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

1 2

Original poster

Measuring baby bump is bollocks isn't it?

43 replies

silkybear · 10/07/2017 10:52

Just been to the midwife for 28 week appointment and surprise surprise my baby is 'off the charts' massive. My last baby they predicted she would be 11-13lb but was 7lb10 and on the 7th centile. Me and DH both short, no big babies in my family. Surely measuring a baby bump when you are overweight already and there is fluid, placenta and position of the baby to consider, there is no way in hell these tests can be accurate?

OP posts:

Are your children’s vaccines up to date?

Set a reminder

Original poster

silkybear · 10/07/2017 20:38

Good point Dawson about the technique, in my last pregnancy the midwife had an argument with her trainee about where to measure from and neither seemed sure. Last time I was 'off the charts', predicted 11lb and she was 7lb10 at 14 days overdue. This time I am 'off the charts' again but nobody in my family or DHs have had babies bigger than 8lbs7 so I struggle to believe it. Thanks for all your posts. I think I'm just fucked off that I will have to go back and do another GTT with severe morning sickness. A grim task.

OP posts:

Dawsonforehead · 14/07/2017 17:32

Sorry that you have to go for a GTT. And yes, correct technique is measuring from your pubic bone to the top of the uterus. But to feel the actual uterus, the measurer has to stretch any skin and fatty tissue so that it is not included in the measurement. They should also have the tape measure upside down until they have positioned it so that they can't influence the result. HTH.

harleysmammy · 14/07/2017 17:55

My bump measured 2 cm too small every time from 28 weeks, I was told I would have a 6-7lb baby. I went for a check up scan at 37 weeks and was told the baby scan measurements were that of a 42 weeker. He came out 2 weeks later weighing 9lb 3oz. Take it with a pinch of salt x

mrsbumblebees · 14/07/2017 18:08

I think it's useful to have as a (very) rough indicator so that they can send you for extra scans/checks if you look to be way off for your dates, but in my experience it is very inaccurate (and mostly bollocks...). I was told by my midwife at 24 weeks that I was measuring 4 or 5 weeks behind (!) and had to go for an emergency growth scan. I spent the next 24 hours in tears certain I was going to be told there was something wrong with the baby, only to be told at the scan that the baby was measuring spot on for my dates and that the sonographer had no concerns at all. Don't get me wrong I'm very glad that it got checked out as best to be on the safe side, but I will take all future measurements with a very big pinch of salt....

Original poster

silkybear · 14/07/2017 20:00

Thanks Dawson that does explain why it is way off because that isn't what they did. Had my gtt result today and all normal so glad its done. I guess they have to have some way of checking you and we are lucky to live in a country where these checks are available and outcomes are so good. I carry alot of my weight around my tummy area so it makes it hard for them to actually gauge it properly

OP posts:

Dawsonforehead · 14/07/2017 20:28

Glad the GTT was all normal! And yes, we are lucky to (still) get all these checks for free. Medicine and the NHS are rarely perfect but I like to think we do our very best.

PassiveAgressiveQueen · 14/07/2017 21:28

Hartogate, north Yorkshire don't measure as it is so rubbish.

user1486076969 · 14/07/2017 21:32

Mine was spot on in that the GP was concerned about size/growth (small) and correctly diagnosed pre eclampsia....so no, for me it definitely wasn't 'bollocks'!

BlackStars · 15/07/2017 00:18

It's absolute crap!! I was having so many growth scans for my 'monster' who was 7lb -- and then so many more scans for my next 'tiny baby' who came out bigger!!! exactly same gestation.

calimommy · 15/07/2017 07:23

My previous consultant never measured, she felt it didn't hold water, there was too much room for error. Two babies with her. New consultant measures and frankly I'm not impressed for multiple reason. I think it is antiquated, aka bollocks.

Original poster

silkybear · 15/07/2017 09:03

I think Dawson has made a good point on this thread about it being done properly. It seems there is alot of variation in how its done and maybe that is the problem as I have a different midwife every time I go for an appointment. I guess in my case there could have been a better delivery of the news, it was just 'your baby is massive, off the charts' with no reassurance or explanation really. And it was the same in my last pregnancy. I dont want to slate the midwives they do a brilliant job but I think they are pushed for time. It would have been helpful if they looked at my scan 8 weeks ago and my history and gave a more holistic picture of things. Seems like many on this thread have found it to be innacurate but for the couple of posters where it picked up something not right, of course its worth it.

OP posts:

Rosieproject1 · 15/07/2017 09:15

I always wondered about this. I was measuring "off the scale" big with DD2, (I'm size 10, 5.6 so average weight) and sent for regular growth scans for which I was also "off the scale" .. I remember the scanographer coming back to the waiting room, crouching down and whispering excitedly that my baby was off the scale huge!! When we asked how accurate the scans were, we were told completely accurate.

Due to mammoth size of giant baby I was under the Consultant and meant to deliver at main hospital due to risk. However ended up having a very fast labour and couldn't get there in time so had baby at local midwife led unit, with midwives constantly muttering "it's very big!!" And warning me (like a naughty school girl) that I would probably need to be transferred to hospital via emergency ambulance due to BIGGGG baby.

She popped out at 38 weeks weighing 8lbs 6oz. I don't think that's too enormous? And she's been average ever since.

mrsbumblebees · 15/07/2017 09:21

I agree, if it means that potential problems are picked up, even if only in some of the cases that are referred for further checked then it is definitely worth it. Like I say, I'm glad my midwife sent me for the scan and i that I got checked out. I also agree that the midwives do a very good job with very limited resources and I'm very grateful to access to the NHS and the excellent care they provide.

However, I think people need to be aware that it can often be very inaccurate (which is why they send you for further scans and don't rely on measurement alone) so it needs to be taken with a big pinch of salt as I think there is scope for women to be really upset and worried by being told they are measuring too big/too small, when it seems that in a lot of these cases there are (thankfully) no problems with the baby. A friend of mine and her sister were pregnant at the same time and one was told she was measuring too big and the other that she was measuring too small. When the babies turned up they were the opposite way around in terms of size. Likewise, I have a friend whose bump was measuring spot on on for her dates but actually had a very small baby in both of her pregnancies.

Any extra checks offered are always worth it and we should be grateful for them, but I don't think bump measurements should be taken to heart before further, more accurate checks have been done.

Dawsonforehead · 15/07/2017 12:37

Thanks silkybear

The other thing to consider is that the size of your uterus, even if measured correctly, tells you more about the length than the weight of the baby. You can have a "long" baby who is average or below weight, or a smaller baby who also weighs average weight.

Even when we measure we allow a margin of error for up to 2 weeks in size.

It is used as a screening tool, as well as the scans. Maybe technology will advance in future. And yes, a holistic approach is also very very important.

kel1234 · 15/07/2017 12:46

I don't know. I measured 30 weeks gestation when I was actually 37 weeks pregnant. They sent me for a scan, and I was told that they baby was fine, and weighed about 6lb.
I gave birth at 40+6, and the baby weighed 6lb 7oz. Is it right that the baby would gain 7oz in that time?
I put on 22lb, or 10kg in my whole pregnancy, so I guess it was fairly correct.

Mummymummyme · 15/07/2017 12:47

I don't think it's the actual measurement they look at but the pattern. That's why they plot it on the graph in your notes, to see if baby is following a relatively steady trajectory. If they're not this can indicate restricted growth or macrosomia. Midwives say it's normal to be out 2-3cm either way, so obviously the number itself isn't an accurate indicator

BertramTheWalrus · 15/07/2017 12:52

It is imprecise, which is why it isn't done in most countries nowadays.

LookImAHooman · 15/07/2017 13:58

When we asked how accurate the scans were, we were told completely accurate.

Nope (as you found out). IIRC, the leeway is up to +/-20%.

DC1 was predicted on the 50th from growth scans; came out 20% lighter and on the 9th. Growth scans with DC2 atm are predicting the same (50th) but I've got GD thrown into the mix this time so will be interesting to see what happens

Flip

1 2