Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Pregnancy

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

Original poster

The short legs, big head scan results dilemma: what did it mean for you?

14 replies

Mimiwish · 07/12/2020 10:51

Hiya,

I get regular growth scans because I'm a few months over 39 ;) and I had thought that the pregnancy was progressing without complications (except a bit of anaemia). Mainly I thought this because

  • My Harmony test was 1 in 10,000 of the trisomies they look for (and the NHS results were pretty low too, for my age)
  • After my growth scans I was told 'all is looking good'

However, this last 32 week scan, one thing was flagged to me (abdominal circumference being large - about 87th percentile) which I was told we'd watch at the next scan, as it can lead to problems birthing.

This led me to look a bit more closely to all the other results and the ones I am particularly worried about are my baby's short femur length (around 12th to 15th percentile) compared to her BDP (more like 90th plus percentile). My partner and I are both average height with average heads.

Digging into this hasn't been helpful, as some studies cite a ratio falling outside the norm as being incredibly unlikely for a healthy fetus. At 32 1/2 weeks her BPD was 85.5 and her FL was 58.8.

This is the study that freaked me out:
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/7315902/#:~:text=The%20normal%20ratio%20of%20femur,dwarfism%2C%20hydrocephalus%2C%20and%20microcephaly.

It says that the "normal" ratio is 79 plus or minus 8%. I'm not great at maths, but I work my baby's out to be 68.53, which is lower than 8% off the norm.

I am looking for reassurances from other mums who have had a high BPD measurement (or maybe head circumference) and a small femur. What did it mean for you? The bit I'm worried about is that another study says deviating more than 3 points from the norm (the 79 +/- 8%) is incredibly unlikely for a healthy baby, and mine is 2.47 points off what they call the 'norm'.

This wasn't flagged by my doctor, and I know it's best not to rake through Google's bowels for studies I don't even understand, but I would love to know anecdotally of healthy baby stories coming from similar measurements?

Thanks so much xx

OP posts:
user157382763 · 07/12/2020 11:09

I had regular growth scans throughout and kept pointing out her 90th centile head and 17th centile femurs and was told not to worry.

She turned out perfectly proportioned!

They always analyse the results if they were worried about anything they would flag this up to you!

Step away from there the google!

adropnotabit · 07/12/2020 11:21

Don't forgot these are only scans so there is margin for error. Take your cue from the specialist and if they're not concerned then neither should you be.

Grobagsforever · 07/12/2020 11:46

The growth scans are very inaccurate. I was told my 95th centile daughter (height) was 50th, right up until 36 weeks.

Tomorrowistomorrow · 07/12/2020 11:48

Please stop. My first I was told was abnormal femur lengths -too short. DC1 is heading towards 6 foot and fine.

flissity · 07/12/2020 11:49

I had constantly head circumference in 70+% and FL was like 3% or something! She’s absolutely normal looking. Only 6 months but nothing out of the ordinary!

Original poster
Mimiwish · 07/12/2020 12:49

Thank you SO much! This is just what I hoped to hear. Thank you so much for your replies. I'm so impatient to meet her, I feel like I'm scrutinising every bit of data I have on her, but definitely this is a BAD idea and can only make the wait worse! It's so reassuring to hear others had similar measurements - thanks for sharing!

OP posts:
SunnySideUp2020 · 07/12/2020 12:58

These measurements are far from perfect.
I looked closely at my scan report and they actually take two measurements for FL and HL and they are never the same and i mean 8mm or 9mm difference on each which is huge given the size of these bones and really skews the overall average measure they use to determine the centile.
That's how i stopped overthinking these growth measurements.

And i truly believe that if something looked different or worrying they would have pushed to further testing.

Please don't google!!

JanetPudding · 07/12/2020 13:00

Both my boys have HC above the 99th %ile. With DS1 I raised it at the 6 week postnatal check and we had two scans, both of which showed no problems. I didn't even bother with DS2. Both very normal children even if they're always a size smaller in trousers than in tops!

user1493413286 · 07/12/2020 13:03

This was the case for my baby and I was surprised as DH is tall and we were having a boy. DS was born perfectly proportioned and quite long and has confined to be quite long

mintich · 07/12/2020 13:12

I honestly thought my 1st was going to come out looking like a buddha, as they kept talking about her large abdomen! She was was perfectly proportioned and still is

Dinosauratemydaffodils · 07/12/2020 13:22

Both my dc had giant heads at birth. Dc1 in particular was this really skinny baby with a huge head (he weighed six pounds nine ounces at birth with a head on the 97th percentile). It turns out that although they all have average sized heads as adults, all dh's family have big heads at birth.

Ds is now an average 5 year old and dd is a tall 2 year old.

Becky332021 · 25/03/2021 10:51

I’m having similar measurements at 33 weeks snd have been sent off to see a genetic specialist. How is Bub and how are you tracking? x

Babyisi · 24/06/2023 20:13

Becky332021 · 25/03/2021 10:51

I’m having similar measurements at 33 weeks snd have been sent off to see a genetic specialist. How is Bub and how are you tracking? x

Any updates? Hope all is well

Babyisi · 24/06/2023 20:14

Mimiwish · 07/12/2020 10:51

Hiya,

I get regular growth scans because I'm a few months over 39 ;) and I had thought that the pregnancy was progressing without complications (except a bit of anaemia). Mainly I thought this because

  • My Harmony test was 1 in 10,000 of the trisomies they look for (and the NHS results were pretty low too, for my age)
  • After my growth scans I was told 'all is looking good'

However, this last 32 week scan, one thing was flagged to me (abdominal circumference being large - about 87th percentile) which I was told we'd watch at the next scan, as it can lead to problems birthing.

This led me to look a bit more closely to all the other results and the ones I am particularly worried about are my baby's short femur length (around 12th to 15th percentile) compared to her BDP (more like 90th plus percentile). My partner and I are both average height with average heads.

Digging into this hasn't been helpful, as some studies cite a ratio falling outside the norm as being incredibly unlikely for a healthy fetus. At 32 1/2 weeks her BPD was 85.5 and her FL was 58.8.

This is the study that freaked me out:
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/7315902/#:~:text=The%20normal%20ratio%20of%20femur,dwarfism%2C%20hydrocephalus%2C%20and%20microcephaly.

It says that the "normal" ratio is 79 plus or minus 8%. I'm not great at maths, but I work my baby's out to be 68.53, which is lower than 8% off the norm.

I am looking for reassurances from other mums who have had a high BPD measurement (or maybe head circumference) and a small femur. What did it mean for you? The bit I'm worried about is that another study says deviating more than 3 points from the norm (the 79 +/- 8%) is incredibly unlikely for a healthy baby, and mine is 2.47 points off what they call the 'norm'.

This wasn't flagged by my doctor, and I know it's best not to rake through Google's bowels for studies I don't even understand, but I would love to know anecdotally of healthy baby stories coming from similar measurements?

Thanks so much xx

Hi i know this is an older post - hoping you could share your journey as i am
Currently the exact same boat 🙏🏻💙wish all
Is well x

New posts on this thread. Refresh page