Advanced search

Growth scans at the end of pregnancy

(17 Posts)
Bananasinpyjamas12 Sat 20-Aug-16 08:52:06

I'm wondering if anyone has experience of growth scans at the end of pregnancy? Last baby was small so that's why they are offering them. I didnt have any concerns about DC1 being small, as Im small, but I did have concerns about the baby in the last week before baby was born but no one took me seriously. They are telling me they don't mind if baby is small but they want to see steady growth. I've heard these scans are not accurate for estimating the baby's weight and I've heard stories of people being induced as baby is looking big only to find baby is actually small or average. Are they more accurate if we are just looking for growth rather than fixating on the estimated weight? I want to prepare myself and my husband in advance and think about how seriously any concerns should be taken. So if the equipment has 20% margin of error we would consider that differently to something that has a 3% margin of error.

Has anyone been in a similar circumstance? Or had growth scans in the past? If so how did it work out? Was the baby big/small/growing as per the scans or was there a margin of error? Anyone got any general advice on this kind of thing?

doyouseeme1 Sat 20-Aug-16 09:18:05

I had growth scans every 3-4 weeks from 24 weeks pregnant and it showed my ds's growth as average and following a line which was all good until the last scan when instead of any growth the line just levelled out and showed in four weeks he hadn't grew at all. I was induced for other reasons the day after my scan and my ds came out 3lb heavier than was estimated at a perfectly healthy weight and was a good size.

amysmummy12345 Sat 20-Aug-16 09:23:57

Ours predicted 8lb 8oz, DD came out 6lb 15oz... hmm

isthistoonosy Sat 20-Aug-16 09:31:47

I had a couple with dc1 he was on the small size but a large head in comparison, no concerns, natural labour and they had predicted his weight spot on. (3kgs)
Dc2 I had just one late scan, she came a week later, natural labour, again spot on her predicted weight. (3.5kgs)

isthistoonosy Sat 20-Aug-16 09:32:48

Should have said the scanner is the teacher and we had plenty of time. I assume this is why she is so accurate.

Bananasinpyjamas12 Sat 20-Aug-16 10:08:02

I've just found this comment on an old thread on mums net which I found helpful. So maybe growth will be more reliable if we're looking for increased length measurements rather than trying to estimate the weight.

"Scans will tell you a lot about the structure of the baby (eg length), but not the amount of flesh on the bones. So if by size, you mean weight, then not accurate at all.

But if you are looking for the (very rare) possibility the baby will be too big to pass through the pelvis, they are very accurate; as indeed they are in looking at the presentation of the potentially large baby in case it would be a struggle to get it through. These would be based on the head circumference, which again can be measured accurately."

Northernlight22 Sat 20-Aug-16 10:16:31

I've been having them and as pp have said, they seem to be more concerned on seeing a steady rate of growth as opposed to the actual size of the baby. I'll let you know in a few weeks how accurate they were!

nuggles Sat 20-Aug-16 22:21:30

My local hospital does 36 week growth scans as routine.

They predicted his weight spot on, although he did come bang on time so the weight depends on when your baby arrives before/after due date 😀

brastraps Sat 20-Aug-16 22:25:20

I had one with DS2 as my fundal height had not grown in 2 weeks. I don't remember them predicting his weight, more that he was fine and healthy. He was just under 7lb at full term.

nb midwife was not concerned (fundal height is just one way to see how the pregnancy is progressing) but protocol dictated I should be checked.

neolara Sat 20-Aug-16 22:29:06

I had one at 36 week as was planning a home birth. They told me my baby was huge. He was born at 36 weeks 6 days and was 8lb 10. So they were right.

GherkinsOnToast Sat 20-Aug-16 22:30:29

I had one at 36 and 38 weeks - both predicted at 10lb+ baby DD was 8lb exactly.

charlottexox Sat 20-Aug-16 22:32:35

My bub is due this coming Friday + I have had growth scans since 20W, every 4 weeks to check my baby is growing OK because I have a high BMI. So I can't really comment on the weight thing, but if my babe isn't here by Friday - I have to go for my last growth scan on Friday, I had one 3 weeks ago, and they said she was 6lb.7oz so far. I am not entirley sure if they're accurate, but it would be interesting to know. I feel like my baby is much bigger than 6lb as I feel bloody huge!
Try not to worry lovely smile

Dixiechick17 Sat 20-Aug-16 22:40:23

I had one on my due date due to reduced movement and they estimated her to be 7lbs 6oz, five days later she arrived at 7lb 10oz. I also had growth scans twice before that, one at around 28 weeks and one at around 30, predicted weight wasn't too far off her birth weight. Everyone is different though, my friend was told she was having a 10lber and her DD came out at 8lb

F1ddlesticks Mon 22-Aug-16 03:45:39

I had them in my last pregnancy at 28, 32 & 36 weeks, induced at 38 weeks due to T1 diabetes. The weight was pretty accurate though what they were measuring for was tummy circumference / growth in relation to overall growth. (So what you've quoted from another thread can't be totally right as they can measure the soft tummy area as well as bone length / head circumference.) By the final scan DD was showing as having a bit of a pot belly which was true to life when she was born.

AppleMagic Mon 22-Aug-16 03:59:03

Mine was pretty accurate too.

leoniethelioness Sat 03-Sep-16 14:15:56

I had a growth scan at 35 weeks. DS estimated to weigh 6lbs. He was born at 35+1 weighing 5lbs 13oz. It was quite accurate for us.

MadrigalElectromotive Sat 03-Sep-16 21:55:58

I had a scan at 36 weeks which predicted weight at term to be 7lb 8oz. DD was born at 38 weeks weighing 8lb 15oz, so would have been absolutely huge if she had gone to 40+ weeks.

I think they are very inaccurate.

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

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

Register now