My growth scan didn't go as expected!

[Penguin20]

At my 32 week scan they said she was too small and on the chart they have they put her at 8th centile so had to go back at 34 weeks and they said she was on track again and even the women said that it is a rough estimate when they do the scans and she said a lot can happen in a few weeks for baby to grow and if any doctor was that worried they would keep you in to see a consultant that day

 

[mummytobe_93]

Is it a personalised growth scan? Going on past baby weights, your height and Bmi and ethnicity?

On them I was supposed to be having an 8,8lb baby so the fact I had a 7lb baby was considered small. But in terms of the whole population it's pretty average. They've just brought the personalised charts out x

 

[His Princess]

I had an almost identical issue to you so thought I'd share my experience. A lot of hospitals do use personalised charts now so what's average for one person, is small/large for another. They work out an estimated weight based on measurements but they also look at the measurements themselves, as they should all measure around the same gestation.

If you look at your chart, whilst the head circumference looks average, the abdominal circumference is on the lower end of the scale. As twinmum said, it can indicate an issue with blood flow through the cord which is why they like to keep an eye on it. If there is an issue with the cord, the body works to pump blood to the vital organs (the brain and heart), which is why the head continues to grow at a normal rate and the abdomen slows done. I'm not saying that is what's happening in your case but that's why they take the individual measurements.

In my case, throughout my pregnancy, I was always measuring really big in terms of fundal height (9cm bigger than I should of been) but growth scans always put the baby between the 50-60th centile (around 8lb 8oz full term), until my last growth scan. I'd had one at 33 weeks which was fine and then another around 37 weeks, which showed little growth since the scan 4 weeks prior. By their estimation, he'd dropped down to below the 20th centile, although they couldn't find any issues with blood flow through the cord. I actually ended up having a c-section 2 days later due to various issues but my little man was born perfectly healthy, albeit a little on the small side. He was on the 2nd centile at birth and has slowly gone up to the 9th over the last few months.

I know it's easier said than done but try not to worry. As my consultant said to me, they'd rather err on the side of caution and keep a close eye on it so it seems that you're being well looked after.

 

[IsabellaJayne]

My baby was only measuring 2lbs 1oz at 28 week scan but they are not concerned at all by that so seems strange :/

 

[Twag]

I haven't heard of personalised growth charts

I hope all is okay and they are just being super cautious

 

[AP]

when DD1 was born at 27+4 they had her weight down as 2lb 4oz and NICU said this was on the heavier side.

Then we discovered she was born 2lb 14oz, and that is on the heavier side for that gestation!

To me what you have been told is bang on perfect?!

 

[littlesteph]

sounds pretty good to me

 

[Jessicahide]

They plot the baby off your height and weight now..... I can see it would be relevant if you were over 6ft or under5 ft but I don't see how it works other than that........

 

[lau86]

They plot the baby off your height and weight now..... I can see it would be relevant if you were over 6ft or under5 ft but I don't see how it works other than that........

Tbh I don't get it either, I'm 5ft9 and my husband is only an inch taller than me, all his family are short. It doesn't really take into account that my kids are half his. My first is an absolutely mini me of my husband and was born in the '2nd centile' according to my personalised growth chart so now they're worrying.

 

[LilianA]

I had a scan yesterday and baby's weight was estimated at 2lbs10oz and next to it says this weight means im at 28 weeks 4 days! So 2lbs 9oz at 28weeks 5days seems real close to what baby is supposed to be at this age!!

 

[Jessicahide]

They plot the baby off your height and weight now..... I can see it would be relevant if you were over 6ft or under5 ft but I don't see how it works other than that........

Tbh I don't get it either, I'm 5ft9 and my husband is only an inch taller than me, all his family are short. It doesn't really take into account that my kids are half his. My first is an absolutely mini me of my husband and was born in the '2nd centile' according to my personalised growth chart so now they're worrying.

Its stupid, it just blurres all the sizes.... My husband is 6ft 5 so of course our baby is big, he is 95th centile, but what else would he be lol...... They need to go back to how they did it before unless someone's size is remarkable!

 

[minties]

Wow those personalised charts sound like a pain in the butt! I wonder why they would take your weight into account? Do they assume large women make big fat babies? That's kinda insulting. My BMI was about 49 when my son was born, he was only 7lbs 4 a week over due.

Sophie had a very large abdominal circumference and that measurement in particular seems to effect how large or small the calculator says baby will be (hers was on the 89th centile at 36 weeks), combined with short legs and an average head they said she would be about 9.5lbs (she was 7lbs 15 so kinda big).

 

[gemstone]

I just had my growth scan & Henry weighed 2lb 9oz. So the same as you. They said he was perfect in fact bigger than average on the chart. And my other babies where big so it's not a personalised chart. Think it's the same as the red book. 1-100 babies. 1 being the smallest & 100 being the largest. Can't see why they think your baby is small 😕

 

[mrsed]

Wow those personalised charts sound like a pain in the butt! I wonder why they would take your weight into account? Do they assume large women make big fat babies? That's kinda insulting. My BMI was about 49 when my son was born, he was only 7lbs 4 a week over due.

Sophie had a very large abdominal circumference and that measurement in particular seems to effect how large or small the calculator says baby will be (hers was on the 89th centile at 36 weeks), combined with short legs and an average head they said she would be about 9.5lbs (she was 7lbs 15 so kinda big).

I don't think it's that your baby will be bigger because you're overweight - I thought it was because if you have a bigger belly yourself before you got pregnant then this would be taken into consideration on the chart? Someone who had a flat tummy to begin will grow differently to someone carrying extra weight.

 

[Tasha]

The personalised growth charts are sooooo important. They cost around 50p per woman but have reduced stillbirths in the areas they've been taken up. So much so that although my trust doesn't use them, I went and got one made with my rainbow (I'd had sixteen first tri loses and two stillbirths).

It is not based on previous babies (although this can be plotted it doesn't affect the percentiles), but based on height, weight ethnicity etc and also based on their size at dating and twenty week scan.

 

[lau86]

The personalised growth charts are sooooo important. They cost around 50p per woman but have reduced stillbirths in the areas they've been taken up. So much so that although my trust doesn't use them, I went and got one made with my rainbow (I'd had sixteen first tri loses and two stillbirths).

It is not based on previous babies (although this can be plotted it doesn't affect the percentiles), but based on height, weight ethnicity etc and also based on their size at dating and twenty week scan.

Ahh ok, so I'm guessing they must have some kind of evidence that based on their criteria the baby should be a certain size, and from the scans they can tell if baby is dropping below? I'm happy they're keeping an eye on me and sending me for growth scans but I do feel a bit anxious and I probably just have normal but small babies. But I'm glad if it can prevent still births that's great.

 

[Mushymilkfor2]

Wow those personalised charts sound like a pain in the butt! I wonder why they would take your weight into account? Do they assume large women make big fat babies? That's kinda insulting. My BMI was about 49 when my son was born, he was only 7lbs 4 a week over due.

Sophie had a very large abdominal circumference and that measurement in particular seems to effect how large or small the calculator says baby will be (hers was on the 89th centile at 36 weeks), combined with short legs and an average head they said she would be about 9.5lbs (she was 7lbs 15 so kinda big).

My first baby was 9 lb 2 oz and was told this time (I'm at a different hospital) that it was solely due to being overweight. Nevermind that I was 8 days overdue, or the fact that I'm 6 ft and my husband is 6'4" just because I'm overweight. They are closely monitoring me this time in case I have another big baby, due to being overweight. It is, to me, completely insulting. Of course I'm going to have another big baby, my husband and I are not small people no matter weight!

 

[His Princess]

The personalised growth charts are sooooo important. They cost around 50p per woman but have reduced stillbirths in the areas they've been taken up. So much so that although my trust doesn't use them, I went and got one made with my rainbow (I'd had sixteen first tri loses and two stillbirths).

It is not based on previous babies (although this can be plotted it doesn't affect the percentiles), but based on height, weight ethnicity etc and also based on their size at dating and twenty week scan.

This is the point I was trying to make a few posts up! What's normal for one isn't normal for another.

It isn't just down to projected weight, it's down to a combination of factors. As I said previously, if the abdominal circumference isn't in line with the head circumference and femur length, it rings alarm bells. If there's an issue with the placenta, blood will continue to go to the head to allow vital organs (i.e. the brain) to develop, leading abdominal growth to slow down.

I had several growth scans and my Son dropped from the 50-60th centile (at 32 weeks) to below the 25th (at 36 weeks). When my Son was born, he was 6lb 10oz and on the 2nd centile- tiny!. I'm sure 6lb 10oz would be perfectly 'normal' for some people but in our case, it wasn't. He dropped below 6lb after he was born and took almost 5 weeks to regain his birth weight. He's growing well now but he's still only on the 9th centile.

Please don't disregard what a medical professional has told you based on what somebody else tells you is normal. If I hadn't listened to my instinct, myself and my son may not have been here.

 

[o0oCharlieo0o]

I will always go with what the medical professionals tell me anyway, they are trained in what they do I am not so I can assume the size is ok but I don't know what I'm looking at, my next scan is on 14th October so we shall see then if baby is growing along the same line and if everything is ok

 

[Mrs_Bump]

To echo what others said it is because it's personalised my son was 7lb 11 when born at 42 weeks. That is 3rd percentile for me. 6ft and overweight. He was skeletal and very ill, plenty long enough and a big enough head but no fat as my placenta was failing. They're monitoring me a lot more closely this time. Although ds no 2 is above average for a normal woman he was 30th percentile for me. I'm just hoping he is ok at my rescan on Monday. I would hazard a guess it's the artery and abdomen reading combination is why they are rescanning but these are only marginally low.