yes, but wouldn't Nagele's Rule still be basically based on the fact that
> ovulation would normally have occurred 2 weeks after the LMP that you are
> working with? I mean, in an extreme case of a less than average cycle,
with
> a person who ovulated 4 weeks after their last period, Nagele's Rule would
> have their estimated due date a few weeks short, wouldn't it? The average
> length of pregnancy is 38 weeks from ovulation, which could be vastly
> different than 40 weeks from LMP.

That's true - all of the calculations assume that everyone remembers when
their LMP was, that it was relatively normal (what about those who have
spotting mistaken for a period after the actual LMP), and that the cycle is
of "standard" length. There's a lot of room for error. But I'm not sure
about how you would correct, say, a 33 day cycle to a 28 day one. In theory
ovulation occured exactly 14 days before the end of the cycle, with the
extra days at the beginning, but unless you're charting or testing it may be
hard to know with certainty when ovulation really occurred. I also wonder
how a possible late implantation would figure into this.

Nagele's Rule basically just says that an average pregnancy is 280 days and
nothing else. Really a difference of a couple of days shouldn't make that
much difference, and wouldn't if doctors didn't sometimes get so
induction-happy. Most of us will have _some_ uncertainty in our dates.
There's probably a lot more uncertainty due to when the LMP actually was
that due to slight variations in cycle length. Not me, because my pregnancy
was IVF, so I know to the minute when fertilization happened, but I was told
there still could be differences in the timing of implantation - what that
would ultimately mean in terms of due date, I don't know. Maybe nothing.
It's amazing that there is still so much that isn't known about something
that has been going on for as long as people have lived on this earth.

m

[Ericka Kammerer]

Lydia wrote:

> My OB used a little paper wheel contraption and the first day of my last
> period (5/21/04) to determine my due date of 2/25/05. But that wheel is
> based on the "average" 28 day menstrual cycle. MY personal average cycle
> length is 33 days so wouldn't I have ovulated later and my due date
> consequently be later? Or is that not how it works :).

Yes, that is the way it typically works out. Your due
date should be more like 3/2/05.
>
> I have an appointment tomorrow and I'm going to ask about it, but what do
> others know about this?

Insist that they change your due date in your record.
(If it had been me, I'd have padded my dates and given them
a date of 5/26 for LMP ;-) You want them to do this because
if you go two weeks past your due date (or even earlier in
some practices!) they will be agitating for an induction.
If this is your first pregnancy, the median length of
gestation is 41 weeks and 1 day, so just being a first
timer means you're like to eat up a lot of your "grace
period." Being off by five days makes an induction
(or induction pressure at the very least) much more
likely. Inductions can lead to more painful labors and
additional stress on the baby, not to mention potentially
increasing the risk of c-section and other complications.
Get your dates fixed. Insist on it, even if they're
reluctant or tell you it's not that important.

Best wishes,
Ericka

[Not My Real Name]

"Lydia" > wrote in message
...
> My OB used a little paper wheel contraption and the first day of my last
> period (5/21/04) to determine my due date of 2/25/05. But that wheel is
> based on the "average" 28 day menstrual cycle. MY personal average cycle
> length is 33 days so wouldn't I have ovulated later and my due date
> consequently be later? Or is that not how it works :).
>
Yep, that's how it works. I have long cycles, and this baby was conceived
while still bf'ing my first baby several times a day, which meant that I
ovulated *way* later than 14 days after my last period started. I am very
certain of my ovulation/conception date, so I told that to my midwife. She
put the ovulation date into her little wheel and came out with a date two
days after the date I had figured out. I still can't entirely figure out
why her date and mine are off by two days, because the date I calculated is
exactly 38 weeks after my ovulation date, but two days is no big deal.
Plus, with her date being later than mine, it gives me an extra two days to
go into labor before I'm considered too high-risk for the midwife and
homebirth. If your OB won't take your word for an ovulation date, you might
need to make up a last period date that is 14 days before your ovulation
date, or find another OB who will listen to you. You could also ask for a
sonogram to confirm the date; they're very accurate early, though you might
be a little too far along for it to be really specific. Bear in mind,
though, that if the OB thinks your due date is several days earlier than it
is, the baby may be measuring small for dates on the sonogram, so don't
panic. Inquire as to whether the baby looks the right size for the due date
you're calculating.


--
-Sara:)
Mommy to DD, 2 1/2
And Someone Due 2/05

[Not My Real Name]

> Yes, that is how it works - the wheel is based on the average 28 day
> cycle. If you consistently have 33 day cycles, your due date should be
> corrected by 5 days. Using Nagele's rule, from LMP 21 may 04 I get EDD
> 28 February 05 for a 28 day cycle and add 5 days to get 5 March 05.
>
Hey Alath -- nice to see you around here again. I remember you popping in
now and then during my first pregnancy, 01-early 02.


--
-Sara:)
Mommy to DD, 2 1/2
And Someone Due 2/05

[Jenrose]

"Lydia" > wrote in message
...
> My OB used a little paper wheel contraption and the first day of my last
> period (5/21/04) to determine my due date of 2/25/05. But that wheel is
> based on the "average" 28 day menstrual cycle. MY personal average cycle
> length is 33 days so wouldn't I have ovulated later and my due date
> consequently be later? Or is that not how it works :).
>

I flat out refuse to give my LMP for this pg...my "true" LMP is
3/31/04...but I got pg on 4/15/04 and miscarried, then got pg again without
a period between... BUT... I know when I ovulated.

When I went in, they asked for LMP, and I said, "Plug in May 29 and you'll
get the right answer for when I'm due...I ovulated June 12."

What I would do is say, "Look, I know that you normally figure based on LMP.
But I know that my likely ovulation date was NOT 2 weeks after my LMP, but
19 days after. Please figure my due date from May 26 as LMP, NOT May 21."

Jenrose

[Sophie]

"Lydia" > wrote in message
...
> My OB used a little paper wheel contraption and the first day of my last
> period (5/21/04) to determine my due date of 2/25/05. But that wheel is
> based on the "average" 28 day menstrual cycle. MY personal average cycle
> length is 33 days so wouldn't I have ovulated later and my due date
> consequently be later? Or is that not how it works :).
>
> I have an appointment tomorrow and I'm going to ask about it, but what do
> others know about this?
>
> Thanks,
> Lydia
>
>

I always knew my due date cos of charting. The OB always got out that wheel
and I'd roll my eyes cos I don't ovulate till day 21-23. Then they'd do the
ultrasound and the variation was never enough to change my due date from
what I gave them.

--
Sophie
mom of 4

[Tori M.]

"medgirl" > wrote in message
...
> "Jamie Clark" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > Yes, but wouldn't Nagele's Rule still be basically based on the fact
that
> > ovulation would normally have occurred 2 weeks after the LMP that you
are
> > working with? I mean, in an extreme case of a less than average cycle,
> with
> > a person who ovulated 4 weeks after their last period, Nagele's Rule
would
> > have their estimated due date a few weeks short, wouldn't it? The
average
> > length of pregnancy is 38 weeks from ovulation, which could be vastly
> > different than 40 weeks from LMP.
>
> That's true - all of the calculations assume that everyone remembers when
> their LMP was, that it was relatively normal

You mean not everyone has a little X on the days that they had their period
and a Heart on the days they carefully planned the Baby Dance;) My midwife
took my dates over the ultrasound dates because I had that all marked.. The
first ultrasound date was impossable. The date based on my lmp was to soon
because I ovulated late that month according to the saliva tester I used.

Tori

--
Bonnie 3/20/02
Xavier due 10/17/04

[Circe]

medgirl wrote:
> Nagele's Rule basically just says that an average pregnancy is 280
> days and nothing else.

Of course, Nagele's Rule is wrong <g>. The average length of pregnancy is
actually 283 days and something like 288 days for first-time mothers.
--
Be well, Barbara
Mom to Sin (Vernon, 2), Misery (Aurora, 5), and the Rising Son (Julian, 7)

This week's suggested Bush/Cheney campaign bumper sticker:
"Four More Wars!"

All opinions expressed in this post are well-reasoned and insightful.
Needless to say, they are not those of my Internet Service Provider, its
other subscribers or lackeys. Anyone who says otherwise is itchin' for a
fight. -- with apologies to Michael Feldman

[Donna Metler]

"Tori M." > wrote in message
...
>
> "medgirl" > wrote in message
> ...
> > "Jamie Clark" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > Yes, but wouldn't Nagele's Rule still be basically based on the fact
> that
> > > ovulation would normally have occurred 2 weeks after the LMP that you
> are
> > > working with? I mean, in an extreme case of a less than average
cycle,
> > with
> > > a person who ovulated 4 weeks after their last period, Nagele's Rule
> would
> > > have their estimated due date a few weeks short, wouldn't it? The
> average
> > > length of pregnancy is 38 weeks from ovulation, which could be vastly
> > > different than 40 weeks from LMP.
> >
> > That's true - all of the calculations assume that everyone remembers
when
> > their LMP was, that it was relatively normal
>
> You mean not everyone has a little X on the days that they had their
period
> and a Heart on the days they carefully planned the Baby Dance;) My
midwife
> took my dates over the ultrasound dates because I had that all marked..
The
> first ultrasound date was impossable. The date based on my lmp was to
soon
> because I ovulated late that month according to the saliva tester I used.
>
I obviously ovulated early the month we concieved this one-simply BECAUSE I
had everything marked, and based on LMP, I shouldn't have gotten
pregnant-either that or those sperm had been waiting about a week! The
ultrasound date matched what I would have expected.

> Tori
>
> --
> Bonnie 3/20/02
> Xavier due 10/17/04
>
>

[Lydia]

Thank you all so much. I'm so glad I asked! I'll definitely talk about
this today with the OB and hope to make them understand my wishes. We'll
see what her reaction is.

What are the meanings of the different levels of ultrasound? Jamie asked if
the one I'll have at my next appt. in Oct. will be a level II... ? I
haven't had an ultrasound yet as nothing has indicated any problems and so
they said they don't do early ones (when no problems are suspected) because
it's difficult to get the insurance companies to pay for it if it's not
necessary. Anyway, does the "level II" refer to a second ultrasound or to
the trimester of pregnancy?

Sorry for the beginner questions, but as you may have guessed this *is* my
first time :-).

Of course, when EVER the baby comes will be the best day of my life and I
wouldn't put the baby's health and safety in jeopardy just to have a March
baby, but if I could choose I'm hoping for March. My husband's family has
these group parties starting in Feb.. There are 2 February birthdays, 3
April birthdays, 2 May birthdays and Mother's Day, and a June birthday and
Father's Day. So March is still wide open and our baby wouldn't have to
share the party with any one else :-P.


Thanks again for all the feedback.
Lydia

[Not My Real Name]

> What are the meanings of the different levels of ultrasound?

No idea on the u/s; all of mine have been early (6 or 8 weeks, 4 or 6 weeks
after conception).

> Sorry for the beginner questions, but as you may have guessed this *is* my
> first time :-).
>
That's okay! We were all there once! How else do you learn if you don't
ask?

> Of course, when EVER the baby comes will be the best day of my life and I
> wouldn't put the baby's health and safety in jeopardy just to have a March
> baby, but if I could choose I'm hoping for March.

March is a lovely time to have a baby! My first baby was due Feb. 26 and
came 6 (looooooong, lol) days later. I couldn't imagine a better birthdate
for her now! (It works out well too with the family; DH and I have May and
April bdays, respectively, and the new baby's birthday could be in January,
but is more likely to be early February.)


--
-Sara:)
Mommy to DD, 2 1/2
And Someone Due 2/05

[Circe]

Lydia wrote:
> What are the meanings of the different levels of ultrasound? Jamie
> asked if the one I'll have at my next appt. in Oct. will be a level
> II... ?

It has to do with the sensitivity of the ultrasound and how detailed the
imaging is. Almost no one gets a Level I ultrasound any more; Level II has
become the strandard.
--
Be well, Barbara
Mom to Sin (Vernon, 2), Misery (Aurora, 5), and the Rising Son (Julian, 7)

This week's suggested Bush/Cheney campaign bumper sticker:
"Four More Wars!"

All opinions expressed in this post are well-reasoned and insightful.
Needless to say, they are not those of my Internet Service Provider, its
other subscribers or lackeys. Anyone who says otherwise is itchin' for a
fight. -- with apologies to Michael Feldman

[Sophie]

> Thank you all so much. I'm so glad I asked! I'll definitely talk about
> this today with the OB and hope to make them understand my wishes. We'll
> see what her reaction is.
>
> What are the meanings of the different levels of ultrasound? Jamie asked
if
> the one I'll have at my next appt. in Oct. will be a level II... ? I
> haven't had an ultrasound yet as nothing has indicated any problems and so
> they said they don't do early ones (when no problems are suspected)
because
> it's difficult to get the insurance companies to pay for it if it's not
> necessary. Anyway, does the "level II" refer to a second ultrasound or to
> the trimester of pregnancy?

I had a Level 2 when I had my amnio with #2 and to keep an eye on #4 when I
got Fifths Disease. It's just clearer, more detailed than a regular
ultrasound. I didn't really think it was that much better till I had a car
accident with #4 and had a regular u/s that night and a Level 2 the next
day. Very different quality. Also they can do something to show blood
flow - red and blue. They did that with #2 to check the umbilical cord (it
was wrapped around #1's neck so I was worried about it happening to #2).
Pretty neat.

>
> Sorry for the beginner questions, but as you may have guessed this *is* my
> first time :-).
>
> Of course, when EVER the baby comes will be the best day of my life and I
> wouldn't put the baby's health and safety in jeopardy just to have a March
> baby, but if I could choose I'm hoping for March. My husband's family has
> these group parties starting in Feb.. There are 2 February birthdays, 3
> April birthdays, 2 May birthdays and Mother's Day, and a June birthday and
> Father's Day. So March is still wide open and our baby wouldn't have to
> share the party with any one else :-P.

March would be nice - far enough away from Christmas and New Year :)


> Thanks again for all the feedback.
> Lydia

--
Sophie
mom of 4

[Sophie]

> It has to do with the sensitivity of the ultrasound and how detailed the
> imaging is. Almost no one gets a Level I ultrasound any more; Level II has
> become the strandard.
> --
> Be well, Barbara
> Mom to Sin (Vernon, 2), Misery (Aurora, 5), and the Rising Son (Julian, 7)


Sure they do, at my antiquated Navy hospital :)

[Circe]

Sophie wrote:
>> It has to do with the sensitivity of the ultrasound and how
>> detailed the imaging is. Almost no one gets a Level I ultrasound
>> any more; Level II has become the strandard.
>
> Sure they do, at my antiquated Navy hospital :)

Well, sure, anything is possible! I just think that when they're doing one
routine ultrasound during pregnancy, these days it's generally a Level II.
--
Be well, Barbara
Mom to Sin (Vernon, 2), Misery (Aurora, 5), and the Rising Son (Julian, 7)

This week's suggested Bush/Cheney campaign bumper sticker:
"Four More Wars!"

All opinions expressed in this post are well-reasoned and insightful.
Needless to say, they are not those of my Internet Service Provider, its
other subscribers or lackeys. Anyone who says otherwise is itchin' for a
fight. -- with apologies to Michael Feldman

[Ericka Kammerer]

Lydia wrote:


> What are the meanings of the different levels of ultrasound? Jamie asked if
> the one I'll have at my next appt. in Oct. will be a level II... ? I
> haven't had an ultrasound yet as nothing has indicated any problems and so
> they said they don't do early ones (when no problems are suspected) because
> it's difficult to get the insurance companies to pay for it if it's not
> necessary. Anyway, does the "level II" refer to a second ultrasound or to
> the trimester of pregnancy?

It refers to the level of detail in the exam.

By the by, while a mid-trimester u/s has become pretty
routine in the US, routine u/s has not been proven to have any
medical benefits and is not recommended by the ACOG. I
mention that not to suggest you should not have a mid-trimester
u/s (though some, including myself, have chosen not to) but
only to say there's no need to worry over whether you're
having enough u/s or detailed enough u/s. Having no u/s
is just fine in an otherwise healthy and uncomplicated
pregnancy, so whatever level u/s you might have is not
a problem ;-)

Best wishes,
Ericka

[Nan]

On Wed, 15 Sep 2004 11:51:58 -0700, "Circe" >
scribbled:

>Sophie wrote:
>>> It has to do with the sensitivity of the ultrasound and how
>>> detailed the imaging is. Almost no one gets a Level I ultrasound
>>> any more; Level II has become the strandard.
>>
>> Sure they do, at my antiquated Navy hospital :)
>
>Well, sure, anything is possible! I just think that when they're doing one
>routine ultrasound during pregnancy, these days it's generally a Level II.

The u/s tech I had for my first u/s to date the pregnancy didn't even
know what a level II u/s was.
But I did have a level II at the hospital to check for a possible
anomaly in A's umbilical cord.

Nan

[Donna Metler]

A level II is a 2d, relatively detailed ultrasound, which can be done in an
OB or midwife's office, or by a sonographer in a specialists office. A Level
III is a 3d ultrasound, and usually only perinatal or maternal/fetal
specialist centers have them, because the equipment is expensive and massy,
and requires more training to use. Some OBs and midwives refer all
sonography to a specialist center rather than do it in office, to let more
trained people do it and to avoid the expense of the machine.

The only time I've seen a level I was when they wheeled one into my hospital
room when I had severe PE with #1 to take a look at the baby-much more
grainy and hard to see, but it let them take the measurements needed without
having to move me to the U/S machine. It really wasn't much different from
the doppler U/S used for heartbeat, except it had a screen attached.

[Jamie Clark]

"Lydia" > wrote in message
...
> Thank you all so much. I'm so glad I asked! I'll definitely talk about
> this today with the OB and hope to make them understand my wishes. We'll
> see what her reaction is.
>
> What are the meanings of the different levels of ultrasound? Jamie asked
> if the one I'll have at my next appt. in Oct. will be a level II... ? I
> haven't had an ultrasound yet as nothing has indicated any problems and so
> they said they don't do early ones (when no problems are suspected)
> because it's difficult to get the insurance companies to pay for it if
> it's not necessary. Anyway, does the "level II" refer to a second
> ultrasound or to the trimester of pregnancy?

Also level II u/s are traditionally done between 18-22 weeks of pregnancy to
get a look at the physical anatomy of the baby and make sure that there are
no anomolies, and the gender is often found out at this time. Some doctors
do them routinely, and some do not. I just guessed, based on the timing of
yours, that it's a mid-pregnancy anatomy scan, also known as a level II u/s.

P.S. I liked the March 5th due date that someone calculated for you. It's
my birthday!
--

Jamie & Taylor
Earth Angel, 1/3/03

Check out Taylor Marlys -- www.MyFamily.com, User ID: Clarkguest1,
Password: Guest
Become a member for free - go to Add Member to set up your own User ID and
Password

Check out our Adoption Page at http://www.geocities.com/clarkadopt2004/

[Sophie]

> P.S. I liked the March 5th due date that someone calculated for you.
It's
> my birthday!
> --
>
> Jamie & Taylor
> Earth Angel, 1/3/03


That's my wedding anniversary :)

[Jamie Clark]

Cool! How many years will it be this Spring?
--

Jamie & Taylor
Earth Angel, 1/3/03

Check out Taylor Marlys -- www.MyFamily.com, User ID: Clarkguest1,
Password: Guest
Become a member for free - go to Add Member to set up your own User ID and
Password

Check out our Adoption Page at http://www.geocities.com/clarkadopt2004/


"Sophie" > wrote in message
...
>
>> P.S. I liked the March 5th due date that someone calculated for you.
> It's
>> my birthday!
>> --
>>
>> Jamie & Taylor
>> Earth Angel, 1/3/03
>
>
> That's my wedding anniversary :)
>
>

[Jenrose]

> I had a Level 2 when I had my amnio with #2 and to keep an eye on #4 when
> I
> got Fifths Disease. It's just clearer, more detailed than a regular
> ultrasound. I didn't really think it was that much better till I had a
> car
> accident with #4 and had a regular u/s that night and a Level 2 the next
> day. Very different quality. Also they can do something to show blood
> flow - red and blue. They did that with #2 to check the umbilical cord
> (it
> was wrapped around #1's neck so I was worried about it happening to #2).
> Pretty neat.
>

You know, I think I may never have had a level 1 done... Every US I've ever
had done showed blood flow in color, whether obstetric or venous ultrasound.

Jenrose

[Leslie]

Donna said:

>If you get an ultrasound at any point, they'll recalculate your EDD then
>anyway

If you're like me, that in and of itself can cause a problem. The "little
wheel" puts my due date at October 31, and the ultrasound wanted to put it at
October 25! Luckily, my doctor trusts my dates and thus came up with (and
stuck to) November 2 (although I still say it's November 4).




Leslie

Emily (2/4/91)
Jake (1/27/94)
Teddy (2/15/95)
William (3/5/01 -- VBA3C, 13 lbs. 5 oz.)
and Lorelei, expected 11/2/04

"Children come trailing clouds of glory from God, which is their home."
~ William Wordsworth

[Leslie]

>> P.S. I liked the March 5th due date that someone calculated for you.
>It's
>> my birthday!
>> --
>>
>> Jamie & Taylor
>> Earth Angel, 1/3/03
>
>
>That's my wedding anniversary :)
>
And it's William's birthday too. :-)


Leslie

Emily (2/4/91)
Jake (1/27/94)
Teddy (2/15/95)
William (3/5/01 -- VBA3C, 13 lbs. 5 oz.)
and Lorelei, expected 11/2/04

"Children come trailing clouds of glory from God, which is their home."
~ William Wordsworth

[Joybelle]

"Not My Real Name" > wrote in message
...
>
> March is a lovely time to have a baby! My first baby was due Feb. 26 and
> came 6 (looooooong, lol) days later. I couldn't imagine a better
birthdate
> for her now! (It works out well too with the family; DH and I have May
and
> April bdays, respectively, and the new baby's birthday could be in
January,
> but is more likely to be early February.)
--
Joy

Rose 1-30-99
Iris 2-28-01
Spencer 3-12-03

March certainly IS a lovely time to have a baby! Around here it is still
cold, but spring is in the air. My babies have been born January, February,
March. January and February are riddled with birthdays, esp January. My
hubby's birthday is in April...celebration after celebration! I need to
have one by my birthday (which was yesterday), but what I'd really love to
do is have a baby for each month minus April and September. :)

[Lydia]

I spoke with my OB and she is pretty relaxed about the due date. I have an
appt. for my first ultrasound on Oct. 11th which she said might give them a
better idea. Said that they use the wheel date loosely just for the reason
I had - having a longer cycle length. So my clinic usually gives +/- 2
weeks, barring any other factors that might be putting baby in danger,
before they start recommending further measures to deliver.

Otherwise, had a good appointment yesterday. Heard the heart beating away
strong at about 155 bpm.

Lydia



"Jamie Clark" > wrote in message
...
> Also level II u/s are traditionally done between 18-22 weeks of pregnancy
> to get a look at the physical anatomy of the baby and make sure that there
> are no anomolies, and the gender is often found out at this time. Some
> doctors do them routinely, and some do not. I just guessed, based on the
> timing of yours, that it's a mid-pregnancy anatomy scan, also known as a
> level II u/s.
>
> P.S. I liked the March 5th due date that someone calculated for you.
> It's my birthday!
> --
>
> Jamie & Taylor
> Earth Angel, 1/3/03
>
> Check out Taylor Marlys -- www.MyFamily.com, User ID: Clarkguest1,
> Password: Guest
> Become a member for free - go to Add Member to set up your own User ID and
> Password
>
> Check out our Adoption Page at http://www.geocities.com/clarkadopt2004/
>
>

[Ericka Kammerer]

Lydia wrote:

> I spoke with my OB and she is pretty relaxed about the due date. I have an
> appt. for my first ultrasound on Oct. 11th which she said might give them a
> better idea. Said that they use the wheel date loosely just for the reason
> I had - having a longer cycle length. So my clinic usually gives +/- 2
> weeks, barring any other factors that might be putting baby in danger,
> before they start recommending further measures to deliver.

Just continue to be cautious. If your dates are five
days off and this is your first baby, two weeks can still get
you in trouble. If they use the due date by the wheel, that
due date is still 8 days earlier than the median length of
gestation for first timers. That means that you'll be at
41 weeks and 1 day before your odds are 50/50 for delivering
spontaneously using the *original* due date! In reality,
then, if we accept your "true" due date as likely to be
five days later, according to your clinic's date, you'll
be 41 weeks and 6 days before you'll have a 50/50 chance
of delivering spontaneously. That's only a day away from
42 weeks, and poof! your grace period is gone and induction
will be pushed. (And many caregivers give very little
leeway once you hit 42 weeks--they want an induction *now*,
not just discussion about what to do over the next week
or so). If you had those five days, you'd still have
6 days after that 50/50 point, which gives you *much*
better odds. You might ask your caregivers what percentage
of their clients are induced (particularly first timers).
That will likely give you a much better clue whether or not
to worry about this.

Best wishes,
Ericka

[Sophie]

"Jamie Clark" > wrote in message
...
> Cool! How many years will it be this Spring?
> --
>
> Jamie & Taylor
> Earth Angel, 1/3/03
>

9! Can't beleive it.

[medgirl]

"Sophie" > wrote in message
...
> I always knew my due date cos of charting. The OB always got out that
wheel
> and I'd roll my eyes cos I don't ovulate till day 21-23. Then they'd do
the
> ultrasound and the variation was never enough to change my due date from
> what I gave them.

Don't the wheels let you set them by ovulation date? I haven't looked at
one closely in a while, but I seem to remember that there's a line for that.

[H Schinske]

wrote:

>You know, I think I may never have had a level 1 done... Every US I've ever
>had done showed blood flow in color, whether obstetric or venous ultrasound.

I had a zillion ultrasounds during my twin pregnancy (ten and a half years ago
now) and never saw this! Sounds cool.

--Helen

[Jamie Clark]

"Lydia" > wrote in message
...
>I spoke with my OB and she is pretty relaxed about the due date. I have an
>appt. for my first ultrasound on Oct. 11th which she said might give them a
>better idea. Said that they use the wheel date loosely just for the reason
>I had - having a longer cycle length. So my clinic usually gives +/- 2
>weeks, barring any other factors that might be putting baby in danger,
>before they start recommending further measures to deliver.
>
> Otherwise, had a good appointment yesterday. Heard the heart beating away
> strong at about 155 bpm.
>
> Lydia
>

I agree with everything Ericka said. Plus, EVERY clinic basically give you
a due date that is +/-2 weeks. That's standard operating procedure. Make
them change it in your chart to the early March date. Really. It will help
you in the end to, since by the time you get to your due date, whatever it
is, you are going to be huge and tired and cranky and uncomfortable and
SOOOOOO ready for this to be over. It's an emotional milestone, and if you
have your eye on March 5th, rather than February 25, you'll do better,
especially if he starts talking induction. But if he puts Feb 25th in your
chart, that's where you mind will be, and by the time you get there, you
won't be able to imagine putting up with being pregnant for 1 more day, not
to mention possibly 2 more weeks.

It's like running a marathon, and all the time you're looking for that 26
mile marker, so you can finally stop. You reach 22, 23, 24, 25, and
finally, pulling all your strength, you get to 26 -- only instead of a
finish line, is a sign that says, "keep running until you see the red stop
sign." It could be in 10 paces, it could be in a 100 paces, or it could be
in 3 miles. You don't know. Wouldn't you have been smarter to train for a
30 mile marathon, instead of a 24 mile marathon?
--

Jamie & Taylor
Earth Angel, 1/3/03

Check out Taylor Marlys -- www.MyFamily.com, User ID: Clarkguest1,
Password: Guest
Become a member for free - go to Add Member to set up your own User ID and
Password

Check out our Adoption Page at http://www.geocities.com/clarkadopt2004/

[Jamie Clark]

Congrats! We just celebrated our 8 year this past June. We've been
together 11. Amazing.
--

Jamie & Taylor
Earth Angel, 1/3/03

Check out Taylor Marlys -- www.MyFamily.com, User ID: Clarkguest1,
Password: Guest
Become a member for free - go to Add Member to set up your own User ID and
Password

Check out our Adoption Page at http://www.geocities.com/clarkadopt2004/


"Sophie" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Jamie Clark" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Cool! How many years will it be this Spring?
>> --
>>
>> Jamie & Taylor
>> Earth Angel, 1/3/03
>>
>
> 9! Can't beleive it.
>
>
>

[Jamie Clark]

"Jenrose" > wrote in message
news:1095317936.l5UoA8LibkwAQqtXgHVRBw@teranews...
>
>> I had a Level 2 when I had my amnio with #2 and to keep an eye on #4 when
>> I
>> got Fifths Disease. It's just clearer, more detailed than a regular
>> ultrasound. I didn't really think it was that much better till I had a
>> car
>> accident with #4 and had a regular u/s that night and a Level 2 the next
>> day. Very different quality. Also they can do something to show blood
>> flow - red and blue. They did that with #2 to check the umbilical cord
>> (it
>> was wrapped around #1's neck so I was worried about it happening to #2).
>> Pretty neat.
>>
>
> You know, I think I may never have had a level 1 done... Every US I've
> ever had done showed blood flow in color, whether obstetric or venous
> ultrasound.
>
> Jenrose

Level I u/s aren't done much any more, as someone else mentioned, there is
better technology out there. Unless, of course, you're in the military, in
which case you get what you get, right Sophie? Heck, who needs anesthesia
during major surgery? Piffle!
--

Jamie & Taylor
Earth Angel, 1/3/03

Check out Taylor Marlys -- www.MyFamily.com, User ID: Clarkguest1,
Password: Guest
Become a member for free - go to Add Member to set up your own User ID and
Password

Check out our Adoption Page at http://www.geocities.com/clarkadopt2004/

[Sophie]

"medgirl" > wrote in message
...
> "Sophie" > wrote in message
> ...
> > I always knew my due date cos of charting. The OB always got out that
> wheel
> > and I'd roll my eyes cos I don't ovulate till day 21-23. Then they'd do
> the
> > ultrasound and the variation was never enough to change my due date from
> > what I gave them.
>
> Don't the wheels let you set them by ovulation date? I haven't looked at
> one closely in a while, but I seem to remember that there's a line for
that.
>
>

Nope, first day of last period.

[Sophie]

> Level I u/s aren't done much any more, as someone else mentioned, there is
> better technology out there. Unless, of course, you're in the military,
in
> which case you get what you get, right Sophie? Heck, who needs anesthesia
> during major surgery? Piffle!
> --
>
> Jamie & Taylor
> Earth Angel, 1/3/03


Yeah that stuff costs money - lol.

[Cheryl]

On 17 Sep 2004 01:00:06 GMT, (H Schinske) wrote:

wrote:
>
>>You know, I think I may never have had a level 1 done... Every US I've ever
>>had done showed blood flow in color, whether obstetric or venous ultrasound.
>
>I had a zillion ultrasounds during my twin pregnancy (ten and a half years ago
>now) and never saw this! Sounds cool.
>
They didn't have that capability on the machine used for my #2 in
April 2000, it was something they were upgrading to. It's a shame
too, they would have picked up one of his heart defects if they'd had
it. Ever since then I've seen the venous flow with all ultrasounds,
including the blood supply to the ovaries and uterus which was
interesting.

--
Cheryl
Mum to Shrimp (11 Mar 99), Thud (4 Oct 00)
Mischief (30 Jul 02)
+ someone new due Feb 05

[Jenrose]

"Sophie" > wrote in message
...
>
> "medgirl" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "Sophie" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > I always knew my due date cos of charting. The OB always got out that
>> wheel
>> > and I'd roll my eyes cos I don't ovulate till day 21-23. Then they'd
>> > do
>> the
>> > ultrasound and the variation was never enough to change my due date
>> > from
>> > what I gave them.
>>
>> Don't the wheels let you set them by ovulation date? I haven't looked at
>> one closely in a while, but I seem to remember that there's a line for
> that.
>>
>>
>
> Nope, first day of last period.
>
>

Eh. Plonk day 14 on the day you think you ovulated and it works based on
ovulation date.

Jenrose

[H Schinske]

wrote:

>They didn't have that capability on the machine used for my #2 in
>April 2000, it was something they were upgrading to. It's a shame
>too, they would have picked up one of his heart defects if they'd had
>it.

Yeah, one of my twins was supposed to have a two-vessel cord, but the
postpartum report said three-vessel cords for both (mind you, it was the same
report that said my obviously-very-fraternal twins shared a placenta, so I'm
not banking on that lab tech having been the most observant!). I'd love to have
seen the blood flow there. They were fine anyway, so it's no odds really, just
it would have been interesting.

--Helen

[Hillary Israeli]

In >,
H Schinske > wrote:

wrote:
*
*>You know, I think I may never have had a level 1 done... Every US I've ever
*>had done showed blood flow in color, whether obstetric or venous ultrasound.
*
*I had a zillion ultrasounds during my twin pregnancy (ten and a half years ago
*now) and never saw this! Sounds cool.

It is cool. When I was having my 18 wk scan, my 4 yr old asked the doctor
why it wasn't in color -- so the doctor turned on the colorflow doppler
for him and pointed out the direction of flow to/from baby/me in the
umbilical arteries and veins, and the placental vascular bed. That kept my
son talking about it for days.

--
Hillary Israeli, VMD
Lafayette Hill/PA/USA/Earth
"Outside of a dog, a book is a man's best friend. Inside of a dog, it is
too dark to read." --Groucho Marx

[Sarah Vaughan]

In message >, Not My Real Name
> writes
>She put the ovulation date into her little wheel and came out with a
>date two days after the date I had figured out. I still can't entirely
>figure out why her date and mine are off by two days, because the date
>I calculated is exactly 38 weeks after my ovulation date, but two days
>is no big deal.

I've found those wheels can be a bit, well, wobbly. They don't seem to
be precise to the day - especially not once they're a bit old and
battered.


All the best,

Sarah

--
"I once requested an urgent admission for a homeopath who had become depressed
and taken a massive underdose" - Phil Peverley

[Sarah Vaughan]

In message >, Sophie
> writes
>
>"medgirl" > wrote in message
...
>> "Sophie" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > I always knew my due date cos of charting. The OB always got out that
>> wheel
>> > and I'd roll my eyes cos I don't ovulate till day 21-23. Then they'd do
>> the
>> > ultrasound and the variation was never enough to change my due date from
>> > what I gave them.
>>
>> Don't the wheels let you set them by ovulation date? I haven't looked at
>> one closely in a while, but I seem to remember that there's a line for
>that.
>>
>>
>
>Nope, first day of last period.

The ones I've seen all have a conception date marked on them as well, so
maybe we do things differently here.

I just wish I could _find_ mine. It disappeared after I'd taken a
couple of days holiday and somebody else was using my office, and hasn't
resurfaced. Given the state my desk is in, it could be anywhere. I'm
down to working out my patients' due dates by the old 'add seven days
and subtract three months' method. Which is not too big a deal, since I
deliberately tell them something like 'around late March/early April but
basically it'll just come when it's ready' rather than a precise date,
but it would still help if I could find it for filling out the referral
forms to the midwives. :-(


All the best,

Sarah

--
"I once requested an urgent admission for a homeopath who had become depressed
and taken a massive underdose" - Phil Peverley

[Sophie]

> The ones I've seen all have a conception date marked on them as well, so
> maybe we do things differently here.

And "here" would be where??

> I just wish I could _find_ mine. It disappeared after I'd taken a
> couple of days holiday and somebody else was using my office, and hasn't
> resurfaced. Given the state my desk is in, it could be anywhere. I'm
> down to working out my patients' due dates by the old 'add seven days
> and subtract three months' method. Which is not too big a deal, since I
> deliberately tell them something like 'around late March/early April but
> basically it'll just come when it's ready' rather than a precise date,
> but it would still help if I could find it for filling out the referral
> forms to the midwives. :-(
>
>
> All the best,
>
> Sarah
>
> --
> "I once requested an urgent admission for a homeopath who had become
depressed
> and taken a massive underdose" - Phil Peverley

[Sarah Vaughan]

In message >, Sophie
> writes
>> The ones I've seen all have a conception date marked on them as well, so
>> maybe we do things differently here.
>
>And "here" would be where??

Sorry - the UK (East Anglia, England).


All the best,

Sarah

--
"I once requested an urgent admission for a homeopath who had become depressed
and taken a massive underdose" - Phil Peverley