Advanced search

To be worried about growth scan?

(14 Posts)
sailorcherries Wed 15-Mar-17 20:10:32

Today I had a growth scan, as my DS was a larger baby (10lbs 8oz). I'm much smaller this time, bump is measuring a week behind and my glucose test was fine, never had bp issues etc.
During the scan we were told that baby had jumped from the 50th percentile to the 95th in the 10 weeks since the 20 week scan. I was also measuring 33w5d with an u/s edd of 30th April, as opposed to the 30w2d and edd of 20th May. He's also comfortable transverse and doesn't seem to want to move down, which isn't a problem just now but definitely could be.

This is obviously quite a big leap and I'm due back in 4 weeks for much of the same.

If anyone has had a growth scan and measured so far ahead (almost a month!) were the measurements accurate? Apparently baby weighs 4lbs already! I'm not giving birth to the marshmallow man am I?

I suppose I'm worried about baby being too big, as I'm quite hormonal and such. How much bigger can he get!? Say he gains another 0.5lbs a week between now and due date, he'd be well in to the 10lbs bracket and possibly 11lbs odd! I've only gained half a stone ....

WhooooAmI24601 Wed 15-Mar-17 20:16:33

I measured "too big" according to the midwife at each one of my appointments and scans with DS2. He was 10lbs exactly and his birth was easy as pie in comparison to DS1 who was 7lb14. Bigger babies don't necessarily mean more difficult labours or even more damage; I had hideous tearing through to my bottom with DS1 but nothing but a bit of chafe after DS2. DS2 also remained breech til 39 weeks and I was threatened with all sorts in the run-up but he was obviously just happy as he was and turned the day before my final check-up; she didn't believe me that he'd turned saying he must be too big by that point and I'd end up needing a c-section. I knew full well he'd moved because I'd seen his feet go from just above my pelvis to under my ribs and watched him turn. She remained unconvinced til the scan showed he'd sorted himself out.

It's trite but those measurements are a guide rather than anything set in stone, so try your best not to worry.

Nectarines Wed 15-Mar-17 20:16:44

I had loads of growth scans in my two pregnancies due to my diabetes.

At 30 weeks they estimated my daughters weight to be around 6lbs. She was born at 38 weeks perfectly healthy and weighing 6lbs!!!!

It's very difficult for them to get right in my experience.

MatildaTheCat Wed 15-Mar-17 20:16:47

Uss measurements are only accurate to a degree. You have a history of a large baby and look as if you will be having another one. That's just the way you make them. If you don't have diabetes then it's normal for you.

Your dates don't change just because the baby is larger than average. You have another scan booked and the growth will be plotted on a chart to show if the baby is following a predicted growth pattern. All good.

Try not to worry and after the next scan you should be offered a consultant appointment to discuss the findings and any possible plans regarding your delivery.

What sort of delivery did you have with dc1?

sailorcherries Wed 15-Mar-17 20:24:36

DS1 was an emcs as he too was breech, I never dialated further than 3cm and once he popped out I was told that my pelvis would never accommodate him.
He is still on the 99th percentile for height and weight almost 7 years later ...

DS2 seems to be going this way but I'm worried about the delivery implications due to his projected size and the issues with my previous.

I know dates don't change but it seems bizzare that my 12 and 20 week u/s would have baby size and edd as one thing for it to change by almost 3 weeks 10 weeks later. It's such a big jump to get my head around, I was convinced he was tiny because of my current size!

Givemeakick Wed 15-Mar-17 20:37:41

I had a growth scan which told me that dd was 8lb at 34 weeks. When she was born at 38 weeks she weighed 6lb 12. My sister had a similar story and was induced for gestational diabetes completely unnecessarily. My sil was the opposite. Growth scans are definitely not accurate in my experience

sailorcherries Wed 15-Mar-17 20:47:03

It sounds bad but I hope it's not overly accurate. I've been told that if he stays transverse I will likely have a csec and I accepted that. I don't want to have my waters broken early or have a csec purely down to his size, which could be wrong, if that makes sense. I also don't want to opt for natural and then have his size cause issues, if that is also the case.

I can't even get my hair or nails to grow yet here I am popping out the next national rugby squad.

Downwardfacingdog Wed 15-Mar-17 21:51:14

I was told at 32wks that he was 5lbs +. He was 10lbs 11oz when he was born at 41wks so his growth scan was pretty accurate probably, but I know so many people who've been told they are having 10lbers and then end up havin a 6lb baby. Agree with pp that big babies are not always bad to birth. My largest was well over 11lb and was no probs

PennysUnicornHoodie Wed 15-Mar-17 22:03:35

I had a large baby first (10lbs) and then had to have lots of growth scans with dd2.
I was told at 34 weeks with dd2, that she was already 6lbs 8oz predicted so was told to expect a 9 1/2 pound baby.
DD2 was actually 5lbs 3oz when she was born (she was born at 39+5, dd1 was born 39+1)Her weight was a huge shock to everyone.
So I can vouch for scans not being accurate grin

Good luck with your next scan

hoopdeloop Wed 15-Mar-17 22:10:04

I was given growth scans because they thought by DS was measuring larger than my dates. He came out one week late weighing 8lbs 9.5oz

Turns out I had looooooads of fluid that made him seem bigger if that makes sense

user1471443504 Wed 15-Mar-17 22:14:13

I measured 41 at 35 weeks, had previously been about 2 weeks ahead each time as I had through my first pregnancy so this was a big jump. A growth scan at 36 weeks suggested baby was around 9lb weight but Dr did say they weren't always accurate and could be 2lb either way so I could have a 9lb or an 11lb baby, my first baby was 9lb 8oz born at 41 weeks so I just knew it would be the bigger end of the spectrum for the second one! I had an elective section at 39+1 and he was 10lb 12oz.

MatildaTheCat Wed 15-Mar-17 22:16:08

What's important to recognise is that until approximately 20-24 weeks babies grow in a fairly uniform fashion. It's towards the end of pregnancy that weight differences occur. Some babies are meant to be six pounds and some are meant to be ten. Both quite normal if following their expected growth.

If you look at the charts where growth is plotted you can see where the percentile lines are drawn and where your baby's measurements are plotted. If you have one growth scan, as you did today, it's very necessary to do a further scan in order to see that the baby is following something close to its predicted growth. The external measurements are very subjective since all hcp do it slightly differently and maternal shape and build vary enormously.

It's a very difficult science, as individuals we are all different shapes and sizes and to some extent babies are the same. You clearly grow larger than average babies which is normal for you. It will help to plan your delivery, especially taking into account your history.

I wish you well and a happy rest of your pregnancy.

hopsalong Wed 15-Mar-17 22:17:47

I don't think you should worry about the disparity. The 12 week scan gives you a date from measurements, so by definition everyone has a baby at the 50th centile then (if it looks bigger they move your date forward). By 20 weeks a baby "meant" to be a big baby isn't yet going to be that different in size from one "meant" to be a small baby, so I don't think you'd be likely to see a baby on the 95th percentile at 20 weeks unless the 12 week scan was wrong, or you didn't have one. Your last baby was obviously very big, and I think this one will just be the same. It's probably found it's line now and will continue on it until birth... And they won't change the EDD now.

I had a scan at 32 weeks and baby's weight was 5lbs, which is biggish but not huge at all. I think the other figures are a bit of a guesstimate. E.g. one of my baby's head measurements clocked in at 37 weeks, but the other only 33 weeks... My son had a biparietal diameter of 10.5 cm at 37 weeks, which was already at the end of the scale, but wasn't born for another 4 1/2 weeks, so presumably went past the end... On the other hand, his weight at birth seemed quite big to me (9 1/2 lbs) but was only 80th centile or so for his gestational age (would have been more if born early).

What I mean is to illustrate that the measurements are all relative: at the beginning they use them to provide a nominal date, and then they assess the measurements against the date the measurements predicted... (If I had gone with my own dating, my son was born on 91st percentile at 40 weeks and he has remained exactly on that line ever since...)

sailorcherries Wed 15-Mar-17 22:48:50

Thank you for all the kind replies. Hopefully he stays on some kind of straight forward growth to stop any further worrying.

I'm not 100% sure of my dates though, which the initial MW knew. I had the coil removed at the start of June and then nothing until a 2.5/3 day bleed at the end of August and then zilch until a bfp mid September. I'm not even sure August counts as a LMP so I could quite well be oit by a week or so, which isn't great.

Same with DS1. I was on the pill and never really had a period, the only reason for testing was due to feeling off. Again his dates were an estimate and aftee the dating scan they moved my edd slightly, and again after the 20 week scan. By my calculations DS was actually almost 15 days late, not 8 days.

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, watch threads, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now »

Already registered? Log in with: