question re lmp and ovulation date

[beckyand3littlemonsters]

Hi just a query really if i am lucky this cycle i have a possibility of 2 EDD's 1) 20th january 2) 1st february the 1st is by lm and the 2nd is by ovulation date.
anyway to my question if (when ) i am lucky should i give my lmp as the 13th april which it was or move it back by a couple of weeks to coincide with my ovulation date iygwim?

[MaerynPearl]

if you know for certain when your ovulation was, it is best to go with the date 2 weeks before then even if that is not when you were bleeding...

if you go with the first date and your doctor never once questions it... chances are you could go past your supposed-due date and end up being induced for no reason.

mine was only off by a day and even I did that lol

[babygrey]

Originally Posted by MaerynPearl

if you know for certain when your ovulation was, it is best to go with the date 2 weeks before then even if that is not when you were bleeding...

if you go with the first date and your doctor never once questions it... chances are you could go past your supposed-due date and end up being induced for no reason.

you almost always want the latest accurate date to avoid unneccessary intervention for being 'post-dates' when you're really not, or to have problems with your fetus not looking like it is growing right.

ETA: silly that most docs won't trust your O date or conception date if you know it for sure- which means, like MP said, you would probably need to say your AF was during a time when you weren't bleeding.

[beckyand3littlemonsters]

Thanks for the quick replies, i thought that it would be best to do that but just wanted to get some opinions first as i never actually knew when i ovulated with my last and although i don't 100% know my exact ovulation date as managed to loose my thermometer on monday going by other factors such as ovulation tests, cm and cp. it was tuesday or wednesday, i'm thinking probably tuesday though but a good 10 days later than expected so scan would probably put me back anyway if i were to go by lmp.
thanks again

[MaerynPearl]

Originally Posted by babygrey

you almost always want the latest accurate date to avoid unneccessary intervention for being 'post-dates' when you're really not, or to have problems with your fetus not looking like it is growing right.

ETA: silly that most docs won't trust your O date or conception date if you know it for sure- which means, like MP said, you would probably need to say your AF was during a time when you weren't bleeding.

lol AAAAAAND earlier on its a lot better to be safe rather than sorry... for example if you were 22 weeks but your LMP had you at 24, there's a HUGE difference in viability of babies delivered between those weeks! Almost no chance of survival whatsoever for a 22 week baby but a 24 week baby could survive... if it came down to certain medical conditions (like placenta abruptia) this could mean the difference in how it is handled and possibility of difference between life and death for the little one

Yes, cases like that are EXTREMELY rare, but if you know when you ovulated, you can avoid mistakes like that by using 2 weeks pre-O

[Drummer's Wife]

I'd definitely go with your ovulation/conception date.

[beckyand3littlemonsters]

Originally Posted by MaerynPearl

lol AAAAAAND earlier on its a lot better to be safe rather than sorry... for example if you were 22 weeks but your LMP had you at 24, there's a HUGE difference in viability of babies delivered between those weeks! Almost no chance of survival whatsoever for a 22 week baby but a 24 week baby could survive... if it came down to certain medical conditions (like placenta abruptia) this could mean the difference in how it is handled and possibility of difference between life and death for the little one

Yes, cases like that are EXTREMELY rare, but if you know when you ovulated, you can avoid mistakes like that by using 2 weeks pre-O

Yes good point there it may be rare, but unfortunately it does happen.
i thought caitlin was going to be very early not quite as extreme as that (26 wks by 20 wk scan, 27 wks by lmp)but still very early all the same

[MaerynPearl]

Originally Posted by beckyand3littlemonsters

Yes good point there it may be rare, but unfortunately it does happen.
i thought caitlin was going to be very early not quite as extreme as that (26 wks by 20 wk scan, 27 wks by lmp)but still very early all the same

yeah, rare but it happened to me with DS (the placenta abruptia) but I was at 17 weeks... so our only choice was monitored bedrest for a week then when they decided it would be okay, home bedrest until he was born. Had it been 10 weeks later, they probably would have wanted to deliver him then and there... but at 17 weeks you have no choice at all! All you can do is hope for the best.

[babygrey]

Originally Posted by MaerynPearl

lol AAAAAAND earlier on its a lot better to be safe rather than sorry... for example if you were 22 weeks but your LMP had you at 24, there's a HUGE difference in viability of babies delivered between those weeks! Almost no chance of survival whatsoever for a 22 week baby but a 24 week baby could survive... if it came down to certain medical conditions (like placenta abruptia) this could mean the difference in how it is handled and possibility of difference between life and death for the little one

Yes, cases like that are EXTREMELY rare, but if you know when you ovulated, you can avoid mistakes like that by using 2 weeks pre-O

I gotta tell you, tho, that brings up a huge emotional rush about date adjusting for me...

I had a scare ~22 wks with DD (EDD was adjusted 10 days later for actual O/conception rather than LMP) and I sure as heck remember being in the bed wishing and wanting the earlier date when they were talking about delivering her. (she would have been borderline viable by my LMP date, but not by my conception date)
In reality, tho, she wasn't that old, so
a) it wouldn't have been good to pretend she was closer to viability than she was and
b) she ended up born @ 41 weeks anyway so it didn't matter

Becky- I know you do insems- what about using 2 weeks pre-insem date? If you're not 100% about when you O, that might be a good substitute.

[babygrey]

Originally Posted by MaerynPearl

yeah, rare but it happened to me with DS (the placenta abruptia) but I was at 17 weeks... so our only choice was monitored bedrest for a week then when they decided it would be okay, home bedrest until he was born. Had it been 10 weeks later, they probably would have wanted to deliver him then and there... but at 17 weeks you have no choice at all! All you can do is hope for the best.

Holy crap, MP! I had a placental abruption @ 17 wks with DD. What are the odds??

okay, now I'm getting OT...

[MaerynPearl]

Originally Posted by babygrey

Holy crap, MP! I had a placental abruption @ 17 wks with DD. What are the odds??

okay, now I'm getting OT...

unfortunately higher than I knew before it happened! I had no clue what was going on... even in the ER until the day after I was admitted.

Luckily it turned out all fine and he was born at 40w4d

[scarletjane]

I'm another advocate of going with the ovulation date (especially when the difference is so significant). I had a thought, though... rather than making up a LNMP date, though, you can just give them the date of ovulation. If they insist on a LNMP date, just let them do the subtraction of 2 weeks. That way, you haven't had to give a false LNMP.

[SoCaliMommy]

Another advocate of going by ovulation date. and trying to get a early u/s .

With my son they tried to go by lmp, but i said i knew i was due on 7/10 and when the early u/s was done it confirmed a edd of 7/10 which didnt matter since he was born on 5/30.

[beckyand3littlemonsters]

Originally Posted by babygrey

Becky- I know you do insems- what about using 2 weeks pre-insem date? If you're not 100% about when you O, that might be a good substitute.

good idea

Originally Posted by SoCaliMommy

Another advocate of going by ovulation date. and trying to get a early u/s .

With my son they tried to go by lmp, but i said i knew i was due on 7/10 and when the early u/s was done it confirmed a edd of 7/10 which didnt matter since he was born on 5/30.

only way i'd get an early scan would be if i paid for it and i don't think would be able to afford it, so unless i lie and say i had bleeding (which i don't want to do) the first scan (dating scan) at the hospital isn't until 12-14 wks.