Re: Growth measurement with UU

December 31, 2001

Carmajo,

I had a level II at 16 weeks and 20 weeks. Both showed my daughter was 2

weeks behind on growth. I had an amnio done at that time also. I had to

see a genetic counselor. My triple screen was elevated also. My due date

changed multiple times. Even though I knew the day my DH and I had BMS

(Baby making sex). I know it is easier said than done not to worry and all.

My little one was 5 10 at birth. The perinatologist I went to was not

concerned about the growth. My daughter was IUGR (intrauterine growth

restriction). He was more concerned if weight loss occurred. I was told to

expect an emergency c-section if the baby lost any weight.

Take care,

, UU

Mommy to Darby 10/13/00 and 4/18/02

Growth measurement with UU

> Help I am a bit frantic! I had a Level 2 ultrasound yesterday and

> according to my LMP my due date was 03/25/02 and up until yesterday

> I was measuring right on target with due date of 03/24/02. On the

> Level 2 ultrasound I measured over a week behind with average due

> date for all measurements of 04/04/02. On 12/07/01 na weighed

> 1lb 8oz and on 12/27/01 she weighed 1 lb 15oz. Does this sound

> normal? I know I have read that with a UU the baby can be smaller

> but I am worried.

> I was NOT impressed with the peritanologist one bit at all. He was

> not very personable at all. I felt like he was rushing me and did

> not want to answer my questions. All he said was yes it looks like

> you do have a UU and everything looks fine. He did not even do the

> ultrasound, a technician did it. He ran the wand over the stomach

> one time and practically did the 100 yard dash to the door before

> saying everything looked fine and he would send a report to my OB

> doctor.

>

> HELP!!! I go back to my OB on Jan. 2nd but will be driving myself

> nuts until then.

>

> Carmajo & na edd 03/23/02

>

December 31, 2001

Hello,

I was always told that growth measurements change so frequently and you can be

ahead of schedule one day and behind the next. I also think that measuring a

week or two either behind or forward is nothing to worry about. I am hoping

that you find a peri you will be more comfortable with. Good luck and keep us

posted.

Growth measurement with UU

Help I am a bit frantic! I had a Level 2 ultrasound yesterday and

according to my LMP my due date was 03/25/02 and up until yesterday

I was measuring right on target with due date of 03/24/02. On the

Level 2 ultrasound I measured over a week behind with average due

date for all measurements of 04/04/02. On 12/07/01 na weighed

1lb 8oz and on 12/27/01 she weighed 1 lb 15oz. Does this sound

normal? I know I have read that with a UU the baby can be smaller

but I am worried.

I was NOT impressed with the peritanologist one bit at all. He was

not very personable at all. I felt like he was rushing me and did

not want to answer my questions. All he said was yes it looks like

you do have a UU and everything looks fine. He did not even do the

ultrasound, a technician did it. He ran the wand over the stomach

one time and practically did the 100 yard dash to the door before

saying everything looked fine and he would send a report to my OB

doctor.

HELP!!! I go back to my OB on Jan. 2nd but will be driving myself

nuts until then.

Carmajo & na edd 03/23/02

December 31, 2001

Hi Carmajo,

Try not to worry about the difference in measurements. What some

others have said about being a week or two off is very true. I have

been in that situation with all three of my pregnancies. I have a

didelphic uterus (ie. a complete duplication of uterine cavities)

which is not the same as a UU, but similar, in that each cavity is

smaller than normal, generally. All three of my babies consistently

measured small and were tentatively diagnosed with IUGR in the third

trimester. This can be very stressful and scary, but it can turn out

fine too. My two kids (I am now PG with #3) were both fine at birth

and just managed to clear 6 lbs at term. This is below the " average "

newborn size, but they didn't have any problems and I always had a

feeling that the uterus containing the baby had its own " wisdom " in

what size baby it could handle. I think if my babies were any

bigger, I would not have made it to term. That's just me personally,

some women CAN have large babies even with MA's.

The other thing to consider is the variability in US measurements.

There is always some margin of error. With my first son, I had a

scan two days before he was born and they told me he was 7 lbs 12

oz., in reality, he was more than a pound below that weight. The

scans get less accurate as the baby grows and gets more crowded, but

still, there could be some +/- on your most recent results, so don't

let it concern you too much. As long as the growth trend over time

is okay, it should be fine. Take care and all the best with the rest

of your pregnancy.

Lia

UD, 36 wks with baby boy#3, 6 lbs 3 oz. this week, EDD Jan 18,02

December 31, 2001