Fundal height - how accurate?

[anchovies]

Just wondering if anyone knows how accurate the fundal height is? Midwife has scared me half to death today as I have just gone way above the 90th centile (36 cm at 31 wks) and has referred me back to the consultant and for a growth scan on thursday. Seems to me like the way they measure is pretty inaccurate however the midwife was talking about excess fluid, induction, c setion etc. Last baby was big (10lbs) so I was hardly expecting this one to be tiny but should I be worried? I personally would be inclined to put the increase down to mincepies!

I'm measuring 34 weeks at 38+3 today - but have had a growth scan and the baby's fine - just has his/her head engaged which affects the measurement.

I think it's a bit subjective - midwives measure from different places. It's +/- 2cm anyway for accuracy.

If I was you, I'd have the growth scan, but take it with a pinch of salt - have heard people told they're having 10-lbers who've had 7-lbers.

I was 7 weeks ahead of myself according to my fundal heights anchovies, and that was with the singletons as well as the twins. I wasn't carrying extra water or weight.

They all seem to have different ways of measuring.

You're very advanced though, ML I'm a bit backward, it would seem

as are the gifted and talented children that I produce hinker

don't panic anchovies, she's probably seen the bbc news this am, and the article in the observer on Sunday, re preventing stillbirths, I've just posted on another thread about this too, from my laypersons point of view (ie repeating what I saw on the tv) basically they're being safe, as excess fundal height can lead to large baby, which in the case of the couple on the bbc this am, lead to the death of their daughter, as they didn't worry about that ladies measurements being out, and thus tried a natural delivery on a 12lb baby girl, who got stuck, forceps = unfortuante brain damage and death 3 days later, all preventable by c-section.......
Glad I saw it as due in 8 weeks myself, although a little knowledge can be a dangerous thing.....

I remember 1 mw measuring me at 34 weeks and I was 36cms and then the next visit I was down to 34cm!
Try not to worry too much as the scan will be a far more acurate way of knowing and only then can you start deciding what to do.

Ah Frizbe that totally explains it, I thought she was being a bit weird about it all. She mentioned that I shouldn't be worried about what's on the news but I didn't know what she was on about! What a sad story though.

Thanks also mars and hunker, such differences - I obviously shouldn't be too worried. Although last times growth scan showed a 7-lber and I got a 10-lber!

I was never measured during my second pregnancy. Was told it was unnecessary as it was very inaccurate.

iv measured at least 1 cm higher than my dates throughout my pregnancy and the midwives have always been quite blase about it. im now 40+6 and was measured last week at 42cm. the midwife didt seem concerned about it she just said this will definitely be a big baby!! i didnt know about that story in the papers so i might just question the midwife at my next appt- thursday- if i get to that point without any birth!! heres hoping eh...

My sister had the same problem all through hrer recent preganacy. Midwives were always going on about it. She had extra scans and they scared her half to death talking about the possible causes of her measuring "big" for dates.

Baby arrived 7 days after due date (was her first baby so hardly surprising) and weighed 8lbs 12oz. I wouldn't let it stress you

I was always a few cms ahead with both mine.

DD was 13 days overdue and weighed 9lb 13oz

DS was 5 days early and weighed 8lb 12oz

Its worth getting the scan done to double check but tape measures are hardly accurate IMO!

From what I have been reading (there are some good Australian medical websites accessible to everybody, sorry haven't got address handy) is that fundal height measurement is really not very accurate. Yesterday/day before yesterday there was something on the radio in the morning (believe it was women's hour) they explained that the 1 cm per week only applies to the AVERAGE woman hence if you are smaller or bigger than average it is not very reliable, also there is error of =/- 2cm and tends to depend on experience of midwife. Scan might help but also scans are not very reliable in predicting size of baby. Hope this helps.

With ds1 and ds2 my measurements were always exactly the right size for dates. A growth scan correctly showed that ds2 would be big like his brother and I was induced early. This time around I'm about 4 weeks ahead of where I should be. I have a growth scan booked for next month but so far the midwives have all warned me to expect a big baby.

The obstetrician I saw with ds said it was pretty inaccurate, particularly in the later stages of pregnancy. He said bump size when standing, bump size when lying down, size of parents and general prodding and poking were more accurate indicators!

I was told that dd was over 90th centile and would be a "big" baby. She turned out to be only 6lbs 10!

Long complicated and boring tale of the medical profession thinking I had a syndrome that could/would lead to growth retardation. So lots of extra scans. The scans showed that DS was in the words of one of the midwifes "cor what a whopper". He was over the 95th percentile from then on in. So having put the fear of god into me that I would never deliver this enormous baby - I elected for a section. (Other factors contribuited to this decision but this was a major deciding factor.) He was 8lbs 4 - but did have an enormous head - consensus was that I would have needed "intervention" just due to the size of his head. So yes they erred on the side of caution - apparently different hospitals have different policies regarding the delivery of "big babies". Following the death of the little girl already mentioned in previous posts. I guess ultimately measurement is not an exact science - and you'll need to find out what your hospitals policy is and what you are happy with in terms of delivery. My DS is beautiful and healthy and growing into his lovely, big brainy head.

I measured exactly what I should all the way through (34 cms at 34 weeks etc) and ended up having an IUGR baby who was 4 lbs 9 oz (

I was measured once with the DSs pregnancies, by a medical student who was told by the consultant "we don't do that any more".

With dd I was measured at 35 weeks as 44cms! She weighed in at 7lb 13oz, but was 2.5 weeks early, but even had she gone full term, she wouldn't have been huge. With both pregnancies I had regular growth scans. But, from the back you couldn't tell I was pregnant, they were all 'up front'.

I was having scans about every two weeks from month 6 and it was between 97 - 100 apart from one 2 week period when it went off the scale. So it was big. But having said that it doesn't mean that you will have a bad labour. In the olden days they used to do some crude kind of measuring of your pelvic bone and their head and decide if it was going to happen. They stopped all that when they realised how inaccurate it is. There is a whole wealth of other factors to consider e.g. how your body reacts to the labour etc.

Like you I've heard a number of stories of women who had babies with big heads - absolutely fine and others who had real problems. I guess its about going with what you feel comfortable with. You've done it once no problem, which I realise is no gurantee that it will happen again but must be heartening. .

ds1 meansure correctly. he was 7ib 14. Had lonf 2nd stage/ventouse and his shoulder got stuck.

Next time I measured off the scale from 32 weeks. I was so anxious but it took until 39 weeks for them to send me for a scan. It showed big baby/lots of fluid. The consultant looked at my old notes and said I needed a c section as a 1 in 100 chance of ending up with a dead baby as a result of getting stuck. He was 91b 5oz 2 days early. I still wish I had been referred eariler to get my head round the c section as midwives were not at all worried and said I would be fine. That may be true but after that tragic story above at least I have a healthy baby so I say go for a scan!

I measured a few weeks ahead of my dates with my 3rd baby, but the midwife wasn't concerned as it was apparently caused by my stomach muscles being so knackered as to make my belly "pendulous" and throw the measurement out.

She said that a less experiences midwife would probably have sent me off to the consultant about it though (as it was I saw the consultant a lot anyway, for other reasons).