Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion Groups
Parenting
ParentingMothersSingle ParentsStep ParentsAdoptionTwinsSpankingChildren's Health
Pregnancy
PregnancyBreastfeeding
Marriage
MarriageDivorce
FamilyKB.com
Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map

Family Forum / Pregnancy / Pregnancy / February 2008



Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

transvaginal ultrasound limitations

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
Lynn - 06 Feb 2008 15:05 GMT
I could not find any information on the search engines, so I thought I
would ask here on the off chance that someone might know the answer...

I had a transvaginal ultrasound at 12 weeks, 4 days, performed by a
CNM (not an ultrasound tech).  She could not find anything in my
uterus.  When she switched to the abdominal ultrasound, the baby
popped up on the screen immediately.  Everything looked fine.

Why would the baby not show up in the transvaginal u/s?  Is this just
a case of user error, or are there limitations to the transvaginal
that would prevent a 12 week old baby from being seen?

Of course, I forgot to ask all of these questions at the OB.

Thanks
Lynn
Ericka Kammerer - 06 Feb 2008 15:41 GMT
> I could not find any information on the search engines, so I thought I
> would ask here on the off chance that someone might know the answer...
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> a case of user error, or are there limitations to the transvaginal
> that would prevent a 12 week old baby from being seen?

    Location, location, location.  U/s of any sort can
only find things if it can get the right angle on them.  That's
why both abdominal and transvaginal u/s exist.  If either one
could get a good angle on everything, you wouldn't need the
other.

Best wishes,
Ericka
NL - 06 Feb 2008 15:45 GMT
Ericka Kammerer schrieb:

>     Location, location, location.  U/s of any sort can
> only find things if it can get the right angle on them.  That's
> why both abdominal and transvaginal u/s exist.  If either one
> could get a good angle on everything, you wouldn't need the
> other.

See, I wish I could express stuff the way you do. I need half an hour
and 1000 words and it's all hazy while you sum it up and it's all clear.

cu
nicole
NL - 06 Feb 2008 15:43 GMT
Lynn schrieb:
> I could not find any information on the search engines, so I thought I
> would ask here on the off chance that someone might know the answer...
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> uterus.  When she switched to the abdominal ultrasound, the baby
> popped up on the screen immediately.  Everything looked fine.

I'm not sure what a CNM is... In germany ultrasounds are usually
performed by the doctor.

> Why would the baby not show up in the transvaginal u/s?  Is this just
> a case of user error, or are there limitations to the transvaginal
> that would prevent a 12 week old baby from being seen?

I would guess a user error. I don't think I had an abdominal u/s before
20 weeks, but I'm not sure. I'm also guessing that since the abdominal
ultrasound "head" is larger and you can really only point it in one
direction when using it (down i.e. at the skin therefore placement of
the head determines what you're seeing) it's easier to use, with the
transvaginal "wand" thing you can point anywhere (forward -> Uterus,
sideways -> ovaries and fallopian tubes, up -> bladder,...).

cu
nicole
Jamie Clark - 06 Feb 2008 16:35 GMT
> Lynn schrieb:
>> I could not find any information on the search engines, so I thought I
[quoted text clipped - 22 lines]
> cu
> nicole

Well, not quite anywhere...only in the general direction of above the
cervix, give or take.  Kind of hard to turn that wand all the way around...
oooch!

I think the field of vision of the vaginal u/s is smaller than the
abdominal, so if she wasn't pointing right at the baby, it would be easy to
miss.  Think about looking through a telescope trying to find a specific
star -- the field of vision is so small that you have no point of reference,
and it's hard to know if you are even in the correct general area.  You
usually have to use your eyes (wider point of view) to get it to the right
general location, then you can usually find it.

Signature

Jamie Clark

NL - 06 Feb 2008 19:30 GMT
Jamie Clark schrieb:
>> Lynn schrieb:
>>> I could not find any information on the search engines, so I thought I
[quoted text clipped - 24 lines]
> cervix, give or take.  Kind of hard to turn that wand all the way around...
> oooch!

Oooooooohhhhhhhhhhh, the mental image... I meant "While touching the
cervix" kind of thing... It's just so hard to explain! I guess it's
easier to point past an embryo when using the wand because, let's face
it, you don't quite know where you're really pointing, while when you're
using the abdominal "head" thing you can see what you're doing much
better...

> I think the field of vision of the vaginal u/s is smaller than the
> abdominal, so if she wasn't pointing right at the baby, it would be easy to
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> usually have to use your eyes (wider point of view) to get it to the right
> general location, then you can usually find it.

Yes, that's what I meant when I said it's much smaller, you can probably
get more detail but not as much of the "scenery". Kind of like wide
angle vs. macro ;-)

cu
nicole
Lynn - 06 Feb 2008 20:26 GMT
> Jamie Clark schrieb:
>
[quoted text clipped - 50 lines]
>
> - Show quoted text -

Thanks, everyone, for the replies.  It was a horrible 5 minutes... the
CNM started talking about miscarriage.  I was so relieved when the
baby showed up in the abdominal u/s that I didn't think about anything
else.  It makes me angry, now, that she was so quick to assume the
worse.

Anyway, it is good to have a plausible explanation now.

Lynn
cjra - 06 Feb 2008 20:34 GMT
> > Jamie Clark schrieb:
>
[quoted text clipped - 60 lines]
>
> Lynn

I'm surprised she even commented. In all the u/s I've had during 2
miscarriages, the tech doing it didn't say *anything* to indicate what
they were seeing. When I had an u/s by the OB, even she was guarded
about saying anything until she'd seen it all.
Anne Rogers - 06 Feb 2008 22:11 GMT
> Thanks, everyone, for the replies.  It was a horrible 5 minutes... the
> CNM started talking about miscarriage.  I was so relieved when the
> baby showed up in the abdominal u/s that I didn't think about anything
> else.  It makes me angry, now, that she was so quick to assume the
> worse.

That sounds like pretty bad treatment, it makes you wonder if she needs
to update her education on ultrasound use. At 12 weeks 4 days, if you'd
not had any bleeding, seeing nothing would be a very unusual finding for
a miscarriage without symptoms, you'd see something, a small for dates
fetus, but with no heart beat and numerous other things.

Can you put pen to paper, however brief, just to let someone know that
you think she may be in need of an update. Usually transvaginal is more
accurate, it's often 2nd to be used and can provide reassuring info
after a transabdominal ultrasound has been unclear, that she got it so
wrong suggests either poor understanding of how to use the technology,
or poor understanding of what physical variations there can be that
might make a reading different.

Cheers
Anne
Lynn - 07 Feb 2008 00:15 GMT
> > Thanks, everyone, for the replies.  It was a horrible 5 minutes... the
> > CNM started talking about miscarriage.  I was so relieved when the
[quoted text clipped - 18 lines]
> Cheers
> Anne

Grrr... I'm getting more and more angry about this.  The nurse said
that at 12 weeks, I was close to the line between a transvaginal scan
and an abdominal one.  She set the machine up for abdominal.  When the
CNM came in and examined me, she said my uterus felt a little small
and wanted to start off with the transvaginal.  She poked around for
15 seconds before she said, "Well, I'm not seeing much of anything in
there."  Another minute or two and she asked if I was sure that I had
not had any bleeding or spotting, and that my uterus felt more the
size of 6 weeks than 12 weeks.  I told her definitely not, and that I
had a urine pregnancy test at the hospital lab last week that was
positive.  She said that it could take weeks after a miscarriage for
pregnancy hormones to leave my body.  All of this took place in about
5 minutes of probing - which seemed like an eternity.  I was about to
ask her to stop, and just try to find a heartbeat with the doppler or
something when she decided to try the abdominal u/s.  Like I said
before, the baby was on the screen the second she placed it on my
stomach.

I vaguely remember somewhere in the back of my mind someone telling me
that I had a tipped uterus.  I guess this would make sense as to why
she was having a hard time with transvaginal scan, and why my uterus
felt small for my dates.  The crown to rump length was right on
target, though.

I probably won't say anything to the office, though.  I live in a
small town - only 2 OBs.  Staff at both offices have a reputation for
being quite callous about miscarriage.  But she will not be doing
another ultrasound on me.  She could have at least kept her mouth shut
until she tried all of the options.

Lynn
Michelle J. Haines - 07 Feb 2008 04:08 GMT
> I probably won't say anything to the office, though.  I live in a
> small town - only 2 OBs.  Staff at both offices have a reputation for
> being quite callous about miscarriage.  But she will not be doing
> another ultrasound on me.  She could have at least kept her mouth shut
> until she tried all of the options.

Speaking from the other end of the spectrum here, while it sounds like
she really shouldn't have said anything about miscarriage until she had
done everything...medical professional doesn't mean God, people do make
mistakes, the mistake was rectified with really nothing more than a few
minutes of anxiety on your part, and is it going to do you any good to
get THAT angry about it?  Say something to her in a calm manner the next
time you see her, she'll no doubt take the rebuke well enough to heart
rather than a "You'll never do another ultrasound on me and you should
keep your mouth shut" kind of attitude for what may have been an honest
mistake or a thoughtless slip.  (She DID palpate you and found that you
felt small, also.)

I'm not trying to minimize your upset, at all, but I guess I don't see a
ton of point in ripping the woman to shreds as incompetent over it at
this point, unless she's demonstrated some other gross incompetency, either.

Michelle
Flutist
Sue - 07 Feb 2008 11:38 GMT
"Lynn" <swtchryp@yahoo.com> wrote in message
Grrr... I'm getting more and more angry about this.  The nurse said
that at 12 weeks, I was close to the line between a transvaginal scan
and an abdominal one.  She set the machine up for abdominal.  When the
CNM came in and examined me, she said my uterus felt a little small
and wanted to start off with the transvaginal.  She poked around for
15 seconds before she said, "Well, I'm not seeing much of anything in
there."  Another minute or two and she asked if I was sure that I had
not had any bleeding or spotting, and that my uterus felt more the
size of 6 weeks than 12 weeks.  I told her definitely not, and that I
had a urine pregnancy test at the hospital lab last week that was
positive.  She said that it could take weeks after a miscarriage for
pregnancy hormones to leave my body.  All of this took place in about
5 minutes of probing - which seemed like an eternity.  I was about to
ask her to stop, and just try to find a heartbeat with the doppler or
something when she decided to try the abdominal u/s.  Like I said
before, the baby was on the screen the second she placed it on my
stomach.

I vaguely remember somewhere in the back of my mind someone telling me
that I had a tipped uterus.  I guess this would make sense as to why
she was having a hard time with transvaginal scan, and why my uterus
felt small for my dates.  The crown to rump length was right on
target, though.

I probably won't say anything to the office, though.  I live in a
small town - only 2 OBs.  Staff at both offices have a reputation for
being quite callous about miscarriage.  But she will not be doing
another ultrasound on me.  She could have at least kept her mouth shut
until she tried all of the options.

-------
I don't see how a mention of a miscarriage would constitute you deeming her
as incompetent and to never scan you again. She was finding out information
from you while examining you. She couldn't see anything with the
transvaginal probe probably because of your uterus, as you said or
positioning of the baby and/or placenta. Are you overweight at all?
Sometimes soft tissues get in the way and one cannot see as well.  She then
used another probe and was able to see much better. I am not sure that I
would be angry over this, but that's me.
Signature

Sue (mom to three girls)

Welches - 07 Feb 2008 13:00 GMT
On Feb 6, 5:11 pm, Anne Rogers <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
> > Thanks, everyone, for the replies. It was a horrible 5 minutes... the
> > CNM started talking about miscarriage. I was so relieved when the
[quoted text clipped - 18 lines]
> Cheers
> Anne

>Grrr... I'm getting more and more angry about this.  The nurse said
>that at 12 weeks, I was close to the line between a transvaginal scan
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
>before, the baby was on the screen the second she placed it on my
>stomach.

I'm with the others here. I don't see what she was doing wrong.
She thinks you feel small-so maybe you're wrong with the dates so she tries
the transvaginal first-which has a better chance of seeing something if you
were closer to 6 weeks than 12. Yes, people have been wrong on dates before.
She can't see anything. But she's also got that you feel small. Much too
small, I'd guess. Maybe one of the drs here can tell us how different 6 and
12 weeks feel, but I'd guess quite a difference if you know what you're
looking for.
When you're told something is wrong the first reaction can be denial. When I
was told on a scan that #2 was missing her hand my first reaction was "I saw
it on the previous scan, that can't be right". In your case you said you
couldn't have miscarried because you'd had a test the previous week. To
which she let you know that that wasn't a guarantee.
If you had  been closer to 6 weeks then there wouldn't have been much chance
of hearing anything on the doppler, I think the minimum age is about 10
weeks, I know people who haven't heard anything until 14 weeks.
Her reactions semed to be reasonable to me from the data you have given us
that she said. I'm not sure what you expected her to do. She wasn't to know
that the baby would be obvious on the abdominal u/s, so she was right to
continue trying with the other one.
Debbie
Anne Rogers - 07 Feb 2008 21:24 GMT
> I probably won't say anything to the office, though.  I live in a
> small town - only 2 OBs.  Staff at both offices have a reputation for
> being quite callous about miscarriage.  But she will not be doing
> another ultrasound on me.  She could have at least kept her mouth shut
> until she tried all of the options.

you don't have to attach your name to it, look out and see if there is a
box for patient feedback. She's a CNM, maybe they have a website or
other practice information you could look at to see what her training is
on use of ultrasound, how often she carries it out etc. If you don't
carry something out on a regular basis, but have the need to
occasionally, training does have to be reviewed (like the way CPR
certification only lasts a short time), similarly carrying something out
regularly isn't a bypass to training.

Anne
Sue - 07 Feb 2008 11:41 GMT
"Anne Rogers" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
> Can you put pen to paper, however brief, just to let someone know that you
> think she may be in need of an update. Usually transvaginal is more
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> understanding of what physical variations there can be that might make a
> reading different.

Or Anne because of body habitus, position of the baby, placenta or other
factors she couldn't see as well. Doesn't sound to me as if she needs an
update, she used one probe, couldn't see anything and then got another probe
and saw what she needed to see. What is there to update? I think you guys
are too quick to blame hospital staff or doctors and I find it a shame.

Signature

Sue (mom to three girls)

Lynn - 07 Feb 2008 12:36 GMT
> "Anne Rogers" <nos...@nospam.com> wrote in message
> > Can you put pen to paper, however brief, just to let someone know that you
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
> --
> Sue (mom to three girls)

I was venting.  Michelle, you are right - it was nothing more than a
few moments of anxiety.  The baby is obviously fine.  No, Sue, I am
not overweight, but I am more educated than the average patient here,
and DH thinks that I intimidate the doctor's staff (and sometimes even
doctors).  Some medical people love that patients are informed, other
hate it.  I honestly believe that I did not say anything that would
make the CNM defensive, but she has known me since I gave birth to
baby #1 (this is baby #3 for me).  In general, she tends to be the
type of person that will always tell you the worst-case scenario.  In
my opinion, this is better than the other end of glossing over
potential problems.  She is also very good when it comes down to labor
and delivery.  However, pregnancy makes me lean toward irrational
fears, and I believe it would be best if someone else in the office
who had a little more sensitivity did the remaining u/s.

Anyway... no one knows who I am talking about, I got all of my
thoughts out of my head in a way that does not create a scene, and I
received a satisfactory answer to my questions.  Thanks to all again.

Lynn
Jamie Clark - 07 Feb 2008 17:04 GMT
On Feb 7, 6:41 am, "Sue" <sburke9...@wideopenwest.com> wrote:
> "Anne Rogers" <nos...@nospam.com> wrote in message
> > Can you put pen to paper, however brief, just to let someone know that
[quoted text clipped - 16 lines]
> --
> Sue (mom to three girls)

>I was venting.  Michelle, you are right - it was nothing more than a
>few moments of anxiety.  The baby is obviously fine.  No, Sue, I am
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
>fears, and I believe it would be best if someone else in the office
>who had a little more sensitivity did the remaining u/s.

While what the CNM did was not grossly negligent or malpractice or anything
like that, it certainly wasn't sensitive or tactful.  Rather than scare a
pregnant woman with possible miscarriage fears, she could have scanned you
with the vaginal wand, said, "Hmmm, I'm not getting a good view. Let's try
the abdominal u/s" and then continued scanning you with the other machine
until a determination was made of fetal viability or not.  Then if she saw
no heartbeat or fetus at that point, she could have told you that you had
likely miscarried or that there was a problem with the baby.  Since she did
in fact then see the fetus after scanning with the abdominal u/s, she would
have said, "Okay, here is the baby, right on target,"  and you could have
skipped the whole 5 minutes worth of worry, fear and anxiety.

I think it's not only fair and reasonable for you to gently say something to
her about the incident, but could prevent her from repeating it again with
someone else.  There are all sorts of ways to say something to her that
wouldn't piss her off or make her feel like you are "ripping her a new one."
One possible way would be say with a smile, in a joking way, "Gosh, Mary,
you really gave me a scare last time!  Can we skip that part this time?"
Humor is a great tool for alleviating stress and lightening the mood, and
allowing you to get your point across without causing the other person to be
defensive.

>Anyway... no one knows who I am talking about, I got all of my
>thoughts out of my head in a way that does not create a scene, and I
>received a satisfactory answer to my questions.  Thanks to all again.

Signature

Jamie Clark

Anne Rogers - 07 Feb 2008 21:18 GMT
> "Anne Rogers" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
>> Can you put pen to paper, however brief, just to let someone know that you
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
> and saw what she needed to see. What is there to update? I think you guys
> are too quick to blame hospital staff or doctors and I find it a shame.

Exactly, there are a gazillion and one reasons why she might see
nothing, which is exactly why she may need to update her knowledge on
this type of ultrasound scanning. She didn't see any evidence of a
miscarriage, which with the information given, if a miscarriage had
occurred, with no reported bleeding, she'd see something. It really does
sound like she interpreted the results of the transvaginal ultrasound
incorrectly, instead of interpreting them as "inconclusive", she
interpreted them as miscarriage, and told the patient. I think there is
enough question there for saying "she may" need to update her education,
she wasn't an ultrasound tech, we don't know what training she had in
the use of ultrasound, I think there is plenty of room for questions.

Anne
Sue - 08 Feb 2008 10:54 GMT
"Anne Rogers" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
> Exactly, there are a gazillion and one reasons why she might see nothing,
> which is exactly why she may need to update her knowledge on this type of
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> ultrasound tech, we don't know what training she had in the use of
> ultrasound, I think there is plenty of room for questions.

I think you are reaching Anne. I intrepreted it different as the tech was
finding out information from the OP and because of who knows what, the tech
couldn't see anything at first with the first probe and then she went to the
second. Just because a tech has a hard time with something doesn't mean she
is at fault or needs updating. Why do you have such a hard time with the
tech using a different probe to see what is going on?
Signature

Sue (mom to three girls)

Ericka Kammerer - 08 Feb 2008 14:42 GMT
> I think you are reaching Anne. I intrepreted it different as the tech was
> finding out information from the OP and because of who knows what, the tech
> couldn't see anything at first with the first probe and then she went to the
> second. Just because a tech has a hard time with something doesn't mean she
> is at fault or needs updating. Why do you have such a hard time with the
> tech using a different probe to see what is going on?

    Perhaps you missed one of Lynn's followups, but it
wasn't just a matter of asking if there was any bleeding or
switching probes.  There was apparently much more conversation
about how she couldn't see anything and how it could be a
miscarriage and how even the previous week's positive pregnancy
test didn't mean anything, and so on.  Also, it was not a tech,
it was a midwife doing the screening.

    Regardless of anything else, she exhibited poor "bedside
manner."  There is no way that you start in with a conversation
as if it's a likely miscarriage without having done due diligence
to eliminate other possibilities.  To have gone on about a
miscarriage *prior* to having tried the abdominal probe and
*without* making it clear that the situation could be something
as simple (and benign) as a tipped uterus or the limited "view"
with the transvaginal probe simply isn't appropriate.  This
midwife is not dealing purely with clinical issues.  She's
dealing with a real, live pregnant woman whose worst fear
is a miscarriage.  The way she handled this situation was
very, very tactless, and that's not ok.

Best wishes,
Ericka
Akuvikate - 08 Feb 2008 23:41 GMT
> > I think you are reaching Anne. I intrepreted it different as the tech was
> > finding out information from the OP and because of who knows what, the tech
[quoted text clipped - 23 lines]
> is a miscarriage.  The way she handled this situation was
> very, very tactless, and that's not ok.

Agreed, I don't think the problem with her knowledge of ultrasound,
but with knowing when to keep her mouth shut.  An element that's been
left out of a lot of this conversation is that the OP was also
measuring quite small for dates, so there were two consistent
worrisome pieces of information.  The midwife concluding during this 5
minute period that this may well be a miscarriage may have been quite
appropriate.  She just shouldn't have said anything quite yet.  Or if
she started to raise some concerns, she should have been a little more
vague and noncommittal rather than trying to reinforce her position by
replying that the positive pregnancy test doesn't mean anything.

There is a tendency among some folks (for example much of the
misc.kids community) to want medical providers to communicate
everything and think it's a grave sin if we're worried about something
but don't tell the patient/parent.  At the same time, if we raise
fears that turn out to be unjustified, that's also a grave sin.  And
in most practices, the misc.kids community is an extreme end of the
informed patient spectrum -- most people don't want (or aren't
equipped to remember or understand) discussions about the nuances of
the various conflicting evidence about one thing or another, they just
want the darned answer.  So though I agree with Sue that this
community is very quick to come down harshly on medical providers for
what are sometime small infractions (I would call the one that started
this thread certainly a faux pas, but not a grave infraction) it
doesn't surprise me in the least.

Kate, ignorant foot soldier of the medical cartel
and the Bug, 4 and a half
and something brewing, 4/08
alath - 12 Feb 2008 04:54 GMT
> I don't think the problem with her knowledge of ultrasound,

Disagree. I do think it is a problem with ultrasound skill.

I am a CNM and also ARDMS certified for OB sonography. The basic CNM
training does not cover any sonography skills at all. Limited second
and third trimester sonography is commonly added as an expanded
practice skill according to ACNM procedures. First trimester and
transvaginal sonography require more specialized training and really
should be certified by ARDMS.

Blaming this incident on a retroverted uterus is a nice way to let
this CNM off the hook, but seriously alarms me about this person's
skill level. She obviously was not able to identify the pelvic
anatomic landmarks. The only way any qualified person should have
trouble finding the uterus with transvaginal ultrasound is if the
patient has had a hysterectomy. If anything, a transvaginal approach
is easier to visualize a retroverted uterus because the uterus is more
distant from the ventral abdominal wall.

Anyone who starts talking about a miscarriage without having found the
gosh-darned uterus, for gosh sakes, has shown seriously bad clinical
judgement. This is someone who does not know when they know what they
are doing and when they don't know what they are doing, and someone
who tries to "wing it" when she gets in over her head. Any provider of
any kind should be comfortable saying they are seeking a more expert
or more specialized assessment when they aren't sure what's going on.

I think there is a serious professional judgement and standards
problem going on here and I would not be comfortable with this person
taking care of me or my family.

Minimally, find out what this person's qualifications are for
ultrasound before allowing her to scan you in the future.
Anne Rogers - 12 Feb 2008 16:39 GMT
>> I don't think the problem with her knowledge of ultrasound,
>
[quoted text clipped - 30 lines]
> Minimally, find out what this person's qualifications are for
> ultrasound before allowing her to scan you in the future.

Thank you so much for posting this, in my head I was thinking the exact
same things, I just obviously wasn't explaining them that well. She
should know what she was seeing and if she wasn't seeing a uterus then
she should know she wasn't seeing it, even if she didn't know why (I
wondered if a full bladder in preparation for abdominal ultrasound came
in to play).

Cheers
Anne
Me Myself and I - 06 Feb 2008 19:19 GMT
A tilted uterus can give unusual ultrasound results, if the tech doesn't
know about it.

Signature

Pip, in NZ

My girls :
DD1 Jasmine - 5 weeks early - March 02 - 4lb 12oz
Still as small as a peanut but as smart as a whip!

DD2 Abby - 8 weeks early - Feb 05 - 3lb 14oz
Two and a half and still a terror!!

"Yes you can drive me insane just by talking to me!"

>I could not find any information on the search engines, so I thought I
> would ask here on the off chance that someone might know the answer...
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
> Thanks
> Lynn
 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2010 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.