Baby Measuring Small at 32 Weeks Growth Scan
This is page 1 of 1 (This thread has xi messages.)
Baby measuring very small at 32-week browse
(11 Posts)
I've just come back from my 32-week browse, which was all generally fine (heart, brain, kidneys, claret period in expert working order etc) except that the md said at the end that he wanted to book me in for another growth scan in 4 weeks because the baby's abdominal circumference and estimated weight were on the 7th centile.
Looking back at the 22-week browse, he was around the 20th centile for weight I'd say. So he has never been large merely seems to exist dropping down.
The baby's femur length is almost on the 50th centile so he's not particularly petite, length wise. His weight is out of proportion to his length - ie he's very skinny.
I feel at a bit of a loss as to the implications of this - the doctor didn't seem too worried, which obviously is good, only equally he didn't give me whatsoever advice beyond the basic statistical data.
I don't know whether I should be doing anything different? Is at that place anything I can do to help the baby put on weight? I am eating lots and have put on plenty of weight myself, so don't call up that's the issue. If he's still small (or smaller) at the 36-week scan, what volition they do about it?
Sorry - bumping because I'm worried.
Mum1369 Thu 01-Dec-xi 12:07:34
I would say firstly, that if the md didn't seem worried, and then I wouldn't worry. Could you lot call your MW to see what they tell you - they might be able to put your mind at residual.
My thoughts (non-medical!) are that some babies will exist on the 1st centile, others on the 99th. Babies, like other children and adults, grow at different rates which is why scans for dating are non completely reliable after near 12 weeks (the point babies stop growing at the same rate). Some are born squat and stubby, others long and skinny (similar DD)
I don't remember there's anything you tin do to make the babe gain weight. See what they say at 36 weeks - all the same at that time you'll but be a week off full term, so if they do have concerns for any reason so at to the lowest degree y'all'll be at a betoken where you lot can discuss doing something if necessary (eg induction, extra monitoring)
What was the reason for you lot having a scan at 32 weeks, as that's non routine - was that due to concerns over the baby's size based on fundal measurement?
I have heard that sonographers can be inaccurate 20% of the time. Measuring the intestinal circumferance is never going to requite the perfect weight, and measuring it in the womb on a moving baby, 1 snapshot in time probably explains why there are mistakes or errors made.
There are plenty of stories of people existence told they are having large/small-scale babies and information technology not existence the case.
Thank you for the replies. I'm so unused to this because DS came out at 8lb1 and has e'er been extremely chunky - this is all very alien territory for me. I know that it could but be that the babe is naturally a little tiddler (which is fine by me every bit I'thou merely 5ft i) simply I'm not doing brilliantly at beingness rational nearly it...
The 32-calendar week browse is now routine at Male monarch'southward in London, so at that place were no previous indicators; I hadn't fifty-fifty noticed (or thought it was meaning) that the babe was on the calorie-free side at the 22 week scan.
I've been reading a fleck about intrauterine growth restriction which apparently applies to foetal weights under the tenth centile. About of the potential causes don't apply to me - I don't drink, smoke, haven't got loftier blood pressure or diabetes, and the scans haven't revealed any congenital weather condition which would cause the baby to be small.
The remaining possibility is that the placenta/string aren't great, which may mean that the baby is ok now, just could be at quite serious take chances if that gets worse. Whilst I'm glad on a number of levels that the doctor was relaxed, I'one thousand besides a bit 
that I'll be left unmonitored for another 4-weeks.
My midwife just works Tuesdays so I might try to see my GP before then in case she can put my listen at rest.
DS1 was said to be ~98th percentile at the 32 week scan. That was based on crown & stomach circumfs, iirc.
They kept saying how I was "alpine" or "fit", hence why my bump didn't look very big. 
Only MW looked puzzled a few days subsequently, "He doesn't feel that big" she said.
He was born on the 9th percentile at 39 wks gestation.
I don't take a lot of religion in scans, can you tell!!?
there is a link between IGR and pre-eclampsia - for me the drop in growth came before pre-eclampsia - simply plainly non in all cases - just make sure if any headaches that don't get away with painkillers, visual disturbances etc you lot become and get your BP checked asap! Equally the told me when the weight first drop on scans babies often catch upward again if they browse in 4 weeks, then might be nothing at all only babies position etc!
ten
DD was 75th centile at her 32 week scan, and 2nd centile at the 36 week scan. Nobody seemed worried as her proportions had stayed vaguely the aforementioned. I think they only worry if, for example, the torso remains small-scale but the head suddenly grows huge, or the tummy grows out of proportion to the trunk etc.
By the way, she was born at 41 weeks weighing 10lb 5oz, putting her on the 99th centile. So I don't think they are particularly authentic.
Sounds a flake like my scans, peculiarly the start - I tend to have long thin babies.
As well as measuring the growth, did the scan do blood flow - looks like lots of brilliant colours blobbing around on the scan (technical term!). This looks (I retrieve) at the status of hte placenta and the blood flow through the cord.
Oh - and each time I have a growth scan for a babe I get told the accurateness level - around +/- 50%, so its indicative I approximate rather than authentic. What they are after is the general tendency in growth and not a snapshot image, hence the additional scan. Our kickoff was IUGR just like you had not of the possible causes - sometimes information technology but happens and he was fine when he appeared (apgar of 9). Everything about that pg was pocket-sized - baby, placenta, fluid. All good for you though.
hth and information technology goes well at the adjacent scan.
I do similar the idea that the scan might be wildly inaccurate and this could all exist something almost nothing! Cuppa I recollect yours takes the 
- from 2nd centile to the 99th, wow! All of this does brand me feel a bit better.
They did cheque the blood period to the placenta and that was okay too, so I've no specific reason to think that that is the problem - I'yard only grasping at straws a bit.
The pre-eclampsia point is interesting. My DM had quite severe pre-eclampsia with both me and my brother, and then I spotter out for it but really my claret pressure has been pretty low (around 100/60) for much of the pregnancy.
Notwithstanding, at today's appointment and when I saw my midwife on Tuesday it had gone up to 120-something/75, which by itself is fine merely a flake of a spring, so I volition dig out my claret pressure level cuff and keep an middle on it I remember.
This is page 1 of one (This thread has xi letters.)
Join the discussion
To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.
Join Mumsnet
Already take a Mumsnet account? Log in
Source: https://www.mumsnet.com/Talk/pregnancy/1354820-Baby-measuring-very-small-at-32-week-scan
0 Response to "Baby Measuring Small at 32 Weeks Growth Scan"
Postar um comentário