to have amnio. or not

[Lydia]

Any advice on or experiences with amniocentesis? My blood tests came back
with an elevated risk for Down's Syndrome (I'm 30, my risk was what they
would have expected for a 34 yr. old). I am scheduled for an ultrasound
tomorrow and depending on what that tells us, my husband and I are now
trying to decide whether we should have the amnio. or not. I think we're
leaning towards having it, but the slight risk of miscarriage is, of course,
a concern too.

And while this won't affect our decision to do it or not, I'm also wondering
how painful it is?

Thanks,
Lydia

[sleepy67]

I opted for the amnio because of my age and although there is a 1% risk of
miscarriage, it was a really neat experience. The ultrasound lasted about
45 minutes so we were able to see every detail of baby in very thorough
detail. I never looked at the needle because I was watching the procedure
on the screen, but it really didn't hurt if you are used to a typical needle
prick, it just felt "weird", not really sure how to explain that, other than
it was a feeling I'd never had before. It was done very quickly but the
worry came after...what if the puncture doesn't seal etc. I stayed off my
feet as much as possible for 24hrs and never even felt a twinge. We got the
call in less than 2 weeks that all was well and the news that we were having
a girl (the only true 100% accurate way to know).
Good luck with whatever you decide!

Carole
EDD Nov. 10
"Lydia" > wrote in message
news:L464d.1268$He1.665@attbi_s01...
> Any advice on or experiences with amniocentesis? My blood tests came back
> with an elevated risk for Down's Syndrome (I'm 30, my risk was what they
> would have expected for a 34 yr. old). I am scheduled for an ultrasound
> tomorrow and depending on what that tells us, my husband and I are now
> trying to decide whether we should have the amnio. or not. I think we're
> leaning towards having it, but the slight risk of miscarriage is, of
course,
> a concern too.
>
> And while this won't affect our decision to do it or not, I'm also
wondering
> how painful it is?
>
> Thanks,
> Lydia
>
>

[toypup]

"sleepy67" > wrote in message
news:HI64d.68227$%S.36592@pd7tw2no...
>I opted for the amnio because of my age and although there is a 1% risk of
> miscarriage, it was a really neat experience. The ultrasound lasted about
> 45 minutes so we were able to see every detail of baby in very thorough
> detail. I never looked at the needle because I was watching the procedure
> on the screen, but it really didn't hurt if you are used to a typical
> needle
> prick, it just felt "weird", not really sure how to explain that, other
> than
> it was a feeling I'd never had before.

Really? To me, it was a needle, but it felt like I was being stabbed with a
knife. The lidocaine only numbed the skin. I swear, I don't know how those
trauma patients survive, but it was very, very painful. The doc had to stop
a couple of times to let me catch my breath. When he did, the pain did get
better. I'll take epi-free childbirth with 4th degree tear any day. Don't
really mean to scare the OP, but that's how it really felt for me.

[Carol Ann]

I had an amnio for the same reason. I am 40. It took 2 sticks to get it
right. The pain is not as bad as you anticipate and that's coming from a
needle wimp. The anticipation is what gets you!

It feels really odd. After the intial stick, there is no pain. Feels like
something is pushing you on the insides (hey, that IS what's happening).
But, no pain. I opted not to get the deadening shot since it would mean a
stick and I was already getting stuck.

I was glad to know the results of the test, but the two weeks wait was the
worst part of my entire pregnancy. When I was at your point in my pregnancy
the uncertainty is what stressed me out.

I am glad I had the test.

My DSO didn't want me to have the amnio b/c he felt I would opt to terminate
the pregnancy should I find the results positive for downs. I, like you,
said that I would not have done that. Of course, we never really know how
we are going to react until the situation arises.

Good luck to you either way.

Here's something that helped me...

Welcome to Holland

***By: Emily Perl Kingsley

I am often asked to describe the experience of raising a child with a
disability - to try to help people who have not shared that unique
experience to understand it, to imagine how it would feel. It's like this …

When you're going to have a baby, it's like planning a fabulous vacation
trip - to Italy. You buy a bunch of guide books and make wonderful plans.
The Coliseum. The Michelangelo David. The gondolas in Venice. You may learn
some handy phrases in Italian. It's all very exciting.

After months of eager anticipation, the day finally arrives. You pack your
bags and off you go. Several hours later, the plane lands. The stewardess
comes in and says, "Welcome to Holland."

"Holland?!?" you say. "What do you mean Holland?? I signed up for Italy! I'm
supposed to be in Italy. All my life I've dreamed of going to Italy."

But there's been a change in the flight plan. They've landed in Holland and
there you must stay.

The important thing is they haven't taken you to a horrible, disgusting,
filthy place full of pestilence, famine and disease. It's just a different
place.

So you must go out and buy new guide books. And you must learn a whole new
language. And you will meet a whole new group of people you never would have
met.

It's just a different place. It's slower-paced than Italy, less flashy than
Italy. But after you've been there for a while and you catch your breath,
you look around … and you begin to notice Holland has windmills … and
Holland has tulips. Holland even has Rembrandts.

But everyone you know is busy coming and going from Italy … and they're all
bragging about what a wonderful time they had there. And for the rest of
your life, you will say, "Yes, that's where I was supposed to go. That's
what I had planned."

And the pain of that will never, ever, ever, ever go away … because the loss
of that dream is a very, very significant loss.

But … if you spend your life mourning the fact that you didn't get to go to
Italy, you may never be free to enjoy the very special, the very lovely
things … about Holland.

©1987 by Emily Perl Kingsley. All rights reserved.

~Carol Ann
http://tinyurl.com/66bvu <---Recent Pictures of Morgan

[Plissken]

"Lydia" > wrote in message
news:L464d.1268$He1.665@attbi_s01...
> Any advice on or experiences with amniocentesis? My blood tests came back
> with an elevated risk for Down's Syndrome (I'm 30, my risk was what they
> would have expected for a 34 yr. old). I am scheduled for an ultrasound
> tomorrow and depending on what that tells us, my husband and I are now
> trying to decide whether we should have the amnio. or not. I think we're
> leaning towards having it, but the slight risk of miscarriage is, of
course,
> a concern too.
>
> And while this won't affect our decision to do it or not, I'm also
wondering
> how painful it is?


I've never had one and won't be getting one even though I will be 34 when
the baby is born. What did they say your odds were exactly? I ask because
they say that a woman of 35 has a 1 in 350 chance of having a child with
Downs Syndrome, that is 0.002 % chance versus a 1% chance of miscarriage
during the procedure (someone correct me if I'm wrong on either stats).
Personally I wouldn't get it done if those are indeed the odds.

[Tori M.]

> I've never had one and won't be getting one even though I will be 34 when
> the baby is born. What did they say your odds were exactly? I ask because
> they say that a woman of 35 has a 1 in 350 chance of having a child with
> Downs Syndrome, that is 0.002 % chance versus a 1% chance of miscarriage
> during the procedure (someone correct me if I'm wrong on either stats).
> Personally I wouldn't get it done if those are indeed the odds.

We decided against the AFP (I think I have those initials wrong) because
even if those odds came back higher we would never agree to an amnio because
to us (dh and myself) the 1% odds of miscarage where too high and we would
not terminate based on the results. DH had a sister that was Downs Syndrom
and she was a pivital person in his life. We chose instead to have a level
2 ultrasound where they could check for markers non invasivly.. The
genetics councelor we saw the same day was really pushing an amnio but I
said no way!

Tori

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

[Kelly]

That piece was a very nice touch to your post.

Kelly
#4 2/05

"Carol Ann" > wrote in message
news:D674d.24104$wV.5450@attbi_s54...
> I had an amnio for the same reason. I am 40. It took 2 sticks to get it
> right. The pain is not as bad as you anticipate and that's coming from a
> needle wimp. The anticipation is what gets you!
>
> It feels really odd. After the intial stick, there is no pain. Feels
like
> something is pushing you on the insides (hey, that IS what's happening).
> But, no pain. I opted not to get the deadening shot since it would mean a
> stick and I was already getting stuck.
>
> I was glad to know the results of the test, but the two weeks wait was the
> worst part of my entire pregnancy. When I was at your point in my
pregnancy
> the uncertainty is what stressed me out.
>
> I am glad I had the test.
>
> My DSO didn't want me to have the amnio b/c he felt I would opt to
terminate
> the pregnancy should I find the results positive for downs. I, like you,
> said that I would not have done that. Of course, we never really know how
> we are going to react until the situation arises.
>
> Good luck to you either way.
>
> Here's something that helped me...
>
> Welcome to Holland
>
> ***By: Emily Perl Kingsley
>
> I am often asked to describe the experience of raising a child with a
> disability - to try to help people who have not shared that unique
> experience to understand it, to imagine how it would feel. It's like this
..
>
> When you're going to have a baby, it's like planning a fabulous vacation
> trip - to Italy. You buy a bunch of guide books and make wonderful plans.
> The Coliseum. The Michelangelo David. The gondolas in Venice. You may
learn
> some handy phrases in Italian. It's all very exciting.
>
> After months of eager anticipation, the day finally arrives. You pack your
> bags and off you go. Several hours later, the plane lands. The stewardess
> comes in and says, "Welcome to Holland."
>
> "Holland?!?" you say. "What do you mean Holland?? I signed up for Italy!
I'm
> supposed to be in Italy. All my life I've dreamed of going to Italy."
>
> But there's been a change in the flight plan. They've landed in Holland
and
> there you must stay.
>
> The important thing is they haven't taken you to a horrible, disgusting,
> filthy place full of pestilence, famine and disease. It's just a different
> place.
>
> So you must go out and buy new guide books. And you must learn a whole new
> language. And you will meet a whole new group of people you never would
have
> met.
>
> It's just a different place. It's slower-paced than Italy, less flashy
than
> Italy. But after you've been there for a while and you catch your breath,
> you look around . and you begin to notice Holland has windmills . and
> Holland has tulips. Holland even has Rembrandts.
>
> But everyone you know is busy coming and going from Italy . and they're
all
> bragging about what a wonderful time they had there. And for the rest of
> your life, you will say, "Yes, that's where I was supposed to go. That's
> what I had planned."
>
> And the pain of that will never, ever, ever, ever go away . because the
loss
> of that dream is a very, very significant loss.
>
> But . if you spend your life mourning the fact that you didn't get to go
to
> Italy, you may never be free to enjoy the very special, the very lovely
> things . about Holland.
>
> ©1987 by Emily Perl Kingsley. All rights reserved.
>
> ~Carol Ann
> http://tinyurl.com/66bvu <---Recent Pictures of Morgan
>
>

[Mamma Mia]

"Lydia" > wrote in message
news:L464d.1268$He1.665@attbi_s01...
> Any advice on or experiences with amniocentesis? My blood tests came back
> with an elevated risk for Down's Syndrome (I'm 30, my risk was what they
> would have expected for a 34 yr. old). I am scheduled for an ultrasound
> tomorrow and depending on what that tells us, my husband and I are now
> trying to decide whether we should have the amnio. or not. I think we're
> leaning towards having it, but the slight risk of miscarriage is, of
> course, a concern too.
>
> And while this won't affect our decision to do it or not, I'm also
> wondering how painful it is?
>
> Thanks,
> Lydia
>
>

i guess you really need to think about what would you do if they found out
something in the amnio. Would you terminate? if not, then why bother having
the test, at 1% risk of m/c., have the non invasive test. If you would
think about terminating, then maybe do it.

i know that sounds really harsh, but it is a personal choice thing hey?

good luckw tih your decision making

christine
(fwiw, i am not doing it, and i 34!!)

[[email protected]]

On Wed, 22 Sep 2004 03:12:44 GMT, "Lydia" > wrote:

>Any advice on or experiences with amniocentesis? My blood tests came back
>with an elevated risk for Down's Syndrome (I'm 30, my risk was what they
>would have expected for a 34 yr. old). I am scheduled for an ultrasound
>tomorrow and depending on what that tells us, my husband and I are now
>trying to decide whether we should have the amnio. or not. I think we're
>leaning towards having it, but the slight risk of miscarriage is, of course,
>a concern too.
>
>And while this won't affect our decision to do it or not, I'm also wondering
>how painful it is?


I opted not to have one with my second child. My Drs were insistent
that I should have an amnio, but I refused. My situation was
different, however. My first child died due to a heart defect which is
related to Down Syndrome.

I refused the amnio because I was ready to accept whichever child the
Universe chose to lend to me.

My second child is alive, healthy and beautiful. Super smart and a
complete joy.

Good luck with whatever you decide.

Stephie

[Mary S.]

Sophie wrote:

> Cos there are things you can do to prepare. Perhaps have a c-section instead
> of a vaginal birth if it would cause the baby trauma, have certain Drs
> standing by, deliver at a better hospital. There are other reasons besides
> termination to have the amnio. Piece of mind either way is a big one.

We've had the quad screen both times for the same reason (especially
since we've done out-of-hospital birth; I'd rather prepare for a
hospital birth beforehand than have to deal with a transfer on top of a
shock -- personal decision).

Mary S.

[Ericka Kammerer]

Lydia wrote:

> Any advice on or experiences with amniocentesis? My blood tests came back
> with an elevated risk for Down's Syndrome (I'm 30, my risk was what they
> would have expected for a 34 yr. old). I am scheduled for an ultrasound
> tomorrow and depending on what that tells us, my husband and I are now
> trying to decide whether we should have the amnio. or not. I think we're
> leaning towards having it, but the slight risk of miscarriage is, of course,
> a concern too.

My personal opinion is that the decision to take this,
or any, test rests on a few key issues:

1) How accurate is the test? In this case, amnio is very
accurate in diagnosing Downs Syndrome. It is not the
definitive diagnostic test for spina bifida, though it
provides some information. A negative amnio does not
guarantee a healthy baby, as it only checks for specific,
limited chromosomal disorders (and a couple other things).
If one has reason to suspect certain other chromosomal
issues, those can also be tested for.

2) What are the risks of the test? In the case of amnio,
you're usually looking at about a half a percent chance
of an amnio-induced miscarriage. Rates do, however,
vary by provider, so it can be helpful to shop around.

3) Most importantly, what would you do with the information?
If you know that the baby has Downs Syndrome, would you
terminate the pregnancy (or at least want the opportunity
to terminate the pregnancy)? If not, you're accepting
risk for little reason. Knowing for sure ahead of time
would give you some time to prepare, but not knowing
is unlikely to pose health risks for the baby. Still,
if you're going to spend the rest of your pregnancy in
a panic over the possibility, then perhaps it's worth it
for peace of mind.

Do keep in mind that the overwhelming majority of people
whose triple/quad screen results come back slightly
elevated (as yours did) have perfectly healthy babies.
There is a very high rate of "false positives" on this
screening test. (They're not really false positives
because this is a screening test, not a diagnostic test.
It's just supposed to identify a pool of people who
might benefit from diagnostic testing.)

*Personally* I wouldn't do the amnio with that low a
risk, but then again, I didn't even choose to have the
triple or quad screen done in my three pregnancies, so
your priorities may vary.

Best wishes,
Ericka

[Ericka Kammerer]

Plissken wrote:

> I've never had one and won't be getting one even though I will be 34 when
> the baby is born. What did they say your odds were exactly? I ask because
> they say that a woman of 35 has a 1 in 350 chance of having a child with
> Downs Syndrome, that is 0.002 % chance versus a 1% chance of miscarriage
> during the procedure (someone correct me if I'm wrong on either stats).
> Personally I wouldn't get it done if those are indeed the odds.

A 1 in 350 risk of Downs Syndrome is a 0.3 percent chance
of Downs Syndrome. The average amnio-induced risk of miscarriage
is generally quoted as around 0.5 percent. By the time you're
over 35, the risk of the two things are close to even, which is
why women over 35 are often advised to have an amnio. HOWEVER,
I think this is faulty logic. Those two numbers have little
to do with each other. The question is what is the *VALUE*
a particular individual places on those two things. For some
people, it's essential to know. They might be willing to
risk an even higher rate of miscarriage. For others, it is
completely unacceptable to take *any* increased risk of
miscarriage, even if it means not knowing whether the baby
will have DS. Also, different practitioners have different
miscarriage rates, so one should factor the rate for one's
own caregiver rather than just going by some average.

Best wishes,
Ericka

[Sophie]

"Lydia" > wrote in message
news:L464d.1268$He1.665@attbi_s01...
> Any advice on or experiences with amniocentesis? My blood tests came back
> with an elevated risk for Down's Syndrome (I'm 30, my risk was what they
> would have expected for a 34 yr. old). I am scheduled for an ultrasound
> tomorrow and depending on what that tells us, my husband and I are now
> trying to decide whether we should have the amnio. or not. I think we're
> leaning towards having it, but the slight risk of miscarriage is, of
course,
> a concern too.
>
> And while this won't affect our decision to do it or not, I'm also
wondering
> how painful it is?
>
> Thanks,
> Lydia


Same situation except I was only 26. We had the amnio cos I *had* to know,
then I could prepare, have the baby at a better hospital if needed, with
specialists around, etc...
Felt like a bee sting.
Everything turned out fine.

[Sophie]

> i guess you really need to think about what would you do if they found out
> something in the amnio. Would you terminate? if not, then why bother
having
> the test, at 1% risk of m/c., have the non invasive test. If you would
> think about terminating, then maybe do it.
>
> i know that sounds really harsh, but it is a personal choice thing hey?
>
> good luckw tih your decision making
>
> christine
> (fwiw, i am not doing it, and i 34!!)


Cos there are things you can do to prepare. Perhaps have a c-section instead
of a vaginal birth if it would cause the baby trauma, have certain Drs
standing by, deliver at a better hospital. There are other reasons besides
termination to have the amnio. Piece of mind either way is a big one.

[Donna Metler]

I suspect that you're on the borderline of where the risk of DS is about=to
the risk of the amnio, so you may want to weigh that into account. Also,
remember that amnio shows NOTHING on the severity of DS, so even if it comes
back positive, you're still looking at a wide range of outcomes (I have had
DS students who were functioning on grade level, ones who were very low
level, and most were in between).

Also, look at who is recommending it. My peri was pushing for it, based as
much on my age (I'm-gasp-32-which apparently was old enough that since I'm
already high risk insurance would pay even without a positive AFP), and it
really freaked me out. The CNM pointed out that to a perinatologist, amnio
is what about 90% of his patients are there for-either relatively "routine
ones" due to age or due to positive AFP, and therefore he is confident in
it, does a huge number, and doesn't see it as a big deal-and may forget just
what it might mean for a mother to be faced with it.

[Nikki]

Lydia wrote:
> Any advice on or experiences with amniocentesis? My blood tests came
> back with an elevated risk for Down's Syndrome (I'm 30, my risk was
> what they would have expected for a 34 yr. old). I am scheduled for
> an ultrasound tomorrow and depending on what that tells us, my
> husband and I are now trying to decide whether we should have the
> amnio. or not. I think we're leaning towards having it, but the
> slight risk of miscarriage is, of course, a concern too.

You can't use just the numbers (risk of either downs or miscarriage) to make
up your mind. You have to place a *value* on them. Each person places a
different value on each item. Some people value knowing ahead of time very
very high. Higher then the value of a possible miscarriage. In that case
the amnio is the appropriate choice. Some people would terminate and in
that case, amnio is appropriate. Some people place a very very high value
on the miscarriage risk. A higher value then their need to be 100% sure
either way. Those people do not go forward with the amnio because the
miscarriage resulting from a choice they made would be more traumatic then
being surprised with a baby with downs.

FWIW my AFP came back with an astonishingly high risk of downs (1:10) and I
opted to redo the AFP with an ultrasound due date (which still came back
quite high 1:50 I think) and then went on to a Level II ultrasound with a
doctor that had a very high accuracy rate for detecting problems with the
Level II. He used my age (31), AFP results, and his results to assign me a
new risk ratio (can't even remember) but I left all my worries at his office
and went home to wait for my healthy little man to be born :-) After all
that I could have *still* went on to have the amnio if the Level II had
raised more concerns. That plan wouldn't be to useful if one would want to
terminate though because by the time we were done with all that it was later
in the pregnancy then most people want to be to make that decision. That
wasn't a factor for me so I didn't even think about it when planning things.
--
Nikki

[Carol Ann]

> That piece was a very nice touch to your post.
>
> Kelly
> #4 2/05

I cannot express just how much it helped me deal with my pregnancy. I was
really worried. I did quite a bit of research and asked so many questions.
I wanted to be prepared for whatever trip I was taking.

> >
> > Here's something that helped me...
> >
> > Welcome to Holland
> >
> > ***By: Emily Perl Kingsley
> >
> > I am often asked to describe the experience of raising a child with a
> > disability - to try to help people who have not shared that unique
> > experience to understand it, to imagine how it would feel. It's like
this
> .
> >
> > When you're going to have a baby, it's like planning a fabulous vacation
> > trip - to Italy. You buy a bunch of guide books and make wonderful
plans.
> > The Coliseum. The Michelangelo David. The gondolas in Venice. You may
> learn
> > some handy phrases in Italian. It's all very exciting.
> >
> > After months of eager anticipation, the day finally arrives. You pack
your
> > bags and off you go. Several hours later, the plane lands. The
stewardess
> > comes in and says, "Welcome to Holland."
> >
> > "Holland?!?" you say. "What do you mean Holland?? I signed up for Italy!
> I'm
> > supposed to be in Italy. All my life I've dreamed of going to Italy."
> >
> > But there's been a change in the flight plan. They've landed in Holland
> and
> > there you must stay.
> >
> > The important thing is they haven't taken you to a horrible, disgusting,
> > filthy place full of pestilence, famine and disease. It's just a
different
> > place.
> >
> > So you must go out and buy new guide books. And you must learn a whole
new
> > language. And you will meet a whole new group of people you never would
> have
> > met.
> >
> > It's just a different place. It's slower-paced than Italy, less flashy
> than
> > Italy. But after you've been there for a while and you catch your
breath,
> > you look around . and you begin to notice Holland has windmills . and
> > Holland has tulips. Holland even has Rembrandts.
> >
> > But everyone you know is busy coming and going from Italy . and they're
> all
> > bragging about what a wonderful time they had there. And for the rest of
> > your life, you will say, "Yes, that's where I was supposed to go. That's
> > what I had planned."
> >
> > And the pain of that will never, ever, ever, ever go away . because the
> loss
> > of that dream is a very, very significant loss.
> >
> > But . if you spend your life mourning the fact that you didn't get to go
> to
> > Italy, you may never be free to enjoy the very special, the very lovely
> > things . about Holland.
> >
> > ©1987 by Emily Perl Kingsley. All rights reserved.
> >
> > ~Carol Ann
> > http://tinyurl.com/66bvu <---Recent Pictures of Morgan
> >
> >
>
>

[Not My Real Name]

"Mary S." > wrote in message
...
> Sophie wrote:
>
>> Cos there are things you can do to prepare. Perhaps have a c-section
>> instead
>> of a vaginal birth if it would cause the baby trauma, have certain Drs
>> standing by, deliver at a better hospital. There are other reasons
>> besides
>> termination to have the amnio. Piece of mind either way is a big one.
>
> We've had the quad screen both times for the same reason (especially since
> we've done out-of-hospital birth; I'd rather prepare for a hospital birth
> beforehand than have to deal with a transfer on top of a shock -- personal
> decision).
>
We did the quad screen this time, though we skipped it with DD. Our midwife
said that even things like Downs Syndrome wouldn't necessarily preclude a
homebirth with them; she said that it doesn't tend to be an issue, that the
baby is born vaginally and normally at home, and it's after the birth that
they notice that the baby is showing signs of DS. However, we chose to do
the quad screen this time because we wanted to be able to prepare DD ahead
of time if something was going to be different with the new baby. She's
really into what the baby will be like, and if the baby would need some
special care or something, we would have liked to be able to discuss it with
her beforehand to make sure she understood as much as she could and that she
didn't get "overlooked" in the shock and all. That's not to say that we
know for sure that the baby doesn't have DS or something, even though the
quad screen came back normal, and of course it doesn't test for everything,
but it's a relatively good start, I think. It's something anyway. And I
know there have been stories about problems that would have been detected by
wonky results on the quad screen and therefore would have been treatable,
and stuff like that is hard to push out of your mind. Still, personal
decision.


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

[Ericka Kammerer]

Mary S. wrote:

> Sophie wrote:
>
>> Cos there are things you can do to prepare. Perhaps have a c-section
>> instead
>> of a vaginal birth if it would cause the baby trauma, have certain Drs
>> standing by, deliver at a better hospital. There are other reasons
>> besides
>> termination to have the amnio. Piece of mind either way is a big one.
>
>
> We've had the quad screen both times for the same reason (especially
> since we've done out-of-hospital birth; I'd rather prepare for a
> hospital birth beforehand than have to deal with a transfer on top of a
> shock -- personal decision).

When you're choosing out of hospital birth, then
there is more of a potential issue. However, as much as
"getting prepared medically" is cited in this instance,
I have to question how clinically relevant that's likely
to be with a planned hospital birth. What are the odds
that DS will present with a complication undetected by
ultrasound that will require immediate specialized care at
delivery that would be otherwise unavailable in a hospital
in order to safeguard the baby's health? I suspect the
odds are *extremely* slim--much slimmer than other risks
taken on a regular basis in pregnancy. I suspect it would
actually be more likely to happen with spina bifida, but
the diagnostic test for *that* is ultrasound (amnio can
provide some information, but a detailed u/s is more
accurate). A quick search of Medline and several websites
on DS didn't turn up any recommendations for planned
birth interventions based on prenatal diagnosis.
Obviously, if DS was suspected at birth, there
would certainly be evaluations and so forth, so a
transfer might well be involved. I certainly think
parents have the right to decide they want to know,
plan in advance, switch to a hospital birth, etc.
I *don't* think, however, that people should assume that
not diagnosing DS prenatally is risking the health of
the baby.

Best wishes,
Ericka

[Elizabeth H Bonesteel]

In article <L464d.1268$He1.665@attbi_s01>, Lydia > wrote:
>Any advice on or experiences with amniocentesis?

As always, others have already said things better than I could; so I'll
stick with my personal experience.

I went into my pregnancy (I was 39) assuming I'd have an amnio. DH was
hesitant about it due to the statistical danger, and we'd already agreed
we'd raise a child with Downs (we've both had some good, if brief,
experiences with Downs individuals). Once I started doing research,
though, we decided to do the quad screen plus level 2 ultrasound, and
decide after those results.

Well, my quad screen came back with an elevated risk for Donws - 1:51.
And I freaked. My first instinct was to schedule the amnio RIGHT AWAY,
because I had to be sure. DH and I spent a long night talking about it,
and finally agreed to wait for the results of the ultrasound before
deciding. I'd be 18 weeks by then as well, and an amnio would be less
risky than it would have been at 16.

The level 2 ultrasound was clean. The doctor who examined the results
told me they couldn't do more than halve my odds, officially; so my new
ratio was 1:102. She asked if I was going to do the amnio, and I said no,
based on the clean ultrasound. She said "Well, an amnio is the only way
to know for sure about some things..." and I braced myself for the
inevitable lecture. But instead she said: "...but there are so many things
that can happen that we *can't* detect. It's just one test for a very
small set of problems."

My OB had told us that a level 2 ultrasound would show any life-threatening
abnormalities (whether this is true or not, I don't know); so we figured
even if she *did* have Downs she was likely to be a pretty healthy Downs
child. In fact, she didn't, and is so far a healthy, normal little girl.

I think if the ultrasound had shown any markers we would have gone for the
amnio, just to get rid of the uncertainty. It's easy to say that in
hindsight, of course. I must say that if I ever had another (which isn't
planned) I don't know that I'd get any screening done at all - I'd maybe
have the anatomical ultrasound to make sure the baby was structurally healthy;
but other than that I think I'd take whatever fate provided.

It's such an individual decision, and it depends, I think, on how much
uncertainty you can stand. With our good ultrasound, I was able to handle
the uncertainty; but there were days when the anxiety still really got to
me.

If you do go for the amnio, take the advice of the others and find someone
experienced. From what I've read you can reduce the odds of miscarriage
greatly by using someone who does the procedure regularly.

Good luck,

Liz


--

"No problem of human destiny is beyond human beings. Man's reason and
spirit have often solved the seemingly unsolvable - and we believe they
can do it again." -- John F. Kennedy, 6/10/1963

[Bóliath]

Lydia wrote:

> Any advice on or experiences with amniocentesis? My blood tests came back
> with an elevated risk for Down's Syndrome (I'm 30, my risk was what they
> would have expected for a 34 yr. old). I am scheduled for an ultrasound
> tomorrow and depending on what that tells us, my husband and I are now
> trying to decide whether we should have the amnio. or not. I think we're
> leaning towards having it, but the slight risk of miscarriage is, of course,
> a concern too.

How about asking if they can do a nuchal fold test instead? They can do
this by ultrasound, they measure the thickness of the skin on the back
of the baby's neck, it's non invasive.

The AFP, if that is the test you did, has an 80% false positive rate,
don't freak out yet. Good luck!

[Marie]

"Lydia" > wrote in message
news:L464d.1268$He1.665@attbi_s01...
> Any advice on or experiences with amniocentesis? My blood tests came back
> with an elevated risk for Down's Syndrome (I'm 30, my risk was what they
> would have expected for a 34 yr. old). I am scheduled for an ultrasound
> tomorrow and depending on what that tells us, my husband and I are now
> trying to decide whether we should have the amnio. or not. I think we're
> leaning towards having it, but the slight risk of miscarriage is, of
course,
> a concern too.
>
> And while this won't affect our decision to do it or not, I'm also
wondering
> how painful it is?
>
> Thanks,
> Lydia
>
>

I was 38 when I got pregnant with my DD. After doing my research, I decided
against the triple screen test and aminio. My gyn offered them, but
respected my decision and did not push them on me. I did have the Level II
U/S, which had turned out just fine, although it, of course, doesn't show
everything or the degree of problems it may show.

It's a personal decision to make, and what counts the most is your feeling
comfortable with it.

Another Marie
Mom to 7-month-old DD

[Donna Metler]

One thing which you may want to ask about-according to my HELLP newsletter,
an elevated triple screen (is that neural tube or downs) is also a sign of
possible placental problems, so may suggest an increased risk for these.
However, this is purely correlational, based on medical records from moms
with complications.

[Nan]

On Wed, 22 Sep 2004 03:12:44 GMT, "Lydia" >
scribbled:

>Any advice on or experiences with amniocentesis? My blood tests came back
>with an elevated risk for Down's Syndrome (I'm 30, my risk was what they
>would have expected for a 34 yr. old). I am scheduled for an ultrasound
>tomorrow and depending on what that tells us, my husband and I are now
>trying to decide whether we should have the amnio. or not. I think we're
>leaning towards having it, but the slight risk of miscarriage is, of course,
>a concern too.

I had both of my latest bubs at 36 and almost 41. I didn't have the
triple screen done mainly due to the higher than my comfort zone
chance the results would be inaccurate. None of my doctors suggested
amnio, but they did have to at least mention it to me.

As others have said, you need to decide what you'd do with the
information from the test. If you feel you'd need that peace of mind,
then you may want to consider it. If not, then I don't think I'd take
the risk.

Nan

[Lydia]

Thanks to both of you. I've read accounts on the web that vary from one end
of the spectrum to the other as far as the pain goes.

Lydia


"toypup" > wrote in message
news:DY64d.231640$Fg5.18517@attbi_s53...
>
> "sleepy67" > wrote in message
> news:HI64d.68227$%S.36592@pd7tw2no...
>>I opted for the amnio because of my age and although there is a 1% risk of
>> miscarriage, it was a really neat experience. The ultrasound lasted
>> about
>> 45 minutes so we were able to see every detail of baby in very thorough
>> detail. I never looked at the needle because I was watching the
>> procedure
>> on the screen, but it really didn't hurt if you are used to a typical
>> needle
>> prick, it just felt "weird", not really sure how to explain that, other
>> than
>> it was a feeling I'd never had before.
>
> Really? To me, it was a needle, but it felt like I was being stabbed with
> a knife. The lidocaine only numbed the skin. I swear, I don't know how
> those trauma patients survive, but it was very, very painful. The doc had
> to stop a couple of times to let me catch my breath. When he did, the
> pain did get better. I'll take epi-free childbirth with 4th degree tear
> any day. Don't really mean to scare the OP, but that's how it really felt
> for me.
>

[Anne Rogers]

one thing I read with amnio statistics, is to check how many the hospital
actually do, they say 1% risk of miscarriage, but most individuals will
carry out less than 100 per year, so a variation of even 1 makes a huge
difference to stats.

personally I didn't even bother with blood screening, I might think
differently if I was in my 30s not 20s, I wouldn't terminate and though
there is some logic in preparing yourself etc I decided overall it was just
better not to know.

[Lydia]

Wow! Many thanks to you all for so many great replies. This is such a
nice, supportive group. My husband and I have a lot to think about. The OB
yesterday said a lot of what you guys said as far as deciding what you would
do with the information the amnio. would give. Yesterday was our 2nd
wedding anniversary - kind of a bummer to have to start dealing with these
decisions on that day. We're going to see what the ultrasound tells us this
afternoon. Peace of mind is a nice comfort, I don't want to spend the
remaining 5 months worried about what might be if I don't have to. But I
feel selfish for putting the baby in jeopardy for my own benefit.

Thanks again everyone and best wishes to you,
Lydia

[Nikki]

Donna Metler wrote:
> One thing which you may want to ask about-according to my HELLP
> newsletter, an elevated triple screen (is that neural tube or downs)
> is also a sign of possible placental problems, so may suggest an
> increased risk for these. However, this is purely correlational,
> based on medical records from moms with complications.

My doctor speculated about this as well. My blood pressure was elevated
throughout my pregnancy (didn't cause any problem) but she thought maybe the
hbp and really elevated triple screen risk were some how related. We did
monitor the baby's growth and the placenta more towards the end then we did
in my first pregnancy.

I think elevated is downs and if it comes in below a certain level it is
neural tube. My risk was a tiny bit high for neural tube defects in my
first pregnancy but not alarmingly so. Actually I think it was 'normal'
after we did an ultra sound and changed the EDD by a week.


--
Nikki

[Elizabeth H Bonesteel]

In article >,
Lydia > wrote:
>But I
>feel selfish for putting the baby in jeopardy for my own benefit.

You know, Lydia, your mental health affects the baby, too. It wouldn't be
a selfish choice at all if that's what you decided.

Liz
--

"No problem of human destiny is beyond human beings. Man's reason and
spirit have often solved the seemingly unsolvable - and we believe they
can do it again." -- John F. Kennedy, 6/10/1963

[Leigh Menconi]

FWIW, Emily Perl Kingsley has a son, Jason, with Down Syndrome. She was
(possibly still is) on the writing staff for Sesame Street and her son can
still be seen in some of the older segments that they use. From her online
bio:

"Jason Kingsley graduated in June 1994 from Lakeland High School in Shrub
Oak, NY. He passed all of the New York State Regents Competency Exams in
order to earn a full academic diploma. "

With his friend, Mitchell Levitz, another young man with Down syndrome,
Jason has written a book called COUNT US IN: GROWING UP WITH DOWN SYNDROME,
which was published in January 1994 by Harcourt Brace & Company. COUNT US
IN completely sold out the hardcover edition and is currently in its fourth
printing in paperback. It has made the UPI Best Seller List and has won
numerous awards, including the Washington Irving Book Award and the New York
Public Library BEST BOOKS OF 1994 FOR TEENAGERS list, among others. COUNT
US IN has been published in a Japanese language and a Hebrew language
edition. A Spanish translation is being considered. "
Jason graduated from Maplebrook School, a three-year post-secondary
transitional program which has prepared him for independent living. He is
now working as Assistant Cultural Arts Program Coordinator for Westchester
ARC and has moved into his own apartment in Hartsdale, New York. "

Leigh, living in Holland


> "Carol Ann" > wrote in message
> news:D674d.24104$wV.5450@attbi_s54...
>> Welcome to Holland
>>
>> ***By: Emily Perl Kingsley
>>
>> I am often asked to describe the experience of raising a child with a
>> disability - to try to help people who have not shared that unique
>> experience to understand it, to imagine how it would feel. It's like this
>> .
>>
>> When you're going to have a baby, it's like planning a fabulous vacation
>> trip - to Italy. You buy a bunch of guide books and make wonderful plans.
>> The Coliseum. The Michelangelo David. The gondolas in Venice. You may
>> learn
>> some handy phrases in Italian. It's all very exciting.
>>
>> After months of eager anticipation, the day finally arrives. You pack
>> your
>> bags and off you go. Several hours later, the plane lands. The stewardess
>> comes in and says, "Welcome to Holland."
>>
>> "Holland?!?" you say. "What do you mean Holland?? I signed up for Italy!
>> I'm
>> supposed to be in Italy. All my life I've dreamed of going to Italy."
>>
>> But there's been a change in the flight plan. They've landed in Holland
>> and
>> there you must stay.
>>
>> The important thing is they haven't taken you to a horrible, disgusting,
>> filthy place full of pestilence, famine and disease. It's just a
>> different
>> place.
>>
>> So you must go out and buy new guide books. And you must learn a whole
>> new
>> language. And you will meet a whole new group of people you never would
>> have
>> met.
>>
>> It's just a different place. It's slower-paced than Italy, less flashy
>> than
>> Italy. But after you've been there for a while and you catch your breath,
>> you look around . and you begin to notice Holland has windmills . and
>> Holland has tulips. Holland even has Rembrandts.
>>
>> But everyone you know is busy coming and going from Italy . and they're
>> all
>> bragging about what a wonderful time they had there. And for the rest of
>> your life, you will say, "Yes, that's where I was supposed to go. That's
>> what I had planned."
>>
>> And the pain of that will never, ever, ever, ever go away . because the
>> loss
>> of that dream is a very, very significant loss.
>>
>> But . if you spend your life mourning the fact that you didn't get to go
>> to
>> Italy, you may never be free to enjoy the very special, the very lovely
>> things . about Holland.
>>
>> ©1987 by Emily Perl Kingsley. All rights reserved.
>>
>> ~Carol Ann
>> http://tinyurl.com/66bvu <---Recent Pictures of Morgan
>>
>>
>
>

[Helen]

"Lydia" > wrote in message
news:L464d.1268$He1.665@attbi_s01...
> Any advice on or experiences with amniocentesis? My blood tests came back
> with an elevated risk for Down's Syndrome (I'm 30, my risk was what they
> would have expected for a 34 yr. old). I am scheduled for an ultrasound
> tomorrow and depending on what that tells us, my husband and I are now
> trying to decide whether we should have the amnio. or not. I think we're
> leaning towards having it, but the slight risk of miscarriage is, of
course,
> a concern too.
>
> And while this won't affect our decision to do it or not, I'm also
wondering
> how painful it is?
>
> Thanks,
> Lydia
>
>
hi Lydia

it is always a very difficult and emotive issue about whether to have a
amniocentesis, or any invasive tests. I also believe it is a very personal
choice. I am actually a fully qualified midwife but also have personal
experience of invasive screening, in my case I opted for the cvs. I think
the most important thing that you and your husband need to do before you
even consider having the test is what you will do with the result, will it
make any difference to how you feel or any decisions you may make?

I guess that perhaps tomorrows ultrasound is a nuchal translucency scan
which will look for what are called markers than may indicate or exclude
downs, I truly hope this ultrasound will set your mind at rest.

As for how painful it is, well cvs is a similar thing it takes a bit of
placenta as opposed to amniotic fluid though, it was uncomfortable and hurt
for a little while after, but the I have layers of blubber to go through so
he kind of harpooned me, but it wasn't to bad. I think also that the risk of
miscarriage has certainly decreased as doctors have become more skilled at
performing them.

one other point, sometimes you do get an elevated risk for downs if it is
performed at the wrong time, it is very time sensitive, so are you totally
sure of your dates?

Wishing you all the very best

Helen

[Elizabeth H Bonesteel]

In article >,
Nikki > wrote:
>
>I think elevated is downs and if it comes in below a certain level it is
>neural tube.

The opposite, actually, at least wrt AFP levels.

Actually, I found this little chart kind of interesting:

http://pregnancy.about.com/cs/alphafetoprotein/l/blafpvalues.htm

Undetected multiples could give one quite a scare!


Liz

--

"No problem of human destiny is beyond human beings. Man's reason and
spirit have often solved the seemingly unsolvable - and we believe they
can do it again." -- John F. Kennedy, 6/10/1963

[Mary S.]

Not My Real Name wrote:

> And I
> know there have been stories about problems that would have been detected by
> wonky results on the quad screen and therefore would have been treatable,
> and stuff like that is hard to push out of your mind. Still, personal
> decision.

That was a big factor for us, too. One of those things where you know
the odds of it happening are a zillion to one, but hearing the story
come from someone you know makes it seem more possible.

Mary S.

[Unadulterated Me]

Leigh Menconi wrote:

> Leigh, living in Holland
>

What do you think of this 'living in Holland' prose as a parent of a
Downs child Leigh? Just the first time I heard it at a Playcentre
meeting around ummm 9-10 years ago I was sitting with a woman who had a
a child with multiple mental and physical disabilities and she said she
hated it, I can't remember her exact words but it was something like it
made it sound like having a disabled child was a nice alternative to an
able child and made it seem all fluffy and even appealing. As a parent
who found each day beyond a struggle she couldn't stand it. I think the
only people I know who think that Holland piece is great are people who
don't actually struggle with the realities of a severely disabled child.

Andrea

[Nikki]

Elizabeth H Bonesteel wrote:

> The opposite, actually, at least wrt AFP levels.

Oh Shoot!! I'm glad you got the correct info out there! :-)

>
> Actually, I found this little chart kind of interesting:
>
> http://pregnancy.about.com/cs/alphafetoprotein/l/blafpvalues.htm


--
Nikki

[Beach mum]

"Bóliath" > wrote
> Lydia wrote:
>
>> Any advice on or experiences with amniocentesis? My blood tests came
>> back with an elevated risk for Down's Syndrome (I'm 30, my risk was what
>> they would have expected for a 34 yr. old). I am scheduled for an
>> ultrasound tomorrow and depending on what that tells us, my husband and I
>> are now trying to decide whether we should have the amnio. or not. I
>> think we're leaning towards having it, but the slight risk of miscarriage
>> is, of course, a concern too.
>
> How about asking if they can do a nuchal fold test instead? They can do
> this by ultrasound, they measure the thickness of the skin on the back of
> the baby's neck, it's non invasive.

Nuchal fold scan has to be done between 12-14 weeks, so it's likely too late
for that for OP. My old OB was pushing for a CVS or amnio and I chose
instead to do the scan (which came back great). I'm doing an AFP just in
case, but I'm not sure we'll do an amnio even if the results come back
badly.

I feel similar to the OP in that I'm not sure what I'd do. I horrificaly,
irrationally afraid of needles, but I think I'd opt to terminate a pregnancy
if I was sure the baby had Downs (please don't flame me, this is a very
personal decision). I just keep my fingers crossed that everything will be
all right and keep listening to Bob Marley since No Woman No Pride where he
keeps singing just that.

Good luck in your decision. It's a tough one and there is not right answer,
just the right answer for you.
--
Melissa (in Los Angeles)
Mum to Elizabeth 4/13/03
and ??? due early 3/05

[Kelly]

Knowing a definitive answer is a biggie for me. I'd like to know and be
prepared. Same as you said ;)

Kelly
#4 2/05

"Sophie" > wrote in message
...
> > i guess you really need to think about what would you do if they found
out
> > something in the amnio. Would you terminate? if not, then why bother
> having
> > the test, at 1% risk of m/c., have the non invasive test. If you would
> > think about terminating, then maybe do it.
> >
> > i know that sounds really harsh, but it is a personal choice thing hey?
> >
> > good luckw tih your decision making
> >
> > christine
> > (fwiw, i am not doing it, and i 34!!)
>
>
> Cos there are things you can do to prepare. Perhaps have a c-section
instead
> of a vaginal birth if it would cause the baby trauma, have certain Drs
> standing by, deliver at a better hospital. There are other reasons
besides
> termination to have the amnio. Piece of mind either way is a big one.
>
>

[Leigh Menconi]

I think it very much describes the slower pace and the change in perspective
that you must have to enjoy the hand life has dealt you. The essay helps me
remember that any anger and grief over the loss of the perfect child I
*don't* have keeps me from enjoying the wonderful person she's becoming.

When my daughter learned to walk, it was a much different pride in her
accomplishment than with her brothers because it was also a victory for
those of us who worked with her on her physical therapy exercises. Parents
of typical children take so much for granted; I know because I was doing
just that when my oldest child was little. Friends who have their child
with Down syndrome first and then have a typical child think their 2nd child
is a genius because they don't have to be "taught" to crawl, walk, talk,
self-feed, etc.

At the time Kingsley wrote it in 1987, her son was 13 years old, so perhaps
it is with the passage of time that she learned to get past the anger and
grief. Then again, I know that dealing with a child who is much more
"involved", having physical disabilities as well as mental, is much more
stressful on a parent/family because it does take so much more time to deal
with their physical needs.

Leigh


"Unadulterated Me" > wrote in message
...
> Leigh Menconi wrote:
>
>> Leigh, living in Holland
>>
>
> What do you think of this 'living in Holland' prose as a parent of a Downs
> child Leigh? Just the first time I heard it at a Playcentre meeting around
> ummm 9-10 years ago I was sitting with a woman who had a a child with
> multiple mental and physical disabilities and she said she hated it, I
> can't remember her exact words but it was something like it made it sound
> like having a disabled child was a nice alternative to an able child and
> made it seem all fluffy and even appealing. As a parent who found each day
> beyond a struggle she couldn't stand it. I think the only people I know
> who think that Holland piece is great are people who don't actually
> struggle with the realities of a severely disabled child.
>
> Andrea

[Hope]

On Wed, 22 Sep 2004 15:18:54 +0000 (UTC), (Elizabeth
>
>My OB had told us that a level 2 ultrasound would show any life-threatening
>abnormalities (whether this is true or not, I don't know);

just for the googlers of the future- it's not true.


Hope

--
Riley 1993 c/s
Tara 2002 HBAC

[Sophie]

"Hope" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 22 Sep 2004 15:18:54 +0000 (UTC), (Elizabeth
> >
> >My OB had told us that a level 2 ultrasound would show any
life-threatening
> >abnormalities (whether this is true or not, I don't know);
>
> just for the googlers of the future- it's not true.
>
>
> Hope
>
> --
> Riley 1993 c/s
> Tara 2002 HBAC

Hope, you're saying a level 2 u/s does *not* show life threatening
abnormalities?

[Circe]

Sophie wrote:
> "Hope" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On Wed, 22 Sep 2004 15:18:54 +0000 (UTC),
>> (Elizabeth
>>> My OB had told us that a level 2 ultrasound would show any
>>> life-threatening abnormalities (whether this is true or not, I
>>> don't know);
>>
>> just for the googlers of the future- it's not true.
>>
> Hope, you're saying a level 2 u/s does *not* show life threatening
> abnormalities?

I think she means it doesn't *always* show them. One of the reasons that
routine ultrasound (even Level II) doesn't have any effect on neonatal
morbidity/mortality is that it isn't perfect at detecting all anomalies that
could cause problems and there's usually not much that can be done to
correct or address such abnormalities before birth that influences outcomes
very much. Also, generally speaking, when there are serious anomalies that
can be addressed by either pre- or immediate post-natal care, they are
usually detected even when a routine u/s is done because other external
factors point to the problem and an u/s for cause is ordered that find the
anomaly.
--
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]

"Sophie" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Hope" > wrote in message
> ...
> > On Wed, 22 Sep 2004 15:18:54 +0000 (UTC), (Elizabeth
> > >
> > >My OB had told us that a level 2 ultrasound would show any
> life-threatening
> > >abnormalities (whether this is true or not, I don't know);
> >
> > just for the googlers of the future- it's not true.
> >
> >
> > Hope
> >
> > --
> > Riley 1993 c/s
> > Tara 2002 HBAC
>
> Hope, you're saying a level 2 u/s does *not* show life threatening
> abnormalities?
>
I've had 5 level IIIs so far during this pregnancy, and I know that on the
ones at 18 weeks and later there always seems to be something that the baby
stubbornly refuses to show the sonographer. Since we're doing so many (to
track the placenta, oxygen flow and check my liver more than to check on the
baby) we're pretty sure that everything is where it should be, but I can see
where one U/S could easily miss something.

And there may be things which are life threatening but aren't physical,
which wouldn't show on a U/S at all-like all those genetic enzyme things
which the magazines are now suggesting that you have the baby tested for
right after birth.


>

[Donna Metler]

"Circe" > wrote in message
news:kzY4d.61584$9Y5.34903@fed1read02...
> Sophie wrote:
> > "Hope" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >> On Wed, 22 Sep 2004 15:18:54 +0000 (UTC),
> >> (Elizabeth
> >>> My OB had told us that a level 2 ultrasound would show any
> >>> life-threatening abnormalities (whether this is true or not, I
> >>> don't know);
> >>
> >> just for the googlers of the future- it's not true.
> >>
> > Hope, you're saying a level 2 u/s does *not* show life threatening
> > abnormalities?
>
> I think she means it doesn't *always* show them. One of the reasons that
> routine ultrasound (even Level II) doesn't have any effect on neonatal
> morbidity/mortality is that it isn't perfect at detecting all anomalies
that
> could cause problems and there's usually not much that can be done to
> correct or address such abnormalities before birth that influences
outcomes
> very much. Also, generally speaking, when there are serious anomalies that
> can be addressed by either pre- or immediate post-natal care, they are
> usually detected even when a routine u/s is done because other external
> factors point to the problem and an u/s for cause is ordered that find the
> anomaly.

Are level II u/s even done routinely on pregnancies with no signs of
problems? The level III in my first pregnancy was ordered because we were
concerned about a possible genetic condition-the genetic counselor believed
that it was unlikely to be transmitted, but recommended the high level U/S
mostly for our peace of mind (a level II or III would have shown something
in that case), and the ones in this pregnancy have been done because of my
history of PE. I know my SIL has had one set of U/S's done, in the OB's
office, and they've been the little level I in office machine, not the high
level ones, and I believe those were optional.


> --
> 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]

Donna Metler wrote:

> Are level II u/s even done routinely on pregnancies with no signs of
> problems?

Yep.

Best wishes,
Ericka

[Circe]

Donna Metler wrote:
> "Circe" > wrote in message
> news:kzY4d.61584$9Y5.34903@fed1read02...
>> Sophie wrote:
>> I think she means it doesn't *always* show them. One of the
>> reasons that routine ultrasound (even Level II) doesn't have any
>> effect on neonatal morbidity/mortality is that it isn't perfect at
>> detecting all anomalies that could cause problems and there's
>> usually not much that can be done to correct or address such
>> abnormalities before birth that influences outcomes very much.
>> Also, generally speaking, when there are serious anomalies that
>> can be addressed by either pre- or immediate post-natal care, they
>> are usually detected even when a routine u/s is done because other
>> external factors point to the problem and an u/s for cause is
>> ordered that find the anomaly.
>
> Are level II u/s even done routinely on pregnancies with no signs of
> problems?

As Ericka said, yes. Level II is becoming pretty much the standard for the
routine 20-week ultrasound. I know both my u/s with Vernon were Level II
(one a nuchal scan and one before an amnio) and the level of detail was
absolutely exactly the same as the detail for both my "routine" scans with
Julian (in 1997) and Aurora (in 1999), so I'm reasonably sure that the use
of Level II during routine u/s has been pretty common for a while now.

That may not be the case everywhere, of course, but I don't think Level II
u/s are anywhere near unusual or reserved only for special cases.
--
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

[Nikki]

Donna Metler wrote:

> Are level II u/s even done routinely on pregnancies with no signs of
> problems?

My doctor did not use Level II for routine ultrasounds.

I had two ultrasounds with #1 - both Level I's.

I had several with #2 and only the one done as a follow up to the AFP was a
Level II. The others (at 14wk, 20wk, and 3 in the last trimester) were all
Level I.

Not very many of my real life friends had ever had a Level II ultrasound so
I don't think it is routine in a normal pregnacy around here.

--
Nikki

[Tara]

On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 12:43:44 -0500, "Donna Metler"
> wrote:

>Are level II u/s even done routinely on pregnancies with no signs of
>problems?

I'm expecting twins, so I have been referred to a perinatologist for
monthly ultrasounds. They have all been level II, although I have had
no problems.

Tara

[Unadulterated Me]

Sophie wrote:

> "Hope" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>On Wed, 22 Sep 2004 15:18:54 +0000 (UTC), (Elizabeth
>>
>>>My OB had told us that a level 2 ultrasound would show any
>
> life-threatening
>
>>>abnormalities (whether this is true or not, I don't know);
>>
>>just for the googlers of the future- it's not true.
>>
>>
>>Hope
>>
>>--
>>Riley 1993 c/s
>>Tara 2002 HBAC
>
>
> Hope, you're saying a level 2 u/s does *not* show life threatening
> abnormalities?
>
>

Not all, they do miss plenty, if it can get gender wrong it can get
other things wrong don't you think. My friend who had a baby with downs
who had esophageal atresia (his oesophagus didn't join his stomach) had
all that missed on her ultrasound.

I have another friend whos son was born with a massive tumour in his
neck that prevented him from breathing at birth and that was never
picked up.

Andrea

[Unadulterated Me]

Donna Metler wrote:

> "Circe" > wrote in message
> news:kzY4d.61584$9Y5.34903@fed1read02...
>
>>Sophie wrote:
>>
>>>"Hope" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>>>On Wed, 22 Sep 2004 15:18:54 +0000 (UTC),
>>>>(Elizabeth
>>>>
>>>>>My OB had told us that a level 2 ultrasound would show any
>>>>>life-threatening abnormalities (whether this is true or not, I
>>>>>don't know);
>>>>
>>>>just for the googlers of the future- it's not true.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Hope, you're saying a level 2 u/s does *not* show life threatening
>>>abnormalities?
>>
>>I think she means it doesn't *always* show them. One of the reasons that
>>routine ultrasound (even Level II) doesn't have any effect on neonatal
>>morbidity/mortality is that it isn't perfect at detecting all anomalies
>
> that
>
>>could cause problems and there's usually not much that can be done to
>>correct or address such abnormalities before birth that influences
>
> outcomes
>
>>very much. Also, generally speaking, when there are serious anomalies that
>>can be addressed by either pre- or immediate post-natal care, they are
>>usually detected even when a routine u/s is done because other external
>>factors point to the problem and an u/s for cause is ordered that find the
>>anomaly.
>
>
> Are level II u/s even done routinely on pregnancies with no signs of
> problems?

A level 2 ultrasound is the regular morphology scan done at around 18-20
weeks, most people in NZ tend to have it now so it's practically become
standard antenatal screening, when I had my first 16 years ago very few
people had it, only those with a risk.

Andrea

[Unadulterated Me]

Nikki wrote:

> Donna Metler wrote:
>
>
>>Are level II u/s even done routinely on pregnancies with no signs of
>>problems?
>
>
> My doctor did not use Level II for routine ultrasounds.
>
> I had two ultrasounds with #1 - both Level I's.
>
> I had several with #2 and only the one done as a follow up to the AFP was a
> Level II. The others (at 14wk, 20wk, and 3 in the last trimester) were all
> Level I.

Level 2 refers to the degree in which they examine the baby (look for
abnormalities), I'd say your 20 week one would of been a level 2. Often
better equipment is used for more detailed ultrasounds, but generally
the level up refers to the degree of examination not the equipment.

Andrea

[Nikki]

Unadulterated Me wrote:
> Nikki wrote:
>
>> Donna Metler wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Are level II u/s even done routinely on pregnancies with no signs of
>>> problems?
>>
>>
>> My doctor did not use Level II for routine ultrasounds.
>>
>> I had two ultrasounds with #1 - both Level I's.
>>
>> I had several with #2 and only the one done as a follow up to the
>> AFP was a Level II. The others (at 14wk, 20wk, and 3 in the last
>> trimester) were all Level I.
>
> Level 2 refers to the degree in which they examine the baby (look for
> abnormalities), I'd say your 20 week one would of been a level 2.
> Often better equipment is used for more detailed ultrasounds, but
> generally the level up refers to the degree of examination not the
> equipment.



Oh I see. Yes the level II was a lot more thorough and done by specialists.
It did have a clearer image as well but that doesn't really mean they can
'see' more. I couldn't 'see' much on either kind :-)

--
Nikki

[Cheryl]

On Sat, 25 Sep 2004 13:10:20 +1200, Unadulterated Me
> wrote:

>Sophie wrote:
>
>> "Hope" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>>On Wed, 22 Sep 2004 15:18:54 +0000 (UTC), (Elizabeth
>>>
>>>>My OB had told us that a level 2 ultrasound would show any
>>
>> life-threatening
>>
>>>>abnormalities (whether this is true or not, I don't know);
>>>
>>>just for the googlers of the future- it's not true.
>>>
>>
>> Hope, you're saying a level 2 u/s does *not* show life threatening
>> abnormalities?
>>
>>
>
>Not all, they do miss plenty, if it can get gender wrong it can get
>other things wrong don't you think. My friend who had a baby with downs
>who had esophageal atresia (his oesophagus didn't join his stomach) had
>all that missed on her ultrasound.
>
>I have another friend whos son was born with a massive tumour in his
>neck that prevented him from breathing at birth and that was never
>picked up.
>
Not to mention that some life-threatening abnormalities are NOT
life-threatening or able to be picked up before birth. I'm thinking
particularly of heart defects here, one of the more common ones is
where the heart doesn't make the change from what it needs to do
inside the uterus to what it needs to do when the lungs start
operating. Neither of my son's major heart defects were picked up on
a routine level 2 ultrasound because the combination caused them to
kind of mask each other. It was pure luck and a very observant guy
doing a level 1 ultrasound late in the pregnancy that caught it.

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