growth scans - more trouble than worth?

[wintersdawn]

Hi a bit of background, following the results of our 12 week tests we were told that there was a 1 in 50 chance of downs and without a chance of researching the results were pressured into a CVS test (this is our first baby). In hindsight the results on every factor were so slightly outside the averages that we would never have taken the risk of the test had we had more time to read about it all. Anyway the test came back fine, but as a result of the fact we had the test and that I've got a thyroid condition I was booked for extra scans at 29, 32 and 34 weeks before I'd even had my 20 week scan.

The rest of my pregnancy has progressed without a problem, my thyroid has been tested and whilst it's effecting me it's not doing any damage to baby and diabetes tests have come back clear as well. Then yesterday I had my 29 week scan and the women got her knickers in a twist over the length of baby's femur and humerus, they sit at the bottom of the average scale whilst the head and body sit at the top of the average scale. Though she kept struggling to get a clear image of the legs as they are underneath my belly button.

Anyway she's pushed for us to go for another scan with a foetal specialist at East Surrey next week, but having come home and done research all I seem to be finding is people reporting that these scans cause more trouble than they are worth and seem to cause doctors to push for C-sections and inductions. My DH is of the opinion that we shouldn't go esp when after questioning at the scan she admitted that there is nothing they will/can do if she has short legs anyway. I'm stuck in the middle, whilst part of me thinks that the more you know the better, I really don't want to have them classing me as high risk and putting pressure onto me for interference as I want as natural a birth as possible.

Just wondering if anyone else has been in a similar situation and what the outcome was?

Depends if you are going to really worry about the ifs and whats of the situation. If you are preparedto wait and see then do that, but if you want to know what can be done post-birth etc then go along for the scan so that you can prepare yourself.

Hope this makes sense - my brain and typing are a bit garbled today. :)

We had growth scans throughout DS pregnancy because of a blood test at 16 weeks. Good thing we did, he had short legs at 28 weeks, by 32 his abdomin was plateauing and he was born at 37 weeks weighing less than 4lbs.

He is fine but because they were aware of it they monitored it carefully and intervened at the right time.

I would say scans and birth plans are two separate things. If there are NO problems then you can have the birth you want, if there are then you can be aware and make the best choice for your baby's health.

Please don't be hard on the health service, they are just being cautious. Get the facts, understand the choices and then stand your ground but please remember they are doing what they think is right for your baby with the best outcome - that's got to be the bottom line surely?

just had my second growth scan at 37 weeks and baby is putting on weight and growing at an even rate, despite measuring small (5th centile) for abdomen, head, femur and weight).

He's estimated to be 5.5 lbs.

the sonographer and consultant's view was that some people just have small babies.

They aren't going to monitor any further.

hth

My situation is vaguely similar - I'm now at 39 weeks, but have been going for scans every fortnight or so as they were worried about the baby's growth. My doctors were all very clear that they were interested in the growth trajectory, and not where the baby is relative to the average at any single point in time. So, although my baby is smaller than about 95% of babies, because it has been growing consistently they have not pushed for any interventions.

I guess perhaps I've been lucky with my doctors - but then if yours is also saying that there would be nothing they would/could do if the baby had short legs, then perhaps this means that they're not going to go all out for intervention either?

Perhaps she wasn't happy with the scan she'd done, given that she was struggling with the position of the legs - maybe she thinks that the foetal specialist might get a clearer scan and that this would then give a better estimate of the baby's size at 30 weeks to enable better comparisons for later scans?

Anyway - not sure how helpful that's been, but just wanted to comment that I've lost count of the growth scans I've had now, but that this hasn't ended up with me being classified as high risk or being induced. Good luck with everything!

I sympathise with your frustration. They an b innacurate but also ivaluable for picking up on growth issues. I am having monthly scans. Some measurements were nrmal and others on 5th centile. This worried me and so I went to Prof Nicolaides who got everything measuring spot on.

The other thing is that most hopsitals do not customise growth scans to maternal bmi or ethnicity.

Thanks for the replies.

Mercedes I know that the NHS are being careful but sometimes I'm beginning to feel that the whole place is more interested on avoiding lawsuits than anything else :)

Tubbyglossop - good to hear that you haven't been classed as high risk or induced.

I'm trying to be sensible about the whole thing and I know that if it came down to it and baby was at risk then I'd do everything possible to help but I think my real worry is that East Surrey is locally known as a bit keen for slicing and dicing (as such) and a lot of the time it seems to be for little cause.

I also understand your frustration - wasted days in the unit waiting for an appointment to see the sonographer etc etc, HOWEVER I felt this on my second baby. I also had growth scans at 16/20/24/28/32/36 weeks in both my pg. Depending on the sonographer we had differing concerns in my 1st pg, 2nd we weren't so worried. I think it is better to err on the side of caution with regards to this, it is a scan, you have already had the difficult procedure and tbh although a pain it is far better to have over zealous professionals wanting to help you than not. Both SIL and I were pg at the same time, I had lots of medical attention due to small baby and emcs with first pg, sil had 2 scans and saw the mw the minimum amount of times. MIL was quite put out that their mw in the locality didn't seem to be that interested in sil especially as 2nd baby. SIL had no complications, turns out I didn't either but do have small babies. (6lb 5 oz no1, and 5lbs 10oz no 2) - both dh and I were 7.5lbs or under and the consultant suggested to me that shetland ponies don't have shire horse size foals. that being said neither dh or I are small but were at birth!!!!

All my scans were between 5th-25th percentile or less sometimes but again I think be thankful they are paying you attention. Incidentally some babies do grow better and very quickly outside of the womb, ds put on an oz per day for the first 12 weeks..............and is now a very solid little 4 month old that is about 14lbs being born at 5lbs10oz

btw, I don't think my first pg would have ended up with any interventions however I was diagnosed with pre-eclampsia (sometimes a cause of small babies on the doppler scan) and so was induced on my due date, dd didn't want to come out then and 48 hours after labour began I was sent for emcs. Doesn't happen to everyone! Went on to have an almost perfect vbac with NO problems a week before due date for ds. (2 stitches imo makes for an almost perfect vbac )