Reliability of fundal height measuring large for dates..your experiences please!

[chrysalis]

Hi ladies,

I am interested in your anecdotes about the accuracy of fundal height measurements in circumstances where height has measured rather large throughout the latter part of your pregnancy.

I am apparently just over 34 weeks along. I had no idea as to dates when I found out I was pregnant (cycle a bit all over the shop) had a dating scan at around the 8 week mark. My best guess, and it really was a guess, at that stage was that I was perhaps 6 weeks along.

Anyhoo at my last ob appointment (right on 33 weeks) I measured 40 cm. I have consistently measured 6 cm ahead of dates since about 28 weeks.

I understand that there are a few variables which affect the accuracy of such measurements including weight, if you have had other children, if you have had a caesar or if you have gestational diabetes, or if the babe has an identified problem such as kidney problems or some digestive problem (oesaphogus) or mouth problem (eg cleft palate.

This is my second babe, the first was delivered by caesar at 42 + 1 weeks after I failed to progress on an induction. I understand from reading that the c section can affect how my uterus presents on a fundal height measurement.

I do not have gestational diabetes and the babe otherwise appeared ok at the 20 week scan.

I was overweight at the start of the pregnancy but have not put on too much weight (just on 11kg). I am retaining a bit of fluid which I did last time too.

So I am off to have a scan early next week to see what's happening in there. I am happy to see the little one again but now a little nervy about what might I might be presented with. I understand that the later in the pregnancy a scan is taken, the less reliable it can be compared to early scans insofar as measurements are concerned.

So I am interested, for those who have historically measured fundally "large" what was the outcome?

Was your ob seemingly guided heavily by fundal height analysis in circumstances where you measured large?

Thanks in advance!

Cheerio Belinda.

[Ca Plane Pour Moi]

You didn't put in your height.

I'm about 6' tall with an inverted uterus: I was always a few inches too "small" around the bump. Was told off for it even! Had a total of 5 scans during the pregnancy to prove my baby was growing. DS was a little bit bigger than average on the 30w scan and too tall for newborn clothes when he was born.

Everyone is different. We can put a tape measure around any part of our bodies to prove that. Why should your bump have to be identical to every other bump?

[BellyBelly]

There are so many inconsistencies with this, I wouldn't worry. The fundal height can change according to many things - amniotic fluid levels, baby's length, baby's position, baby's size.. and there is just no way that every single woman is going to line up her body to be exactly spot on for all these things. We are all unique beings, as are our babies. Fetal growth is based on averages and mathematics, there is no exact science, even ultrasound can be grossly incorrect. If you are concerned you could get a second opinion, but who's normal?

[skybie]

my Fundus was measuring 2 weeks ahead my whole pregnancy with DD2, had a growth scan at 35+5 and they said DD2 was behind for dates, she was born 2 days later a 36 weeks weighing 3550 (7pd 8) and measured 50cm.
so for me yes my fundus was higher than it should have been and i had a large baby pre term. i wouldnt worry to much though hun, big baby or little baby, so long as its healthy and happy xxx

[MummaSue]

I am measuring "2cm behind" according to my Ob and midwife but the first thing my midwife said to me when I went for my last appointment was "wow, that is a huge bump".

I'm petite and my bump looks huge, but it's actually not.

I don't think that the fundal measurement thing is that accurate to be honest.

Hugs
Sue xx

[MrsFabuloso]

From about 32wks with DD and 30ish wks with DS, I consistently measured bigger than dates. With DD, they said she would be a fairly large baby, but never told me how big they estimated. At about 37wks, I had a growth scan with DS as he was consistently measuring a few weeks ahead. They told me I would most likely have a 5kg baby.
DD was 3.6kg, born at 37+3wks and DS was 4.2kg, born at 41+2wks. No they weren't small babies, but not the 5kg whoppers I had in mind either! Plus I birthed both of them vaginally, and DS was a totally natural birth. I am not a large person (as in bone structure, lol!) being only 163cm tall. But my DH is pretty big!
Personally, I don't think fundal height is very reliable. But I'm not a professional nor do I know anything about it, except my own experiences, lol!

[Curly]

I'm just the opposite, I usually measured right on target, once or twice I was 1cm ahead but that would usually "rectify itself" the next time I was measured.

DS was 8lb 7oz (3.83kgs) so a bit bigger than average but DD was 9lb 6.5oz (4.27kg) which surprised everyone, myself included...the ob was tipping another 8lber like DS.

I wouldn't be losing any sleep over it.

[Fleur]

With my first baby I had no idea when I fell PG, had a dating scan to determine my EDD.
I measured 2 weeks ahead from about 24-26 weeks, she was born 2 days past her 'EDD' and was definitely overcooked.
My next 2 pregnancies both measured pretty much spot on, DD2 was all over the place from week to week.
Unfortunately it might mean something & it might not, there's no way to tell. Like the others have said I wouldn't worry too much about it - unless you're worried about going way overdue? In which case you could ask for monitoring to check on bub, they will usually be happy to do that for you in the later stages.
HTH