The debate over 4-D ultrasound photography/video studios

As someone with 10 years of experience in researching the safety of ultrasound, I can only say that I am personally appalled at these businesses. I personally think that the FDA should enforce the rules and prevent these places from operating. Certainly some of the companies seek to have trained staff, but that is beside the point. Even with trained staff, these businesses have crossed the line into doing ultrasound for the benefit of obtaining keepsake images, not for medical reasons. The incentive for the staff is to make good images, not safe practice of ultrasound. So, if they need to turn the amplitude up to get a better image, that’s what they do. If they need to take more time and wait for the baby to turn its head, that’s what they do. After all, the customer (patient?) is always right. Ultrasound can be dangerous, studies with lab animals have shown that at large enough amplitudes and scan times you can cause numerous defects or fetal death. This is something that needs to end.

(All opinions expressed in this posting are personal.)

Timothy Stiles, Ph.D.

I am currently pregnant with my first child and would not pay for one of these ultrasounds. Luckily, when we had our second ultrasound (at 19 weeks) the machine at the hospital was also able to capture 3d images, so we were able to get a few of those. These 4d just do not seem necessary and if there is any ‘possible’ harm, not worth it at all! Especially if it’s a matter of seeing if a name ‘fits’.

I do have an issue with the original article, there are many incorrect things stated as fact. There are many places in St. Louis where the cost is consideribly lower than the cost stated and includes a lot more than a photo and dvd. Plus, many women in St. Louis are currently having two ultrasounds (around 12 and again around 20 weeks)…this has become common practice. Again, another STLToday/Post article with incorrect facts, assumptions, stretches…

My daughter is just over one year old and I have to say I was intrigued by the 4D, but didn’t see the cost as something I felt needed to be spent so I never asked my Dr about it. I saw a 4D scan of an aquantences baby next to the newborn picture and wouldn’t have guessed it was the same baby. They didn’t even look that similar! For us, we were happy to see the ultrasounds our Dr did and wait for the real thing.
MK, I think the article was stating what most people have, which is a standard ultrasound at 20 weeks. I didn’t read that the author was stating it as fact that this is the ONLY one everyone has. We ended up having an internal ultrasound at 8 weeks, another at about 13 (Dr had a hard time finding the heartbeat initially, but the ultrasound showed a nice, strong one), the major ultrsound at 20 weeks then another major ultrasound at about 30 weeks (Dr was concerned about a couple things that ended up being fine). My two cents.

Wow! That is almost as outrageous as an elective Cesarean.

The 4-D ultrasounds are not harmful for the pregnancy, since they are generated with the same technology that traditional or 2-D ultrasound uses. The images appear differently however. The cost is something that is personal, just as getting photos at any time would be. The danger comes in when there are individuals that perform these exams that are not registered technologists. In addition, the technologist should always perform a routine ultrasound that is read by a board certified physcian that is licensed to interpret these images. Some women may not have an ultrasound performed during their pregnancy with a physcian. Besides, what would happen with a client if the technologist found something wrong while performing a 4-D ultrasound (that does happen)? It is the responsibility of the technologist to be sure the client receives the proper care for any abnormalities.