Level II sonogram- what to expect?

[Zucca4]

What will happen? Weight/ blood pressure? Can I eat lunch before? What
specifically will they be looking for in terms of development? How long will it
last?

I am soooooooooooo nervous! I just want everything to be ok.

Thanks,
Lisa

[Sue]

A level II sonogram is just a more detailed look at the baby with special
transducers and they look at the arteries and veins through the Dopplers.
You certainly can eat. I don't know if you need a full bladder or not. Did
the office not tell you what to do before the test? As far as how long it
lasts, maybe 30-45 minutes, perhaps a bit longer if they can't get a good
picture.
--
Sue
mom to three girls

Zucca4 > wrote in message
...
> What will happen? Weight/ blood pressure? Can I eat lunch before? What
> specifically will they be looking for in terms of development? How long
will it
> last?
>
> I am soooooooooooo nervous! I just want everything to be ok.
>
> Thanks,
> Lisa

[Ellen B.]

I had a level II done a month ago (at 16 weeks). I was told to drink 8
ounces of fluid before my visit. They looked in detail at all of
baby's organs (heart, bladder, kidneys, stomach, etc.) and took alot
of measurements of the baby (head circumference, abdominal
circumference, femur length, etc.). I would say it took maybe 30
minutes or so for the tech to get all the pictures then the doctor
looked at them for 10 minutes or so and talked to us. Good luck!

[==Daye==]

On Tue, 15 Jul 2003 13:57:24 -0400 (EDT),
(Lunar Eclipse) wrote:

> in fact, my doc told me
>they dont do them anymore??

Are you sure?? If so, I think your doctor is insane then.

--
==Daye==
Momma to Jayan
#2 EDD 11 Jan 2004
E-mail: brendana AT labyrinth DOT net DOT au

[Lunar Eclipse]

Do you know if they are still done in Florida,, cause everyone I know
that has had babies said their docs told them the same thing. Maybe they
just dont do them in this state,, I have no clue.

[==Daye==]

On 15 Jul 2003 18:38:44 -0700, Larry McMahan
> wrote:

>On the other hand, they are IM(NS)HO, virtually useless and grossly
>overused.

You forgot *my* reasons for having ultrasounds. My children are
at a higher risk for spina bifida. I have ultrasounds to rule
out spina bifida. Ultrasounds are not 100%. However, they are a
great tool in determining whether or not my children have spina
bifida. It is less evasive, and there is no risk of a
miscarriage.

Other women use them if they are at a higher risk for Down's
Syndrome.

--
==Daye==
Momma to Jayan
#2 EDD 11 Jan 2004
E-mail: brendana AT labyrinth DOT net DOT au

[[email protected]]

They get lots of ultra sound scans in the UK starting early too.


Larry McMahan > thought everything was going well until 15 Jul 2003
19:17:22 -0700, when Larry McMahan > wrote the following to
misc.kids.pregnancy :

>==Daye== > writes:
>: On 15 Jul 2003 18:43:28 -0700, Larry McMahan
>: > wrote:
>
>:>And why is that? See my reply to Lunar.
>
>: I saw your reply. I don't necessarily think that ultrasounds
>: should be routine. However, there are very good medical reasons
>: for using them. One of the first step for me in finding out if
>: my children have spina bifida is an ultrasound. If there is a
>: problem, then we go to other means if there is a problem
>: detected.
>
>: However, I think if you are not at a higher risk for spina bifida
>: or Down's, you might not need an ultrasound. I do think they can
>: be overused. However, they are not completely unnecessary.
>
>: --
>: ==Daye==
>: Momma to Jayan
>: #2 EDD 11 Jan 2004
>: E-mail: brendana AT labyrinth DOT net DOT au
>
>OK. Now we agree. I am only against routine u/s, which have shown
>no medical benefit. I am not against diagnostic u/s when a problem
>is suspected.
>
>Larry,
>tryign to be clear.


---
"Most people are pantywaists.
Exercise is good for you."

-EMMA 'GRANDMA' GATEWOOD,
at age 67 first woman to thru-hike
the Appalachian Trail (1955), 1887-1973

[Larry McMahan]

Lunar Eclipse > writes:

: Is there a special reason they give sonograms, I never had one with my
: first son and haven't had one with this one yet, in fact, my doc told me
: they dont do them anymore?? What are they for? Should I be getting one?

1. This is a religious topic. What I mean is that there is no clear answer
to your question, and people get into heated debates about it.

2. That said, I will give my view, based on the facts as I understand them...

No medical studies have shown routine ultrasound to provide any medical
benefit to either the mother or the baby. What this means is they have
done ramdomized trials with some mothers receiving routine ultrasound,
and others not. They were able to detect no difference in outcomes between
the two groups.

That said, ultrasounds have produced two "positive, useful" results:

a. Ultrasounds before 20 weeks have proven useful in determining the
gender of the baby. Now, this is something that parents are often
strongly in favor of knowing, but again, it has no medical benefit.
Your baby will be just as healthy when it is born whether it is a boy
or girs.

b. Ultrasounds before 20 weeks are looked on by the medical community
as a more reliable measure of EDD than the mother's recollection. This
is based on the notions that a mother cannot be trusted to remember
when her LMP was, when she made love, when she might have ovulated (even
if she is charting) and that she cannot count ot 28. In some cases this
skepticism of the mother's math abilities is correct, but it is a vast
overgeneralization to paint all mothers with the brush!

Given the insistance of parents for the first reason, and the insistance
of the medical community for the second reason, routine ultrasounds are,
well, routine.

On the other hand, they are IM(NS)HO, virtually useless and grossly
overused.

I can't state it any more clearly,
Larry

[Larry McMahan]

==Daye== > writes:
: On Tue, 15 Jul 2003 13:57:24 -0400 (EDT),
: (Lunar Eclipse) wrote:

:> in fact, my doc told me
:>they dont do them anymore??

: Are you sure?? If so, I think your doctor is insane then.

And why is that? See my reply to Lunar.

Larry

[==Daye==]

On 15 Jul 2003 19:17:22 -0700, Larry McMahan
> wrote:

>OK. Now we agree. I am only against routine u/s, which have shown
>no medical benefit. I am not against diagnostic u/s when a problem
>is suspected.

Yep, I agree that we agree. :)

I think we both didn't come across very well in the other posts.
However, I am glad that we have sorted this out. Diagnostic u/s
= good. Rountine does not always = good.

--
==Daye==
Momma to Jayan
#2 EDD 11 Jan 2004
E-mail: brendana AT labyrinth DOT net DOT au

[Larry McMahan]

==Daye== > writes:
: On 15 Jul 2003 18:38:44 -0700, Larry McMahan
: > wrote:

:>On the other hand, they are IM(NS)HO, virtually useless and grossly
:>overused.

: You forgot *my* reasons for having ultrasounds.

No you misread my post. I said *routine* ultrasounds. If you
had diagnostic ultrasounds to rule out spina bifeda, then they
were certainly not routine. In this case they would have a value.
But, used routinely, without a suspicion of a defect, they simply
do not turn up problems often enough to be worthwile. (that is,
any more often than other, less invasive diagnostic techniques).

: Ultrasounds are not 100%. However, they are a
: great tool in determining whether or not my children have spina
: bifida. It is less evasive, and there is no risk of a
: miscarriage.

Again, you are looking for a specific condition, so this would not
be considered routine.

: Other women use them if they are at a higher risk for Down's
: Syndrome.

Again, this would be diagonstic use, not routine. I am not arguing
against the use of u/s as a diagnostic for specific problems, I am
arguing against the routine use of u/s when no problem has been
suspected.

: --
: ==Daye==
: Momma to Jayan
: #2 EDD 11 Jan 2004
: E-mail: brendana AT labyrinth DOT net DOT au

Larry

[Larry McMahan]

==Daye== > writes:
: On 15 Jul 2003 18:43:28 -0700, Larry McMahan
: > wrote:

:>And why is that? See my reply to Lunar.

: I saw your reply. I don't necessarily think that ultrasounds
: should be routine. However, there are very good medical reasons
: for using them. One of the first step for me in finding out if
: my children have spina bifida is an ultrasound. If there is a
: problem, then we go to other means if there is a problem
: detected.

: However, I think if you are not at a higher risk for spina bifida
: or Down's, you might not need an ultrasound. I do think they can
: be overused. However, they are not completely unnecessary.

: --
: ==Daye==
: Momma to Jayan
: #2 EDD 11 Jan 2004
: E-mail: brendana AT labyrinth DOT net DOT au

OK. Now we agree. I am only against routine u/s, which have shown
no medical benefit. I am not against diagnostic u/s when a problem
is suspected.

Larry,
tryign to be clear.

[Linz]

> wrote in message
...
>
> They get lots of ultra sound scans in the UK starting early too.

What do you mean by "lots" and "starting early"? The norm seems to be
between one and two - a dating scan around 12 weeks and an anomaly scan
around 20 weeks. Not all hospitals do the dating scan, mine only does the
anomaly scan routinely.

This is not to say that some women have more scans. I had scans at 5 weeks
to check whether I was pregnant; at 7 weeks to check for a heartbeat; at 9
weeks ditto (that's the point at which I had lost my previous pregnancies);
at 11 weeks ditto; at 13 weeks to check the nuchal fold; and at 19 weeks for
the anomaly scan. My OB, midwife and radiographer all made the point that
they don't like doing too many scans and that if I hadn't been having the
nuchal scan there would have been nothing between 11 and 19 weeks and
certainly no scans after 19 weeks as we can get the heart on sonicaid. This
is fine by me.

[Lunar Eclipse]

I do have ultrasounds done but not sonograms, are they the same thing?

[==Daye==]

On Wed, 16 Jul 2003 09:32:23 -0400 (EDT),
(Lunar Eclipse) wrote:

>I do have ultrasounds done but not sonograms, are they the same thing?

Yes.

--
==Daye==
Momma to Jayan
#2 EDD 11 Jan 2004
E-mail: brendana AT labyrinth DOT net DOT au

[Jen in South Florida]

Larry McMahan wrote:

>
> b. Ultrasounds before 20 weeks are looked on by the medical community
> as a more reliable measure of EDD than the mother's recollection. This
> is based on the notions that a mother cannot be trusted to remember
> when her LMP was, when she made love, when she might have ovulated (even
> if she is charting) and that she cannot count ot 28. In some cases this
> skepticism of the mother's math abilities is correct, but it is a vast
> overgeneralization to paint all mothers with the brush!

Just as it is a vast generalization to assume that counting to 28
would have any impact on dating the pregnancy... how many people
actually have 28 day cycles? My record before stating ovulation
induction was 67 days. LMP would have SURE been useful in dating
a pregnancy had I managed to conceive that cycle!

Jen
who wishes she could have gotten pregnant without charting for
months on end and knowing to the hour when she ovulated

[Jen in South Florida]

Zucca4 wrote:
> What will happen? Weight/ blood pressure? Can I eat lunch before? What
> specifically will they be looking for in terms of development? How long will it
> last?
>
> I am soooooooooooo nervous! I just want everything to be ok.
>
> Thanks,
> Lisa

They are looking at all sorts of things, heart and brain
formation, checking for cleft lip, looking for markers of Down's...

I had mine done last week at a perinatologist's office. They
took my BP, did not weigh me, and had me give a urine sample
before going in to the u/s. Check with the office before you go.
It took 30 minutes or more for each baby. I don't see what
difference it would make if you've eaten or not. Good luck!

Jen
edd 12/20/03 - twin boys!