Apparently, I'm having the world's largest baby...

pffffffftttttttt is all I have to say. (this could be long.....)
Anyway, I am having growth scans fortnightly, to monitor my baby as she has a 2 vesseled umbilical cord, and I am overweight, and of course, that means I am going to cause my baby huge issues and have many many problems.:doh:

So, yesterday at my AN appt with a regs OBS, I was told that my baby was measuring in the 92nd percentile. This does not come as a surprise to me as I have big babies. I'm 5'10, hubby is 6'2 MIL is about 5'10-11, and my grandmother had 6 children all 10lb8 and above.. It's quite obviously a genetic thing. I assured them that it was not a problem, as DS was pretty much 9 pounds and they were shocked when I told them that i had him vaginally with a relatively drug free birth (because that's just so massive and I'm overweight and that defy's any medical research:rolleyes:). As you can tell... I don't have alot of faith in the medical system. LOL

So, after trying to explain that it's fine, they then sent me off for a GTT. Now I questioned why they were trying to do this at 34 weeks, when my GCT came back clear. I was then told that the GCT wouldn't show GD.... pmsl ok, so why bother with a GCT at 28 weeks and not give me a GTT instead?
Anyway, like a good girl (and trying to prove a point to them) I went along and had the GTT.


OK, that's my story out. Now to get to the point....

I stated to the registrar OBS that I knew that 3rd trimester scans weren't entirely accurate. I was told that they are the most accurate way they have of determining size of the baby. yep, ok.

I was wondering, if anyone had any information on what size exactly is 92nd percentile at 32 weeks, and any other stats on how innaccurate ultrasounds can be in the 3rd trimester. I would just like to arm myself with some info when I see my actual OBS next week, and when they decide they are going to try and jam induction down my throat (which won't be happening unless it's medically necessary).

I don't think much of that made sense, but if anyone could help, I would really appreciate it:)

Date Scans are a crock of **** if you ask me.
I had one at 36 weeks with Hamish and they told me he was approx 9 to 10 pound and his head was of a full term baby etc.. They wanted me to have a c section as they said he was too big for my cervix blah blah blah.

Anyway i had him at 39 weeks 4 days and he weighed 8'4... haha

My sister had a date scan 2 days before she had her 5th son and they told her he was approx 10' and he weighed 12'13. So wrong again.

Good luck with the remainder of your pregnancy, i would not stress too much about the results of these scans.

Thanks:)
I'm not stressed. I just want to be able to stick it to the OBS if he tries to tell me otherwise.
:)

BUMMER on the stress!

I might be able to help a bit. I had the opposite problem actually. If you put my DS and your bub together they would book end the chart!! Mine was and still is around the 3%. We had intrauterine growth retardation with 2 vessel cord, threatened pre-term labor, reversal of flow along the umbilical AND baby with complicated heart defects.

SOOO we had weekly growth scans from around 28 weeks. Long story short - two consecutive weeks bubs showed loss of wt and under stress with continued contrax (from 24 wks). So he was born via non-labouring section.

NOW - the bit you might be interested in is this - he was born at 1.66kg (3pd 10oz) at 36 weeks and I was told that morning that he weighted 250g more than that. Doesn't sound like a lot but its a pretty big % of his body weight.

ALSO - there are two different calculations they can use to work out the estimated wt. I had to check with the technician doing the scans that they were using the same technique to work out the wt as the previous week - so as not to get a dodgy reading.

As for how big bubs should be for average, I have also been told by OB that bubs was around the size of a 30 week bub. He just had a hard time in-utero.

Hope that helps...

What I want to know is, when did 9lb become "huge"? 9lb is a biggish baby, chunky even (depending on if they are heavy because they are fat or because they are long!) but not huge. I've even heard women told they are having a "really big 8lb". 10lb, 11lb, yeah, large but even then not unheard of to have a completely uncomplicated delivery of them. Maybe if you are 5 foot tall 9lb is huge.

Hi Niadla
Below is an extract from their own policy. I hope you find it useful

Australasian Society for Ultrasound in Medicine
Policies and Statements
D7
Statement On Normal Ultrasonic Fetal Measurements
June 1991, Reaffirmed May 1996, Revised May 2001
FETAL WEIGHT
No formula for estimating fetal weight has achieved an accuracy which enables us to recommend its
use. It should be noted that errors are reported for one standard deviation only and that even at this
level the accuracy is disappointing.

:

---

What I want to know is, when did 9lb become "huge"? 9lb is a biggish baby, chunky even (depending on if they are heavy because they are fat or because they are long!) but not huge. I've even heard women told they are having a "really big 8lb". 10lb, 11lb, yeah, large but even then not unheard of to have a completely uncomplicated delivery of them. Maybe if you are 5 foot tall 9lb is huge.

---

I am also confused as to how 9 lb is HUGE. Yeah, he had a 37.5cm head, but once that was out the rest of him fell out. I am so determined to VB my baby, regardless of how 'huge' they might deem her to be. Just very frustrated that they keep trying to find things Wrong with me all the time.

Also use the words that you have a "tried pelvis" so your body has proved that you can birth larger babies and honestly if you gave birth to a baby with a 37.5cm head you shouldn't have a problem. Stick to your guns and best of luck.

oh me me me.
They said that with Ash. He was on the 98th % all the way through. He was big too :) 11 pounds, 55cm and 39cm head (and a week early). I birthed him vaginally without a worry so I am sure you will be fine!
They said Jaidan would be bigger too but he was only 8lbs 4oz.

I had the reverse problem. The hospital wanted to deliver my baby at 28 weeks because ultrasounds showed she was incredibaly (sp?) small that would not survive if she was not delivered. I birthed my DD at 38+2 weeks via CS (for other medical reasons) at a weight of 6.6 pounds, a healthy weight and if she was delivered naturally when she was ready to come (I did not go into labour and there were no signs of her moving in the near future) she would have been even bigger. I did not trust or believe a word they said then and even more so now.

Best of Luck for the birth :D.

You know, if you do have the world's biggest baby you'll probably make a fortune! Sorry hun, I don't want to make light of your situation, but my faith in sizing scans is pretty much on a par with the other posters. I think if you do a search on baby size you will find a number of posts where members have been terrified after being told they were having big babies - some even organising c/s as a result - only to have very average size babies.

And I also agree - what does size really matter anyway - you know you can birth this baby vaginally so the size is really neither here nor there.

Why not just refuse all their testing... you sound like you aren't worries and think that they are full of it, so why par take in there scare mongering?

Size matters not to me, no matter how big or small you are. I am only 5foot2 and all my bubs have been over 9lb. The last one (9lb2oz) was born within 2 hours, drug free, and only took 5mins of pushing! Yet people are still so shocked when they hear that he was 9lb!

I think the reason I went along with their GTT was because I'm sick of them just assuming that there's something wrong. I wanted to prove them wrong and hopefully, my results come back all clear (I'm pretty confident they will), and then I will stand my ground big time.
I am a shocker for not standing up for myself, but this is the last straw for me. I guess I want to prove that just because I am overweight, doesn't mean that I am unhealthy.

Thanks everyone. I will not budge on a VB and I will refuse induction if they even hint at it unless either of them are medically necessary.

I had a scan 2 days before DD2 was born... it showed a weight of 10lb 11oz. DD2 was born 8lb 13oz. Nearly 9 lb, but not close to 10lb 11oz. Her head circumference was on the higher side but she was very long at 56cm. So really the scan measures the length of the femur bone in their legs and the head circumference to come up with a weight.... so it can be totally inaccurate. FWIW... my baby was 1oz off 9lb and it wasn't a problem.

My friend has had 2 12+ pound bubbas. Both vaginally and with no dramas.

I don't know that she had any scans that far along but she was told that she was measuring 3 weeks ahead but she told them she was sure of her dates. Both her and her husband were big bubs and are tall so it was more than likely genetics.

:

---

I think the reason I went along with their GTT was because I'm sick of them just assuming that there's something wrong. I wanted to prove them wrong and hopefully, my results come back all clear (I'm pretty confident they will), and then I will stand my ground big time.
I am a shocker for not standing up for myself, but this is the last straw for me. I guess I want to prove that just because I am overweight, doesn't mean that I am unhealthy.

Thanks everyone. I will not budge on a VB and I will refuse induction if they even hint at it unless either of them are medically necessary.

---

Good on you :) We will be here for you!! :D
You are a strong empowered woman, who knows how to birth her babies.

I am mean and nasty and keep forgetting my conception date so that they can't assume sizes or due dates. I let them go with the dating from the 20wk scan (at "23 weeks") which actually gives me an extra week after my due date for them to chew on before I start hearing the I word.

Also means if I have another 9 pounder, they will not know it until its too late.

I hate the damn GTT --- FYI doc, I is still hypoglyceamic, so no worries with the sugar, haha. They still insist on it because 2 of my babies were over 4kgs. Ugh.

Niadla, I've been told that my bubs is big too. Last week at the 34 week check up, the scan measurements said the baby was measuring at 38 week size instead of 34 week size. My main concern was that my Ob might start trying to recommend a c-section if the baby kept getting bigger, but the great news is that he doesn't seem to be worried about the size at all and is still completely supporting a natural birth :)

My main worry is that my bubs won't get to wear any of the really cute 0000 clothes we bought it! :ROFL: