for those who had scans to check growth

[MummyToToby]

i know that when the MW measures the bump it is not always an accurate indicator of how big your baby will be, but if they send you for a scan are they usually accurate or not?

10% margin of error

My bump measured four weeks small (was measuring 34 weeks when I was 38), growth scan showed a small baby whose abdominal circumference wasn't growing.

DS2 born a fortnight later weighing 8lb 1oz, with normal proportioned everything.

With ds2 the growth scans were reasonably close to ds2's actual size. With dd they were totally wrong. According to the scans dd was going to be on the 98th centile with a huge tummy, largeish head and short legs. She was 8lbs 4oz, long and fairly thin.

That's reassured me a bit... was admitted to hospital this week as consultant was worried I had lost my waters (am 28 weeks). Waters were fine, but scan picked up that baby is small for dates.. about 3 weeks behind...with big head, small abdomen and short legs.Also said he was not receiving as much oxygen as he should be through umbilical cord. There is no mistake with my dates so have been worrying like mad that there was a big problem

they say 10% I have seen more like 20% in my doula practice!

They estimated DS at 10lbs. He was 7lb 13.5oz. Quite a difference!

I was induced due to this. Scan at 36 weeks showed baby 4-4.5lb max. Born 3 days later at 6lb 2oz but VERY skinny, and head on 90th centile! So they did the right thing as DS was 9lb 6oz when he was born (also 90th centile head.)

I had a scan at 39 weeks with dd and they said she was between 9 and 10lbs. She was born nearly 4 weeks later at exactly 7lbs. So even though it was a very detailed scan it was very wrong. They are telling me that this baby (due in 3 weeks) is about the same size already 9lbs, but following my last experience I'd be surprised if he is much bigger than dd was.

Oh BTW, they based ds's weight on his head size. It was on the 98.8th centile. They were right about the big head, but it just didn't correlate with his weight.

My son had IUGR when I was pregnant, was told that he would weigh about 4lb at term, I delivered at 36 weeks and he was 5lb 2oz.

They do a calculation based upon abdo circumference, head size and femur length to give you the estimated weight. I suspect that if one of these measurements was very different to the others (ie thin tummy but normal sized head and legs)then it would make the estimated weight more inaccurate?

I had a scan last week at 35 wks and was told growth had slowed down (abdominal growth). didn't mentioned anything about percentiles - just said it was within nornal range but growing more slowly than before. They said his estimated weight was 5lbs. Got to have another scan next week ad if still growing slowly will be induced, which I'm not happy about