Height centiles

[CulturalBear]

Does anyone know why height isn't really monitored in babies?

My DS was never measured at birth (annoying, as would have liked to know), and was around the 50th centile along with weight at around 8 weeks old.

His weight has tracked at around the 50th, occasionally above it, since then. But at his 8-12month check, his height was nearly at the 0.4 centile line but the HV didn't even blink. His weight still around the 50th, if anything slightly above as he loves his food.

I didn't realise this was the case until I got home and looked at the graph myself and was a bit shocked. I get a lot of comments about how small he is (and they mean height, because he's not skinny).

He's now a year and needs to see GP about possible hip issue anyway (assymetrical leg creases), so wanted to flag, but won't be able to get him measured again before then as they don't seem very keen to do this at the clinics.

Anyone else come across this? Should I be worried about it? If it was weight they'd be going mental!

Certainly flag it up with the GP, it may be nothing but it is the disconnect between the weight and height percentile that indicates there could be a problem.

My DS2 is very short (2nd centile) but because his weight is only 9th centile he is considered in proportion. However because both myself and DH are tall they did a blood test to check his hormone levels, which were fine and we were told not to worry. But I felt better for getting it checked.

Thanks. Will definitely mention it then. DP and I are very averagely tall - I'm 5'4 and he's 5'10ish - so I'm not expecting a 6footer, but it is a niggly concern.

if i recall correctly, they don't measure height until 2 years. they measure length (lying down, with feet extended). is there a chance that this might be why he is in a low centile for height?

Any drop of 2 centiles need to be looked at again. My hv was crap so I pushed for a referal.

Apologies for being unclear, yes, I meant length - but it is plotted along the WHO 'height' graph as length/height is measured from standing at age 2+. Theoretically, the length and height measuring techniques should be fairly similar - but once a child is standing, it is better to measure height rather than length to rule out any kinks in musculature which may be experienced lying down.

That's what I thought plentyofshoes - it didn't make sense to measure it then do nothing with the information.

In my experience, doctors can be overly very laid back about height/length. I've read many a rant about it from Tam Fry, chair I think of the Child Growth Foundation.

I'd definitely press your GP to reconsider, and possibly ask for a referral. Even allowing for inaccuracies in measuring methods, a drop from the 50th centile to the 0.4th is quite a substantial one.

My ds's length has been measured at every appointment he has had with the hv. At one point he actually shrank, I think the measurements are really unreliable, maybe that is why you haven't had so many.

What size clothes does he have?

I think they don't do it here because of time maybe?

He's just outgrown the last of his 6-9 month sleepsuits - ie his feet are now too big for them. The rest of his clothes are around 9-12, but then he's quite a chunky baby so they get tight quickly, even though all his trousers and some long sleeve tops have to be rolled up.

That said, he doesn't look 'fat' usually, tho he has his moments and HV wasn't bothered about the proportionality at 10 months.