If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Biparietal Diameter / 20 week scan
We have just had our 20 week scan and have been told the babys Biparietal
Diameter is below the normal scale at 39mm with head circumference at 158mm and abdominal circumference at137mm (all just in scale) We have to go back for another scan to keep an eye on the growth. Does anyone know if this is ok? Will brain size be normal and will the baby be ok and normal when born? We are sooo worried and don;t know what the negatives could be and are trying to remain positive. Can someone help us? Many thanks... -- Message posted via http://www.familykb.com |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Biparietal Diameter / 20 week scan
What was the gestational age when the scan was done?
|
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Biparietal Diameter / 20 week scan
Did they give you any indication of what this might mean? Did they tell you
the numbers, or did you just read them from the u/s report? Did they tell you what the normal scale was? For example, if the normal scale was 40mm, then I wouldn't be so worried about a measurement of 39mm. But, if the normal measurement was closer to 60-100mm or something, then that would seem more worrisome. The other factor to take into consideration is how worried the doctors seemed, and what they said. If they said it's low but not something we should worry about, then I wouldn't worry. If they said it's low, and we'd like to watch it, come back in a month, then I wouldn't worry so much. If they said it's low and we want to see you next week, and it could mean "blah blah blah (insert some horrible diagnosis here), then I'd be worried. -- 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 "per_sonal via FamilyKB.com" u31231@uwe wrote in message news:6d04eb4896dda@uwe... We have just had our 20 week scan and have been told the babys Biparietal Diameter is below the normal scale at 39mm with head circumference at 158mm and abdominal circumference at137mm (all just in scale) We have to go back for another scan to keep an eye on the growth. Does anyone know if this is ok? Will brain size be normal and will the baby be ok and normal when born? We are sooo worried and don;t know what the negatives could be and are trying to remain positive. Can someone help us? Many thanks... -- Message posted via http://www.familykb.com |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Biparietal Diameter / 20 week scan
137mm AC is 50th percentile for 19 weeks gestational age
158mm HC is 50th percentile for 18.5 weeks gestational age - from these, I am assuming you were somewhere between 18.5 and 19.0 weeks at the time the scan was done (since you didn't mention them saying these numbers were out of the expected range). A BPD of 39mm at 18.5-19 weeks is going to be roughly 15th percentile. This is not actually an abnormal measurement, but it is proportionally smaller than the other measurements. If the overall head size (HC) is normal but the BPD is small, that does not suggest microcephaly or other anomalies associated with grossly abnormal brain development. In these cases, the HC and BPD are BOTH very small, usually less than 5th percentile. Small BPD with normal HC suggests a normal head size, but a slightly elongated head shape. This is very often found when the fetus is in breech position - in which case it means nothing. Remember the fetal head is flexible and can be compressed in certain positions and there's nothing wrong with that. There are some skull development abnormalities - synostoses and dysostoses - that can result in very extremely elongated or otherwise abnormal head shapes. At 19 weeks, it is really too early to be picking these things up. Also, in these cases, the numbers are very much more abnormal than the numbers you are quoting. I rather doubt this is what is going on with your baby, but your providers are scanning you serially just to make sure the baby's measurements continue to grow normally. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Biparietal Diameter / 20 week scan
"Jamie Clark" wrote in message ... Did they give you any indication of what this might mean? Did they tell you the numbers, or did you just read them from the u/s report? Did they tell you what the normal scale was? For example, if the normal scale was 40mm, then I wouldn't be so worried about a measurement of 39mm. But, if the normal measurement was closer to 60-100mm or something, then that would seem more worrisome. The other factor to take into consideration is how worried the doctors seemed, and what they said. If they said it's low but not something we should worry about, then I wouldn't worry. If they said it's low, and we'd like to watch it, come back in a month, then I wouldn't worry so much. If they said it's low and we want to see you next week, and it could mean "blah blah blah (insert some horrible diagnosis here), then I'd be worried. Even with that, it's never a sure thing. I had my OB quite worried with DD2. From about 28-34 weeks, I was measuring a good 4-5 weeks behind for size. She rushed me in to have an u/s done within 2 days or so, just to check everything out. They said DD2 was looking good, just *extremely* small, at 34-35 weeks, and still measured real small for dates until she was born. It was something the doctor was fairly concerned about, but DD2 was born 6 days before her EDD and weighed in at 7lbs 3oz - not a very small baby for baby #4, when the others were 7lbs 11oz, 8lbs 2oz and 7lbs 8oz. She was by no means 'extremely' small! Buuut, I do agree - if they seem very worried and have you coming back in the *very* near future, then it might be something of a concern. If the doctors or technicians don't appear to be making a big fuss and just want to check out, then I wouldn't worry myself all too much! |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Biparietal Diameter / 20 week scan
We have just had our 20 week scan and have been told the babys Biparietal Diameter is below the normal scale at 39mm with head circumference at 158mm and abdominal circumference at137mm (all just in scale) We have to go back for another scan to keep an eye on the growth. so you're saying the head circumference was normal? but not the diameter? whilst the head is not a perfect sphere, the two are strongly related and unless anything else has been said, I rather suspect there has been a measurement error. Anne |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Biparietal Diameter / 20 week scan
for another scan to keep an eye on the growth.so you're saying the head circumference was normal? but not the diameter? whilst the head is not a perfect sphere, the two are strongly related and unless anything else has been said, I rather suspect there has been a measurement error. Very unlikely. The first thing anyone does when a measurement seems out of proportion is to recheck the image, look at the landmarks, and evaluate whether it was a technically adequate measurement. Often we will measure the same thing two or three times when a measurement is odd, just to see if we keep getting the same result. Sometimes the fetus is in a poor position for a particular measurement, but in this case, the sonographer/ologist would certainly know this and report such to the patient. As I mentioned above, it is possible for the BPD and HC to be disproportionate, reflecting an unusually round or unusually elongated head shape. Although, again, this poster's measurements didn't seem all that extremely unusual when I looked them up on my tables. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Biparietal Diameter / 20 week scan
alath wrote:
What was the gestational age when the scan was done? 19 weeks and 5 days -- Message posted via FamilyKB.com http://www.familykb.com/Uwe/Forums.a...nancy/200701/1 |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Biparietal Diameter / 20 week scan
No one at the hospital really took us through the report. We had the scan and
she asked us to wait in the waiting area while she prepared the numbers and did the report. Then she gave us the report and didnt look worried but said that she wanted to see us in 2-3 weeks time as the growth of the baby looked on the small side, so they just wanted to monitor it. But when I showed my midwife the report, she looked more concerned and said that hopefully the baby will catch up, but she didnt want to tell me what the possiblities could be (good or bad) as anything could happen. So 2 very different expressions. Which is why it worried us even more, in case the hospital werent telling us anything more without further investigation. Jamie Clark wrote: Did they give you any indication of what this might mean? Did they tell you the numbers, or did you just read them from the u/s report? Did they tell you what the normal scale was? For example, if the normal scale was 40mm, then I wouldn't be so worried about a measurement of 39mm. But, if the normal measurement was closer to 60-100mm or something, then that would seem more worrisome. The other factor to take into consideration is how worried the doctors seemed, and what they said. If they said it's low but not something we should worry about, then I wouldn't worry. If they said it's low, and we'd like to watch it, come back in a month, then I wouldn't worry so much. If they said it's low and we want to see you next week, and it could mean "blah blah blah (insert some horrible diagnosis here), then I'd be worried. We have just had our 20 week scan and have been told the babys Biparietal Diameter is below the normal scale at 39mm with head circumference at [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] Many thanks... -- Message posted via http://www.familykb.com |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Biparietal Diameter / 20 week scan
Actually, they sort of sound like the same response to me. I mean, your
midwife may have looked a little concerned (or suprised, since she wasn't expecting anything to show up), but she didn't say you should go in any sooner, or do anything differently. Sometimes things can be off, and doctors and midwives are reluctant to tell you the worst case scenario, because it's just too soon to tell if it's anything to worry about. It may well not be an issue at your next u/s, in which case it would have been foolish to get you so upset and worried over nothing. Now I'm one that likes information, so I'd probably make another appointment with my midwife to discuss the issue, and find out what the normal ranges are, how far off it is, what might cause it to be off, what the chances are that it's going to correct itself or not be a problem, and what the problems might be, if it's hasn't corrected itself in a few weeks. Just get information, and know that you do not have all the facts in terms of what is going on with your particular case. But overall, it doesn't sound like anything to be majorly alarmed about at this point in time. -- 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 "per_sonal via FamilyKB.com" u31231@uwe wrote in message news:6d11a36f33188@uwe... No one at the hospital really took us through the report. We had the scan and she asked us to wait in the waiting area while she prepared the numbers and did the report. Then she gave us the report and didnt look worried but said that she wanted to see us in 2-3 weeks time as the growth of the baby looked on the small side, so they just wanted to monitor it. But when I showed my midwife the report, she looked more concerned and said that hopefully the baby will catch up, but she didnt want to tell me what the possiblities could be (good or bad) as anything could happen. So 2 very different expressions. Which is why it worried us even more, in case the hospital werent telling us anything more without further investigation. Jamie Clark wrote: Did they give you any indication of what this might mean? Did they tell you the numbers, or did you just read them from the u/s report? Did they tell you what the normal scale was? For example, if the normal scale was 40mm, then I wouldn't be so worried about a measurement of 39mm. But, if the normal measurement was closer to 60-100mm or something, then that would seem more worrisome. The other factor to take into consideration is how worried the doctors seemed, and what they said. If they said it's low but not something we should worry about, then I wouldn't worry. If they said it's low, and we'd like to watch it, come back in a month, then I wouldn't worry so much. If they said it's low and we want to see you next week, and it could mean "blah blah blah (insert some horrible diagnosis here), then I'd be worried. We have just had our 20 week scan and have been told the babys Biparietal Diameter is below the normal scale at 39mm with head circumference at [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] Many thanks... -- Message posted via http://www.familykb.com |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Do you take seriously the ... | 0:-> | Spanking | 47 | November 29th 06 05:51 PM |
misc.kids FAQ on the Pregnancy AFP Screen and the Triple Screen | [email protected] | Info and FAQ's | 0 | September 29th 04 05:17 AM |
misc.kids FAQ on the Pregnancy AFP Screen and the Triple Screen | [email protected] | Pregnancy | 0 | August 29th 04 05:28 AM |
misc.kids FAQ on the Pregnancy AFP Screen and the Triple Screen | [email protected] | Pregnancy | 0 | February 16th 04 09:58 AM |
33 Week Appt--complaining, mostly! | GoofeeGyrl | Pregnancy | 11 | July 31st 03 04:12 AM |