Mothering Forum banner

1 - 6 of 6 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
5 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Hi Ladies,

Just wondering if anyone out there had a previous small-for-gestational age baby, and if you are worried about it this time around? I had an SGA baby and read that puts me at "risk" for having another one, also being over the age of 35. As far as I know I have no other risk factors.

I am pg, due 1/2016 and have an 8 year old son. He was born at 41+2 weeks at 2.9 or 2.8 kilograms (not sure, the midwife at home said her scale was not so accurate, by the time we went to the hospital later that night to get the birth certificate he weighed 2.8 kilos), so just around the 10th percentile mark on the charts. There were no problems in my pregnancy, gained a normal amount of weight, his measurements seemed ok in early pg (didn't have ultrasounds after that) and he was fine at birth (good apgars, no complications aside from passing a bit of meconium in the womb probably because the cord was wrapped around his neck twice). My husband and I were both of normal birth weight and are average sized adults.

The midwife commented that the umbilical cord was very long and thin, without much Wharton's jelly on it, otherwise didn't mention there was a problem. He was just on the small and thin side when he was born. We had feeding problems in the beginning and even when we solved them he was still small according to the charts (usually around the 5% mark) until around 9-10 months old when he moved up in centiles (but never beyond 50%). He met all of his developmental milestones and is a bright and happy little boy.

I can't figure out why my son was SGA and I'm a bit concerned that baby #2 could be too. I don't have any blood clotting issues or anything, after I had 2 miscarriages they tested for everything and it was all negative. I haven't discussed this with my current OB (though he knows my history) as I don't want a lot of ultrasound monitoring.

Anyone with experience to share?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
309 Posts
Sorry you're feeling anxious about this. 2.8 kg is equivalent to 6.2 lbs which to me sounds smallish, but not outside the norm. I've had friends both healthy with healthy baby boys now in the top 50th percentile for size who were born full term at 6 lbs. or less. I plugged your numbers into WHO and he clocked at 12.8% if you're measuring by the 2.8 kg.

If this is something you're genuinely worried about, I think you need to discuss it with your OB and just explain that you don't want a lot of ultrasound monitoring but you are concerned. If there were a definitive problem, it seems to me your midwife/ped/ob would have (or should have!) pointed that out to you when you gave birth. I think sometimes babies are just small or large and there's no real explanation other than that. Are you sure your dates were correct? That could be a contributing factor as well.

Honestly though, 6.2 lbs sounds healthy to me and your son seems like a healthy boy now, so I would try not to worry. I was 6.3 lbs when I was born at 40 weeks and that was never mentioned as being SGA or unhealthy (then again this was in the 80s when babies were smaller -- and no, my mom didn't smoke). I'm petite and so is my mother but still. I often wonder if those SGA metrics are all out of whack now because we have so many big babies -- which is also not healthy. Anyway, just my two cents. Good luck.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 ·
Sorry you're feeling anxious about this. 2.8 kg is equivalent to 6.2 lbs which to me sounds smallish, but not outside the norm. I've had friends both healthy with healthy baby boys now in the top 50th percentile for size who were born full term at 6 lbs. or less. I plugged your numbers into WHO and he clocked at 12.8% if you're measuring by the 2.8 kg.

If this is something you're genuinely worried about, I think you need to discuss it with your OB and just explain that you don't want a lot of ultrasound monitoring but you are concerned. If there were a definitive problem, it seems to me your midwife/ped/ob would have (or should have!) pointed that out to you when you gave birth. I think sometimes babies are just small or large and there's no real explanation other than that. Are you sure your dates were correct? That could be a contributing factor as well.

Honestly though, 6.2 lbs sounds healthy to me and your son seems like a healthy boy now, so I would try not to worry. I was 6.3 lbs when I was born at 40 weeks and that was never mentioned as being SGA or unhealthy (then again this was in the 80s when babies were smaller -- and no, my mom didn't smoke). I'm petite and so is my mother but still. I often wonder if those SGA metrics are all out of whack now because we have so many big babies -- which is also not healthy. Anyway, just my two cents. Good luck.
Thanks oasis 84, all good points. It's just so easy to get freaked out especially with the different labels that get thrown around so casually.

Just for curiosity's sake, can you send me the reference to the WHO chart you looked at? All the charts I looked at showed 2.8 or 2.9 kilos just at the 10% mark for his gestational age of 41 weeks + 2 days.

All worked out well as you say, he is healthy now and had no problems. And birthing a smaller baby is definitely easier on the mom!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
603 Posts
My son has always been on the small side, and I also measured small during pregnancy. But that was in large part due to low amniotic fluid, which in turn led to my emergency c-section. He was always low on the charts as a baby (under 20th percentile) and is now I think something like 40th percentile. But it was hard, especially when he was a baby and people would guess that he was younger than he was and say things like "he's so skinny!" "he's so tiny!" He is still skinny, it's hard to keep pants on him. But healthy, and his current pediatrician says he is "perfect" (I agree!). It is nerve wracking when your baby is small and you don't know why! If it helps, second babies are often bigger than first babies, so it is likely your second baby will not be as small. The baby I'm carrying now has already measured bigger on the 12 week ultrasound than his/her brother.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
309 Posts
@Moonrising I used this one:
http://www.infantchart.com/


It doesn't take into account when the baby was born (like 39, vs 40, vs 41 weeks) -- it just starts counting at newborn so would encompass all babies born at term, so anywhere from 37- 42 weeks, I believe.


Although my DD was above the 50th percentile for weight when she was born, she steadily dropped and has now consistently been at about 15th percentile. So going by this small sample size, I'd say the weight at birth doesn't have a whole lot of bearing on the eventual size of the kid! We often get comments about how tiny she is but they never bother me -- she's always hit all her developmental milestones on or before schedule, but it's possible I feel that way because she's a girl. It's a total double standard, obviously, but I might be bothered by it if she were a boy.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5 Posts
Discussion Starter · #6 ·
The incessant comments from well-meaning family, friends and neighbors can be difficult at times. Especially when they all think your baby is small because s/he needs to eat more, meaning formula! And for someone like me who had a low milk supply it was particularly hard (I ended up taking Motillium and managed to overcome it, but not before his weight dipped to 2.6 kilos at 3 weeks old).

Chaika, my midwife at the time said the same thing - "your next baby will be bigger." Hoping the gap of 8 years between these pregnancies won't somehow negate that.

Thanks for the reference to the chart oasis84, I had seen different ones. Sometimes I guess you have to see the bigger picture and not focus on select numbers. Healthy babies come in all shapes and sizes!
:thumb
 
1 - 6 of 6 Posts
Top