being induced because the baby is too small?

[witchygrrl]

I think I've heard of this before, when the placenta just isn't doing its job getting nutrients to the baby and so getting the baby out sooner is done so the baby can eat.

An acquantance of mine said she may get induced at 38 weeks because the baby is on the small side, but I don't know if the above is truly the case, or if the little one just isn't going to be an 8 lber. If the latter is the case, then that seems WRONG. The little one needs to cook longer!

Has anyone's HCP tried this one on them?

[kltroy]

I have a good friend who was induced with her first for suspected IUGR. Baby was small (5 lbs and some change) but fine. Induction went bad and turned c-section. At the end of the day, they decided her placenta was fine and she just cooked small babies. Fast fwd to baby #2 -- she found a doc who understood that she cooked small babies and was supportive of VBAC. She had a lovely VBAC about a month ago and birthed another small but healthy baby.

Then again, if IUGR is real, it can be a legitimate medical reason to induce. They should be tracking growth rate, and not just the size of the baby. As long as baby continues to grow at a reasonable rate, it should be ok. But if baby stops growing or slows down drastically, it's time to get the baby out. I agree, better to let the baby cook until at least 39 weeks, but in all situations one has to weigh the relative risks and benefits, even if it is uncertain.

Best of luck to your friend!

[MegBoz]

Originally Posted by kltroy

Then again, if IUGR is real, it can be a legitimate medical reason to induce. They should be tracking growth rate, and not just the size of the baby.

Agreed.
Although for some reason, I have a nagging suspicion that IUGR is probably diagnosed more frequently than it actually occurs. it just seems that, on the whole, American OBs are induction-happy & prefer induction to expectant management - they prefer action to patiently waiting for nature to take it's course. & as such, they exaggerate the risks of conditions they use as justification for induction, and grossly minimize & gloss-over the risks of induction.
Some examples that pop to mind are routine inductions for "post-dates" even at 41W (even though you're not official "post-dates" until 42W) & low amniotic fluid.

I knew someone who had suspected IUGR & had BPF done & also talked with women in her family. Turns out a lot of women in her family had small babies, so she saw it as less of a concern. She ended up with natural births will all 3 of her kids - no probs.

[Evergreen]

Yes, when I was a surrogate. I was once told that my baby was on the small side at around 5 lbs but specifically not IUGR. That baby was induced at about 40 weeks because she was small. She ended up being beigger than either of my 42 week babies at 7 lbs 2 oz. lol

[bella99]

A friend of mine was induced at 39 weeks by her midwife for IUGR. She was measuring 3 weeks behind at 35 weeks so they did an u/s and then watched her closely. At 39 weeks, they did another ultrasound because her fundal measurements had increased, but not by much, and the u/s ended up showing no change in growth in 4 weeks. So she was induced.

Baby was 6 lbs at 39 weeks with no vernix, dry wrinkly and peeling skin, and very long fingernails. Her placenta was also heavily calcified. So in her case, it was IUGR, even though the baby was not terribly small.

But she had a great induction. Cervadil caused her to dilate rapidly in 2-3 hours, they removed it, and she went into labor on her own within another hour, baby was born 4 hours later with no pain medication.