(Closed) 27+6 instead of 22+3 how could it be?

posted 3 years ago in Pregnancy
Post # 2
Member
4132 posts
Honey bee
  • Wedding: August 2013

Couple of possibilities – 1) you conceived earlier than you thought. Did you have a dating ultrasound earlier in your pregnancy? 2) the scan was right after a growth spurt and this baby measured ahead of the average size for that gestational age 3) measurements can be off. All of my ultrasounds had a +\- of 18 days which makes a big difference

both of my kids consistently measured 2-3 weeks ahead of the average for that gestational age. Both were born early and both were totally fine (no NICU or problems of any kind). 

Post # 3
Member
2021 posts
Buzzing bee
  • Wedding: September 2013

i don’t think they’re supposed to change the due date like that based off ultrasounds when baby is bigger as they are notoriously innacurrate for growth measurement…

Post # 5
Member
4132 posts
Honey bee
  • Wedding: August 2013

I’m not a doctor but I’ve never heard of a baby growing too fast. Too slow, sure but not too fast. 

 

Did your doctor seem concerned?

Post # 6
Member
4260 posts
Honey bee
  • Wedding: February 2009

I have never heard of changing a due date so late in pregnancy.  Quite the opposite actually…  I have been told various times it is not accurate to change it.  Did you have a dating ultrasound in the first trimester?

Post # 8
Member
4260 posts
Honey bee
  • Wedding: February 2009

I guess it comes down to how sure you are on your dates.  Like if you are certain, 100%, I would push back a bit.  Because ultrasound alone would not be enough for me to say, induce what could be 4 weeks early.  

Post # 9
Member
2325 posts
Buzzing bee
  • Wedding: October 2015 - Ruby Princess

Ultrasounds are more accurate within the first trimester. If you had an early dating ultrasound that is consistent with when you say you know you conceived, then changing the dates based on size in the second trimester (by that much)  is not sound.

I would be more concerned with size > dates or Large for Gestational Age, before I would re-date you. that’s weird. It could just be a total barney behind the controls, and got the measurements wrong. I would get a second opinion and get it re-done. (which it sounds like you are). 

I am leaning toward operator error on this one. I think you will be re-scanned, and it will be more consistent with your first edc.

 

Post # 11
Member
2325 posts
Buzzing bee
  • Wedding: October 2015 - Ruby Princess

sounds weird, I’m going to stay tuned. 

Post # 12
Member
755 posts
Busy bee
  • Wedding: February 2016

Yeah this sounds very odd. Your due date is not going to be 5 and a half weeks out. I agree specialist input is needed here to work out why your baby is so large for gestational age. Let us know how you get on. 

Post # 13
Member
337 posts
Helper bee

I would be interested in knowing if they have already tested you for Gestational Diabetes.

Post # 15
Member
337 posts
Helper bee

futuremardinly :  Okay I was just wondering because I myself have been diagnosed with Gestational Diabetes in two of my pregnancies, and the babies tend to be larger. 

The topic ‘27+6 instead of 22+3 how could it be?’ is closed to new replies.

Find Amazing Vendors