Skip to content
My WebMD Sign In, Sign Up
Level II ultrasound reliability
avatar
monicacr posted:
I am pregnant at 40 with baby #two, I had my first baby (healthy boy) at 37--we skipped all genetic testing, amnio, etc, during my first pregnancy. My dr. did insist I have the level II ultrasound--which turned out fine. I cannot remember what the radiologist at the time told me re: percentage of still having a baby with some sort of genetic defect--I think he told me I still had either a 13% or 30% chance. I didn't try to get him to clarify b/c I was just trying to get out of there b/c the dr. started going off on how c-sections were unsafe and did I know what happened to caesar's mom (she died). Does anyone know what the percentage of still having a genetic defect is if a level II ultrasound has no negative indications? Thanks
Reply
 
avatar
phoenix31674 responded:
I don't know what the percentages are, but i would report the radiologist for being unprofessional. He way overstepped his bounds in discussing your birth plans and then criticizing them. as a radiologist he doesn't have the training to make birthing decisions.

When I had my level II, they checked the nuchal fold translucency and it came up normal and the doc did not mention that there would still be any risk for Down Syndrome. of course, that doesn't mean there aren't other issues that would not show up on an ultrasound, but all the organs and bones looked fine at that point and I have a healthy baby boy.
 
avatar
ajblip responded:
I agree that the radiologist was way over stepping with his unsolicited advice! The percentages of having a baby with a genetic defect depends on a lot of things, not just the Level II. There should have been blood work done in conjunction with the U/S. I also met with a genetic counselor just to give a family history. We also declined the amnio and cvs testing. They did take bloodwork for a quad screen, so they were able to give me more info than just the U/S could. I would talk to your doc about it all. Good luck!
 
avatar
sumosizeme responded:
hi. i was 36 and pregnant with 3rd baby. had genetic testing. 1st round of bloodwork with nuchal came out 17% chance baby had something due to test results and age and prior medical history-although nuchal was normal (but a little on the high side per U/S doctor) and blood test showed a hormone being too low. i turned down the amnio and other intrusive testing. so i had the quad testing with more bloodwork n U/S. the results was 25% chance baby was going to have downs. i asked U/S tech "does baby look like he has downs?" she said she cannot make that call. so i asked if there was the usual physical telltale signs of downs and she said that the bone lengths were normal, baby has a bridge to the nose, normal heart. that was a lil comforting. but the 25% or 1 in 4 chance baby has downs was a cloud hanging over the pregnancy.

but here's the good part of it all... there was a 75% chance the baby is normal & healthy! i will tell you what my doctor told me. these screening tests are screenings, they are not diagnostic. it is all a matter of percents and statistics. unless u do an amino or other intrusive procedures, you will not get a definite answer. in the end, i delivered at 38weeks a healthy 8lbs 1 oz baby boy. pediatrician came in and said baby is normal. moral of the story, genetic screening test is just that a screening test. sometimes you may get false positive, rather that than a false negative. good luck!
 
avatar
scotlandyard responded:
I am 43.
37 weeks pregnant.
1st child.
Tests showed that I was 1 in 35 for Downs Syndrome.
My blood work came back and said that I was 1 in 99 for Downs.
Genetics counselor suggested that we could do invasive testing. My husband is a scientist.
He said absolutely not.
He told the counselor that we were keeping the child that we have been given and that it is God's will not ours that will be carried out.
He further told her that the invasive testing carried a much higher risk of miscarriage for a woman my age than a 20 year old. She did not deny those statistics.
He also told her that these tests were not really accurate for women my age because the data did not go that high. She concurred with that summation. She stated that there were not enough of us for accuracy.
My husband concluded by telling her that the only thing that would change for us would be the timing of when we know. He stated that we could still do research on the topic when the child is born because all infants are the same whether they have Down's or not; they need to be feed, diapered and loved just the same.
We have two names picked out for our son. One if he is a special chid of God and then one if he is a typical child of God.
Best of luck to you!
 
avatar
44onthefloor replied to scotlandyard's response:
I so agree with you. My DH and I are worried but looking forward to our miracle baby in December. I am 44 and conceived naturally and was not planned. What a blessing. Good luck to us all.


Spotlight: Member Stories

Wow! I'm back! Let's see I am NOT 42 anymore (though I was when I joined up to follow my pg!) I am now 46 - and will be turning 47 this year. ...More

Helpful Tips

A few tips to start
If you?d like to find which board went to which Exchange, then check out Find Your Exchange . You can increase font size by pressing ... More
Was this Helpful?
13 of 28 found this helpful

Helpful Resources

Be the first to post a Resource!

Related News

There was an error with this newsfeed

Report Problems With Your Medications to the FDA

FDAYou are encouraged to report negative side effects of prescription drugs to the FDA. Visit the FDA MedWatch website or call 1-800-FDA-1088.