[happy1nluv]

If this is addressed somewhere, sorry to repeat... my search skills are lacking...

BUT... I had a followup u/s today and a big deal was made about the size of baby. He was 6 lbs 8 oz according to u/s and I am 33w4days today.

My first son was 7lbs 13 oz.
Second son was 8 lbs 2 oz.

Is this a big deal?

Tech called dr in to verify, and dr wants me to do a repeat scan in 4 weeks and redo the 1 hour glucose test (but I shouldn't worry since my numbers were SOOOO good last time i did it!). I'm thinking if I consent to these things that I'm asking for a c-section because baby's "too big". But, Mother Nature does know that what grows IN, must come OUT so really... whats the big deal???? Am I missing something?

 

[sunshynbaby]

I hope there's not a big deal! Both of our families produce big babies, so we're anticipating an 7-9 pounder! Personally, I was around 10 pounds and two weeks overdue. My mom didn't have any complications with a vaginal birth.

 

[mariacm]

Not speaking from personal experience, but IMO they all want to cover their as$es and avoid big baby deliveries, in case of shoulder dystocia or other difficulty birthing. I have recently read that u/s are not so good at estimating weight, despite dr's relying on them for just that. Do some research on that.

FWIW, my sis gave birth to 4 babies, all over 9 lbs, one was over 11 lbs, all vag. No delivery problems.

And just read that the general risk of shoulder dystocia is less than 1%.

Personally, I wouldn't worry if I were you and I wouldn't agree to the tests, bc like you said, they could just shove you thru the c-section door.

Good luck!

 

[belltree]

From what I have read and hear these ultrasounds measurements can be really inaccurate and can be off by 10%. I also found a fetal growth curve online:
http://www.ob-ultrasound.net/weight.html

6lb 8oz are 2950g. 90% of that would be 2655 g.
The first number puts you weight above the 90percentile, the lower weight, just at the 90% percentile. Meaning 10% of babies have a weight as high as yours.

Does your hospital have a rule to require c-sections once you're measured above a certain weight? Some do, some don't.

 

[suprgrl]

U/S are soooo unrealiable at determining weight! It is ridiculous that they even pretend it means anything! DS1 was estimated to be 8+ pounds at 38 weeks. He was born 9 days after my "due date" at 7 pounds 11 ounces. So I have to laugh at the predicted weight crap. DS2 was 9 pounds and as an easier faster delivery (although part of the ease had to due with the lack of people shouting at me to push while bright lights and 10 residents stared at me against my will).

 

[jimblejamble]

6 pounds is a big baby?

Signed,
The almost-9-pound-baby, granddaughter of a 12+ pound baby

 

[Cheshire]

My first son was 10 lbs 11 oz and 20 inches long. My midwives had all estimated about 8 lbs just by my belly's size. I only had an ultrasound during the middle of my pregnancy and he did measure ahead by a couple of weeks but no one made a big deal out of it. His size at birth was a surprise to us all but I didn't have any trouble pushing him out.

While pregnant with my second son I was diagnosed with GD and treated it with diet. My blood sugar numbers were perfect but I did have a lot of extra ultrasounds. Just two days before his birth an ultrasound estimated his weight at 9 lbs. When I had him he was 9 lbs 14 oz and 22 inches long.

Ultrasounds can be way off. You've already had two kids and I doubt your body would make one you couldn't deliver. The incidence of a baby being truly too large to delivery vaginally is really low.

I'm due with my third and I don't think she is going to be near as big as my first two. We joke that she'll be our runt at 8 lbs.

You can refuse the extra ultrasounds if you want. If I were you I'd talk to my doc about how off ultrasounds can be on sizing a baby this late in the game. I'd ask for more reasons why.

 

[ckberkey]

Ultrasounds and guesstamations of baby's size have always been way off for me. I had an ob tell me I wouldn't be able to deliver anything bigger than a 6 pounder, she was shocked when I informed her my first was 9 pounds (vaginal birth). I went on to have a 9.5 pounder completely naturally with no rips or tears. The week before I had him, a lady in town stole my thunder by squatting out an 11 pounder with no problems. Anyway, my point is that that size estimations are wildly inaccurate and a women's body can do amazing things.

 

[belltree]

If you follow the link and follow the graph to full term with the doctor's estimated weight, the graph would put your baby at 4200g at birth, that's about 9lb 4oz. Maybe you're just well insured, and they are trying to do more tests.

 

[suprgrl]

Also: Fat is squishy! DS2 was over a pound heavier than DS1, but their head size was the same. A little extra fat might actually keep him from slipping back up the birth canal as you push him out!

 

[Full Heart]

When were your other dcs born? If they came early then the weight from us might be correct. If you have your babies at 38/39 weeks and if your baby grows .5 lb a week then you would have a 8-9 lber. Which doesn't seem much larger than what you have already birthed. Thats a lot of ifs though. If the us is correct, if your baby gains .5 lb a week, if you go that far. Etc. Besides you could have a 9 lb baby with a tiny 13 inch head or you could have a 7 lber with a big 15 inch head. Weight matters not then.

 

[kriket]

Quote:

Originally Posted by JessicaRenee 6 pounds is a big baby? Signed, The almost-9-pound-baby, granddaughter of a 12+ pound baby

yeah,

~chimes in the 10 lb baby of an 11lb breach baby!

I would say that unless you have a 'reason' to have a big baby (GD) they you shouldn't worry.

 

[Quindin]

No big deal at all.
My babies are at least 9 lbs
What made a difference during labour was the size of their heads.
Baby 3 had a big head - Ouch!

 

[learnlovebe]

Silly me, I was under the impression that a big baby meant a HEALTHY baby, that has received the nourishment it needed to THRIVE in utero.

But then again, I may be partial since I was a 9.5 lb baby, and gave birth to a 9lb 10oz baby w/ no problems. It wasn't easy, but I'm willing to do it again!
However, contrary to some of the others whose ultrasounds were way off- I had one a week before my ds was born and it said he was 8lbs 12oz- a week later he was born (at 9 lb 10 oz). I've read that babies, in the last 4 weeks of pg, can gain up to a lb a week, so my ultrasound was right on. However, they told me at the ultrasound that it can be off up to 3/4 lb in either direction.

Personally, I'd sleep better at night knowing my baby was growing at a healthy rate...i'd worry a lot more if he/she were underweight- as there are many more health complications then.

And yeah- I'd question some of these extra tests. Why would you need to redo the glucose test if your numbers were so good last time?

 

[umbrella]

It does happen sometimes that babies are too big to get out naturally, or to get out naturally without getting hurt.

here's a wiki link on shoulder dystocia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shoulder_dystocia

 

[abigail_b]

I haven't had time to read the other responses, but I just don't understand why dr's still make decisions based on the U/S weights this late in pregnancy. Everyone I know, including myself, had a late term U/S that was wrong with the weight of their baby- by more than a pound- and in either direction. So I just don't think it is a reliable tool for estimating weight!

 

[umbrella]

I wouldn't trust an ultrasound either.

But size does matter.

My first baby was 9 lbs, and I had no trouble at all delivering her. I expect I'd be fine with a larger baby as well. I gave a chuckle when I was pregnant with dd2 and they were worried about me going late because then she could get big. I was thinking, "Really? Like 9 lbs big? Cause golly, I don't know what I'd do!" She was born at only 8 lbs, and longer than my first too, so was even slimmer than just weight differences alone. Incredibly easy delivery.

But that doesn't mean I wouldn't be a tad worried if my midwife suspected the baby might be much larger than either of my first two.

 

[texaspeach]

Quote:

Originally Posted by JessicaRenee 6 pounds is a big baby? Signed, The almost-9-pound-baby, granddaughter of a 12+ pound baby

six and a half pounds would be small for a term baby, at 33 weeks it is on the large side. She's got 7 weeks to continue to grow

but eh, I don't think big babies are a problem.

 

[veganmama719]

My son was 9 lb 5 oz. Almost 3 lbs heavier than DD.

His size per se was not a problem but he did have huge shoulders and had shoulder dystocia. We had to do the Gaskin Manouevre to get him out. My midwife had estimated him at 7.5 lbs before birth.

So i think it is impossible to tell before hand.

They want me to do a late term u/s this time to "see how big he is". I think I am going to pass.

 

[pjs]

At a recent ob visit (don't ask), my ob tried to scare the begeebers out of me. I have had 3 large babies close to ten lbs and up. I have always tested negative for GD. Due to the fact that I am putting my baby's life at risk by having a homebirth, she wants me to be screened for gestational diabetes at 28 weeks and again at 34 weeks (it might have been too early to pick it up....) and have an u/s at 39 weeks to determine size.

She was saying that I am putting my baby's life at risk because there is an increased likelihood of shoulder dystocia given that I have big babies and *probably* have undiagnosed gd. It is my guess that an u/s at 39 weeks would lead to an immediate induction (my babies go to 42 weeks, tyvm), which would likely lead to a c/s. Then she'll have made up for the fee she's going to lose when I transfer out of her care at 18 weeks.

I am all for informed choice and I am aware that shoulder dystocia is a risk- whether I'm in the hospital or not, and quite frankly, I feel like my midwives would be better able to handle a dystocia than the hospital would...

I've always been proud of my body's ability to easily birth large babies, but my ob made me feel like now it is something I should be terrified of.