Growth scans vs fundal measurements

[Tallgiraffe]

Hi everyone,

After opinions and advice...

So because I am a high risk pregnancy I am under CLC and will have an ELCS in September on safety grounds for me. So I've been struggling a bit with my midwife at the GP practice, who is clearly put out by the amazing level of care that I've been getting at the hospital. Last week I had my 24 week growth scan which measured in at 759g which puts baby somewhere between the 50th and 90th centile. All fine, I was happy, the hospital were happy. Today at my midwife appt she measured me as 26.5cm, which puts me miles above the 90th centile. She then proceeded to say she doesn't rate growth scans much!

Surely the growth scans are more accurate? Please reassure me that I'm not growing an elephant! Any experiences welcome.

Thanks in advance, G

Fundal measurements are not very accurate neither are growth scans its all an estimation. I've had both throughout all three pregnancies and according to fundal measurements I was having a 10lb plus baby but growth scans showed a very smaller baby. All my babies were 6 and a half lbs.

I have been told how innacurate both are (and kind of clinging to that hope at the moment)
I am pregnant with my third ds. Ds1 was 8.13 horrific tear and 39cm head. Ds2 nothing lovely labour 34cm head 8.11. Did not have growth scans with them.

This time round 32 week scan baby estimated at 5lb and 32cm head...to say im shitting it is being polite

Thank you both, good to know they're not totally reliable.

iamamummy - fingers crossed they've got it wrong with you and baby's head isn't enormous!

shazra - sounds like the growth scans were more accurate for you, fingers crossed that's the same for me!