transvaginal ultrasound limitations
|
|
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
|
|
|