did one of your twins meausre bigger than the other while you were pregnant?

[austinbabe]

I'm about 14 weeks along with twins and one baby is measuring a bit over 14 weeks and one is meausring a bit under.  Baby A is 14 percentile, and Baby B is 50 percentile.  The Perinatal doctor wasn't concerned at all though.

I'm curious if anybody had twins with one meausring bigger during your pregnancy?  How did things turn out as far as the babies' weight difference at birth? 

Thanks

[rachel65655]

Mine measured right on at my first US at 9 weeks but later on the measured at a 5 day different in estimated gestational age.  When they were born they were only 1oz different in weight but 1 twin was 1" longer than the other.  If they are fraternal it is to be expected that they might differ slightly.  They are genetically different babies.  It could be more of a concern if they were identical and end up with TTTS.

[Gena 22]

My Baby A was always slightly bigger than her sister in utero.  At birth baby a was just under a pound bigger (6.11 and 5.12.)  They have stayed between 1 and 2 lbs apart ever since and are now 3 years old, although they are about the same height and shoe size.  Somehow the 1-2 lbs seem like a huge deal to us - different face shape, feels enormously heavier, eats totally differently.

Monozygotic (di-di so no TTTS) but totally different individuals, from before day 1!

[4Marmalade]

At the beginning of my pregnancy both babies tracked about the same for weight.  At around 30 weeks babyB (girl) started showing about 1/2 to 1lb more than babyA (boy).  At birth ds was 5lbs 8oz and dd was 6lbs 3oz.  Once born ds started gaining rapidly and quickly surpassed his sister in weight.  Now at 2-1/2 years old ds weighs 34lbs and dd is 29lb.  There was never any real worry during pregnancy as they both kept on a decent growth curve.  They did keep a closer eye on ds at one point just to make sure he was still growing.  

[turnquia]

They constantly debated back and forth who was bigger.   They would always say DS was larger and quite a bit larger... but it was just he was longer.  He was smaller weight, and head and belly measurements. 

So as long as they are seperate sacs and seperate placentas (di/di) I wouldn't worry as much about weight discordance especially after 20 weeks when genetics more takes place.  Before 20 weeks as long as they are consistently measuring the same apart then its ok, but if one is lagging further and further behind each ultrasound it could be a sign of placenta insuffiency. 

ETA:  Baby A (girl) weighed 7lbs 12oz baby B (Boy) weighed lbs 4oz at 39.6 weeks

[mylilmonkeys]

Mine are di/di, with completely separate placentas in different quadrants of my uterus.  At 19 weeks we confirmed twins, and they were estimated about 5 day gestational difference.  Since then, they've always measured just a few ounces apart, less than half a pound.  

Just keep eating well and include lots of protein.  Congratulations on your twins!

[hergrace]

With di-di tiwns, the concern is that they each maintain their growth curve.  Things are different if TTTS is a possibility.

One of my triplets was always smaller.  It wasn't until he fell off his growth curve that anyone was the slightest bit concerned with the difference.  

[KellyTTC#1]

I found the measurements varied based on who was doing the ultrasound and the room for measurement error is huge.  In the beginning the babies are small and then later on they are crowded.  I had an ultrasound the day before my twins were born and they estimated them to be about the same size and when they were born they were 6.11 and 5.1.  My OB always said not to worry... as long as they are both still growing that is what is most important.

[Shuli]

Mine measured differently from the first ultrasound at 8 weeks, R was always measuring a week behind. They think that I conceived on different days, which would account for it. The placentas merged very early, so I was going for scans every two weeks to keep an eye on things.R was always smaller and landed up giving birth at almost 37 weeks because R was not getting bigger and D was. A was 4.3 pounds and D was 5.28 at birth. They are still not even and D has always been taller and heavier but a really picky eater whereas R is shorter by about two inches and eats everything in sight (probably due to his brother stealing all the food in utero) :-) Now they are 3.5 and they still have a hight/weight difference that doesn't seem to bother them. R is a shoe size smaller and grows out of his clothes slower, D - can't keep him in a pair of pants.

[labortrials]

I think it became aparent that Baby A was bigger than Baby B.  However, a 33w high level u/s showed they were concordant; the later one didn't.  My OB was surprised that their weights were so different.  Baby A was 7lbs5oz; B was 5lbs3oz.  But they were (and are) very healthy.  Baby A is fairly average at 18mo; Baby B is still lighter and shorter and probably always will be.  Oh, and they were di/di.

[chaimom]

My baby A always measured bigger than baby B, too.  But the doc was surprised when they were born that A was 6 lb 15 oz, and B was 5 lb 10 oz.  They were both 17 inches.  So A looked like a chubby newborn and B looked like a preemie.  It stayed that way until about 6 months.  And it was very confusing to people when I had the boys out-- because how could you have twins when one looks 3 months older than the other?!  But by 6 months they were exactly even and by a year, baby B was taller.  They're 8 now and have always stayed within a few pounds of each other, but "B" is now 4 inches taller than his brother and a couple of pounds heavier. He remains very thin, while his brother is muscular and actually on the short side.

As long as your twins maintain their own growth curve, I don't think there's anything to worry about.

[~Adorkable~]

For me it was baby B that pulled ahead and started weighing more at about 26 weeks. At the last weigh in they said he was 5-10 while A was suposadly 4-13, a week later (so supposedly about a half pound more of growth) they were born B still at 5-10 and A at 5-3. So they were probably right about her last measure but clearly wrong with him because I can't imagine he did not grow that week, he grows like a weed!.

In general ther were not concerned of their different weights except that B was bigger so it might make it harder to do things like a breach extraction or an inversion. They said as long as he was less than 15% bigger they felt good about doing a breach, bigger than that they would want to have turned him.
Thankful he turned a few days later and all was good. Incedentally at birth A's head was just slightly larger than B so for what matters in birth itself she might of well have been the bigger one.

Now they are 9weeks old and B is about 10 pounds! And A is still smaller and actually even morevof a spread, weighing in at just 8.5 pounds. She has a totally different bone structure and is clearly a tiny girl, in all her features, not just on the scale. Both are totally healthy and safely tucked in the middle of growth charts with no extremes.

[mamalovex3]

My babies showed a weight discrepancy from 16 weeks and the gap continued to increase throughout the pregnancy.  As long as both babies are gaining weight at a good rate, it's alright to have one baby bigger than the other.  My babies were 5 lbs 15 oz and 7lbs 11 oz at birth....nine weeks later they are nearly 10 lbs and 12 lbs!  Still a weight difference but both very healthy.  One thing with twins that you learn very quickly is that they are definitely two different people who will do things at different rates, react differently, grow differently, show different personalities!