Twins of significantly different sizes... - Page 2

[dknees]

coming late to this thread....

My twins were supposedly very different sizes at every ultrasound. By the time they were born (38w), I was told that my dd was 1.5 lbs less and a couple of inches shorter than ds. Well.....ds was 5oz bigger and 1/4" shorter than his sister! When I was pg with my singleton, they kept telling me how huge he was, and he was born at about 2 lbs less than what they estimated, so I dont't put too much stock into what the u/s tells me, lol

[f&p'smama]

My DZ twins were 4#8 and 6#7 at 37 weeks, so nearly 2 lbs difference. The ultrasounds for us were very very off in terms of size estimates and didn't pick up the extent of the size differential. We knew Twin B was smaller than A, but not by as much and not as small as she was. Twin B went to the NICU for observation she was so small.

So they obviously did not have TTTS, but they thought that A was somehow getting nutrients at B's expense. If they'd known how different their size was they may have wanted to push their birth earlier.

My twins were the same size by about 6/7 months and by a year, B was nearly a pound bigger than A. She is still about a pound heavier and they are exactly the same height.

[TheGirls]

Well, according to this week's sono, there's only a 9oz difference, lol. So either he's catching up or we're just seeing margin of error in the sonogram. In other news, twin B (the bigger girl) has moved transverse, but in such a way that she SHOULD have a pretty easy path toward vertex. So that would solve the breech issue entirely... We're talking with her and telling her she needs to start swimming south!

[JenChaffee]

I have twin girls. All along, the sonograms would tell us that they were within a couple of ounces of each other. And by 35 weeks, I was being told that they were both more than 6.5 lbs. The doctors were getting very edgy and I got the feeling that they were very reluctant to let me leave after each appt. I would go in expecting an appt to be less than an hr. Six hrs later, I would stumble out with all the staff saying how amazingly healthy we all were.

When they were born at 41 wks, baby A was 8lb 1oz. Baby B was 6lb 5oz. According to the sonograms, B lost weight. And I can't believe that in the last 3 weeks, they developed such a major difference. So, I have to say that though the sonogram readings were interesting, they didn't mean much since they were so inaccurate.

When they were born, the size difference did not seem bizarre. One baby was definitely smaller than the other, but she was healthy. One thing we did notice was that the smaller one had wrinklier skin. It was as though she hadn't quite grown into it!

They are now 9 months and they still are different sizes. Baby A is 20 lbs. Baby B is 17.5lbs.

[mumm]

At Birth-
baby A- 8lb3oz 20inch beautiful-chunky and solid and full head of hair.
baby b- 6lb9oz 21inch hideous-bald and skinny like a plucked chicken

B scared me with how 'tiny' she was. Yes, I'm aware her size was pretty typical but in comparison she just seemed so undercooked and fragile.

Yesterday at 3+ years
baby A- 34lb 40inch Still beautiful and solid
baby b- 31lb 41inch Beautiful, long golden locks and petite. Still an inch taller and lighter.

I've never thought of my twins as twins, just a sibs born at the same time so while it is easy to compare, they are still very different people