|
|
 |
 |
 |
|
|
|||
|
||||
|
||||
Re: biophysical profileFrom: srsoto@tricom.netSun Feb 18 03:12:15 2001
At Wed, 30 Aug 2000, Terry J DuBose wrote: > >You may be correct. I was just giving the original intention of the BPP, >to determine when to deliver when a fetus is stressed... but you are >correct, there are other reasons for observing fetal activity. > >Peace, Terry J DuBose, M.S., RDMS >Little Rock, Arkansas, USA > >On Wed, 30 Aug 2000 08:57:20 -0500 "Mary Scarboro" ><oneiota@bellsouth.net> writes: >> I'm wondering if this conclusion is rather near sighted considering >> the >> gestational age of the fetus greatly impacts the significance of the >> scoring. A low score at 25 weeks might be acted upon with stepping >> up fetal >> surveillance. At 36 weeks the same findings would prompt immediate >> plans for >> delivery. >> Mary Scarboro >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Terry J DuBose <tjdubose@juno.com> >> To: Multiple recipients of list ULTRASOUND >> <ultrasound@forum.obgyn.net> >> Date: Tuesday, August 29, 2000 9:22 PM >> Subject: Re: biophysical profile >> >> >Dr. Puri, this subject was discussed sometime ago in the J Diag Med >> >Sonography... to your 1st question, in general there is no reason >> to >> >perform a BPP unless the gestation is far enough along that it >> would be >> >delivered if a poor score was received. If it is too early to >> deliver for >> >a low score, then there is really no reason to do the exam. >> > >> >Peace, Terry J DuBose, M.S., RDMS >> >Little Rock, Arkansas USA >> > >> >------------------------------------------------------------ >> > >> >------------------------------------------------------------ >> >------------------------------------------------------------ >> >------------------------------------------------------------ >> >On Tue, 29 Aug 2000 20:02:27 -0500 udaya kumar >> >------------------------------------------------------------ >> <udaya@md2.vsnl.net.in> >> >------------------------------------------------------------ >> >writes: >> >------------------------------------------------------------ >> >> Dear Gunjan Puri, >> >> I believe that the Ultrasound estimated fetal weight is + 0r - >> 10% >> >> of the >> >> actual weight. >> >> This difference may be more in SGA or LGA fetuses. >> >> If you have scanned a couple of weeks before delivery, you should >> >> add >> >> 20gms/day as interval growth correction provided the baby is >> normal >> >> size for >> >> dates at the time of scanning. In macrosomic babies, you have to >> >> add >> >> 40gms/day. >> >> .Udayakumar, >> >> Genesis Scans, >> >> Chennai, India >> >> >> >> Gunjan Puri wrote: >> >> >> >> > Hi ! When do you think the biophysical profile is best >> required? >> >> Also in >> >> > postmaturity fetus how much is the biophysical profile helpful >> ? >> >> > In our place , we still get many references for sonography in >> the >> >> third >> >> > trimester( after 36 weeks or so), for the first time in the >> entire >> >> > pregnancy,,,and during that time the fetal weight is quite >> >> different from >> >> > the actual neonate weight (being born after a few days or so); >> how >> >> much do >> >> > you think difference between the weights is considered normal. >> >> > Dr. Gunjan Puri >> >> > India >> >> >> > >>
|
|
Return to
|
Mail a New Message to the Forum: ultrasound@obgyn.net Forum Administrator: terry.dubose@obgyn.net Report Technical Problems: webmaster@obgyn.net Last Updated: Sat Aug 2 05:11:51 2008 |
The American Medical Association is no longer designating CME hours for AMA Category II CME credit. However, physicians themselves may self designate learning activities as Category II CME credit hours if they feel it is of sufficient educational merit and meets the formal definitions of continuing medical education. OBGYN.net believes these interaction in this forum meets these criteria. For further information see the AMA web site.