Baby measures 8 weeks ahead and I'm petrified!

[TeamAgamemnon]

I'm 36.5 weeks with my first baby and from the start it has measured ahead of dates, firstly by a few days, then a few weeks. I've had lots of scans, mix of private and NHS and it has been pretty consistent.

At 36 week scan last week the baby measured 44 weeks around the abdomen! I know these scans are notoriously inaccurate but 8 weeks out? I've mentioned my worries a lot to various HCPs and just keep being told that doctors are only concerned about small babies, but there are potential complications and risks for having big babies as well! Especially as I have quite a small frame, I'm 5ft 3in and was a size 10 before I got pregnant.

I've also put on 22kgs when the NHS recommendation is apparently 10-12kg. I'm not sure how as I've hardly had an appetite for 8 months!

This is an IVF baby so I'm certain of the dates, I saw the baby going in at the age of 5 days' gestation

Does anyone have any similar experience? Or words of comfort about scans being wrong or big babies being easy to give birth to? Labour is a terrifying enough prospect, but if I thought the baby was going to be a normal, manageable size I would feel so much better about it. I also fully expect to go past 40 weeks so logically the baby could be measuring close to 50 weeks by then? How is that ok?

Ok firstly the scans are notoriously wrong,

I have had scans as they thought one of mine was small... Over 9lb at birth, then as Ds4 was 10lb 13oz they were worried my next baby would be big, I knew she wasn't as I could feel she wasn't as big. Scans said 9lb or so and she was actually 8lb exactly at birth, the smallest of my five.

Your size doesn't have an impact on how big a baby you can birth, I am 5 2 and size ten normally and my 10lb 13oz baby was birthed in birthing pool, the easiest of my labour's.

Does your bump measure big, these extra scans are they on your nhs records or are they all private? They will offer to induce you if they think the baby will be big, though that on its own is not a reason to offer induction according to guidelines.

What does your midwife think?

Do you know the percentile as apposed to weeks as its notoriously misleading. Just a few mm either way puts the weeks up. I'm also measuring extremely large (95%)...and had fertility treatment too! You wouldn't grow a baby you couldn't birth, trust in nature a wee bit 😊 it's the pelvis moving that matters, not your height/size (I'm also size 10). You'll be just fine 😊

Lol, we must have written those posts simultaneously!

Have you been tested for gestational diabetes during the pregnancy? One of the consequences is that the baby gets too much sugar and the abdomen measurement can be out of proportion to the head circumference and leg measurement.
Agree with pp that scans are a bit hit and miss with measurements though.

Oh and it's positioning of the baby that makes more difference than size during birth, so look at optimal fetal positioning and encourage baby into good position.

And what daysleeper said re percentiles, Btw my Ds4 had head circumference that was off the chart, midwife kept rw measuring it to check, he was just a big boy. But his birth was easier than my 8lb dd as he was in good position whereas she was back to back.

I had this for both DS1&2. They were wrong with DS1 as he came out T+12 at 7lbs3 when I was told "he'd be at least 10lbs"
DS2 however was 9lbs15 at T+13 so they were bang on. 50/50.
To be fair DS2 was an easier labour, he was out with a few pushes.

Yes it would be good to find out if baby's other measurements tally up with abdominal circumference, have you been tested for diabetes or shown any of the signs? Again speak to your midwife who can arrange the gtt if necessary.

Do you know how the head measurement is? That's the interesting one for giving birth, I'd have thought.

Plenty of estimates of size are totally wrong, so don't worry. In any case, as someone said, the difference may be only a few millimetres - it's not like you're going to have a baby that's absolutely massive, like a 3-month-old or something. I've also heard anecdotal evidence that big babies are slightly easier to give birth to, just with being a bit more solid.

I think the head measurement is the most important too. I have had 3 births, 2 difficult one with the baby getting stuck and shoulder dystocia. This was the first (heaviest 8 3,late) and third (smallest, only 7 3). Middle one who was 7 12 shot out easily (and most painfully) and had a smaller head all the way. Now the oldest and youngest where adult size caps, middle wears his age. Draw your own conclusions . I think once you've got the head out the rest is fine.

Was there any reason for you to have a GTT?

The baby is measuring 44 weeks at abdomen is that the size they have given you for the whole baby?

My abdomen was 40 wks at 36 wks with DS2. He had very long legs! He still went to 42 wks. Cheeky monkey

Thank you so much for all the replies, I really appreciate them.

Head circumference and femur length are similar on the percentile chart, both sit just above the top line, and the abdominal circumference sits about an inch above the top of the top line.

In relation to GD, my urine is checked at each midwife appointment so I presume would pick it up, but interestingly at each private scan I've been asked by the person performing the scan whether I have GD. But I assume I do not have it or it would have been picked up.

In my job I have exposure to the after-effects of (the very very rare) births that go spectacularly wrong and result in hypoxia and brain damage, I think this is probably fueling my fears. Getting to this stage has been hellish (infertility/IVF) and it's likely I'll never be pregnant again so I think I am putting a lot of pressure on myself for everything to be perfect which is just daft.

I'll definitely look at getting the baby into the right position for birth though - I'm terrible for lying back on the sofa and sleeping on my back, so I'll have a look at what I should be doing!

Scans are notoriously inaccurate. I had the living day lights frightened out of me when my DS was estimated to be 11lbs+ at 40 weeks. I begged to be induced early.
In actual fact, he was born spontaneously at almost 39 weeks and weighed just under 8lbs. So we had to go out and buy much smaller clothes.

I don't know if it will help at all but DS was 9lbs 1oz and the birth was very straightforward. First baby and I started contractions at 6am and gave birth to him in a birthing pool with gas and air at just past 11am the same day.

I don't know if it helped at all but for both babies I've drunk raspberry leaf tea, tried to walk/swim to keep active, bounced on a Pilates ball and tried to sleep on my left side. DD was a faster labour than DS and again straightforward and quick!

You don't have to have glucose in your urine to detect GD. It will only be picked up via GTT.

They would only send you for one if they have reason to suspect ie family history or high BMI

I would worry I was induced for big baby he was 7lb 2. We took 0- 3 months to the hospital and had to buy loads of tiny baby stuff. He only went into 0-3 at 10 weeks

I've given birth to 9 babies.. The smallest was number 8 at 7lb 14oz he was around 3 weeks early due to placental abruption. I've had 2 just under 10lbs, 1 just over 10lbs, 3 just under 11lbs and 1 at 11lb 6oz. is that 9? Ive lost count? I've had no gestational diabetes either, I've never been told that they will be giant babies, I just came to expect it and the last one was an undiagnosed breech - all 10lb 14oz of her. I've given birth naturally every time with no complications or baby getting stuck. How the fuck I do not know... But it can be done...

Hope all goes well for you

A couple of previous posters have mentioned large head circumference and that this might make birth more difficult. Is there any truth in that? My 20 week scan showed the head was 98th percentile where the femur is only 50th...

Should I be worried? Sorry, not trying to hijack the thread I promise, just a little concerned!!

Maria Did you get referred to have a GTT in each pregnancy because you has big babies previously?

Op maybe speak to midwife and ask for a GTT?
My baby was born 11lb 10oz due to undiagnosed late onset diabetes, thankfully everything was ok and I birthed her naturally.
I had risk factors for diabetes and I had a test at 28 weeks which came back I didn't have it. However seems it came on in late pregnancy. Definitely push for the test as undiagnosed diabetes is very risky.
All the best for you in the rest of your pregnancy.

29red Ds4 head circumference was off the chart, it was 42cm, most babies are 34-38cm. His birth was the easiest out of my five. He was 10lb 13oz. He was born in birth pool very easy birth. So ime no a big head doesn't make birth worse, my smallest baby was the hardest, she was bsck to back, I think her position made her birth harder.

I have same issue, at 37 week scan adominal measured 43 weeks had gtt test and came back negative they were going to move my c-section date forward as they said will be a big baby but they have decided to leave it as it's only a week away

Unimaginative yes, well with the first I didn't have one, I was just a tiny 17 year old popping out a 10lb baby for the next 7 I did have it done but the last one i refused the test. Spoke to my mw about it long and hard and she agreed with me that it was pretty pointless so I told the consultant I wasn't having it. He was a bit but didn't force me. I know I could well have had GD with dc9 but for 7 of them I definitely did not.

As a diabetes doctor, my first thought would be that you have gestational diabetes. A urine test does not mean much in terms of that.

I wouldn't bother with a GTT at this stage, but would just get someone like you checking their blood sugars and being vigorous about adding insulin.

(As an aside, although the NICE guidelines only suggest testing at risk women for GDM, lots of diabetologists believe that this misses a lot (potentially almost 50%) and that all women should be offered a glucose challenge or GTT.)

While there is little that can be done in terms of baby's growth at this stage, treating diabetes in late pregnancy can improve the baby's insulin levels, which are artificially elevated due to the mother's high glucose levels. Improving that can reduce the baby's insulin levels which can reduce the risk of hypoglycaemia in the newborn as the baby adjusts to their own normal blood glucose levels.

In diabetes, there are also concerns about the placenta failing earlier than without diabetes, which is why induction is often offered at 38 weeks. I'd be reluctant to go 40 weeks with diabetes.

Scans can be pretty inaccurate, especially when babies are big near to term, but trends are important. If the baby has consistently been measuring big (and so big), that is an indication that something needs to be looked at.

I'd really recommend speaking to someone asap (given that time isn't on your side as term approaches in the next few days!)

My midwife shouted 'we've got a big one' as I was pushing.

I was predicting 11lb - she did a nice little cut and stitched me back up with a new designer vagina