Talk

Advanced search

Pregnant? See how your baby develops, your body changes, and what you can expect during each week of your pregnancy with the Mumsnet Pregnancy Calendar.

Has anyone been monitored for low growth rate??

(17 Posts)
CathB Wed 14-Aug-02 13:57:54

I am currently 33 and a bit weeks and getting regular growth scans due to my mysterious 2 vessel umbilical cord. This week junior has dropped down the curve from 90 th to 70 th percentil so we have to go back for another scan in a fortnight to see if its a blip or a downward trend.

I am trying not to fret too much, but I would be really interested in anyone else's experience of these scans.

berries Wed 14-Aug-02 14:47:17

I had the same as they thought youngest dd was 'a bit small' and I wasn't gaining any weight. She was born 2 days late, at 9lb 4oz! I had a scan 2 weeks before I had her, and they were still telling me she was going to be abou 6.5lb, so I wouldn't place too much reliance on the scans, particularly at the later stages. Try not too fret too much and I hope everythings ok.

pupuce Wed 14-Aug-02 16:22:30

I agree with Berries.
I have an interesting quote from a study published in the Lancet and BMJ :
"For every 7 women who were told they had intra-uterine growth retardation, only 2 actually delivered a growth retarded baby. Furthermore, less than half of the women who actually delievered small babies were diagnosed prior to their labour."

The scans can be quite wrong...they say 10% but I can tell you that last week a mum who wanted a home birth came to hospital because the MW got scared of delivering such a big baby (might get stuck)... she had been measured at 4.4kg (sorry not sure in pounds but well above 9lbs) at 37 weeks... baby was born at 42 weeks and weighted 4.1 kg !

So don't worry too quickly !

oxocube Wed 14-Aug-02 16:31:57

CathB, my 2nd was born in Switzerland where they give you LOADS of scans ( I think I had about 10!) and my d.d. was predicted as 'on the small side'. Sure enough, she was, at 2.7kg which I think is just under 6lbs, but was absolutely healthy and soon put on weight with loads of b/f. There was no particular reason given for this and d.s. (#1) was a healthy 8lb 4oz so it seemed a bit unusual. All I could think of is we had just left U.K, I was a bit stressed, quite a few (thankfully resolved)marriage problems and it all seemed to have an effect. Or was it just coincidence? Anyway, even if your baby is light, she is probably absolutely fine, so try not to worry! Good luck

leese Wed 14-Aug-02 18:48:03

CathB - have to agree with all that has been said. Scans are a relatively good guide for a baby's size, but that is all - a guide. when they say your baby weighs approx 4lb (or whatever), it means exactly that - approximately. Besides, a baby on the 70th centile is a good size, so try not to fret about the apparent 'drop' - you may well find at your next scan things have stayed much the same. If the hospital were really concerned about your baby, they would not be waiting a fortnight to see you. Take comfort in the fact you are being closely monitored, and although this can have its negatives (ie fretting over results), it does mean the hospital won't let anything go unnoticed.

Eulalia Wed 14-Aug-02 18:55:41

Had several scans with ds as I had a small bump. He was born 8 days late at 6lbs 2oz so yes was a bit small but was otherwise fine. He engaged around 33 weeks so this made bump small as most of his was between my legs.

robinw Wed 14-Aug-02 20:02:56

message withdrawn

jenny2998 Wed 14-Aug-02 21:57:12

When I was pregnant with ds early on my midwife was concerned that he was too small. I was sent for a scan which concluded that he was "bigger than average."

Few weeks down the line my consultant wanted to induce me two weeks early because he was too small. It just goes to show how wrong they can get it.

I refused to be induced and as it happened he was born - on his due date - very small - 5lbs 7oz, but perfectly healthy. He was slow to put on weight initially (but this was due to feeding probs (cleft lip and palate)) but is now a very healthy, active nearly-four-year-old who I'm often told is big for his age!

Hope this helps...Best wishes and try not to worry

CathB Thu 15-Aug-02 13:23:49

Dear All, Thanks for this which is cheering me up no end. It all looks so terribly accurate while they are plotting it all in!! Its a bit ironic really as DD was 9lb 12oz which no one predicted despite their being told that there were a lot of big babies on dh's side of the family. I suppose because of this I am a bit concerned that they might want to intervene earlier if there is a drop down the curve with this one, but with the level of variability there seems to be, it would be hard to justify it.

Chinchilla Thu 15-Aug-02 23:38:57

I was told that ds would be about 7 lbs, a few days before he appeared. He was actually 9lbs 8ozs, and had a head on the 98th percentile! Ouch - thank God for the epidural

Don't worry CathB. Comparing babies starts now, and continues for...well, I suppose all their life. The next one is when you have your babe measured at clinic. I guarantee you'll be worrying whether dd/ds is too big/small/short/long/fat/thin or over/under- stimulated.

Try to relax and only worry if told to. Good luck with the birth. Keep us all posted.

Harrysmum Fri 16-Aug-02 10:35:35

Good friend has been monitored for slow growth/small for dates since wk 33 and has just given birth (4 days overdue) to her first baby and she is 8lb 5oz! I think that they can really put on lots of weight in the last 1 or 2 weeks which makes all the difference.

WideWebWitch Fri 16-Aug-02 10:58:25

CathB, I don't know how true this is (mears, leese?) but my midwife told me (5 years ago mind you!) that a study had shown that mothers-to-be guessed the birthweights of their babies more accurately than any fancy scmancy equipment. I guess that's not much use if it's your first (as mine was) but if not...I was told (by consultant) that ds was going to be very, very small but he was 7lb 1oz (which isn't that low) and wasn't surprising given my birthweight (6lb something) and dhs' birth weight, which wasn't much more. So scans (and consultants) can be inaccurate. I had late scans too although they didn't suspect interuterine growth retardation just were worried about a v. v. small baby. They also wanted me hooked up to a monitor etc in labour as a result (I refused, had a home birth). I'm *not* recommending ignoring medical advice, but I remember how stressful and frightening this worry about size was (I was in tears and v. stressed for days until I saw the midwives - consultants' sensitivity in my case left a lot to be desired) and back then I absolutely believed that their scans must be 100% right. I don't think I necessarily would next time round and as all these posts tell, they are sometimes wrong! Hope it's true for you too. Good luck.

leese Fri 16-Aug-02 18:34:38

Not sure about the study you mention www, but my firm belief that a good palpation is better than a scan. I too was scanned, at my consultants request, up to 39 weeks as they thought dd was 'small for dates' (sfd), which is a bit different to intra uterine growth retardation (iugr) - I was convinced all was well, but as I worked on the ward next to the scan dept at the time, took every available opportunity to slink off and put my feet up for a quick scan if requested!
She was born 3 days early at 8lb

zebra Fri 16-Aug-02 22:31:14

Late scans are notoriously inaccurate. There are standard equations used to guess the weight from just a few measurements, and those equations produce guesses which have "large random errors" -- ie., the estmates can be well out, and what's worse, nobody can tell you how much to expect them to be out. I can't believe this, but apparently nobody has done a study that would give you confidence intervals. It's not like they can say "we are 95% sure your baby's weight is between 1.1 and 2.6 kg" (which is probably how accurate the scans are) -- they'll just say "the baby *is* 1.9 kg"

DS was supposed to be 2.8 kg (about 6 lb 4.5 oz) at a 34 wk scan. 98th percentile.

1st doctor said to me "You don't look that big because you're tall"

2nd doctor said "You don't look that big because you're fit".

Midwife felt me up & said "Baby doesn't feel that big..."

I kept visibly growing for another 5 weeks and then baby was born, all of 2.95 kg - barely 6lb 8oz.

calcium Mon 19-Aug-02 10:12:21

I had been told that I was a high pre emclampsia / low birthweight risk area and so had scans every month throughout my pregnancy, the baby was growing but very slowly and as for the BP thing I had low BP throughout. Whe dd came along she was bang on time, I had her at home, easily and she weighed in at 6lbs. Not a huge baby but a good size to deliver normally without any drugs/gas and air or tearing. Don't worry we all now know far too much information and in turn you worrying will make matters worse! And anyway if you have a small baby EVERYBODY stops you to tell you how gorgeous she/he is because she/he is SO small.

titchy Mon 19-Aug-02 10:20:44

I had a scan with ds at 35 weeks because consultant thought he 'felt' small, and also dd had been small (5lb 11oz at 39 weeks).

The radiographer told me they estimate the weight using the abdominal circumference and nothing else. So if you have a long baby that happens to have a smallish waist and a large head you may get a small weight estimated which would probably be completely wrong. This only seems to work if your baby is perfectly proportioned, and lets face it they come in all shapes and sizes!

Having said that ds was estimated at 4lb 1oz, and was born the next day (went into labour unexpectedly!) at 4lb 2oz so pretty close!

sobernow Mon 19-Aug-02 21:13:17

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

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: