« Pregnant in Virginia? This might help you choose your provider. | Main | I've Been Busy and I Can't Do it All »

September 30, 2009

Comments

WendyLou

Read the article. He's full of hogwash.

His statements of "So it is hard to see how screening for IUGR could be expected to improve pregnancy outcome. " and "If this is the present state of the art, there is no justification for clinicians using routine ultrasound during pregnancy for the management of IUGR. Its use should be limited to research on IUGR. " strike me as very dangerous.

I had an IUGR pregnancy. I had a 2 pound 13 ounce baby at 34 weeks, 2 days. Dates are correct. The IUGR was closley monitored from week 19 on. With the graphs, etc growth was able to be monitored. No, there was nothing they could do, but with monitoring, my daughter was able to be stay in as long as possible, and be born alive when growth had stopped, rather than have a IUFD. When growth slowed, I got steroids to help her lungs. With cord dopplers, we could track flow concerns, showing that bed rest did make an improvement. The dopplers started to worsen at the time growth stopped, backing the decision to deliver early.

Honestly, I'll take any additional "risks" from all the ultrasounds for the wonderful, healthy 3 year old sleeping in her bed.

As for the paper claiming that ultrasounds cause IUGR, that study is 17 years old. (I'm assuming that's the paper he is referring to, as there are no foot notes or in work citations in the essay, a hallmark of poor research.)

Physician Assistant

I recently came across your blog and have been reading along. Nice blog. I will keep visiting this blog very often. I want to share news about college which is offers beyond-the- classroom experience to students in the rapidly-expanding industries of Health Care, Criminal Justice, Business, and Computers. Don't miss out on great career opportunities.

The comments to this entry are closed.