Changing Due Dates Due to U/S, Diabetes

[umsami]

So, I just had my first u/s at what I thought was 24 weeks 1 day. Even though I have diabetes, the U/S tech was pretty confident that we should move my due date up 2 weeks...from 9/01 to 8/16. She said the amount of difference was beyond the standard deviation or whatever.

I did not know my LMP when I got pregnant and tried to arrange an early scan, but had no luck due to lack of health insurance.

I'd be generally O.K. with this if I didn't know that they would try and induce me at 39 weeks regardless. (All of my MFMs/OBs have done this due to diabetes.) If my original date was accurate, that would mean inducing at 36 weeks which could lead to problems.

So, what would you do? Would you just accept the new due date? Wait and see how things go... and push back to at least a full-term induction if necessary and baby doesn't come on his own?

[BlackSheepPDX]

If you didn't know your LMP, and didn't have a previous US, what were you basing your dates on?

[Adamsmama]

Originally Posted by BlackSheepPDX

If you didn't know your LMP, and didn't have a previous US, what were you basing your dates on?

I was wondering this, too.

[umsami]

Originally Posted by BlackSheepPDX

If you didn't know your LMP, and didn't have a previous US, what were you basing your dates on?

It was a guess...but I wasn't 100% sure. I honestly don't think it was two weeks prior to that date, but I couldn't remember. I had just had an early loss about six weeks prior, and I wasn't regular yet (or so I thought).

My midwife had told me I was measuring a little bit above, but wasn't concerned because this was my 4th baby.

[tootersmom]

It is my understanding that only early ultrasounds can accurately predict due dates. At 20+ weeks there is too much variation to get closer than a week or two at best. (At least that's what I was told by the tech at my OB's office.)

[MaerynPearl]

Originally Posted by tootersmom

It is my understanding that only early ultrasounds can accurately predict due dates. At 20+ weeks there is too much variation to get closer than a week or two at best. (At least that's what I was told by the tech at my OB's office.)

Ive been told with all three babies at my anatomy scan that being off by up to 2 weeks is perfectly normal.

[BlackSheepPDX]

My understanding is also that only the very early USs can give you due dates that are "accurate" and that midterm/later US are only accurate to about +/- 1 week. However a TWO week difference does seem somewhat significant. It sounds like you could maybe make an argument to split the difference, and call your date a week earlier, at 8/23, but that you should stand your ground about not getting pushed on induction/etc based on a TWO week earlier due date if it doesn't seem to make sense.

OTOH, I DID have an early US, and got dated 1w4d LATER than my LMP would have put me, so I'm glad I have that data to back me up, since my DD was 41w5d based on a LMP due date. Helps take some of the pressure off at the end.

[Kelly1101]

Originally Posted by BlackSheepPDX

My understanding is also that only the very early USs can give you due dates that are "accurate" and that midterm/later US are only accurate to about +/- 1 week. However a TWO week difference does seem somewhat significant. It sounds like you could maybe make an argument to split the difference, and call your date a week earlier, at 8/23, but that you should stand your ground about not getting pushed on induction/etc based on a TWO week earlier due date if it doesn't seem to make sense.

This.

The inaccuracy of such a late u/s shouldn't result in you having to have an induction for being "late" when you may not be late.