Growth scan - measuring small but 88th centile?!

[ReggaetonLente]

So I was sent for a growth scan today after measuring 34cm at 36 weeks.

Turns out baby’s head is 53rd centile and legs and tummy are 88th centile!

Sonographer estimates she’s 3.2kg already, so about 7lbs.

This seems massive to me! Anyone else got experience of similar measurements? How big was your baby in the end? I’m desperate to avoid a hospital birth for several reasons and I really really don’t want them to have to induce me or anything

Sorry no experience of the birth side of things but have similar measurements - measuring 33 weeks at 36 weeks. Baby is approx 50% head, 75% tummy and 99% leg length. They don’t seem worried at all. My midwife said scans can be out by 30% and fundal height is open to human error, especially if different people are doing the measuring. I’m booked into labour ward due to another medical issue but they’ve not mentioned anything about the size being an issue.

My DD was born at 35w at 6lbs 13oz so really big for 5w early. My DS measured big the whole way through, stomach off the charts, even though I measured small, he was born on the 91st centile. I was told they don't induce unless they have good reason to suspect your baby will be over 5kg. My DS was 4.38kg at 39+4 so even if I'd gone over due I don't think he'd have been more than 5kg. You'll be ok, the human body is amazing!

Thanks both, it’s good to hear I’m not the only one!

DH and I are both tall (5’10 and 6’6) and I was a big baby myself, almost 9lbs back in the 90s, I suppose it’s not a total shock. I’ve just been lucky enough to have a really straightforward pregnancy so far and I hated being referred for an extra scan - it panicked me.

Interesting about how scans can be off too. Guess there’s no way of really knowing her size til she’s here so I’ll just have to go with the flow!

Scans can be pretty off in terms of measurements. My DS was supposed to be short with a big belly and close to 10lb. He was long, skinny and just over 8lb. A friend of mine had GD and had constant horrible remarks about how the baby was going to be huge, she’d need forceps etc. He was a dinky 6lber. Unless you’re way off the percentiles I don’t think there’s much to worry about.

My baby measured 6lb at his 32 week scan and they estimated him to be around 8 lbs , he was born yesterday weighing 9.4lb BUT he is long not chubby so it was mostly just his legs causing the extra as he is actually quite tiny and i also didnt tear bad (havent had to have stitches) took me like 20 minutes of pushing without painkillers (not by choice)

I had a growth scan at 36 weeks with ds, they predicted 7lb by then. He was born a whole month later and only 6lb13 so there is no way he was that big at 36 weeks.
I measured small with DD and she was nearly a whole pound heavier than DS so I don't think they really have any idea.

Scams can definitely be off... My ds was in 90th + percentile throughout until he stopped growing around 33/ 34 weeks. At 33weeks predicted weight from scan was just over 6lbs. He was born at 37 +2 and weighed just 5lbs 2oz

They are notoriously inaccurate. I had a c section (not weight related) and had a whopping 9lb 15 baby. No one had any idea he’d be so big. He touched all four sides of the bassinet!
The woman in the bed opposite had been induced due to growth scans showing a big baby, and she had a 6lber that looked dinky in comparison to my whopper.

I’ve gone on to have 3 DC. All huge. In each case no one predicted it. I’m also tall, like you.

Thanks so much everyone for sharing. I’m not going to worry until the midwives do - they seem relaxed so far. I keep trying to stay one step ahead but probably need to learn to let go a bit - good practice for when baby is Earthside!

I had a growth scan at 33 weeks and she was estimated about 5lb and still just within the lines but measured big again so had another one last week at 37 weeks and she was estimated 7lb3oz and over the lines. so they want me to see consultant tomorrow to see what they want to do with regards to being induced etc. But they said the scan can be inaccurate and can be 15% either way