Had scan today - told baby is massive, is this likely?

[DewinDoeth]

It was a 4D scan (a friend is a sonographer and did it for free). This is my second baby. First one was 6lb at birth, 40+5, and I'm small - 5'3, size 8 (when not preggers obv!).
I've been told that this one is 95th centile currently, at 27+4.

Is this likely to result in a giant baby? Or are these things inaccurate?

ime, these scans are not accurate. But someone may com along and disagree with me, I;m sure.

Anecdotally: I was told my first baby was going to be between 8-9lbs. Baby was over 10 lbs. I was then told my second baby was going to be 'around 8 lbs'. She was 7 lbs.

Yeah, yeah, yeah.

I was told by a woman at our hospital who could barely speak English that the "baby will be too big for you".

I was in a terrible state. First baby etc. Midwife was wonderful - told me not to worry etc.

DS was 3 weeks early. 7 lbs 14 oz. I had no pain relief, no gas and air, no stitches and no tears.

They told me the same rubbish with second pg. Ignored them.

DD was 3 days early. 25 minutes labour. No pain relief, gas and air or stitches or tears.

I don't know why they do it to you.

Find a midwife you really, really trust. Mine was lovely ... and she was right.

I started a post in the Childbirth seciton two or three days ago about something similar Dew. I had a scan at 34 weeks and baby is on 120th centile and that if she keeps growing at the same rate I'm looking at a 10lb+ babbie. The response I got from other mums here is that more often than not, these things are usually wrong. It's a guesstimate - granted albeit relatively educated - but every baby is different. I've calmed down a lot thanks to the wise words on here - please don't worry yourself. As long as baby is healthy, you'll be fine. Good luck :)

I am sure I once heard it was like trying to guess a amn's weight buy measuring the waist size of their trousers while they float in a bath of water. Can't remmeber where but that is hardly that accurate.

In every one of my pregnancies growth scans have been very accurate, in the case of my premature twins to the exact oz. Apparently the margin of error is less earlier on.

In my first pregnancy scan a week before birth estimated 9lb at term, midwife insisted I was tiny and baby would be 7lb absolute maximum. Baby was 9lb exactly at birth/term.

The margin of error is meant to be between 5 and 10% depending on what measurements they use to estimate it.

OK, thanks all. I guess as long as the baby is healthy, that's all that matters really. But I guess I need to worry about something...
Time will tell!
The sonographer did say it wasn't hugely accurate, and there's months to go. (Midori I hope you happened to have a particularly good and accurate scanner and I don't! )

I was told with dd1 her head was the size of a 41 week old so something silly like that at 34 weeks, when she was born at 38 weeks her head was on the 25 centile so totaly inaccurate! With ds the sonographer got his weight spot on!

They can only measure the size of the structure of the baby, and you cannot translate that accurately into weight. The diameter of the head may be important (relative to the size of your pelvis) especially if there is an awkward presentation, but cases of disproportion which mean they won't fit through are extremely rare. The other measurements don't tell you anything about what the birth may be like, but you'd want to see them all being roughly at the same centile just as an assurance that the baby is growing at the same proportions all over.

There isn't anything to worry about. Rate of growth is more variable after the first 14 weeks or so, and predictions aren't particularly helpful.

32 week scan they measured baby's bones and calculated he would be over 11lb, as this was first baby I was crapping myself

he was 8lb 5oz at 38 wks

scans are an extrapolation of the measurements they can take, an indication, but not definite

its nice to have a big fat baby though :)

It's not an exact science. Apparently I'm also gestating a whopper, a long whopper. I asked at my last scan (32 weeks) approximate head size (cos that counts for something IMO!) and what the weight was estimated as being at that point (2.5kg at that point, likely to be 3.5kg at term) and then whether she had any idea of length because DH is very tall and I'm not exactly diminutive and all the newborn sized things look like they might not fit on a long baby. She said by the femur length it might have been around 50cm long at that point, cue much freaking out on my part about a half metre tall thing inside me.

But I had a scan last night, at 39+3, with a consultant obsterician who says she refuses to comment on estimated weight or size, so that put the previous woman in her place

wobbly your sonographer is wrong because there is no 120th centile. The centiles work so for example if they're on the 50th centile, that means 50% of babies would be that size or smaller. So there's no 120th centile because you can't have 120% of babies. A 10lber at 40 weeks is above the 99.6th centile though. That just shows how these results are ridiculous a lot of the time and not helpful!

Although FWIW, I had a scan at 35 weeks which estimated DD's weight (can't remember what it was) and showed if she carried on the centile exactly she'd be 7lb at 40 weeks. She was born on the due date at 6lb 14oz so pretty accurate in my case.

saoirse The 120th centile bit comes from where they plotted her measurements on the growth chart ie what would in effect be the 120th centile IYSWIM. It was the midwife whom we saw after the scan that gave us all this lot - my sonographer was lovely. Baby's estimated weight was 6lb 4oz. I really was freaked out about it all, but I'm blase about it now. DS was 9lb born and second borns tend to be larger so it makes sense. I agree with missingmysleep - it's lovely to have a big, fat healthy baby on the way!