Family Forum / Pregnancy / Breastfeeding / May 2005

NO STOP.  There is evidence that ionizing radiation (x-rays) to a baby's
head can cause PERMANENT NEUROLOGICAL IMPAIRMENT (LOWER IQ).  I HATE YOUR
DOCTOR COVERING HIS a.s AT YOUR DAUGHTER'S EXPENSE.  You weren't informed of
this study were you?  Or of the fact that there is little really known about
whether craniostenosis at one suture causes the baby any problems?  (How
many of these babies had ionizing radiation when they look at whether these
babies have "normal" development?)  Since he already has possibly harmed
your daughter, I am making you worried and angry to stop you having a cat
scan which is more radiation yet is the standard of care for suspected
craniostenosis.  But there is even a study that shows that cat scans are
probably useless for diagnosing craniostenosis since in the study they
always confirmed the neurosurgeon's suspected diagnosis.  Please study this
matter very hard before proceeding.  My son has an oddly shaped head and
this is why I have researched this quite recently since a pediatrician
thought it was 80% chance completely normal but wanted to refer me for a cat
scan.

http://www.lapregnancy.com/scoops_a-d/ct_scan_radiation_check_out_the_facts_befo
rehand.htm

Did you think shoddy medicine stopped at labor interventions?  Not hardly.

Rant over.

Dagny

Jess,

I know that Dagny's reponse came off as rather agressive and perhaps
seemed to be chiding you for the decision you have made already.

However, her research is usually very good, and I would suspect that
the risks she points out are pretty real.  If you have doubts, then
ask for cites.

At the least you have asked for other peoples experiences and options
of the procedures you are considering.  I would suggest ignoring the
emotional content of her response, and look into the risks she points
out before agreeing to any further diagnostic procedures.

Hoping for the best,
Larry

"The Watsons" <warpedsystems@mail.net> wrote in message

I'm sorry Jess. And I am sorry that you have to deal with people on this
newsgroup who have an agenda against the medical profession.

I don't know too much about what you have described, but I certainly would
consent to testing to make sure. I have typed up some reports with
infants/children with what you have described (I am a medical
transcriptionist), but it isn't enough to help you out.

With my daughter's liver transplant, she has had many x-rays, CT-scans and
ultrasounds, too many to count and it has not diminished her intelligence at
all. (((((hugs)))) It's probably nothing, but bypassing it by the doctor
would be seen as negligence on his part also.

I think you mean "metopic"  :)  It's the suture over the forehead.
Here's a link with some info:
http://www.kidsplastsurg.com/craniosynostosis.html
here's also a link on risk of xray, etc (with some citations) from Memorial
Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center.
http://hps.org/publicinformation/ate/q1601.html

Amy

Just wanted to say that we have some acquaintances whose doctor was
worried about this for their child.  Long story short, they watched it
for awhile and it turned out no surgery was needed.  So it may well
turn out that Sproglette may not need the surgery.

Sending prayers your way . . .

Leslie

On the question of radiation's effect on the brain, it's well known
that doses of radiation required for treatment of brain tumors in
childhood have major effects on intelligence.  But there's a *huge*
difference on amounts of radiation used to kill a brain tumor vs. do
one (or even a few) CT scans.  I suspect the doses of radiation used in
the 40's to treat hemangiomas were closer to the brain tumor doses.
There's a debate in pediatrics about whether everyone who needs a
spinal tap should get a head CT first or not (the details of which
aren't important here).  There's no way that debate could be going on
without anyone on the "no" side pointing out that even one CT scan has
negative effects on future intelligence.

I know you want to think ahead, but remember there's a big difference
between being referred to a craniofacial specialist for evaluation and
definitely requiring surgery.  The majority of kids referred don't need
surgery, so the odds are in sproglette's favor.  Try not to stress too
much yet.

Kate, ignorant foot soldier of the medical cartel
and the Bug, 22 months

My gorgeous, practically a baby model son is 4 mos and it was time, in my
timetable based on my reading, to get his weirdo skull looked at.

My primary care physician slash friend accompanied me to the neurosurgeon's
(MD, Ph.D)office this morning to get another opinion on his prominent
sutures and odd head shape (very prominent occiput).

Pleased to announce that he has been pronounced completely normal and
beautiful with an extremely prominent occiput that he will probably always
have and does not need to be followed.

He also thoroughly discussed how ct-scans are unnecessary when evaluating
for craniosynostosis, he certainly can evaluate for it without *unnecessary
radiation to the developing brain*.   He went on to say ... even if it was a
single suture craniosynostosis, which it isn't, that these children usually
are not at risk of problems, and surgery is in the vast majority of cases
cosmetic (he said something about 7-15% having any cranial pressure issues
and he finds the 15% number "highly suspect" ... I was not following this
too well) ... I think he went into all this just to make me feel better in
case I was doubting his evaluation of "no problems, healthy weird head", as
I did not bring it up, but I was amused that he was saying what I had said
on this group a month or so ago ... the only thing I brought up, neutrally,
was that a ped had suggested a ct-scan, then I just sat and let him talk and
looked concerned (which of course I always have been).  I didn't specify
that I was for or against it -- though he could presume, I suppose, that I
wasn't jumping at the bit to get a ct-scan, since I was not bringing
records.

Dagny