Please or to access all these features

Add post

Watch this thread

Save thread

Start a new thread

Flip thread

Hide thread

My feed

Active Unanswered threads

Getting started FAQ's

Unanswered threads Acronyms Talk guidelines

Hide shortcut buttons

Talk

Pregnancy

Talk about every stage of pregnancy, from early symptoms to preparing for birth.

Flip

Original poster

Big bump

16 replies

catnip · 05/10/2006 12:15

Hallo all
Just a quickie, but would appreciate a bit of advice - I'm 27 weeks pregnant, went for a midwife appointment yesterday and he measured my bump and said it was a centimetre over the normal range for my dates (ie 29 cms, when normal range is apparently 24 - 28).

He booked me in for a scan, but I really don't want one - I know that the baby had a big growth spurt last week and the anomaly scan at 23 weeks showed baby spot on for dates and very healthy. It seems really unnecessary. I've already had 5 scans as they had to check out my cervix a couple of times and I don't think millions of scans are a great idea

What do people think? Am I taking any risk by cancelling it? (I asked him not to book it but he insisted!)

Thanks

OP posts:

Are your children’s vaccines up to date?

Set a reminder

emzickle · 05/10/2006 12:39

loads of women would love to be given extra scans (obviously not to see if there was a prob with their babies) but maybe you should go, just for some reasurance.

Ive had 7 scans too, and I actually enjoyed going, I didnt need my mind put to rest, but I liked seeing her grow...

3andnomore · 09/10/2006 13:29

Maybe it would be worth asking what tehy actually would look out for with the scan?
Also, growthscans are notoriously inaccurate...!
With ys I had a mahussive bump, it was so big, people started asking me from about 26 weeks on, if I was due any day now...hmmm...!
I just had a lot of fluid, Baby was 8Ibs 7 1/2 Ibs, so, not that big!

TheBlonde · 09/10/2006 13:33

I would cancel it
If they still decide your bump is bigger than expected they can offer to scan you much nearer your edd

auntymandy · 09/10/2006 13:39

so you are 2cms over? that doesnt seem much to me, but my last 2 were 5cms over!!!

2pumpkin2pumpkin1 · 09/10/2006 13:48

I would agree to go if the situation is still the same in 2/4wks.
Could be the way baby is lying & could rectify itself in that time. I guess you would be waiting a ouple of weeks for a scan anyway?

lemonaid · 09/10/2006 14:05

I measured 5cm over my week number throughout the second half of pregnancy (i.e. 29 cm at 24 weeks, 33 cm at 28 weeks, etc.) so much more ahead than you and over a much more extended period of time and they didn't suggest a growth scan until I was 32 weeks (had the growth scan at 35 weeks).

Unless there's some other factor involved, other than just the measuring ahead, it seems to me like madness to book you in for a growth scan at this stage when you've had one measurement that was very slightly over. Shifts in the baby's position can make your measurements very greatly, which is why I was told that they don't worry about it unless and until there's a consistent pattern.

In your position I'd probably go, because I quite like scans but if you really don't want one then I personally [NB: I have no medical qualifications whatsoever] think you would be fine cancelling it or, at the very least, rescheduling it for later on after you will have been measured again. When is the scan booked for?

shhhh · 09/10/2006 14:22

if you are given the choice of a scan and advised to go for it surely thats for a reason..IMO I'm not medically minded and would take the advice given and go for the scan.
I would rather know that everything was being done to keep an eye to me and baby.

PrettyCandles · 09/10/2006 14:28

I've often been big for dates in my pregnancies, but in the end it evens out. It really seems too early to be fussed by one measurement that is slightly above average. It could even have been an error on his part. Personally I would not have an additional scan at this stage unless there was something else to suggest any concerns. If you consistently measure larger and larger for dates, then perhaps it would be reasonable to check out why. If you had an issue with sugar in your urine, then there's a risk of too much amniotic fluid (IIRC) and that should be checked out. But not just for one slightly large measurement.

Remember, you are not the average woman, you are unique.

Original poster

catnip · 09/10/2006 14:40

Hallo
I know, it is a bit confusing to be told there is absolutely nothing to worry about and in the same breath that I need a scan.

I asked what they would look for and he said it could be: too much amniotic fluid, how the baby's growing or "subcutaneous fat" (!) and I just thought there's not a lot you can do about any of those apart from the last and I'm sure I haven't put on too much weight, as haven't grown anywhere apart from bump.

I haven't particularly got anything for or against scans, just seems like a waste of everyone's time. Haven't been contacted about an appointment yet, so dont need to make up my mind straight away

OP posts:

lemonaid · 09/10/2006 16:26

Well, the "too much amniotic fluid" can be related to problems with kidneys/digestive system, so if they find too much amniotic fluid then they will check those areas in more detail. And if the baby seems particularly large they may want to do extra glucose tolerance tests or blood sugar tests.

So there are things they can do, or at least extra investigations they can carry out (my growth scan showed a big baby and extra amniotic fluid, so I got all of those).

I still think that if there's nothing else to suggest a problem it's very odd to refer you for a scan based on one measurement that's very slightly on the large side. But I'd probably go for the scan anyway.

Original poster

catnip · 09/10/2006 17:39

Thanks for that Lemonaid, it really helps. The midwife didn't explain any of that so I was left wondering what the point of it all was, but it makes much more sense now, so I think I will go.

What can they do about glucose/blood sugar levels, or about kidney probs?

OP posts:

lulu24 · 09/10/2006 17:47

I was 4 cm over dates for most of my second pregnancy and 6cm in the last 2 weeks of it. I had 2 sizing scans done and both were totally inaccurate the 1 at 38 weeks said my baby would be approx 9lb, when he was born by c section one week later he weighed 11lb2oz!! Sizing scans are a total waste of time!

lemonaid · 09/10/2006 19:37

Blood sugar issues they can put you on a restricted diabetic-friendly diet and/or put you on insulin for the duration of the pregnancy (untreated gestational diabetes tends to lead to larger-than-normal babies with less-developed-than-normal organs, but treated the baby will be fine).

Kidney problems AFAIK they tend to just monitor you and the baby extra closely through pregnancy but will have expert pediatric support on hand as soon as the baby is born -- some conditions may need surgery quite early on. I think also that sometimes they will deliver early if the careful monitoring shows the baby is in distress or the fluid levels continue to rise unchecked. [Disclaimer: this paragraph is based entirely on my hazy recollections, so might be inaccurate].

You can, of course, just have a big baby with no hint of gestational diabetes and can have high levels of amniotic fluid with no particular underlying reason for it (both of these applied to me). In fact, those are far more likely than the gestational diabetes/kidney problems issues. One other thing to note about high levels of amniotic fluid (polyhydramnios) is that it puts you at greater risk of a cord prolapse during labour, so generally artifical rupture of membranes is discouraged if they know you have polyhydramnios.

The absolute most likely thing, of course, is that your baby is perfectly normally sized and you have perfectly normal levels of fluid.

lemonaid · 09/10/2006 19:43

P.S. In defence of growth scans, mine with DS was accurate to within 1.5oz (he was 10lb 5.5oz and they predicted 10lb 7oz). I think from memory that the statistics are something like 80% of growth scans are accurate to plus or minus 10% on the weight -- which is sufficiently better than random to make them a useful tool for healthcare providers, but sufficiently imprecise to make them a hard thing to rely on when from your point of view there is one of you, one of your DC, and you want facts rather than percentages...

Olihan · 09/10/2006 19:53

I'd also agree that growth scans are massively unreliable. A close friend of mine had a growth scan at 36 weeks so the docs could decide whether or not she should go for a VBAC. She was told that the baby was 9lbs+ already so went for an elective c/s. She had the c/s at 39 wks and the baby was 8lbs 2 oz. Another friend who was due at the same time was told all the way through that her baby was too small, her bump was too small, scans said it was very small. It was born.......10lbs 7oz!!!

It does seem strange that he wants you to go for a scan on such a small increase, I was larger than that for most of my 3rd trimester with ds and it wasn't seen as an issue at all. Was your urine test, etc clear? If the idea of another scan bothers you, could you ask to be measured again, perhaps by someone else, then decide whether or not a scan is necessary?

kittywits · 09/10/2006 20:38

I'd go for the scan but ONLY to have a look at the baby, As an experienced mum you know you don't need to go for any other reason

Flip