potential future
i researched monoamniotic pregnancies last night and surprisingly found a close-knit BBS community. i immediately introduced myself and explained my situation. here's their friendly answer:
Hi and Welcome!
That's a very turbulent week you've had! I'm sure you've probably seen already that 6 weeks is WAY too early to get any kind of reasonable diagnosis. Things are just too small. But at this point, the first two options (that's singleton pregnancy or pre-existent second yolk sac not seen on u/s) are probably more likely than the third (that's a truly monoamniotc monochorionic pregnancy, meaning both foetuses share a placenta and a gestational sac).
For what it's worth, we have seen two people be misdiagnosed with twins at a very early stage. When they went back for their confirmation diagnosis for momo's, they discovered there was only one to begin with. But like I said, that's only 2 cases out of about 400. So that's really unlikely too - but it is possible. I think it's most likely that the second yolk sac is just in a position where it can't be easily seen. But that's really just a guess, since I obviously haven't seen any of your ultrasounds (not that I'd be able to tell more even if I had!... ) It's just based on the high frequency of people who are misdiagnosed with monoamniotic twins at less than 7 weeks. Granted, most of those who saw yolk sacs saw two of them, but there were some who only saw one who still ended up dimo. To be honest, no matter which of the three you end up being, you're going to be in a pretty uncommon group.
As for the pregnancy symptoms pointing to a singleton... the one that's most compelling to me is the hcg level. It shouldn't be low if there are twins. It may not be as high as you'd think it would be with twins, but it would be odd for it to be low. Unless... you miscalculated on your dates, and you're not as far along as you think you are. That would explain both the hcg and the size. I've found to my own chagrin that conception dates can be significantly later than the act that caused it. In the case of my daughter, conception may have been (and probably was) at least 5 days or more after we had sex. I don't know how precise you are about Jan 12 being the date of conception, but if you're judging that by when you had sex, that's not a completely accurate method.
The lack of fatigue or "morning sickness" isn't necessarily indicative. The morning sickness didn't hit me until 7 weeks with both of my pregnancies, so it may still be in your future. Fatigue... that's hard to really be sure of, since individual descriptions can vary so much. I know that insomnia can be hormonally influenced, though, because I get it every month about 2 or 3 days before I start! So it could be that in your case, the hormones are causing you insomnia and restlessness rather than the "classic" fatigue. Not only is every woman different, every pregnancy is different. With twins, the hormone levels are higher, so it *usually* causes heightened symptoms, but if your method of expression is insomnia and restlessness instead of nausea and fatigue, then twins would just mean you're more restless and have more trouble falling asleep than you would if there were only one. So I wouldn't really take any of those symptoms as indications of whether there are one or two.
As for a lack of family history - with identicals (which yours almost certainly are, even if they're not momo), it's theoretically random, so that really doesn't mean anything. I do think that identical twins run in some families, but in most cases, I think it is random. So a lack of history only implies they're identical rather than fraternal. And if they're in the same gestational sac, then it's almost sure they're identical. So it's pretty meaningless as far as helping guess whether it's one or two in there.
As for the cramping... well, that's not usually a good sign. But for what it's worth, with my daughter, I was convinced I couldn't be pregnant because I felt exactly like I was about to start my period. Early cramping and everything. I was told that that's not that uncommon. Having really bad cramps isn't common, but it may just be that what you're feeling is the equivalent of my (or someone else's) mild pre-period cramps.
I'm sorry - I haven't really answered much of anything! All I can say is that it's still possible that there are two, and it's still possible that there is only one. If there are two, I think it's more likely they're dimo, but momo can't be ruled out this early. So really, the only answers lie in your next ultrasound. I know 10 days feels like forever at this point! When we want answers, we want them NOW!
One thing I want you to keep in mind, though, at your next u/s. Even if they tell you that there are two, and they're sure they're monoamniotic, it's still going to be too early to be sure. I really don't understand why more doctors don't know this, but it's a very common mistake. The absolute earliest that I would begin to trust a momo diagnosis would be at 10 weeks. Even then, there is still room for mistakes. Based on the experiences of those who have posted on our boards, the average gest. age that misdiagnoses are corrected is a little over 11 weeks, no matter how early the diagnosis was made. Part of the reason it's that late, though, is that most doctors make you wait several weeks before doing another u/s. So it may be that they could have found the membrane at 10, they just didn't do a u/s then.
Anyway, the whole point of that is that your next ultrasound should be able to conclusively tell you whether there is one or two, but it still can't conclusively prove monoamniotic twins. It might dis-prove them, but it's still too early to get a reliable diagnosis of momo's. Only time will help with that. I know... the last thing you want to hear - more patience!
Hang in there! These 10 days will pass!
Keep the Faith,
--------------------
Janet - Mom to 9 year old monoamniotic twins, Ryan and Taylor (34 weekers) and 5 year old daughter Morgan
so that's somewhat reassuring news. i guess like janet says i just have to wait and see :)
Hi and Welcome!
That's a very turbulent week you've had! I'm sure you've probably seen already that 6 weeks is WAY too early to get any kind of reasonable diagnosis. Things are just too small. But at this point, the first two options (that's singleton pregnancy or pre-existent second yolk sac not seen on u/s) are probably more likely than the third (that's a truly monoamniotc monochorionic pregnancy, meaning both foetuses share a placenta and a gestational sac).
For what it's worth, we have seen two people be misdiagnosed with twins at a very early stage. When they went back for their confirmation diagnosis for momo's, they discovered there was only one to begin with. But like I said, that's only 2 cases out of about 400. So that's really unlikely too - but it is possible. I think it's most likely that the second yolk sac is just in a position where it can't be easily seen. But that's really just a guess, since I obviously haven't seen any of your ultrasounds (not that I'd be able to tell more even if I had!... ) It's just based on the high frequency of people who are misdiagnosed with monoamniotic twins at less than 7 weeks. Granted, most of those who saw yolk sacs saw two of them, but there were some who only saw one who still ended up dimo. To be honest, no matter which of the three you end up being, you're going to be in a pretty uncommon group.
As for the pregnancy symptoms pointing to a singleton... the one that's most compelling to me is the hcg level. It shouldn't be low if there are twins. It may not be as high as you'd think it would be with twins, but it would be odd for it to be low. Unless... you miscalculated on your dates, and you're not as far along as you think you are. That would explain both the hcg and the size. I've found to my own chagrin that conception dates can be significantly later than the act that caused it. In the case of my daughter, conception may have been (and probably was) at least 5 days or more after we had sex. I don't know how precise you are about Jan 12 being the date of conception, but if you're judging that by when you had sex, that's not a completely accurate method.
The lack of fatigue or "morning sickness" isn't necessarily indicative. The morning sickness didn't hit me until 7 weeks with both of my pregnancies, so it may still be in your future. Fatigue... that's hard to really be sure of, since individual descriptions can vary so much. I know that insomnia can be hormonally influenced, though, because I get it every month about 2 or 3 days before I start! So it could be that in your case, the hormones are causing you insomnia and restlessness rather than the "classic" fatigue. Not only is every woman different, every pregnancy is different. With twins, the hormone levels are higher, so it *usually* causes heightened symptoms, but if your method of expression is insomnia and restlessness instead of nausea and fatigue, then twins would just mean you're more restless and have more trouble falling asleep than you would if there were only one. So I wouldn't really take any of those symptoms as indications of whether there are one or two.
As for a lack of family history - with identicals (which yours almost certainly are, even if they're not momo), it's theoretically random, so that really doesn't mean anything. I do think that identical twins run in some families, but in most cases, I think it is random. So a lack of history only implies they're identical rather than fraternal. And if they're in the same gestational sac, then it's almost sure they're identical. So it's pretty meaningless as far as helping guess whether it's one or two in there.
As for the cramping... well, that's not usually a good sign. But for what it's worth, with my daughter, I was convinced I couldn't be pregnant because I felt exactly like I was about to start my period. Early cramping and everything. I was told that that's not that uncommon. Having really bad cramps isn't common, but it may just be that what you're feeling is the equivalent of my (or someone else's) mild pre-period cramps.
I'm sorry - I haven't really answered much of anything! All I can say is that it's still possible that there are two, and it's still possible that there is only one. If there are two, I think it's more likely they're dimo, but momo can't be ruled out this early. So really, the only answers lie in your next ultrasound. I know 10 days feels like forever at this point! When we want answers, we want them NOW!
One thing I want you to keep in mind, though, at your next u/s. Even if they tell you that there are two, and they're sure they're monoamniotic, it's still going to be too early to be sure. I really don't understand why more doctors don't know this, but it's a very common mistake. The absolute earliest that I would begin to trust a momo diagnosis would be at 10 weeks. Even then, there is still room for mistakes. Based on the experiences of those who have posted on our boards, the average gest. age that misdiagnoses are corrected is a little over 11 weeks, no matter how early the diagnosis was made. Part of the reason it's that late, though, is that most doctors make you wait several weeks before doing another u/s. So it may be that they could have found the membrane at 10, they just didn't do a u/s then.
Anyway, the whole point of that is that your next ultrasound should be able to conclusively tell you whether there is one or two, but it still can't conclusively prove monoamniotic twins. It might dis-prove them, but it's still too early to get a reliable diagnosis of momo's. Only time will help with that. I know... the last thing you want to hear - more patience!
Hang in there! These 10 days will pass!
Keep the Faith,
--------------------
Janet - Mom to 9 year old monoamniotic twins, Ryan and Taylor (34 weekers) and 5 year old daughter Morgan
so that's somewhat reassuring news. i guess like janet says i just have to wait and see :)