Due date pushed back 12 DAYS?!

[esst]

I know +- 14 days is not uncommon but I know my dates and I know my cycle is irregular due to my son still nursing/teething up a storm and tripling his usual time at the breast.

We started discussing not trying but not not trying in January. I didn't want my son to have a sibling more than 3.5 years younger as DH and BIL are 4 years apart and it shows. My sisters and I are 6 and 8 years apart (different dads) but they get along well... I feel distant. I also wanted to be done with diapers quicker, not finally done with #1 and having to restart. In addition, I have to consider a surgical diastasis recti repair which typically means the end of my childbearing years and I was on the fence about a second kid.

I was not having a period from July 2012 to June 2013 due to the fun that is breastfeeding and had erratic cycles from June 2013 until around November 2013.

My period started December 27th and went to January 2nd. It started up again January 23rd and went to February 1st. We had intercourse on the 10th, 15th and 17th. I got a BFP on the 27th.

I had a dating scan last week and we saw a heartbeat, fetal pole, gestational sac... the works. Heartbeat was around 127 bpm. We did external and tv ultrasound. Fetal pole was measuring at 6+2 but the tech said it was close to the edge of the sac and in a position that it was hard to measure.

Today I got a call from the main hospital number which the midwives phones come up as. No message was left. I called back and spoke to a nurse, she said my labs were good and signed off on and that my due date was the same as her son's - 11/11.

Um, what? My due date from the super-flawed LMP thing is October 30th. I don't want to be pregnant any longer than I have to be. I had a pretty solid BFP, on par with what I had with my son who I got a BFP on at 4w. With this pregnancy, it was three days prior. My symptoms are ramped up, "morning sickness" came on early and strong. I feel far more pregnant which I know is common with the second go-'round but still...

My son measured smaller throughout the pregnancy and was a hair under 8lbs when born at 42w. I wish they'd take that into account... and was hoping to announce at Easter (20th) but I will only be 10+5 instead of the magic 12w. I have my NT scan on the 23rd and perhaps baby will have grown a bit more, but for now I am just stewing and irritated that I have to be almost two weeks more pregnant than I believe I may be!

 

[melissa84]

My EDD got pushed back 5 weeks because I have long, irregular cycles. The first day of my last period was 12/26 and we conceived around 2/06 according to the dating scan. Of course the scan can be a little off. It sucks thinking you're almost in 2nd tri and then being bumped way back!

 

[Jcliff]

I would try to get another scan. Make sure baby growing correctly.

 

[MummyToAmberx]

I think hard to measure at this size because there so small.
I have irregular cycles and got bfp on 28th feb.
i went with edd of 7th nov but knew i could be 3-4 days back.

i had scan on saturday which i thought id be 7+1 but lil bean measured 6+5. giving me edd of 10th nov.

edd by lmp is 5th nov based on 28 day cycle which is impossible for me, without doubt id go overdue with that.

ill be going with date they give at 12wk scan.

 

[carlandjane]

I wonder if something like this could happen to me. I dont have a lmp date only a date that i think we conceived, that and a negative pregnancy test the week before my positive one. So Im waiting for my scan at around 12 weeks to find out for sure whats going on in there. There are so many variables. I guess you may go for another scan and find baby is in a better position and your only a few days off your original guesstimate.

 

[ljo1984]

I'd say just stick to your dates for now and wait until 12ish weeks (if they do scans where you are at that time) and see what that says. By that time it will have done any catching up and will be easier to measure if they had problems this time, will get a better idea then.

 

[NotNic]

I was warned last time at an early dating scan that actually scans around 6/7 weeks aren't that accurate. A HB will normally put you at that 6/7 wk mark as a minimum but it can be hard to measure accurately as the baby is so small. I was moved by 3 days after my next scan at 12wk. My son implanted high and it was difficult to measure him properly. I was warned that they could move a week either side. I still felt like the dates were wrong and he ended up coming at 39wks. I suspect by 12 wks, you'll gain 3-5 days, but if you are doing the NT scan then its better to wait for those results, rather than go on an EDD and where I am you could be 13/14 wks before it happens anyway. I know its frustrating but a EDD isn't a guarantee of a baby's arrival and doesn't make you less pg. this baby might arrive at 39 wks, making your pg three weeks shorter than your last!

 

[esst]

We are considering a scheduled c section with this LO because my pelvis is small on the inside (so much for these dang 'birthing hips') and after four days of induction, my firstborn got stuck with his head wedged right in my pelvis. My midwife said I don't have to decide now but that women who want a VBAC typically have a "fire inside" about it. Plus having a kid and having to arrange childcare... I can't imagine being in a hospital for a week again. So we are leaning towards that which is one of the reasons I'm irritated about dates. 40+5 is a big difference from 39w. As someone who went to 42w, that is not happening again unless there is a damn good reason.

The other is that my dates have me at the end of October and theirs have me in November, so when people ask my due date, it is going to require an explanation. I ordered a T-shirt for my son that says he will be a big brother and had to have them put "Fall 2014" instead of a month.

We are having the NT scan at (their dates) 11+1 which is a day early but they haven't rescheduled on me despite changing the EDD without notifying me. I don't think they are concerned about growth at this point either but we will see what is said after the next ultrasound.

Its all just nitpicky really and what we want most is a healthy baby.

 

[Pixiedust22]

Wait until your 12 week scan and see... I had a scan at what should have been 7 weeks, she said I was 6. Four weeks later I had another scan, was told I'm 11 weeks, so baby had caught up to where it should be. Although according to lmp I should have been 12+4 but I knew that was wrong anyway...

 

[hopefulfor1st]

They pushed me back 6 days and I argued that was wrong as it would mean a bfp at 4dpo! So they are rescanning next week

 

[esst]

That's my thing too. Maybe I ovulated late. For the earliest date, I would have had to have ovulated -+9 days after my period ended which is not late at all. For their numbers, I would have gotten pregnant somewhere around (using the flawed 2 weeks thing) the 25th. That was 8 days after I had intercourse prior to the bfp on the 27th. I'm hoping LO catches up at the 12w scan because the logic just does not line up for me. I could see a few days behind but twelve is a lot and my midwife was pretty sure it was the intercourse on the 10th that did the deed.

 

[RcdM]

I know when I conceived, because we only TTC 2 times over the course of 3 days for the entire month! When I went in for my first appt, I was told I was 6w4d, which was right on based on our conception date. Today I went back, and would be 10w4d, but my Dr said I'm measuring at 11w1d. That's impossible, because we literally only bd those two times. I asked if the baby could just be growing fast or be on the bigger side, but she said not really, because she also see the limbs a little more developed which would be consistent with 11 weeks. It's all kind of weird to me. But... whatever I guess... It's only 4 days difference but she was very sure about the baby being more developed that 10 weeks. Everything else was normal and fine and healthy so I suppose I should just be grateful for that.

 

[esst]

I hate bumping this but it is my own thread and this is still gnawing at me. Stuff just doesn't line up.

In order for their numbers to be right, I would have gotten a BFP at 3+2. This would mean the latest instance of intercourse before BFP was the one that precipitated the pregnancy. These occurred on Feb 18th and Feb 27th respectively. Per my little charting app, I was actually late when I tested on the 27th but it didn't have that many cycles worth of data so it may be inaccurate. I only had 20 days between cycles in January though.

My next ultrasound is on the 23rd. DH and I decided that unless I can get a fetal heartbeat on the doppler by the 20th, we won't be telling until after that appointment. Unfortunately DH has a gastro appointment a building over 15 minutes before that ultrasound so I'm hoping for good news since he won't be with me.

 

[kazine]

Just because you're measuring behind doesn't mean it's "wrong". Babies grow at different rates. Maybe your baby is measuring behind. Often no big deal. It may catch up, may not, but if you get a healthy baby at the end of the pregnancy it doesn't really matter either way does it?

 

[hopefulfor1st]

I went for my scan at 7 weeks and they bumped me back 5 days, Devo, had another scan 2 weeks later and they bumped me back UP those 5 days lol

 

[esst]

My first pregnancy, he was small and even at 42 weeks he was under 8lbs but completely developed and just had a little tiny bit of vernix left and my placenta had started to calcify.

I do want to focus on having a healthy baby but as this will more than likely be a repeat caesarian, getting him/her out at 39 weeks when 39 weeks on their timetable could potentially be nearly 41 is concerning.

When I say the date is wrong, I mean that unless I conceived a week after sex on the 17th, the date they are using is not very possible. It is possible but very unlikely as I was already "late" by that point and that's past the longest sperm will survive in ideal conditions. I would have had to ovulated super late and implanted FAST as I received a BFP on the 27th. That's only 10 days difference.

I hope I get at least a few days back at my next scan.

 

[hopefulfor1st]

My first pregnancy, he was small and even at 42 weeks he was under 8lbs but completely developed and just had a little tiny bit of vernix left and my placenta had started to calcify.

I do want to focus on having a healthy baby but as this will more than likely be a repeat caesarian, getting him/her out at 39 weeks when 39 weeks on their timetable could potentially be nearly 41 is concerning.

When I say the date is wrong, I mean that unless I conceived a week after sex on the 17th, the date they are using is not very possible. It is possible but very unlikely as I was already "late" by that point and that's past the longest sperm will survive in ideal conditions. I would have had to ovulated super late and implanted FAST as I received a BFP on the 27th. That's only 10 days difference.

I hope I get at least a few days back at my next scan.

Most people get a bro at around 10dpo so that does seem the most logical answer

 

[NotNic]

I can empathise with you though my dates aren't out as much as yours. I've just had my 12wk scan and I've been pushed back 2 days by my LMP, but I have shorter cycles so that was ahead 2 days of my dates anyway. While it isn't impossible I ovulated late, it would be strange that I did, as from tracking I've always ovulated CD13/14. Also sperm would have had to survive 4 days - which again isn't impossible but would have had to be some very strong swimmers waiting there. I also had extremely dark test lines when I tested at what I thought was 4+2, but would be 4+0. This was CD31 for me and my cycles are normally around 26 but the cycle before was just 24days. Again all of these things aren't impossible but added up together it sounds like a lot of unlikely situations coming off.

My concern is that early babies are common in my family. 4/5 days isn't a lot, but could mean the difference in where I labour should I go early.

 

[esst]

My cycle has been between 26 and 28 days whereas prior to pregnancy it was always 32. I would have had to ovulate super late and gotten pregnant from intercourse on CD26...of a 26-28 day cycle. All possible, but we will see what my scan on the 23rd says.

 

[hopefulfor1st]

My cycle has been between 26 and 28 days whereas prior to pregnancy it was always 32. I would have had to ovulate super late and gotten pregnant from intercourse on CD26...of a 26-28 day cycle. All possible, but we will see what my scan on the 23rd says.

So what cd did you get a bfp?