From: Ericka Kammerer on
Pologirl wrote:

> PS: If you are the kind of woman who absolutely needs information,
> see this paper: http://radiology.rsnajnls.org/cgi/reprint/197/3/729.pdf

However, I would presume that the cases in this study
were of situations where the fetus was confirmed to have an
absent or small stomach, rather than situations where there
might have been some other explanation (like a technical
problem with the equipment or a position issue or some such
thing). I wouldn't at all assume that the odds in the study
apply at this point. The key odds question at this point is
how often initial worrisome results of this nature turn out
to be flukes, and I rather suspect those odds are in the
OP's favor.

Best wishes,
Ericka
From: kvicky on
On Jul 6, 2:31 pm, Pologirl <polog...(a)att.net> wrote:
> kvicky <kavitha.kulka...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> > Amniotic fluid volume is normal.
> > No uterus or adnexal abnormalities are seen.
> > Cervical length is measured at 4 cm.
>
> All good.
>
> > TheSTOMACHalso does not appear as sonolucent as
> > usual. We suspect there is some type of technical reason for this .
>
> This seems to say they did see thestomachand it was normal size;
> its contents (normally amniotic fluid) don't look exactly normal. Why
> do you think the US tech saw no "stomachbubble"? For what it's
> worth, US can have "noise" that appears as gray or white spots or
> streaks in areas that should appear black.
>
> To me, this looks like no big deal.
>
> Can you call the clinic and ask questions about theultrasoundreport,
> and what you thought the tech told you? You should not have to wait
> in fear 2-3 weeks for this!
>
> Pologirl

When I asked my doctor regarding the test, she said they didn't find
the black spot(amniotic fluid) in stomach.

From: Jamie Clark on
"Pologirl" <pologirl(a)att.net> wrote in message
news:1183757488.446253.326460(a)i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> kvicky <kavitha.kulka...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>> Amniotic fluid volume is normal.
>> No uterus or adnexal abnormalities are seen.
>> Cervical length is measured at 4 cm.
>
> All good.
>
>> The STOMACH also does not appear as sonolucent as
>> usual. We suspect there is some type of technical reason for this .
>
> This seems to say they did see the stomach and it was normal size;
> its contents (normally amniotic fluid) don't look exactly normal. Why
> do you think the US tech saw no "stomach bubble"? For what it's
> worth, US can have "noise" that appears as gray or white spots or
> streaks in areas that should appear black.
>
> To me, this looks like no big deal.

I agree, although I'm not a doctor either. My "read" of the text above
would be that they saw the stomach, but it didn't "show" on the u/s as they
expect it to, and as it usually does. But that it's there. Since they
syspect technical reasons for this, it would look like they are assuming
it's an issue with the machine, OR, I guess the technical reason could be
that the baby hadn't swallowed any amniotic fluid recently. So they want to
rescan in a few weeks and see how it looks. At that time, the baby (and
his/her) stomach should be bigger, so if there were any other physical
abnormalities, they might be able to see them.
>
> Can you call the clinic and ask questions about the ultrasound report,
> and what you thought the tech told you? You should not have to wait
> in fear 2-3 weeks for this!

I do agree that it's worth calling and talking to your doctor about.
Sometimes THEY know something is a total non-issue, but want to recheck it,
just to be sure, but they don't convey that well enough, and we're left
worried sick about our baby, and thinking the worst.
--

Jamie
Earth Angels:
Taylor Marlys -- 01/03/03
Addison Grace -- 09/30/04

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


From: Pologirl on
Pologirl wrote:
> > PS: If you are the kind of woman who absolutely needs information,
> > see this paper: http://radiology.rsnajnls.org/cgi/reprint/197/3/729.pdf

Ericka Kammerer <e...(a)comcast.net> wrote:
> However, I would presume that the cases in this study
> were of situations where the fetus was confirmed to have an
> absent or small stomach

The study involved determination of an absent or small fetal stomach
during an initial ultrasound of at least 45 minutes duration. In
other words, in cases where the stomach was not seen and the examiner
spent time searching for it. An absent or small stomach was
determined in only 87 (1.4%) of 6214 of fetuses examined.

>From the OP's US report, I see no reason to suspect her baby has an
absent or small stomach! From the report, they did see the stomach.

Pologirl

From: Pologirl on
kvicky <kavitha.kulka...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> When I asked my doctor regarding the test, she said they didn't find
> the black spot(amniotic fluid) in stomach.

To reiterate, the US report does not say the stomach was absent or
small, only that the contents were not as clear as expected. And that
may well be a (minor) technical issue.

I had >30 ultrasounds with Hungry Girl, and in most of them my AF
looked somehow cloudy. No big deal.

Here I think the problem is that your doctor (obstetrician?) is
interpreting the US report, perhaps incorrectly, and does not
understand the point you are concerned about. "no stomach bubble" and
"no AF in stomach" are bad news, but that is not what the US report
says. I would want to talk to the US tech directly, or at least ask
the doctor to get clarification from the tech.

Pologirl

First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5
Prev: Shoching
Next: Have you been slandered on the Internet?