From: kvicky on 6 Jul 2007 18:08
On Jul 6, 2:57 pm, Pologirl <polog...(a)att.net> wrote:
> 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.
The doctor exactly told that it seemed the baby had not swallowed
enough amniotic fluid, hence there was no black spot in stomach. I
guess I related it to a bubble, is it similar? or am i just relating
it. and what does AF means?
From: Pologirl on 6 Jul 2007 18:40
kvicky <kavitha.kulka...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> The doctor exactly told that it seemed the baby had not swallowed
> enough amniotic fluid, hence there was no black spot in stomach.
Understood. Your doctor said your US shows no fetal stomach bubble.
The question is why did you doctor say this? Your doctor was not in
the room during your US, correct? And the US report does not say
"stomach absent" or anything similar. I think the doctor
misunderstood the US report and is giving you false information. Or,
the doctor is correct and the US report is false information.
What the doctor says and what the US report says are not the same.
One of them is wrong.
> what does AF means?
You are welcome. Many of us came here with pregnancy concerns and
this group helped us. I hope to return the favor, by helping you. So
ask any questions.
From: Anne Rogers on 6 Jul 2007 20:27
> Amniotic fluid volume is normal.
> No uterus or adnexal abnormalities are seen.
> Cervical length is measured at 4 cm.
> The STOMACH also does not appear as sonolucent as
> usual. We suspect there is some type of technical reason for this .
> Recommend follow-up fetal evaluation of the above parts of the
> anatomy after 2 or 3 weeks.
ok, so what the technician is saying is he sees the stomach, but isn't
getting a normal result for it, but he's also saying that he suspects
it's a technical issue, which most likely means he's not seeing images
that correspond with any standard abnormality. So I would take that as
an unknown result, rather than any elevated risk of anything.
It sounds like there hasn't been great communication between the
technician and your doctor, or the doctor and you. Did either of them
appear anxious? You're at 20 weeks, so if either thought the results
were indicative of a serious problem, they'd probably be following up
more promptly and also discussing other tests, as they are not saying
that, it kind of agrees with the conclusion that it's simply an unknown.
I know that doesn't really help as you want to go away from an
ultrasound with an all clear - but it is important to remember that
ultrasounds are screening tests that give both false positives (thinking
the baby has a problem that it doesn't) and false negatives (failing to
find a problem that is one that can be found via ultrasound).
I think the good news is for you, that everything else is fine, because
amniotic fluid fills the lungs and is swallowed and passes through the
digestive system, a problem in one part of that loop can show up as low
fluid volume, which you haven't got at the moment.
Good luck, and let us know how you get on.
From: Pologirl on 6 Jul 2007 21:54
Anne Rogers <nos...(a)nospam.com> wrote:
> amniotic fluid fills the lungs and is swallowed and passes through the
> digestive system, a problem in one part of that loop can show up as low
> fluid volume, which you haven't got at the moment.
Well, no AF in the stomach more often is correlated with too much AF
(polyhydramnios) than with low AF (oligohydramnios). But that reminds
me to ask if the US exam looked at the bladder. If the bladder was a
normal full volume, that would be a good sign.
Isn't 20 weeks too early to expect a fetus to be filling its lungs
From: Anne Rogers on 7 Jul 2007 00:11
> Well, no AF in the stomach more often is correlated with too much AF
> (polyhydramnios) than with low AF (oligohydramnios). But that reminds
> me to ask if the US exam looked at the bladder. If the bladder was a
> normal full volume, that would be a good sign.
oops got it the wrong way round, but the fact it's ok still applies!
you've probably seen an awful lot more detailed ultrasound reports than
I have, but the ones I've seen haven't had the bladder mentioned, I
wonder if that's one of the things that would get looked at if something
else flags a problem. When DS was a baby and needed an ultrasound, they
were looking for the bladder to be empty as a sign of normal - no idea
whether that would be something that would be the opposite in the uterus
> Isn't 20 weeks too early to expect a fetus to be filling its lungs
> with AF?
again not sure, they are obviously very underdeveloped but I think
they've got to be filled with something, obviously it's not air, so it
must be amniotic fluid, did you mean that they wouldn't be actively
doing this? I think it's got to be a passive state of things, not sure
about the other, babies born at this stage do gasp at birth, to the
reflex is there. I think in saying this, I was much more meaning that if
the fluid is fine now, even if there does turn out to be a problem later
then it's probably still a good sign it's fine now, but as I got mixed
up on the words it's probably irrelevant, I'm pretty sure excess fluid
regardless of cause doesn't cause knock on effects with development the
way insufficient fluid does.