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

"Clinically large" baby

32 replies

Sarahjct · 18/12/2007 15:22

Hi everyone.

Just a quickie. I've seen threads on here before about the uselessness of fundal height measurements but has anyone been told that their baby is clinically large? I'm measuring 40 weeks @ 37 weeks and they're sending me for a scan. Clinically large just sounds a bit scary to me...

OP posts:

Are your children’s vaccines up to date?

Set a reminder

madChristmasmouse · 18/12/2007 15:31

They should not use a word like that without explaining it FGS. I have read myself silly during pregnancy (lawyer ) and have never come across the term before. Make them explain!

Scan for sizing is useless, as they can be 2lb out. So what if the baby is bigger than 7lb7, still needs to come out! . And you only get an average of 7lb7 if some babies are 5lb and some 10! You are very unlikely to make a baby that is too big for you to give birth to.

If they are worried about you having gestational diabetes (which can cause a genuinly over-large baby if left unchecked) they should check for that.

Sorry if this rant is not much help. Be assertive with midwife.

hoxtonchick · 18/12/2007 15:34

measuring fundal height is not terribly accurate. growth scans can be helpful if they do serial ones, but that's not going to happen at 37 weeks.... (i have diabetes & had serial growth scans with both my babies, every 4 weeks from 20 weeks onwards. they predicted both their weights very accurately). i guess go to the scan & see what they find.

Izzybel · 18/12/2007 15:37

Try not to worry too much. As you say, fundal height measurements are really not that accurate, as I think they are only measuring your bump not the actual baby! Your bump could be big or small due to lots of amniotic fluid for eg. They thought that my nephew was going to be a big baby and he only weighed 7lbs 11 at 42 weeks! I always seemed to measure a littler smaller than the amount of weeks I was, and my dd was quite big for the size that I am, weighing 8lbs 7.5. Hope I have made sense Hope everything goes ok!

PortAndLemonaid · 18/12/2007 15:52

I measured 5 weeks ahead throughout, and DS was large (10lb 5.5oz), but I've seen plenty of women on here who've been measuring similar amounts ahead and have had perfectly normal size babies.

Look on it as a chance for an extra look at your baby and try not to worry.

This pregnancy they have automatically booked me in for a growth scan because of DS's size, even though I'm not particularly measuring ahead yet...

Tommy · 18/12/2007 15:54

I measured bug through my first pregnancy and since DH was 10lb 7oz when he was born, I was getting a bit scared!

DS1 was 8lb 13oz so not overly big at all. I would't worry about it too much - it is a very inexact science - trying to work out how big a baby will be

PuppyDogTails · 18/12/2007 15:56

I measured 3cm ahead throughout, DS was born at 40+2 and 7lb 14oz. I was getting scared too!

IsawSusiekissingSantaClaus · 18/12/2007 17:12

I'm 36 weeks and measuring 40. The MW is coming back in a week to measure again. She's said that if I've grown a lot more she'll send me for a scan, but even then, she's not really worried. She doesn't think it relates to a difficult labour and doesn't think I'll need to be induced. She says small babies can be more difficult. It doesn't really go by size. Sounds like your MW needs to chill out with the scary terminology.

BetsyBoop · 18/12/2007 17:55

growth scans are notoriously inaccurate

In both pregancies I measures ahead by roughly 3 weeks & had growth scans

with DD (my first) they said 9.5lbs & she was 8lb 8.5oz

with DS they said 9.5lbs again, and I was "yeah right you said that last time..." - but he was 10lb 10.5oz (this would definitely qualify as "clinically large" I think, as he was above the 98th percentile )

It is very rare for a woman to make a baby too big to birth & what actually matters is the size of baby's head, the rest "squishes" on the way out.

deckthehallswithboughsofholly · 18/12/2007 18:04

I was measuring big throughout my pregnancy with ds (about 2 -3 weeks bigger than my dates), but no-one was concerned about me and I had no growth scans.

He weighed 10lb 8oz! However, he was much easier than my dd to deliver (she was 8lb 11oz) and I was only in active labour for an hour and a half. He was born naturally with only g&a and no stitches.

I honestly don't think that generally bigger babies are much more difficult to deliver than smaller ones and you will only (generally) grow a baby that you can deliver.

Please don't worry!

Ledodgy · 18/12/2007 18:08

I always measure 2-3 weeks ahead in all my pregnancies including this one, dd was 8 pounds 8 and ds was 8 pounds 10 both born 3 days before due date. My mw was never concerned. When you think about it everybody has different size babies because people are different sizes so why the hell should fundal height be universally identical? It is just a guidline.

DaphneHarvey · 18/12/2007 18:11

I had ultrasound scan 3 days before my dd's birth. They said 8lb. She was 9lb 2oz. Sorry if not much comfort to you as she was bigger than they thought, just hoping to illustrate that they can be very inaccurate!

ConnorTraceptive · 18/12/2007 18:34

Nobody had any idea that ds was going to be big (10lb) I measured normally all the way through. I guess I didn't have much fluid and the bump was all baby. I'm measuring correct for my dates this time too but I suspect there is another chunky monkey in there this time too

Original poster

Sarahjct · 18/12/2007 18:44

LOL, so it's pretty much what I thought, that you should take it all with a pinch of salt. I don't think I'm toooo worried, I'd just be interested to know what happens if I have the scan and they decide that she is big. Would they leave me to it or want to get her out?

Bearing in mind of course, that I'll be amazed if I get scanned before Christmas and if it isn't by then, then it won't be till the new year and I'm due on the 10th!

OP posts:

PortAndLemonaid · 18/12/2007 18:47

The research shows precisely no benefit (in terms of reduced complications or better long-term outcomes) from inducing big babies early. All it does is slightly increase the likelihood of c-section. I have articles on this stored somewhere from when I was pregnant with DS, if you are interested (some consultants still like to do it, because it sounds as though it ought to work, regardless of what the evidence says).

MarsyChristmas · 18/12/2007 18:52

Big babies can birth really easily. Their heads push the cervix well. Try not to worry. The scan is often wrong as is the fundal height. I always measured 7 weeks ahead (with the singletons never mind the twins) and my babies were average sized.

smartiejake · 18/12/2007 19:08

I was told at 37 weeks that dd1 was going to be HUUUUGE (10 and a half pounds they said) Ended up a repectable 8lb 3 0z. They are pants at sizing babies but extremely good at worrying the pants off anxious mums!

Snaf · 18/12/2007 20:30

I've already lost count of the number of women I've looked after in labour who have been scared rigid that they're carrying enormo-sprogs...and then go on to have perfectly average-sized babies.

As you say, take it all with a pinch of salt. Scans can be terribly inaccurate, as can fundal-height measurement. In any case, it's not just their bodies that squash to get through the birth canal in labour - their heads do too!

Unless there is a genuine problem e.g. diabetes, you're highly unlikely to be growing a baby too big to birth.

(IMO, this obsession with baby-size is just another symptom of our messed-up birth culture...but that's another rant entirely)

Have a lovely birth.

HabbiChristmasToBu · 18/12/2007 20:42

I had an enormo-sprog (is that the technical term, Snaf?) - 10lb 11oz, and she was not too difficult at all to deliver - in fact, less trouble than all my friends' smaller babies. And she was (and is) so cuddly...

Snaf · 18/12/2007 20:48

Yes, I believe the Royal College Of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists have officially adopted 'enormo-sprog' as the correct terminology for any infant born on the 95th centile or above

HabbiChristmasToBu · 18/12/2007 20:52

I came from a family of enormo-sprogs, too, so had always thought I'd have one. We're none of us massive adults, that said. Looked forward to it, weirdly. Did beat the all-comers record for both sides

ghosty · 18/12/2007 21:26

Our doctor put DD through some tests when her fontanelle was still open at the age of 2. I got sent a letter that told me my baby had "Familial Macrocephaly"
I was distraught and had a massive panic, as you can imagine and was on the phone to the Docs within 30 seconds of receiving the letter....
The doctor told me that it merely meant "A Large Head that Runs In the Family"
I could have told him that for nothing.
Twat.

ghosty · 18/12/2007 21:28

Sorry, hit post before finishing ...
My point is that the use of big words/medical terms should be banned if they are not backed with explanations in layman's terms, don't you think?

Monkeytrousers · 18/12/2007 21:28

Said mine was going to be tiny when he was 10lbs +

camillathechicken · 18/12/2007 21:30

what snaf said

i was told i would be having a big ol' baby, measuring 37 weeks at 34, DD was 7 lb 8, born on her due date

charliegal · 18/12/2007 21:30

Ds was 10 lbs too and I was told that he was average size throughout pregnancy. I just love a great big baby..no problem with the birth either.

Flip

1 2

Swipe left for the next trending thread