Measuring very small at 29 weeks

[Bellyrub1980]

My fundal height measurement at 29 weeks is 26cm which is apparently very small, not even in the 10th centile. I have to wait 2 weeks, be remeasured and if still small have a growth scan.

However, I'm really confused about the fundal height measurement. I had 4d scan just 1 week ago which showed a perfectly average sized baby. I asked specifically to check because so many people have commented on my bump being small and he checked the length of the femur which is totally average.

Also, my baby is lying transverse... Surely this effects the curve?

Weirdly, I've always expected to measure big on this kind of thing because I'm large framed myself. I'm 5ft 8 and a size 14/16. So does being a bit chubby actually make it harder for them to feel your uterus and therefore more likely to measure small??

im not sure about this...... however it is an estimate with a tape measure

speak to your midwife see what she advises but I wud say depending how the baby is lying is sure to change the shape and size of your bump

Measuring babies before they are born is a very in exact science. However it is done. The measurements need to be taken with other info to build a picture. Including your health, placental function (they can see on a scan), the size of fluid pools. The most important things for you to do is to keep as healthy as you can manage, and make yourself very aware of your baby's movement patterns. I've had 2 small babies, measured small for both of them. I was well monitored and looked after, and both babies had to come early. But the big factor in making the decision to bring them early was my reports of changes in the pattern of movement. I cannot emphasise it enough. the measurements are inaccurate and not the whole story. Know your baby's routine

*inexact. It's not an exact science.

I think you're actually more likely to measure small because you are tall so there is more room for baby to hide.

I measured small both my pregnancies and was sent for a growth scan both times which were fine. The midwife commented that it was probably because I'm tall (5'9). I gave birth to 7 pounders.

You've had a scan showing nothing to worry about, so I wouldn't!

It's inexact even if your baby is head down ( or up!) but if baby is transverse of course this affects it. If all was well a week ago I'm sure you have nothing to worry about. Either baby will turn and you'll measure more normally, or it won't and you'll get a growth scan which will probably be fine. If baby remains transverse they'll want to keep an eye on position anyway, but most of them turn in the next few weeks.

There is an important message here about centiles which will see you well when your baby is born and growing and you're having him/her weighed at clinic.

Centile charts are about distribution. 50th centile is average. Only 1% of babies/bumps/whatever sit on the 1st and 99th centiles, but someone has to! There are babies one every centile line.

Small isn't necessarily a worry in itself, as measuring large isn't. The midwife will want to check baby is growing at a healthy rate and scans may be done to check baby again and check fluid levels.

There is a hugely wide variety of normal. Try not to worry.

All my 3 measured as small bumps. Scans showed no concerns and all were around 7 pounds, born 39 weeks. I wouldn't worry yet.

It just seems there are so many other factors that could effect the size of your stomach. For example, a 20 stone and a7 stone will naturally have different measurements due to fatty tissue lying over the uterus, regardless of the baby's size.

But this doesn't explain my situation because I'm big, but measuring small. So does that mean my baby is actually even smaller after you take my fat into account?

Isn't the chart they use personalised for you? Mine was in my last pregnancy and when I was measuring big the MW kept saying my bump wasn't just big, it was big for me, IYSWIM.

I'm a short arse (5'4", size 10), and towards the end of my pregnancy was sent for a growth scan (following one fractionally small measurement ). DD was born 8lb2. The midwife who delivered her was ever so surprised, she thought that I looked small too.

So there you go, another anecdote, slightly different from the others.

I was told outright by a Physio at 29 weeks with my second that I must have got my dates wrong because I was so small.

My dd was born at 32 weeks but she was on about the 80th centile for that gestation.

I just have remarkable strong stomach muscles apparently.

I was about 3cms behind my dates all through pregnancy. DS was born 3 days before due date and weighed a very average 7lb 3ounces. I think he must have been just squished up.

My colleague measured 2cm bigger than her dates but also had an average baby.

My MW said it wasn't a problem and so long as the bump keeps on growing its normal. All women carry their bumps is a different way.

My baby's measuring below 10th centile too, have had so many growth scans because of it, and now I'm high rush because have low amniotic fluid so need checking weekly x

high risk not high rush lol

I know it's not quite the same thing, but a friend and I with the same due date measured the same, but her bump looked huge and mine didn't. Despite measuring the same, her baby was 2.5lb heavier than mine. Babies come in such a range of size and shape and so do mothers.