Really confused over pregnancy measurements

[Wilburgh]

Hi there,

Posting here for traffic rather than in pregnancy.

I just went for a growth scan at 33 weeks. Baby measured 2nd centile. Doppler was fine as was fluid level. But I have to go back every week for monitoring and growth scans every two weeks. They cancelled my 28 week growth scan, at 20 week scan baby was 50th centile but obviously they have no other measurements since then to work from.

Midwife however measures bump slightly further ahead the same day - she said if I wasn’t having the growth scan she would have plotted at almost 90th centile from measuring.

(I’m having the growth scans due to age and the fact that both my babies were 6lb 5oz when born at 38 weeks).

It’s my third baby so I know that neither are perfect but how can there be such a discrepancy? 2nd to 90th?

Symphisis fundal height measurement (bump measurement) is an inexact science - it is completely subjective, and different people will often get different measurements.

@BuntyCollocks oh I know that. So does my midwife - but the discrepancy between that and the growth scan is huge. I was just wondering if anyone else had the same thing.

The midwife checked as she wanted to check where the top of my uterus was because I was so worried - the ridge is very definite and right where it should be.

With dd2 by 36 weeks my fundal height was 8cm too small.
Growth scan put her on 75%.

She was born 91% and nearly 7lb (but very long and skinny).

It just seems so odd to me that there is such a huge difference.

It is possible to have a big bump and a small baby, maybe ur carrying a lot of water(?) When DS was born he was 5lb 11 at 37 wks, so was on the 2nd percentile. He was perfectly healthy, just small!

@DaisyChainsForever fluid level at scan was completely normal. It’s odd as I’ve got a tiny bump - you’d never think I was 33 weeks! I’m still in all my normal clothes! Laying flat on my back it does stick out a little more.

But top of uterus is where it should be.

I’ll just have to wait until next scan to see what that says.

I've had the same for all three pregnancies. Growth scans showing small babies (correct) and fundal height being 90th centile. Although my fluid measured normal on scans there was a lot of them when they went.

Both my previous babies have been born small, and then they explode into huge chunky things (by 8 weeks I had HV telling me to cut back on their feeds as they shouldnt have jumped up the centiles so fast one is a teen now and 6ft 2) so I was expecting this one to be the same as his siblings.

I know both measurements are inaccurate and growth scans can be out by a lot.

@Bluebelltulip that’s really interesting - I didn’t have any scans past 20 weeks with my other two.

Neither measurements are accurate. My son was estimated at 2lbs 5oz at a scan and was born the next day at 2lb 14 oz at 33 weeks so still tiny but much bigger than expected. This baby is going to be born at 37 weeks due to lack of growth but both my fundal height and scan measure below the 10th centile, I just look huge due to being very very short. Take the measurements with a huge pinch of salt and see what the next scan says after all a mis measure of a few mm can make a huge difference