Fetus size question for my niece.

[SashaBreeze]

My niece had her first appointment today for her pregnancy. They did an ultrasound to confirm how far along she is and it came back that she is 26 weeks pregnant but during her examination her midwife, who has had years and years of experience says she is measuring at 32 weeks....
What does that mean?

[nova22]

It could mean a lot of things.

The person who did the ultrasound could have measured incorrectly.

The baby could be in an odd position that takes up a lot of room. When my son was breech, I measured several weeks ahead; when he turned head-down, his measurements were spot-on.

She could have a lot of amniotic fluid.

I think there might be other factors as well but I can't think of what they might be. Does your niece have any idea whatsoever about when her last period was?

[SashaBreeze]

No, as far as I know she has no idea of the date of her last period. She has had hard time as far as cycles go, for years she would skip months and months at a time (sometimes as long as 5-6 months) and then have 1 or 2 and so on it went. So she had not had a period for a VERY long time before she suspected she might be pregnant and took a test and then it has taken forever to get her insurance lined out for her to schedule an appointment and then once that was taken care of the office couldn't get her in for a month. It has been a very long past few months for her.

The tech is the same one I use and she has always been pretty spot on with me, she has been doing it for a long time, so I guess anyone can have an off day. My niece said that when the midwife looked at her report she went out in the hall and spoke with the tech about the size difference but that she didn't hear everything just that there was some confusion as to why the dates were so different. The ultrasound report also said that the baby was already heads down, so no trouble there.

I am super confused as well so when my niece brought it up with me after her appointment today all I could do was tell her I had no idea because honestly for dates to be THAT far apart seemed odd to me.

Also the ultrasound showed that the umbilical cord does not have all the vessels it is supposed to have??? That was also a new one for me. I was just left very confused after she left today and wondered if any of you guys would have some insight to the situation.

[CherryBomb]

Well, it means the u/s measurements gave an average gestational age of 26 weeks, but her funal height is measuring like she's 32 weeks. 2 or 3 cm differen either way on fundal height is normal, 6 is not. Later u/s is not as accurate for dating the age of the baby, it could be off 3 or 4 weeks (even with an excellent u/s tech, it's not terribly accurate at this point for dating purposes).

So, it could mean a lot of things. Maybe she's really 29 or 30 weeks pregnant, but the u/s measured her at 26. I wouldn't guess excessive amniotic fluid, because the u/s should have picked that up. My guess would be that she's farther along than the u/s put her.

[MaerynPearl]

Ive seen people measure 6 weeks off fundal height with nothing at all wrong with baby... its not an exact science, much less exact than an ultrasound (which can be wrong, but less likely to than fundal height)

I wouldnt worry about her measuring large at all if the ultrasound came back fine, it probably just means she is carrying more out in front of her body than inside (especially common with short-torsoed women with a uterus that tilts forward)

[Megan73]

Was the midwife concerned about what sounds like it could be a single umbillical artery? I'd be concerned when combined with the weird measurement - although SUA is more often associated with babies that have birth defects or are too small.

[SashaBreeze]

MaerynPearl good point. She is rather on the short side so that may very well explain things.

Originally Posted by Megan73

Was the midwife concerned about what sounds like it could be a single umbillical artery? I'd be concerned when combined with the weird measurement - although SUA is more often associated with babies that have birth defects or are too small.

Yeah that is what has me scared out my mind for her as well. When she told me about that part I wasn't for sure but I thought that sounded pretty serious so I asked what they told her at the office and basically she was told not to worry they were just going to have to keep a very close eye on things. They have her scheduled to come in frequently.

After she left I looked up the stuff about the umbilical artery and started to panic but have decided that it probably is not my place to say anything to her. If the office chose not to have her worry then why should I? Or do you think I am wrong there?

[Quinalla]

Can she feel the baby moving yet? Have they talked to her about kick counts? When I see anything about a cord issue, I am surprised if they aren't having her do kick counts (basically tracking baby's movement once or more per day and if it is off for her baby, she goes in to get checked). It really depends what exactly the cord issue is, but if I were her I would call them back and discuss with them further as she sounds confused and worried and that isn't a good place to be, especially while pregnant!

[Megan73]

Originally Posted by SashaBreeze

After she left I looked up the stuff about the umbilical artery and started to panic but have decided that it probably is not my place to say anything to her. If the office chose not to have her worry then why should I? Or do you think I am wrong there?

Honestly, if they told her that her baby has SUA and that she'll need frequent monitoring of the baby's growth by ultrasound, I think it's up to her to either seek out more information - or not.
But yeah, I really see why you're worried. I know a number of women online who believe their babies were stillborn because of mismanaged SUA (although most babies are no doubt just fine).