[Effect of oxytocin on uterine fibroids treated by ultrasound ablation]

[Effect of oxytocin on uterine fibroids treated by ultrasound ablation]

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21781579

OBJECTIVE:
To explore the effect of oxytocin on uterine fibroids treated by ultrasound ablation.

METHODS:
Eighty-two single points in 29 uterine fibroids from 26 patients were sonicated with magnetic resonance imaging guided by high intensity focused ultrasound before and after using oxytocin. The required total energy, sonication time required to reach 60°C and the acoustic energy for increasing 1°C of temperature at the single point before and after using oxytocin were compared.

RESULTS:
Before intravenous infusion of oxytocin, the average total sonication energy required to reach 60°C was (5320 ± 910) J and it took (21 ± 20) seconds for sonicating a single point, the energy required for increasing 1°C was (255 ± 302) J. In contrast, after intravenous infusion of oxytocin, the average total sonication energy required to reach 60°C was (2890 ± 325) J, and it took (12 ± 7) seconds for sonicating a single point, the energy required for increasing 1°C was (126 ± 94) J. Those three index all reached statistical difference (P = 0.002, P = 0.001, P = 0.002, respectively).

CONCLUSION:
It seemed that Oxytocin could significantly decrease the energy required for ablating uterine fibroids, shorten treatment time and improve the treatment efficiency.
PMID: 21781579 [PubMed – indexed for MEDLINE]

FetalSonoSafety comments:
Oxytocin increases the receptiveness of cells to external stimuli. Thus, this may increase their reception to sonic energies through a variety of mechanisms.

Advertisements

Mice Exposed to Diagnostic Ultrasound Exhibit Autistic-Like Social Behaviors

Mice Exposed to Diagnostic Ultrasound Exhibit Autistic-Like Social Behaviors

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24249575
Mice Exposed to Diagnostic Ultrasound In Utero Are Less Social and More Active in Social Situations Relative to Controls.
McClintic AM, King BH, Webb SJ, Mourad PD.
Source

Department Neurological Surgery, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington.
Abstract

Clinical use of diagnostic ultrasound imaging during pregnancy has a long history of safety and diagnostic utility, as supported by numerous human case reports and epidemiological studies. However, there exist in vivo studies linking large but clinically relevant doses of ultrasound applied to mouse fetuses in utero to altered learning, memory, and neuroanatomy of those mice. Also, there exists a well-documented significant increase in the likelihood of non-right-handedness in boys exposed to diagnostic ultrasound in utero, potentially relevant given the increased prevalence of autism in males, and reports of excess non-right-handedness in this population. Motivated by these observations, we applied 30 minutes of diagnostic ultrasound to pregnant mice at embryonic day 14.5 and assayed the social behavior of their male pups 3 weeks after their birth. The ultrasound-exposed pups were significantly (P < 0.01) less interested in social interaction than sham-exposed pups in a three-chamber sociability test. In addition, they demonstrated significantly (P < 0.05) more activity relative to the sham-exposed pups, but only in the presence of an unfamiliar mouse. These results suggest that fetal exposure to diagnostic ultrasound applied in utero can alter typical social behaviors in young mice that may be relevant for autism. There exist meaningful differences between the exposure of diagnostic ultrasound to mice versus humans that require further exploration before this work can usefully inform clinical practice. Future work should address these differences as well as clarify the extent, mechanisms, and functional effects of diagnostic ultrasound's interaction with the developing brain. Autism Res 2013, ●●: ●●-●●. © 2013 International Society for Autism Research, Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

*Note: Mouse models of autism rely on studying symptoms, and are infantile. http://www.nature.com/nrn/journal/v11/n7/full/nrn2851.html

Reckless overuse of ultrasound during pregnancy

Brenda Hinton GREY LYNN, NEW ZEALAND

Obstetric practices in NZ follow close on the heels of those in larger countries like the USA. Most women in NZ now have at least 4 ultrasound scans during their pregnancy with at least 2 of these being performed in the first trimester. In NZ most women access fully subsidized pregnancy/maternity care and those who pay privately for obstetric care still have their (usually much greater number of) scans publicly subsidized. The continuing increase in ultrasound scanning is greatly increasing the cost of maternity care to the NZ taxpayer with no commensurate improvement in outcomes. Like the rest of the developed world, where ultrasound is readily available, we are seeing an increase in autistic spectrum disorders and also things like tongue and lip tie. More regulation, research and consumer education is urgently needed. We hope the USA will lead the charge to ensure the safety of this overused technology.

A comment from the petition at https://www.change.org/petitions/health-risks-of-prenatal-ultrasound-the-urgent-need-for-more-research-and-regulation

I find it curious that the industry behind ultrasound promotes such overuse of the technology despite warnings whispered.  It either speaks of poor education, or grand, widespread incompetence.

It is costing taxpayer money in subsidized systems.  Tons of it.  For no reason.

I agree, Brenda.  There is a lot of work to do.

Ultrasound safety inconsistency: why are adult eyes treated with more care than fetal eyes during sonograms?

Ultrasound safety inconsistency: why are adult eyes treated with more care than fetal eyes during sonograms?

http://www.fetalultrasoundsafety.net/pulse-intensity.htm

Dr. David Toms, radiologist, discusses on his website an inconsistency found in the regulations of ultrasound power output for fetal scanning. The eye is a fluid filled sac with very delicate anatomy — there is a hard cap on the maximum power of ultrasound exposure allowed to pass through it for safety reasons.

However, this max amount is different for adults and the fetus. Strangely, the fetal eye is not protected as much as the adult eye. By quite a large margin, too.

Further strange, ultrasound devices do not accurately report the amount of ultrasound exposure in the lower regimes of power. Most all concerns about the limits for fetal scanning extend from known mechanisms of damage such as hemorrhaging and cavitation, but scientific evidence suggests the existence of other dangers.

It is almost as if regulatory authorities wish to remain absolutely ignorant of their own ignorance. There has even been talk of removing the upper power limit to allow practitioners to use as much ultrasound as desired with little to no baseline.

Dr. Toms says it best –
“Exposure limits are somewhat arbitrary, given the paltry amount of clinical and experimental data, but prudence would seem an important underlying principle. In view of this, a debate about removing all upper limits strikes me as being of questionable social responsibility.”

Ultrasound and Autism: Association, Link, or Coincidence?

Ultrasound and Autism: Association, Link, or Coincidence?

http://www.jultrasoundmed.org/content/31/8/1261.abstract

“Autism spectrum disorders (ASDs) affect an estimated 1% of children in the United States. The etiology is probably multifactorial, including genetic components and exposure to infections, toxins, and other environmental factors, particularly unfavorable perinatal and neonatal conditions.

There has been an increase in the frequency of diagnosis of ASDs over the last 20 years with a parallel increase in the use of obstetric diagnostic ultrasound, with prenatal ultrasound exposure mentioned as the possible main etiology for autism “epidemics.”

Central nervous system alterations have been described in ASDs, and certain similar changes have been described in animals after exposure to ultrasound. However, analysis of in utero exposure in humans has failed to show harmful effects in neonates or children, particularly in school performance, attention disorders, and behavioral changes.

There is no independently confirmed peer-reviewed published evidence that a cause-effect relationship exists between in utero exposure to clinical ultrasound and development of ASDs in childhood.

Ultrasound is a form of energy with effects in the tissues it traverses, and its use should be restricted to medical indications, by trained professionals, for as short a period and as low an intensity as compatible with accurate diagnosis.”

Practitioners do not record dose during sonograms. This precludes studies the possibility of directly connecting ultrasound and autism. If there is truly a connection, then it will not be found with epidemiology unless it is unforgivably strong.

It worries me a lot. There are too many links between ultrasound and autism for this to be a passing coincidence.

At the very least, more research is urgently needed.

Prenatal ultrasound causes brain damage in mice

Prenatal ultrasound causes brain damage in mice

http://www.pnas.org/content/103/34/12903/F2.expansion.html

According to this study, mouse brains exposed to diagnostic ultrasound grew incorrectly. This is brain damage during development.

Developing brain cells have to migrate from a starting location to a distant one, where they link up to other cells. This study suggests that ultrasonic exposure can disrupt this, knocking cells around and leading to mis-connections.

Coincidentally, the brains of autistic individuals can display issues with interconnectivity and other such similar phenotypes – http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0049172

Side effects like this need further study. Please support the petition at https://www.change.org/petitions/health-risks-of-prenatal-ultrasound-the-urgent-need-for-more-research-and-regulation so further research can be performed on how this affects the health of people.

Dr. Diana Mason, RN, PhD, FAAN, DHL, “Ultrasound is not just a photograph!”

http://www.hunter.cuny.edu/nursing/repository/files/diana-mason/Mason%20Biosketch%20PDF.pdf
Emeritus editor in chief of the American Journal of Nursing, and now Director of the Bellevue School of Nursing’s Center for Health, Media, and Policy had this to say about prenatal ultrasound –

“I’m concerned about the proliferation of the perspective that fetal ultrasound is like a regular photo, when it’s not. We must change public perceptions about the potential dangers of fetal ultrasound and call for more research immediately. First Do No Harm should be the mantra that we all adopt.”

I could not have said it better myself.

It worries me that so many people believe that prenatal sonography is completely harmless, so many doctors claim that it is perfectly safe, and questioning it earns the odd eye.

But where is the proof that it is safe?

So far, all science has done is show the opposite. It has a powerful effect on the growth and development of plants, bacteria, and human tissue (if the other two were not close to home enough).

Sounds great when used for healing, but does not sound great when you consider fetal growth and development should not be altered AT ALL by outside means.

Then you have the papers that discuss side effects like ultrasound disturbs neuronal migration in mice… That is a -picture- of ultrasound causing brain damage. It is something that Joe Layperson can see, and it doesn’t take a genius to realize that shouldn’t happen.

What could this do to the baby’s health long term??

We need more research…