while newborn jaundice is actually a pretty common thing, the baby should be responding at least to some degree by now(espescially being under the bili lights too), this would be the most common anyways. alot would also depend upon what just could be there in a child with downs too. there are certain possible issues with certain organs that are more likely with a downs child than the norm. i would think tho that they would try some less invasive types of testing in the child rather than go right to that biopsy.
i know with both my boys, they went thru the newborn jaundice thing too. it usually sets in like in the third day of life for some reason and usually just is a temporary thing that gets created just because the liver has not yet fully kicked in yet, still slightly underdeveloped to a degree? i know with my first, his bili levels were in the mid teens so we had to take him back to the hosp every morning for bloodwork for the first week he was home just to make certain that his levels were staying in the downward trend. son number two, well his was starting to get much better by the time discharge came so they were just going to follow it up at his first well baby check a month later and it was fine by then.
if there has not been ANY lowering of this childs numbers by this time, there just could be an underlying reason for it. its a bit drawn out here to be "just' the normal course for newborn jaundice. i am assuming they have been not "just" only checking the bili levels but also doing that full hepatic panel too? are there any other numbers that are not within the normal ranges or is this just that bili level alone? they could try doing a simple ultrasound on the child or even do a sedated CT or MRI just to really see how all the abdominal organs are doing(quite honestly this should really be done anyway? espescially with the tendency of downs to have some level of cardiac problems of some kind). the biggest drawback with doing a liver biopsy is opening a possible route for infection and bleeding, which just comes along with doing it at all. thats why i am wondering why they have not just done the less invasive testing first? or maybe they have?
if i was advocating for my own child here,i would seriously ask about other options(MRI, CT or even ultrasound) first BEFORE subjecting the child to any more real risks of even doing the biopsy, ya know what i mean? tho in certain cases a biopsy really is the only true way of really seeing what the liver tissue is like or looking for certain indications of disease or a condition, i personally would ask about other options, if possible to be tried first if this was my child. at least the question should be asked ya know?
i do hope things go down soon and this is not something related to a bigger problem for the child involved here. please keep me posted as to what you find out, K? good luck with this. FB
