Measuring bigger...

MarcyR92

I had a doctor appt today and she measured my bump like normal and told me I was measuring 30weeks instead of 27. So she order an u/s for next week and we shall see how big this little boy is. With my daughter I measured 34 weeks when I was at 40. So I'm not worried I kno everyone is different. I want know is anyone else measuring bigger or smaller and if so has your due changed or stayed the same?

ShelleyElla22

I've been measuring 2 weeks ahead for most of the pregnancy and my due date has not changed since I had an early dating ultrasound.

mander82

I was told he is measuring 6 days ahead at my a/s........but they won't change your due date unless its a week or more off.  

As far as belly measurements go,  I guess they have been normal so far,  they haven't said anything about that.

HappyToBeHere

I just measured 5 weeks ahead at my appt last week via measuring tape.  No change to my due date; just mentioned that I could have a big baby!  Not surprising, since neither DH nor I were not itty bitty as newborns.

Dana633

At my last appt 26 weeks, I was measuring 27W3D.  No due date change.

missnacholover

I'm measuring 3 weeks ahead and they haven't changed my EDD.  I get a sheet that says EDD based on LMP and based on growth scan and they are different, but they haven't said to go by the one based on growth.

mommymeg143

I've read in several of my maternity books that any measurement over 20 weeks is not guaranteed.  The best time to determine how far along your baby is, is 12 weeks or younger.  If you're measuring bigger at this point, it's more than likely because baby is bigger. 

I could be wrong though...I'm not a doctor y'all. 

MarcyR92

My mid wife wants to see if he will be on the bigger side. My last u/s was the whole Anatomy one and she had said he was on the smaller side nothing to be worried about, while I was measuring a week it 2 ahead plus they have changed my due date 3 times before that u/s. My period was irregular before I got prego so now I'm just saying he will come when he's ready lol.

SweetMelissa5

First, it sounds like this was a measurement of fundal height rather than an ultrasound, so it's very imprecise to start with, and second, even if it was an ultrasound, I would have a serious issue with a doctor who changed a due date at this stage based on estimates of the baby's size. Once you're past the first trimester, babies grow at very different rates, and just because your baby may end up being bigger or smaller than the average when they are born does not mean their due date was wrong. My oldest was born six days after his due date, and he was 10 lbs 1 oz; that isn't an indication that his due date was off, just that he was (and continues to be) a big boy. Even now, at almost 5 years old, he is still in the upper percentiles of the growth charts for his age.

kstirton

Doc very nonchalantly said when I asked him at this last appointments that I looked to be a little ahead maybe 29-30 weeks... I was 27w5 days. He did not seem concerned in the least - he said that the measuring tape isn't very accurate and that they are more so looking for smaller than normal measurements rather than the other way around. At my anatomy scan at 21 weeks I was measuring at most a week ahead on some parts like the legs/arms.

soulcupcake

If it's +/- 2-3 cm then it's within average range, but there are a lot of factors that contribute to a larger fundal measurement. Baby's position, AFI and multiparity are factors that can influence a bigger (or smaller) measurement.

I consistently measured 6 cm/weeks ahead starting at 26 weeks with my first. I had moderate idiopathic polyhydramnios and she was LGA. No big deal. I consistently measured 3-4 cm/weeks ahead with my second and fourth. Normal fluid levels and they were 8 lbs., 9 oz and 9 lbs.

This time, I knew I'd measure ahead by at least 3-4 cm/weeks because it's my fifth baby and it's normal for me. And I was right, I measured 28 cm/weeks at 23 weeks. We're thinking she'll end up in the 9-10 lb range (at 40 weeks) as that's pretty typical for me.

runningmama14

SweetMelissa5 said:

First, it sounds like this was a measurement of fundal height rather than an ultrasound, so it's very imprecise to start with , and second, even if it was an ultrasound, I would have a serious issue with a doctor who changed a due date at this stage based on estimates of the baby's size. Once you're past the first trimester, babies grow at very different rates, and just because your baby may end up being bigger or smaller than the average when they are born does not mean their due date was wrong. My oldest was born six days after his due date, and he was 10 lbs 1 oz; that isn't an indication that his due date was off, just that he was (and continues to be) a big boy. Even now, at almost 5 years old, he is still in the upper percentiles of the growth charts for his age.

From what I've read fundal height measurement is actually about equal to ultrasound measurement as far as predictive ability for baby's size. Neither is all that accurate. Sorry I don't have a source for my claim, but I remember seeing in a study while browsing pub med. I'm currently mobile and not having luck trying to find it.

But I totally agree that changing your due date based on size this late in the game would be very odd!

MrsDL

I was told with my son they only officially change the due date if baby is measuring more than one week ahead at the first scan (this was at my center, I don't know if that is standard) - if you have a dating scan at 6 or 7 weeks because it indicates your LMP date was off or ovulation was way off.  After that, they all grow differently.  DS's EDD was 5/17, he measured 2 or 3 weeks ahead starting at 12 weeks.  He decided not to show-up until 5/23, 9 lbs 21.5 inches.  They just told me he was ahead of the curve, and remains there at 3.  This one is in the 70th percentile for weight, they said they can get better measurements on size at my next scan.

Jack&Jill86

When I was 17 weeks I measured 21 weeks (fundal height). At my 13 weeks appt I had measured on track so at this point my midwife did actually send me in for a quick ultrasound to rule out twins (I hadn't had any kind of dating ultrasound). The doctor in L&D confirmed one baby but he seriously didn't believe me about my LMP  and was convinced that I had conceived a month earlier to be measuring that big that early on (I was really sure of my dates but didn't see the point in arguing it with a Dr I didn't know). My midwife wasn't concerned and said that baby was probably just long since I'm tall. At my next appointment I was only measuring 2 weeks ahead, and for the last two months I was measuring right on track for my week so I guess it was an early growth spurt!

Kristy774

My baby is measuring big. Like 2-3 weeks, I know my date is right though so I don't want my due date moved. I've just got a big boy coming

lincoln79

Our surrogate is measuring big (like 3 w ahead) even though Squirt is measuring about 4 days ahead (we know exact dates bc it was a medical procedure). I think it mostly has to do with it being her third pregnancy.

SweetMelissa5

runningmama14 said:

First, it sounds like this was a measurement of fundal height rather than an ultrasound, so it's very imprecise to start with , and second, even if it was an ultrasound, I would have a serious issue with a doctor who changed a due date at this stage based on estimates of the baby's size. Once you're past the first trimester, babies grow at very different rates, and just because your baby may end up being bigger or smaller than the average when they are born does not mean their due date was wrong. My oldest was born six days after his due date, and he was 10 lbs 1 oz; that isn't an indication that his due date was off, just that he was (and continues to be) a big boy. Even now, at almost 5 years old, he is still in the upper percentiles of the growth charts for his age.

From what I've read fundal height measurement is actually about equal to ultrasound measurement as far as predictive ability for baby's size. Neither is all that accurate. Sorry I don't have a source for my claim, but I remember seeing in a study while browsing pub med. I'm currently mobile and not having luck trying to find it. But I totally agree that changing your due date based on size this late in the game would be very odd!

Oh yeah, I definitely should have mentioned that ultrasound is frequently not very reliable either (although I really would have thought that it was more so than fundal height, so I'd be interested if you ever do find that study), but either way, the size of the baby at this point in pregnancy is not an indicator of when the baby will arrive.

mrsodonnell12

+-4 is considered normal for fundal height. I'm very suprised your ob is having an u/s done over this since u/s isn't accurate for weight/size of baby anyways.....

I measured ahead with my first 2 babies. Both were over due. Son was 7 lbs6oz, daughter was 8lbs12oz. So far this time I'm measuring right on.

MrsDL

Wolkie said:

Well my u/s dates so far EXACTLY matches my LMP and EDD from the very start. So far LO is measuring exactly on date. Except the brain / head measures 6 days ahead. Brainy baby? Hehehe

LOL - that's the other thing with these measurements - the more accurate terminology is letting you know what percentile for growth your child is, it's misleading to tell women they are measuring a few days/weeks behind or ahead, when in reality it's just a matter of your baby being above or behind the 50% for EDC - big difference because it is confusing and makes people think they'll go earlier or later and that's not the case.

When they tell you body parts are "ahead" or "behind" - why not just give the percentile?  It's not like your baby's head is going to come out 6 days early and the rest of him/her is going to hang around until the due date.

brichar31

At my last appt I was measuring 2 weeks ahead by measuring tape.  They had already planned on me getting an u/s to check on the growth of my fibroid on Oct 2nd and the doc mentioned that it may have grown more and that could be the reason.