3D Ultrasounds - Ultrasounds

[gorf]

Has anyone been to a 3D Ultrasound? I have to say, going to one was one of the most memorable and amazing experiences I've ever had.

I'll thow in a plug here, we were invited by a couple and the Ultrasound was at Le Marchand Mansion in Edmonton, the technician was fantastic and the atmosphere was just perfect. There was 6 of us in the room and the name of the company is UC Baby. If anyone here is pregnant, go, its does cost but its worth it.

http://www.uc-baby.com/index.html

[bubble.tea]

This thread is useless without pics.

[Whiplash7828]

I don't have any pics to show, but our 3-D ultrasound experience at 30 weeks was amazing! Getting to see what your little one actually looks like is priceless.

On the flip side however, I don't agree with un-necessary ultra-sounds. If the doctor recommends one or you are going for your own peace of mind (health check on your baby) then go for 3-D!!! :D

[bubble.tea]

I don't have any pics to show, but our 3-D ultrasound experience at 30 weeks was amazing! Getting to see what your little one actually looks like is priceless.

On the flip side however, I don't agree with un-necessary ultra-sounds. If the doctor recommends one or you are going for your own peace of mind (health check on your baby) then go for 3-D!!! :D

what're ya talkin' 'bout? It's a photo-shoot :lol: :D

[3weddings]

The technology was not available when I was pregnant, but I would have LOVED one!! I hear only amazing reviews!

As for unnecessary U/Ss, I agree, it's wasting our health care money. With my first pregnancy I had SEVEN!!! My doctor was overcautious and it was ridiculous!!! Four of them weren't required IMO.

[krobin]

I had 2 3D ultrasounds both covered by OHIP at the 18 week complete exam It was way way better than a regular ultrasound. They ding you $35 for either pictures, a CD of pictures or a DVD. I picked the DVD and was able to fiddle around with it in my computer and get pictures. If you are dying to see what one looks like PM me I just dont feel like posting my personal webpage for all

[patrob]

Yes we had it done with our twins...at 27 weeks if I remember correctly. The baby has to be turned around perfectly to get a nice shot, & ofcourse ours were kind of squeezed together :lol: :lol:

But I did get the DVD, so it was nice...was not cheap but worth it.

[kaimui22]

I did mine during the 29-30th week of my pregnancy at Greigs and Associates..they typically do the government-covered 2D ultrasounds in Vancouver but they also have a special clinic that does these cosmetic ultrasounds..it cost me $199 for a 40 minute session, a DVD, and 2 picture printouts and web-hosting for 2 months of the pictures. I would say it was worth every penny. I had my whole family in there with me and we got to look at the ultrasound on a 50" LCD

the DVD includes several video clips as well as 40 odd pictures that I got printed at Costco...

my baby kept putting his hands at his face during the whole time so it was hard to get a good view but there were times when we saw my son rub his eyes, play with his toes etc..and that made the experience of being preggers more real.

it can be expensive but if you can afford it, I would say go for it...coz once they come out, there's no going back! it's a "live for the moment" kinda thing...once you miss out on it, you can't redo it. The place I did it also had office hours at night and on weekends so entire families can come in without having to miss work...which was kinda nice!

[Jonavin]

Are the samples on their website typical of what you get, or have they been touched up to look better for the web?

Incidentally, they had a brand new machine at Markham Stouffville that gave much better quality ultra-sound than the older machines we used on the first ultrasound. The ultrasound took a bit longer than usual because the operator was just learning the new machine, but it was worth the wait.

It's not quite as good as those 3d website samples, but at ~ 18weeks, we were able to see very clearly all the little fingers and toes, and bones as well as organs and heart beats.

[Bullseye]

I'm amazed that anyone would even consider any extra, non-medically required ultrasounds, when there are government and medical community warnings that you may be exposing your baby to added risks by doing so. And for what? Vanity and entertainment, nothing more. You'll take a chance with your child's health for that?

FDA warning;

http://www.fda.gov/FDAC/features/2004/104_images.html

[bionicbadger]

You do know that too many ultrasounds are bad for your baby right?

Its ok for a couple of medically required scans to check development and movement, but getting a scan done every week to take pictures could harm your baby.

A study on rodent fetus brains that are exposed to ultrasound showed signs of damage. Speculation on human fetuses can be in a range of no significant complications to variety of mental and brain disorder. The study shows that rodent brain cells failed to grow to their proper position and remained scattered in incorrect parts of the brain. The conditions of this experiment are different from typical fetal scanning because of the long dwell times. [National Institute of Neurological Disorders; Proceedings of the National Acadamy of Sciences]. Care should be taken to use low power settings and avoid pulsed wave scanning of the fetal brain unless specifically indicated in high risk pregnancies

http://www.livescience.com/humanbiology/060807_ap_baby_ultrasound.html

[Whiplash7828]

I'm amazed that anyone would even consider any extra, non-medically required ultrasounds, when there are government and medical community warnings that you may be exposing your baby to added risks by doing so. And for what? Vanity and entertainment, nothing more. You'll take a chance with your child's health for that?

FDA warning;

http://www.fda.gov/FDAC/features/2004/104_images.html

You do know that too many ultrasounds are bad for your baby right?

Its ok for a couple of medically required scans to check development and movement, but getting a scan done every week to take pictures could harm your baby.



http://www.livescience.com/humanbiology/060807_ap_baby_ultrasound.html

Has anyone mentioned these u/s's were not medically recommended? :confused:
I too disagree with un-necessary ultrasounds, but nobody above has mentioned multiple non-medically focused ultrasounds....:|

I think what people are saying is if you need to get an ultrasound done...get it done in 3-D.

[patrob]

You do know that too many ultrasounds are bad for your baby right?

Its ok for a couple of medically required scans to check development and movement, but getting a scan done every week to take pictures could harm your baby.

http://www.livescience.com/humanbiology/060807_ap_baby_ultrasound.html

I don't think anyone is getting them every week :confused:

We had twins, & getting closer to the due date, my doctor ordered ultrasounds quite often, obviously to check status with the babies, so they would not do that unless there was a need for it. So to get an extra ultrasound, will not make a diff. or harm the baby...

[GT108]

We did our ultra sound in 3D as well.

It was during our regular check up, our doctor asked if wanted to do it in 3D or the conventional one. Of course we choose 3D.

The experience was simply amazing.
We could see clearly the face, fingers and toe and everything in between.;)
We also got the video and the pic of the session for no extra charge.

[Bullseye]

Has anyone mentioned these u/s's were not medically recommended? :confused:
I too disagree with un-necessary ultrasounds, but nobody above has mentioned multiple non-medically focused ultrasounds....:|

I think what people are saying is if you need to get an ultrasound done...get it done in 3-D.

3-D scans take longer, and provide no added medical benefit, which is why all proper labs use standard 2-D ultrasound. So if you choose 3-D, the only reason you'd be doing so is for your own entertainment, and you'd be giving baby added exposure to ultrasound energy.

[Whiplash7828]

3-D scans take longer

They do?
Mine didn't seem to take any longer...they both (2-D at 19 weeks and 3-D at 30 weeks) lasted around 30 minutes.
Maybe each u/s specialist is different...

[Bullseye]

They do?
Mine didn't seem to take any longer...they both (2-D at 19 weeks and 3-D at 30 weeks) lasted around 30 minutes.
Maybe each u/s specialist is different...

'Because tissue heat increases over the length of exposure, well-trained sonographers limit the duration of any medical ultrasound procedure. But in multiple investigations of keepsake fetal portrait studios, FDA investigators found patients being exposed to higher machine settings for as long as an hour in order to obtain fetal pictures, much longer than is considered prudent'

http://www.askquestions.org/articles/ultrasound/

[kaimui22]

3-D scans take longer.

My second 2D ultrasound took about an hour to do...because the baby kept moving they couldn't measure him correctly. This is the ultrasound where they had to take pictures and measure the limbs, head circumference etc etc...

my 3D ultrasound took less time than my 2D one...

i guess it depends on how specific/detail the u/s technician was as well as the position of the baby?

[gorf]

Are the samples on their website typical of what you get, or have they been touched up to look better for the web?



No, the pictures don't look touched up. The photos are sort of a yellowy orangey color and they do look remarkably clear. You can definately tell features.

Anyone I've known to go for a 3D is doing it in place of a 2D when advised to get one from the doctor. The 3D ultrasound does not neccessarily take longer than a 2D one either, there's alot of talking and questions going on so the whole process can take longer. I think going for a 3D is much nicer, the tech at Le Marchand was so nice, gave alot more information and pointed out alot of stuff to the parents. The pictures they got also had to go to the doctor.

When we had our first baby, we had the worst tech (2D ultrasound,) they told you nothing about the baby. Talk to your doctor was what we got. The whole pregnancy thing was new and actually quite worrysome for us, we were worried that the baby was developing properly, curious about weight, etc.etc.

[Bullseye]

So you think they can get all that extra detail for 3-D without either added time exposure or stronger energy? This would seem to defy the laws of physics, no?

[bionicbadger]

When we had our first baby, we had the worst tech (2D ultrasound,) they told you nothing about the baby. Talk to your doctor was what we got.

If you are in Alberta, they are not allowed to tell you anything by law. Any medical information must come from your doctor.

[gorf]

So you think they can get all that extra detail for 3-D without either added time exposure or stronger energy?

Pregnant couples should always talk to their doctor and go from there before doing anything. I can't say one way or another what anyone should or shouldn't do, I'm not the one in the doctors office.

[Cyber6]

So you think they can get all that extra detail for 3-D without either added time exposure or stronger energy? This would seem to defy the laws of physics, no?

Agree with Bullseye. I have three kids, had three ultrasounds (2D). The first and third took less than 10 minutes, the second one I had some complications(bogus blood test) and the tech had to make sure there was no indication of down syndrome. The session took (at most) 25 minutes.. but I felt it lasted for hours.

I've taken friends to ultrasounds and I can confirm that I was not a special case. Most of them are done in less than 15 minutes. Techs are not chatty and they give almost no information.

If you are in Alberta, they are not allowed to tell you anything by law. Any medical information must come from your doctor.

Bionic, I am in Ontario and I've experienced that over and over again. Techs are polite but always tell me that I should discuss my ultrasound with my doctor.


C.

[CSK'sMom]

I'd tend to agree with Cyber. Our last was a high risk pregnancy and IIRC, I had 15 US's. Even though it was a high risk pregnancy I was in and out in 15 minutes or less... And no info from tech's, not even the sex. We had to get any info from our OB.

[an2one]

If anyone in the GTA area has done a 3D ultrasound, can you recommend where to go. thanks.

[patrob]

If anyone in the GTA area has done a 3D ultrasound, can you recommend where to go. thanks.

I had it done at UC Baby in Mississauga, here is a link to their site...

http://www.uc-baby.com/en/locations/index.php

[JAC]

Research is starting to link excessive U/S with ADD. Use caution.

[mrlarouc]

Research is starting to link excessive U/S with ADD

I have not heard of this. I would like to see a link supporting such a claim! ;)

[CSK'sMom]

It's true mrlarouc, our ped. that we see for our kid's ADHD recently inquired about how many ultrasounds I had with each of them because of that study. The study is also linking excessive ultrasounds with learning disabilities...

[glaswegian]

We were contemplating the 3d ultrasound, even though "her indoors" is only 4months along now, we already had the 2d one at 13 weeks, and everything looks good so far.

When I saw the 3d pictures on a pamphlet we got at a place in Ancaster ON, I decided it was just too freaky looking, and we've ruled it out now.

[slim_shady]

Interesting thread, I was under the impression that ultrasounds were perfectly safe and had no known or possible issues.

My wife is 3 months pregnant and we had talked about getting a 3D ultrasound... until I read this thread. We'll leave it up to the doctor to determine what and how many we need!

[mrlarouc]

It's true mrlarouc, our ped. that we see for our kid's ADHD recently inquired about how many ultrasounds I had with each of them because of that study. The study is also linking excessive ultrasounds with learning disabilities...


Thanks for the reply, but I don't want the "heard it from a friend, who heard it from a friend...etc" story, I am asking for some actual support for this claim rather than anecdotes or word of mouth.

Even if there were a correlation between ADHD and ultrasounds that is a big difference between causation! ;)

[dvst8r]

Thanks for the reply, but I don't want the "heard it from a friend, who heard it from a friend...etc" story, I am asking for some actual support for this claim rather than anecdotes or word of mouth.

Even if there were a correlation between ADHD and ultrasounds that is a big difference between causation! ;)

http://www.chem-tox.com/pregnancy/ultrasound.htm

as well as the FDA warning and the articles posted above.

We were looking into doing those 3D ultrasounds as well as they have one in Winnipeg but after doing some reading and research, it's just an unneccessary additional risk to take for some pictures and a DVD. I have also heard (although I've never seen any proof for this) that an ultrasound sounds like a jackhammer to your baby, why would you want to put your child through that.

Obviously you don't have to take our advice, however I hope that your child doesn't end up being your "proof".

[Bullseye]

I'm amazed that anyone would read this thread, and the links to warnings about it, then go ahead and ask where to get it done anyways.

[slim_shady]

I'm amazed that anyone would read this thread, and the links to warnings about it, then go ahead and ask where to get it done anyways.

Sad to say, but some people value their unborn child's life more than others it seems (assuming it's for entertainment only, of course).

[mart242]

WTF! "Uc-baby" will even make a 3d model of your baby :confused:

http://www.uc-baby.com/en/services/3d-model.php
http://www.uc-baby.com/img/services/3d-model.jpg

What happened to the whole "surprise" of seeing the baby for the 1st tiem once it's born?


Based on the links above, I'd seriously be worried about these ultrasounds, they scan you for 20 - 30 minutes at a time!
Complete 4D Package $175
Viewing baby’s activities – guaranteed 30 minutes viewing

[patrob]

WTF! "Uc-baby" will even make a 3d model of your baby :confused:

http://www.uc-baby.com/en/services/3d-model.php
http://www.uc-baby.com/img/services/3d-model.jpg

What happened to the whole "surprise" of seeing the baby for the 1st tiem once it's born?


:eek: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: This must be new...that's funny...never heard of such option...

I wonder how much they charge for this doll...:D

[mrlarouc]

http://www.chem-tox.com/pregnancy/ultrasound.htm

This link illlustrates my point. At best, it is a casual summary of a collection of literature that supports the authors viewpoint punctuated with material that speaks to our (even me in this case) alarmist tendancies. Have you ever read about "dangers" of dihydrogen monoxide (http://www.dhmo.org/)?!! ;)

let me further clairify my position, I am not endorsing getting excessive numbers of ultrasounds in the least, I believe that you should approach them with caution as many others have advised, both in this thread and elsewhere!

What bothers me about statements like "ultrasounds cause ADHD" is that they are often claims that are based on very tenous links at best. It is very difficult to link any multifactorial disease like ADHD to one single specific cause (like ultrasounds). We don't really know, nor do we currently have the "tools" to do such analyses! ;)

Obviously you don't have to take our advice, however I hope that your child doesn't end up being your "proof".

ps my child has had ultrasounds already! :P Hopefully we have got only the minimum that is required!

[dvst8r]

ps my child has had ultrasounds already! :P Hopefully we have got only the minimum that is required!

I know I quoted you and all, but my focus wasn't directly at you...it's more for anyone reading this thread and to let them know that the minimum as required by a doctor is all that is needed. Anything more than that is unnecessary and opens up additional risk, we really need to look out for the well being of our children from the moment they are conceived.

[Cyber6]

This link illlustrates my point. At best, it is a casual summary of a collection of literature that supports the authors viewpoint punctuated with material that speaks to our (even me in this case) alarmist tendancies.

Quote from the bolded text ---- " The results indicate that repeated exposures to ultrasound or its combination with X-rays could be detrimental to the embryonic development and can impair adult brain function when administered at certain stages of organogenesis (organ growth)." ---

Key word ---> Could be

I don't know you, but where my child is involved... I don't go anywhere near a "could be".

C.

[glaswegian]

I'm amazed that anyone would read this thread, and the links to warnings about it, then go ahead and ask where to get it done anyways.

We completely ruled it out after reading the stories here. We are booked for the normal ultrasound for next month, and that is when I, not her find out the baby's gender. She said she doesn't want to find out, am just curious :D

[slim_shady]

You've got to check this place out. I just went there for a 30 minute 3D scan and it was only $100! Thats $50 less than $150 at UC baby and My 3D Ultrasound. I have a DVD, CD and printed images of my little girl now to send out to the family - I HIGHLY recommend having one of these scans, the whole family came it was a really spacial way to spend Easter!

[spam url removed]

"Mommy Monday's" they do $99 30 Minute scans

Amazing how someone could spam for a service in this thread, didn't you even read it? :confused:

(to refresh people's memory: http://www.fda.gov/FDAC/features/2004/104_images.html )

[shoppingmama]

These were not available when I had my babies. Although I would have loved to do an ultrasound to "see" my babies we refused them because of the risks associated with it. I know that here most dr.s only recommend one ultrasound around 18-20 wks.

[looniepincher]

Not necessarily true--I'm pretty sure the norm is to have two routine ultrasounds: one at around 12 weeks to check for things like ectopic pregnancy and another at around 18 weeks which they call the anatomical ultrasound. Both are covered by OHIP here in Ontario and are considered important and relatively safe from a medical standpoint. There's always going to be a risk/benefit trade-off with anything.

BTW, I completely disagree with these private imaging labs like UC Baby. Imagine getting a series of x-rays and putting them on DVD for entertainment purposes?!

[sillysimms]

I don't think anyone that has already had ultrasounds, 3D or otherwise, should be overly concerned as worrying won't do any good. However, it is a good warning for those considering 3D just for entertainment purposes. It's not worth taking the risk, however small or unconfirmed that risk may be.

What bothers me about statements like "ultrasounds cause ADHD" is that they are often claims that are based on very tenous links at best. It is very difficult to link any multifactorial disease like ADHD to one single specific cause (like ultrasounds). We don't really know, nor do we currently have the "tools" to do such analyses! ;)

When new research is developing in an area, this is usually the case. There were years and years of medical experts saying mercury in fillings was okay, silicone in breast implants wasn't a health threat. Many parents had concerns that vaccines seemed to trigger autism in some children and they were told that this was not the case. Now we now, mercury and silicone are not safe. They have also just found that there appears to be a link between autism and vaccines only in children who have a predisposition to develop autism.

The fact is, we don't know. But don't take the unnecessary risk of an unneeded ultrasound if there is any doubt.

[canuck88]

My 2 cents: For only a small amount more than the cost of these creepy 3D ultrasounds, you could hire a real photographer when baby is born and have some incredible photos done.

[nalababe]

Not necessarily true--I'm pretty sure the norm is to have two routine ultrasounds: one at around 12 weeks to check for things like ectopic pregnancy and another at around 18 weeks which they call the anatomical ultrasound. Both are covered by OHIP here in Ontario and are considered important and relatively safe from a medical standpoint. There's always going to be a risk/benefit trade-off with anything.

BTW, I completely disagree with these private imaging labs like UC Baby. Imagine getting a series of x-rays and putting them on DVD for entertainment purposes?!

FWIW, Anyone who is attending a fertility clinic (for us it was due to an abnormality in cycle hormones) will have way more than 2 ultrasounds. I think we were close to 10 the first time.

If you are at a more modern hospital/clinic, going from 2D to 3D ultra sound is simply a flick of a button on the instrument.

We have a 3D picture and I'd have no problem saying to do it? Is it worth the risk...that is a question that only you have to ask. Is one drink going to hurt the baby? Is one ultra sound? Is one sip of asparatame? To put something with so little understanding as ADD/ADHD, to make blanket statements like cause and affect is not wise.

FWIW, I'd be far more concern on a standard US using an older instrument than a 3D on a new instrument (the 3D instruments from Phillips, GE and Siemens are very new).

[nalababe]

3-D scans take longer, and provide no added medical benefit, which is why all proper labs use standard 2-D ultrasound. So if you choose 3-D, the only reason you'd be doing so is for your own entertainment, and you'd be giving baby added exposure to ultrasound energy.

No. The 3D ultrasound took the same amount of time. Exactly.

[pierrefleur]

My 2 cents: For only a small amount more than the cost of these creepy 3D ultrasounds, you could hire a real photographer when baby is born and have some incredible photos done.

I am +1 this.

[nalababe]

First, from any of the big three manufacturers (may hold for the others as well), but with the higher end models, it is the same instrument used for 2D and 3D. Since these are more expensive, sites are not just going to throw out their current systems for the newer models or are sticking to 2D only instruments.

To change from a 2D to 3D is simply a matter of flicking a switch on the instrument. It is simply more complex software to capture the information. Keep in mind that all US must keep below FDA/HC mandated levels...and older 2D instruments will subject more mW energy than a newer 3D model.

You can get the 3D-US at any time. We had ours still within the first trimester (about 10 weeks). When we were finishing a monitoring ultrasound, they just flicked the switch and we had our 3D image...it was clearly a baby in a fetal position.

Now, if you are trying to get a 4D ultrasound (with movement and video) then yes, you doing something that is not really needed.

[slim_shady]

...and older 2D instruments will subject more mW energy than a newer 3D model.

Are you guessing or can you point us to a source for this fact?


Now, if you are trying to get a 4D ultrasound (with movement and video) then yes, you doing something that is not really needed.

Very rarely are 3d ultrasounds clinically needed either, they are primarily for entertainment.

[giltron]

My wife had a 3d ultra-sound. It was a great experience. Had the immediate family come and be a part of it.

Funny thing is...since none of the ultra-sound techs at the hospital could ever seem to get a good picture of our son. We had to go for extra-ultrasounds at the hospital repeatably. Well instantly at the 3d ultrasound clinic, we had good shots and the technician easily found out my soon to be born baby was boy and all his parts were normal.

The funny thing is, if we had gone to this clinic for medical reasons sooner, my wife would have been subjected to less ultra sounds of my currently very healthy son.

[slim_shady]

The funny thing is, if we had gone to this clinic for medical reasons sooner, my wife would have been subjected to less ultra sounds of my currently very healthy son.

Not necessarily. It's mostly luck, depending on what position the baby is in at that time. It doesn't matter where you go, if the baby's face is buried in the placenta, no one will get a good ultrasound shot.

[nalababe]

Very rarely are 3d ultrasounds clinically needed either, they are primarily for entertainment.

IF you really want to get technical, 2D ultrasounds are really not necessary. Look why they are used: 1) confirm pregnancy after hcg plateau or decrease in doubling rate (we do this out of convenience), 1b) Heartbeat (don't need a US for this), 2) Nucal fold measurement (IA is just as predictive), 3) growth measurements (don't really need). It is all about convenience.

Now, with the third reason, especially when larger, it can be difficult to get accurate measurements of leg length or other measurements with 2D. With 3D we had these measurement almost instantly. Based on the principles, this makes sense. For physical abnormalities, 3D is far more useful...but yes, most people will not need these.

Finally (and for the record, I am not for these image centres) remember that US is a medical device. Outside the intended use statement, you are using the device off label, against the license. This pretty much absolves Health Canada of any responsibility if anything happens. If you can walk into an image centre and buy a 3D/4D ultrasound for the pictures, then the device is being used off label. Would you take medicine off label?

[slim_shady]

IF you really want to get technical, 2D ultrasounds are really not necessary. Look why they are used: 1) confirm pregnancy after hcg plateau or decrease in doubling rate (we do this out of convenience), 1b) Heartbeat (don't need a US for this), 2) Nucal fold measurement (IA is just as predictive), 3) growth measurements (don't really need). It is all about convenience.

Now, with the third reason, especially when larger, it can be difficult to get accurate measurements of leg length or other measurements with 2D. With 3D we had these measurement almost instantly. Based on the principles, this makes sense. For physical abnormalities, 3D is far more useful...but yes, most people will not need these.

Finally (and for the record, I am not for these image centres) remember that US is a medical device. Outside the intended use statement, you are using the device off label, against the license. This pretty much absolves Health Canada of any responsibility if anything happens. If you can walk into an image centre and buy a 3D/4D ultrasound for the pictures, then the device is being used off label. Would you take medicine off label?

Sounds like you agree with me then that 3D scans are primarily for entertainment. Too bad you missed some additional 2D clinical uses -- verifying correct funciton of heart valves, verifying placenta placement, and verifying amniotic fluid levels. Now if you could just cite your sources for your "older 2D instruments will subject more mW energy than a newer 3D model" statement we'd be all set.

(oh yeah by the way, it's not Nucal... it's Nuchal)

[rdmsgirl]

Now, with the third reason, especially when larger, it can be difficult to get accurate measurements of leg length or other measurements with 2D. With 3D we had these measurement almost instantly. Based on the principles, this makes sense. For physical abnormalities, 3D is far more useful...but yes, most people will not need these.


Difficult to get accurate measurements with 2D? Not for someone who is properly trained and with the right experience.

To those of you not the the field, please try to remember that the quality of ultrasound is mostly operator dependent - those with proper training and high standards should be able to obtain necessary images with little time and the lowest amount of exposure *
*<disclaimer - this does not apply if your baby is in a crappy position, or if the patient has a lot of extra tissue i.e fat>

[nalababe]

Difficult to get accurate measurements with 2D? Not for someone who is properly trained and with the right experience.

To those of you not the the field, please try to remember that the quality of ultrasound is mostly operator dependent - those with proper training and high standards should be able to obtain cary images with little time and the lowest amount of exposure *
*<disclaimer - this does not apply if your baby is in a crappy position, or if the patient has a lot of extra tissue i.e fat>

Yes 2D, position and orientation of the fetus can make it difficult for even the most trained operator.

Actually, quality is dependent on the 1) operator, 2) transducer and 3) software. All three play a key role. Key elements such as depth of field and resolution have changed dramatically and these are not operator dependent. As 2 and 3 are improved, the dependence on 1 decreases.

.

[powderbox]

Hi all

I just recently (last week) had my 3D ultrasound at 29 weeks and do not regret it for a second. I am thrilled that I took advantage of 5-year old technology. I went to UC Baby in Mississauga and had incredible results. The pictures were extremely clear and I don't find it creepy at all. Quite the opposite. The experience was awesome.

http://www.i-am-pregnant.com/vippics/82/powderbox|3920482.jpg

I would NOT recommend See3D Baby at all.

It helps if the baby is in the right position, (mine was) and we managed to get amazing images.

[nalababe]

Hi all

I just recently (last week) had my 3D ultrasound at 29 weeks and do not regret it for a second. I am thrilled that I took advantage of 5-year old technology. I went to UC Baby in Mississauga and had incredible results. The pictures were extremely clear and I don't find it creepy at all. Quite the opposite. The experience was awesome.

I would NOT recommend See3D Baby at all.

It helps if the baby is in the right position, (mine was) and we managed to get amazing images.

note: 20 year old technology (late 80's)...though the reality is that it has only been about 6 or 7 years since the put into routine use clinically (first in the States, then Canada).

[iridescent]

As a physician, I just want to clarify the "not really necessary" statements, because ultrasounds are actually very much necessary in pregnancy. For your first point, it is not really necessary to 'confirm' the pregnancy using ultrasound especially after 12-15 weeks or so, as the presumptive physical signs along with the fetal doppler heart tones are present. However, for other reasons, ultrasound is essential for the management of pregnancy. #1: Dating. A first trimester ultrasound will be accurate to within a week, and you need to see whether it's consistent with the last menstrual period dates, because if not, you have to come up with a new expected date of confinement. Why is dating so important? Say you have a woman with preterm labor, or IUGR, or some other problem. How are you going to assess what your management is going to be if your dates aren't accurate? What if you're confused about whether you're at 38 weeks vs 40 wks vs 42 weeks? Want to take a chance at post-maturity syndrome? How about whether you should tocolyze that mother with the contractions and cervical change? Furthermore, say your triple screen comes back abnormal. The most common cause of an abnormal triple screen is inaccurate dating, and the next step in the management of that is to do ultrasound, not an amniocentesis, chorionic villus sampling, etc. etc. Anyway, so the ultrasound for dating is absolutely crucial. Next, you've got to have an ultrasound for anatomy, I'd say any time in the second trimester. Third trimester ultrasounds are also extremely important as well - where's your placenta? You're not going to be able to accurately diagnose a previa or low-lying placenta early on, as the lower segment hasn't developed yet... and yet, if you're dealing with a previa by the time of delivery, you might as well be dealing with a lawsuit since you missed it before. Dangerous situation when you say 2D ultrasounds are unnecessary.

Growth measurements ARE absolutely necessary as well. How are you going to take a look at IUGR? If that baby stops growing at 28 weeks and you let it go for another 4 in the womb before you act on it, that's another major lawsuit on your hands. You bet I want to know that bpd + abdominal circumference + etc.

Anyway, as for the 'off label' part, quite a lot of things are done "off label"- as long as you have a physician who knows what they're doing and is licensed and has an understanding of what's going on + why, then it's appropriate medical practice. If you want to take an obstetric example, look at Cytotec (misoprostol) -- absolutely *NOT* FDA approved for induction of labor, yet it is used in so many hospitals appropriately for that matter. Not a big deal, as it does the job extremely well. It's a super cheap drug, so it's not lucrative enough for any pharmaceutical company to submit applications for that particular usage. The alternative is to use Cervidil (dinoprostone) suppositories at $1000+ a pop. Anyway, leave the 'off label' decisions to your physician.

Ultrasound is absolutely safe. No cause for alarm. If people want to open up 3D/4D centers and take a look at their babies, why not.

IF you really want to get technical, 2D ultrasounds are really not necessary. Look why they are used: 1) confirm pregnancy after hcg plateau or decrease in doubling rate (we do this out of convenience), 1b) Heartbeat (don't need a US for this), 2) Nucal fold measurement (IA is just as predictive), 3) growth measurements (don't really need). It is all about convenience.

Now, with the third reason, especially when larger, it can be difficult to get accurate measurements of leg length or other measurements with 2D. With 3D we had these measurement almost instantly. Based on the principles, this makes sense. For physical abnormalities, 3D is far more useful...but yes, most people will not need these.

Finally (and for the record, I am not for these image centres) remember that US is a medical device. Outside the intended use statement, you are using the device off label, against the license. This pretty much absolves Health Canada of any responsibility if anything happens. If you can walk into an image centre and buy a 3D/4D ultrasound for the pictures, then the device is being used off label. Would you take medicine off label?