Check out RADIUS - a diagnostic ultrasound which is performed regularly in Europe. It apparently has a great accuracy rate and tests a wider variety of fetal abnormalities. I asked my US OB about it, and she had never heard of it.
http://consensus.nih.gov/1993/1993UltrasoundScreeningta012html.htm

Mine was 3.5 with my son and they really expected the worst before the CVS test. CVS came back normal. We also had to have an echo-cardiogram once his heart was fully developed. Echo showed a healthy heart with no issues. He is now 1 and absolutely perfect. We were very lucky. At 2.0, I wouldn't worry.

to the PP, I am so sorry.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Mine was 10. That's something to worry about. Relax. 2 is normal.

New poster...

PP - what did you do if you don't mind my asking?

Diagnosis was Trisomy 13 aka incompatible with life. We terminated.

I just had my NT yesterday and that technician said their cutoff (for patients with no other markers) was 3.0. I wouldn't be worried about a 2.0 either (especially if you have no other elevating risk factors).

mine was 3.7. CVS test came back normal. we now know that baby has a minor heart defect ( which can apparently cause a thick nuchal fold). We don't know how serious the heart defect is yet ( just that it's classified as minor) and I get regular echo-cardiograms at children's hospital until delivery.

I wouldn't worry about a 2.0 nuchal fold.

Anonymous wrote:Mine was 10. That's something to worry about. Relax. 2 is normal.

New poster...

PP - what did you do if you don't mind my asking?

Mine was 10. That's something to worry about. Relax. 2 is normal.

Huh. Mine was 2.1 and I was told it was normal and didn't worry at all. Healthy DD now.

In addition to it being within the normal range, I don't really rely on the nuchal as a very accurate test. Just wait on the bloodwork and enjoy the pics you got from your sono.

That is normal. It also depends how far along you are. If you are in the later end of the window, e.g. 12.5-13.5 weeks then 2.0 is for sure normal. even if you were earlier, it is still not going to be considered increased risk, but maybe higher side of normal if anything. i would not be worried at all. Just wait for the blood and hopefully that will look really good. Relax for the weekend, 2.0 is fine.

Most places use 2.5 as the cut off. I had a 2.5 measurement and my doctor told me if it had been 2.4 we wouldn't have flagged it at all. I think 2.0 is pretty good, but your bloodwork will tell you more. Good luck!

my NT scan at almost 12 weeks the U/S tech measured the translucency at 2.0 mm. she said under 3 mm is "normal," but from what ive read online 2.0 mm is on the higher side? she measured a few different thicknesses, 1.7 or 1.6 and 1.8 and then she said she had to use 2.0 because that was the highest measurement she got (for the risk assessment). wondering if that measurement will cause an elevated risk? any advice?