Re: new trends and approaches in biophysical profile
From: art fougner, md (evsono@pipeline.com)
Tue Sep 7 10:56:10 1999
Terry
just got back from vacation. everyone knows that anomalies should be
excluded with poly. the prob i am concerned with is the increased
perinatal mortality and morbidity associated with poly, even in the
absence of anomalies. yet all the "scoring systems" ignore this prob,
focusing on oligo.
perhaps Dr Platt has a comment concerning poly.
Art
At Thu, 26 Aug 1999, DuboseTerryJ@exchange.uams.edu wrote:
>
>A common concern in the presents of polyhydramnios is upper GI track
>problems that prevent swallowing. I had not thrown this out, but I noticed
>no one else said anything. So anomalies of the mouth (clefts), esophagus
>(tracheoesophageal fistulas), or esophageal atresias. Also neurologic
>problems that might affect the autonomic swallowing response.
>
>I am not sure about Polyhy as it relates to BPP.
>
>Terry J. DuBose, M.S., RDMS
>Director, Diagnostic Medical Sonography Program
>CHRP, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences
>Little Rock, Arkansas, USA
>501-686-6510
>http://www.io.com/~dubose/ <http://www.io.com/~dubose/>
>http://www.uams.edu/CHRP/dmshome.htm <http://www.uams.edu/CHRP/dmshome.htm>
>
>http://www.obgyn.net/us/panel/panel.htm
><http://www.obgyn.net/us/panel/panel.htm>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: evsono@pipeline.com [SMTP:evsono@pipeline.com]
> Sent: Thursday, August 26, 1999 12:36 PM
> To: Multiple recipients of list ULTRASOUND
> Subject: Re: new trends and approaches in biophysical profile
>
> Jim -
>
> ltns! problem with af volume assessment is that lit is divided. in
>july two articles suggested oligo might be less important yet another showed
>a significant import with borderline amt of af. also - as you suggest, the
>definition of oligo seems to vary from study to study. where is your
>reference on your work with cerebro - umbilical differences. could
> not find this. and what about the significance of poly? should not
>the interpretation of bpp take the negative impact of poly into account? I
>have not found fetal breathing all that useful, especially in diabetics
>whose glucose seems to stimulate breathing. look forward to hearing from
>you.
>
> Art
>
> At Wed, 25 Aug 1999, James S Smeltzer MD wrote:
> >
> >Art,
> >
> >Garry Turner did a study in post dates in which AF had no
>correlation with
> >outcome, which was pretty good. There are older data to indicate
>that the
> >AFI is useless unless the critical value is at 1-2 cm, and even
>then it is
> >weak. The NST score (Krebs) and fetal MCA / Umbilical difference
>or ratios
> >have been shown to predict fetal risk. No index is perfect, but
>these are
> >close. Using them and fetal kick counts, we have a corrected
>perinatal
> >mortality of zero of fetuses over 28 weeks over years of high risk
> >experience. We also use the BPP, but have not found it to be as
>helpful,
> >though others have different experience.
> >
> >Jim S
> >
> >At 10:19 AM 8/22/1999 -0500, you wrote:
> >>i'll float two concepts out here which will hopefully stimultate
>more
> >>discussion. the first is to weight the different parameters'
>scores
> >>differently, eg - af volume to have more impact than fetal
>breathing
> >>movements. recently, boris petrikovsky suggested that tone be
>given a
> >>weighted score of 0!
> >>
> >>the second is tony vintzileos' concept of disease specific
>testing.
> >>perhaps the most important test to be performed with diabetes is a
>blood
> >>sugar determination. while with iugr, fetal doppler takes center
>stage.
> >>
> >>finally, i'd like to know from all the "scorers" out there how one
>would
> >>score not oligo but polyhydramnios. since some have shown that
>even
> >>when no obvious anomaly exists, the perinatal mortality and
>morbidity is
> >>increased here. so how to score?
> >>
> >>Art
> >>
> >>At Fri, 20 Aug 1999, DuboseTerryJ@exchange.uams.edu wrote:
> >>>
> >>>I think we might have someone on this list who understands the
>BBP.
> >>>Correct, Dr. Platt?
> >>>
> >>>Terry J. DuBose, M.S., RDMS
> >>>Director, Diagnostic Medical Sonography Program
> >>>CHRP, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences
> >>>Little Rock, Arkansas, USA
> >>>501-686-6510
> >>>http://www.io.com/~dubose/ <http://www.io.com/~dubose/>
> >>>http://www.uams.edu/CHRP/dmshome.htm
><http://www.uams.edu/CHRP/dmshome.htm>
> >>>
> >>>http://www.obgyn.net/us/panel/panel.htm
> >>><http://www.obgyn.net/us/panel/panel.htm>
> >>>
> >>> -----Original Message-----
> >>> From: yurimiranda@hotmail.com
>[SMTP:yurimiranda@hotmail.com]
> >>> Sent: Thursday, August 19, 1999 8:50 PM
> >>> To: Multiple recipients of list ULTRASOUND
> >>> Subject: new trends and approaches in biophysical
>profile
> >>>
> >>> we are a small ultrasound unit in santo domingo dominican
>republic
> >>>in the Maternity hospital, we were wondering if somebody could
>give us a
> >>>hand in sending us some recent reviews or trends in the bpp thank
>you all in
> >>>advance.
> >>
> >>--
> >>"Of course, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong."
> >>-----Dennis Miller
> >>
> >>art fougner, md
> >>SonoScan/Genetic Sciences
> >>forest hills, ny
> >>evsono@pipeline.com
> >>
>
> --
> "Of course, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong."
> -----Dennis Miller
>
> art fougner, md
> SonoScan/Genetic Sciences
> forest hills, ny
> evsono@pipeline.com
--
"Of course, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong."
-----Dennis Miller
art fougner, md
SonoScan/Genetic Sciences
forest hills, ny
evsono@pipeline.com
