Level II sonogram- what to expect?

What will happen? Weight/ blood pressure? Can I eat lunch before? What
specifically will they be looking for in terms of development? How long will it
last?

I am soooooooooooo nervous! I just want everything to be ok.

Thanks,
Lisa

A level II sonogram is just a more detailed look at the baby with special
transducers and they look at the arteries and veins through the Dopplers.
You certainly can eat. I don't know if you need a full bladder or not. Did
the office not tell you what to do before the test? As far as how long it
lasts, maybe 30-45 minutes, perhaps a bit longer if they can't get a good
picture.
--
Sue
mom to three girls

Zucca4 wrote in message
...
What will happen? Weight/ blood pressure? Can I eat lunch before? What
specifically will they be looking for in terms of development? How long
will it
last?

I am soooooooooooo nervous! I just want everything to be ok.

Thanks,
Lisa

I had a level II done a month ago (at 16 weeks). I was told to drink 8
ounces of fluid before my visit. They looked in detail at all of
baby's organs (heart, bladder, kidneys, stomach, etc.) and took alot
of measurements of the baby (head circumference, abdominal
circumference, femur length, etc.). I would say it took maybe 30
minutes or so for the tech to get all the pictures then the doctor
looked at them for 10 minutes or so and talked to us. Good luck!

On Tue, 15 Jul 2003 13:57:24 -0400 (EDT),
(Lunar Eclipse) wrote:

in fact, my doc told me
they dont do them anymore??

Are you sure?? If so, I think your doctor is insane then.

--
==Daye==
Momma to Jayan
#2 EDD 11 Jan 2004
E-mail: brendana AT labyrinth DOT net DOT au

Do you know if they are still done in Florida,, cause everyone I know
that has had babies said their docs told them the same thing. Maybe they
just dont do them in this state,, I have no clue.

On 15 Jul 2003 18:38:44 -0700, Larry McMahan
wrote:

On the other hand, they are IM(NS)HO, virtually useless and grossly
overused.

You forgot *my* reasons for having ultrasounds. My children are
at a higher risk for spina bifida. I have ultrasounds to rule
out spina bifida. Ultrasounds are not 100%. However, they are a
great tool in determining whether or not my children have spina
bifida. It is less evasive, and there is no risk of a
miscarriage.

Other women use them if they are at a higher risk for Down's
Syndrome.

--
==Daye==
Momma to Jayan
#2 EDD 11 Jan 2004
E-mail: brendana AT labyrinth DOT net DOT au

They get lots of ultra sound scans in the UK starting early too.


Larry McMahan thought everything was going well until 15 Jul 2003
19:17:22 -0700, when Larry McMahan wrote the following to
misc.kids.pregnancy :

==Daye== writes:
: On 15 Jul 2003 18:43:28 -0700, Larry McMahan
: wrote:

:And why is that? See my reply to Lunar.

: I saw your reply. I don't necessarily think that ultrasounds
: should be routine. However, there are very good medical reasons
: for using them. One of the first step for me in finding out if
: my children have spina bifida is an ultrasound. If there is a
: problem, then we go to other means if there is a problem
: detected.

: However, I think if you are not at a higher risk for spina bifida
: or Down's, you might not need an ultrasound. I do think they can
: be overused. However, they are not completely unnecessary.

: --
: ==Daye==
: Momma to Jayan
: #2 EDD 11 Jan 2004
: E-mail: brendana AT labyrinth DOT net DOT au

OK. Now we agree. I am only against routine u/s, which have shown
no medical benefit. I am not against diagnostic u/s when a problem
is suspected.

Larry,
tryign to be clear.


---
"Most people are pantywaists.
Exercise is good for you."

-EMMA 'GRANDMA' GATEWOOD,
at age 67 first woman to thru-hike
the Appalachian Trail (1955), 1887-1973

Lunar Eclipse writes:

: Is there a special reason they give sonograms, I never had one with my
: first son and haven't had one with this one yet, in fact, my doc told me
: they dont do them anymore?? What are they for? Should I be getting one?

1. This is a religious topic. What I mean is that there is no clear answer
to your question, and people get into heated debates about it.

2. That said, I will give my view, based on the facts as I understand them...

No medical studies have shown routine ultrasound to provide any medical
benefit to either the mother or the baby. What this means is they have
done ramdomized trials with some mothers receiving routine ultrasound,
and others not. They were able to detect no difference in outcomes between
the two groups.

That said, ultrasounds have produced two "positive, useful" results:

a. Ultrasounds before 20 weeks have proven useful in determining the
gender of the baby. Now, this is something that parents are often
strongly in favor of knowing, but again, it has no medical benefit.
Your baby will be just as healthy when it is born whether it is a boy
or girs.

b. Ultrasounds before 20 weeks are looked on by the medical community
as a more reliable measure of EDD than the mother's recollection. This
is based on the notions that a mother cannot be trusted to remember
when her LMP was, when she made love, when she might have ovulated (even
if she is charting) and that she cannot count ot 28. In some cases this
skepticism of the mother's math abilities is correct, but it is a vast
overgeneralization to paint all mothers with the brush!

Given the insistance of parents for the first reason, and the insistance
of the medical community for the second reason, routine ultrasounds are,
well, routine.

On the other hand, they are IM(NS)HO, virtually useless and grossly
overused.

I can't state it any more clearly,
Larry

==Daye== writes:
: On Tue, 15 Jul 2003 13:57:24 -0400 (EDT),
: (Lunar Eclipse) wrote:

: in fact, my doc told me
:they dont do them anymore??

: Are you sure?? If so, I think your doctor is insane then.

And why is that? See my reply to Lunar.

Larry

On 15 Jul 2003 19:17:22 -0700, Larry McMahan
wrote:

OK. Now we agree. I am only against routine u/s, which have shown
no medical benefit. I am not against diagnostic u/s when a problem
is suspected.

Yep, I agree that we agree.

I think we both didn't come across very well in the other posts.
However, I am glad that we have sorted this out. Diagnostic u/s
= good. Rountine does not always = good.

--
==Daye==
Momma to Jayan
#2 EDD 11 Jan 2004
E-mail: brendana AT labyrinth DOT net DOT au