Please or to access all these features

Add post

Watch this thread

Save thread

Start a new thread

Flip thread

Hide thread

My feed

Active Unanswered threads

Getting started FAQ's

Unanswered threads Acronyms Talk guidelines

Hide shortcut buttons

Talk

Childbirth

Share experiences and get support around labour, birth and recovery.

Flip

Original poster

Fundal Heights - any truth in it?

17 replies

lumpasmelly · 09/03/2010 15:38

Just wondering what others thought about the accuracy of Fundal Height measurement. My obstetrician was a bit gobsmacked to measure me the other day to find that I am not only measuring 3 cms larger than I should, but baby is (a) posterior and (b) 1/5 palpable...according to her I am growing a bit of a whopper (I am quite a tiny person - but I have had 9 pound babies before, so know that I grow em large)....its not really an issue for me as I'm having an elective section at 39 weeks (provided I don't go into labour before then) but i must admit, I was a bit surprised to see her look so surprised (i.e. she looked like she had just discovered the baby was an alien)....maybe it was the big speech she had given me about women only growing babies that are the right size for their bodies. She has also said she wants to start doing internal examinations from 36 weeks to see how close I am to labour, which I have never heard of before.....

OP posts:

Are your children’s vaccines up to date?

Set a reminder

EldonAve · 09/03/2010 15:59

It's supposed to be v inaccurate

Where are you?
If she is worried about size she could send you for a scan
Just say no to the internals!

smilehomebirth · 09/03/2010 16:29

But the scans are v inaccurate also.
Only way to tell the weight of the baby is to put it on the scales!

smilehomebirth · 09/03/2010 16:31

Fundal height will differ depending on the position of the baby also.

Do let us know how big baby turns out to be!

mummyoftwosoon · 09/03/2010 16:35

They're absolute rubbish!
I'm a tall woman 5ft8, i'm 35weeks+3days, my midwife just measured me as 31cm/weeks.
That would be worrying if I hadn't already had a scan which showed my baby is actually BIG for the gestation only the other week.

mummyoftwosoon · 09/03/2010 16:41

There's no way I'd let my midwife stick her fingers in me 'just to see how close I am to labour' lol
But I guess if you want to avoid vaginal labour you might put up with it so c-section can be done maybe a bit earlier if it's about to come? Is that why she'd want to check?
Anyway, yeah fundal heights are so varrying, i was 33 cms 2 weeks ago, now i'm 31 cms

Depends on size of the placenta and amount of amneotic fluid too.

Original poster

lumpasmelly · 09/03/2010 17:22

I'm going for a growth scan next week - so we'll see what they say.....its a bit disconcerting how inaccurate all this stuff is though - it's almost like "why bother"....if I wasn't having a section I would know be absolutely cacking it with fear or vaginally birthing a monster (when ironically enough, DS1 WAS a bit of a monster and my midwife who had said she would "eat her hat" if he was more than 7 and a half pounds nearly fell over with shock when he was 9 and a half!!!)

OP posts:

lal123 · 09/03/2010 17:25

with DD2 I "measured big" throughout my pregnancy and at one point mw said I was going to have a monster. DD2 was born 2 weeks before EDD (so in line with fundal height at that stage) but was only 6lb 4oz - not a monster at all!

Rockbird · 09/03/2010 17:27

This is what I never understood and why it must be bollocks. I look pg anyway, so put a layer of my blubber over the top of everything and the mw's little tape measure is going to go a good bit further isn't it? Similarly, if you have a washboard stomach and it's your first, it's going to measure a little smaller.

Seems ridiculously unscientific for all the worry it causes.

BellasYummyMummy · 09/03/2010 17:54

I measured 41 weeks at my 39 week check up last week which i was really worried about, then the mw said they allow +/- 2cm either side, and she said also it depends so much on your body. Im short at 5' so have a short torso, meaning the bump is more 'out' as theres nowhere else for it to go! Also, lots of my friends have been told they have 'really large' or 'really small' babies for their dates, only to go on and deliver a healthy sized baby. So i wouldnt worry too much tbh.

WillbeanChariot · 09/03/2010 18:08

I had mine checked at 26 weeks and midwife said it was small, also BP was slightly elevated so she referred me to hospital. I thought she was making a right fuss over nothing, I know plenty of people who were told the babies were too small blah blah. So I didn't worry and trotted off for my extra scan. It showed my DS was only 22 week size and 5 days later he was born by CS for IUGR weighing 1 lb 4 oz.

He's sat on my lap now so we were lucky. So I guess I thought fundal height was all rubbish but it turned out to be the first indicator something was wrong for us.

Spillage21 · 09/03/2010 18:09

Over about 32 weeks, you can measure +/- 3cm - they're also very subjective. However, from a MW perspective they are useful (particularly if offering continuity of MW).

Vaginal examinations to examine how close to labour...very questionable!!

mummyoftwosoon · 09/03/2010 19:55

I am honestly not usually that slim, 34 inch waist, dress size 14-16
Growth scan says baby is big, but I'm 'measuring small' (31cm at 35wks) for this fundal height.
I think it depends where baby is, people have said I must be carrying all in the back!

heth1980 · 10/03/2010 12:55

IMO fundal height measurements and growth scans are both pretty inaccurate and cause a whole load of worry and upset for no reason. I was told with both my DD's that i was carrying a really big baby....had the mw telling me horror stories about shoulder dystocia and everything, and it was all so unnecessary (especially as they were both average weight)! If I decide to have any more children I think I will make clear that I don't wish to be measured tbh..........

BellasYummyMummy · 10/03/2010 13:02

i posted earlier, measured 41 weeks at 39 weeks, today measuring 38 weeks at 40+4....

MumNWLondon · 10/03/2010 13:24

I think useful to check your bump is growing - if its not they should send you for scan to check for IUGR.

But its supposed to be inaccurate - so I think more relevant in respect of previous measurements rather than against an average.

With DD was told I was too small got send for a scan at 36 weeks to find she was average size and born at term weighing 7 5.

My SIL was told her baby was HUGE as she was so big and scan confirmed this - DN was exactly 8lbs which is hardly huge.

LittleSilver · 10/03/2010 20:28

Might be worth asking her:

a) how her VE will affect her plan of care?
b) If she can produce the evidence base.

Sounds a bit odd.

pixley · 10/03/2010 21:54

I measured 4 cm larger than dates during my second pregnancy. I felt enormous. I had a growth scan at 39 weeks which estimated a weight of 10lb 6oz. An elective C section was booked for my due date. Unfortunately went into labour the night before and had the section in the middle of the night. My son was born weighing 11lb 6oz! Maybe there is something to be said about fundal height and also growth scans are not alway inaccurate!

About the internals - can't see the point.

Hope it all goes well.

Flip