Large for Gestational Age...

So my scan today has an outcome of "large for gestational age" the believe he is already 5 pound 3 ounces... his measurements for his tummy and head are off the 5 - 95 scale... his legs are short like his brothers and fathers... I don't see my OB until next week and I'm kinda wondering what this means for us... anyone got any experiences or advice they can share....

I know these are only estimates and he could be tiny (yeah right with one 9 pound, and one 9 pound 4 baby already) but I'm kinda wondering now what...

Did you have a scan at this time with your other two children? It might be that they were exactly the same and that its just whats normal for you.
My first DS was over 10lb and his brith itself was pretty uncomplicated. I had a scan at 36w to check the size of a fibroid, and the sonographer said 'Um, whens your due date' I said in a month and he says. 'Oh..are you expecting a large baby?'
I said id be surprised given my birthweight and Dhs and family history, if my baby was under 9lb. HE says oh thats good then cos this scan says your due today based on size and measurements!
Way to stress someone out!
When I was pg with DS2 my midwife said unless there was a serious medical need, I should avoid any late u/s becuase they would only result in the same thing and drs pusing me to get induced early, when we new Id birthed a 10lb bub with no dramas.

Anyway what Im trying to say its its all probably just normal for you. You are right, they are only estimates (mine were pretty accurate though).

I know my OB told me he is very hesitant to induce early or recommend late scans for growth becuase he'd had 2 where they suggest > 10lb bub for two rather small women, both were induced early, one unded up with a c/s and both bubs were < 8lb.

I had one of these too and it sent me into a huge wave of nervousness as it was my first! My OB told me J-Boy would be a big baby, over 10pd and to expect labour to be difficult. She never mentioned c/s but I know other obs would in the same situation. Turns out DS was 8.14pd so wasn't as big as they all expected, just tall!! Labour was difficult, but because of his positioning, not his weight! When you take a look at DH, you can see exactly why he was always going to be big!

If your other bubs have been 'big' and you've birthed them fine, I don't see why they'd make an issue of telling you bubba is big?

Good luck! x

I had a scan at that gestation due to my kidneys deciding not to play and they told me DS was the size of a 38weeker lol. DH was a large bub and all his family (and mine except me) are very tall. They also have ginormous heads.
He was only 9lb at 39 weeks. Long but not huge.

I think the further along you are, the more unreliable the scans are. I wouldn't stress, just take it as it comes and follow your own instincts on how your body/belly feels. What about your funal height measurements...is this measuring similar to last time?? I had an 11lb 2oz Bubba last time (Scan are so unreliable that the one I had the day before showed him as being 9lbs...they can be wrong either way), and he was 59.5cm long and his birth was very, very easy and uncomplicated, and my DD before him was 9lb. There is plenty of time for things to change too.

The reason for this scan was the huge jump in fundal measurements, went from 27 weeks = 27, to 30 weeks = 36.

I'm having a planned csection for a number of different reasons; birth canal wrong shape, 2 prior csections, & an extreme infection after my last csection.

I think I'm more worried about the baby being big therefore putting more strain on my scan tissue from the infection (c section wound had to close from the inside out with a vacuum pack) so they don't know to what extent the scarring is.

Danielle they can u/s your scar tissue as well to see how thick it is. I have to have that done next time as my scar gave out with DS.

Oh I didn't know that Kim I will bring that up with the OB. They mentioned excessive scar tissue in my 20 week scan but not thus time but she didn't need to scan so low either.