C-Section on Thursday & measuring too small

August 23, 2004

Hi buddies,

I am having a (repeat) C-Section scheduled on Thursday, August 26th.

My whole issue is during my last office visit he tells me that I am

measuring smaller than I should.

He decided to do another u/s (my 5th one) to check the Amitotic fluid.

He started asking questions like how much did my daughter weighted

(9lbs3oz) and was she early or late (3weeks early) and then he went

through my file with the nurse but said nothing to me or my husband

to what was going on.

My daughter was big and she was 3 weeks early from the EDD b/c of

Toxemia.

Not too much of a difference from this baby – This baby is scheduled

3 weeks early on Aug 26th from the (REAL from my period) EDD of Sept

13th.

This Dr visit (he's almost ready to retire) he did measurements of

the baby and told us that she was under weight and small for her age

at only 6 pounds.

It made me cry b/c I have gained just as much with this pregnancy as

I did with my daughter (pre-WLS).

I feel like I failed…that this baby is so small compared to my

daughter.

My Dr changed our due date to Sept 6th b/c she measured bigger than

normal.

He said she may even be older but the average size comes to a week

older in size.

Last month during an u/s my daughter had a roll under her chin and Dr

laughed and said she's " big and healthy " .

That's when he scheduled the C-Section b/c she was (still) big for

her size.

Or was it b/c of the WLS surgery…don't understand that b/c I gained

just as much.

I have been going to my Dr's twice a week all this month b/c of me

being high risk for Toxemia so the due date stays the same I can't

push it back.

I am so confused -- how can a Dr say she's measures bigger than

normal -- big and healthy…Until the week before my surgery and say

she's smaller and weights only 6 pounds?

I only have 4 more days to find out if he is right or wrong but I

can't stop thinking about why there would be such a big difference.

Any one with ideas?

August 23, 2004

Ultrasounds are notoriously inaccurate. Here are the statistics from

one large study (1717 women between 24 and 43 weeks gestational age)

done in 1998. The percentage is the number of babies within 10% of the

weight measurement assigned to them by the practitioner after

ultrasound and a clinical hands-on exam were performed by separate

clinicians (so they couldn't influence each other), according to

weight estimate method.

babies weighing less than 2500 grams (5.5 pounds): ultrasounds 63%,

clinical exam 49%

babies weighing 2500 to 4000 grams (5.5 pounds to 8.8 pounds):

ultrasounds 70.6%, clinical exam 75.1%

babies weighing over 4000 grams (8.8 pounds): ultrasounds 58.8%,

clinical exam 61.3%

The key take-away for me is that NO method of guessing a baby's weight

to within 10% of actual is more than 75% accurate... that means that

25-51% of the time, they are off by more than 10%!! And if the baby

was not tiny, experienced clinicians are more accurate than

ultrasound.

It's a crapshoot. If the baby otherwise seems healthy, I would try not

to worry about it too much. There's nothing you can do anyway, other

than asking them to delay the c-section so that if she really IS

small, that she has a chance to develop further, reducing her time in

the NICU.

Have you considered discussing IV magnesium supplementation with your

OB? http://www.lewrockwell.com/sardi/sardi13.html It is widely used to

reduce toxemia (pre-eclampsia) but some doctors are apparently still

unaware of it, or unwilling to try it, because it's not an expensive

patented drug.

" Finally, a just-released study of 10,141 women in 33 countries has

shown beyond a " reasonable doubt " that intravenous magnesium reduces

the risks of eclampsia among women with pre-eclampsia. The relative

risk of eclampsia was reduced by 58 percent and the mortality rate

nearly cut in half among women receiving magnesium compared to those

who receive a saline drip. The authors of the study concluded that

" magnesium sulfate is remarkably effective at reducing the risk of

eclampsia. " [The Lancet 359: 1877-90, June 1, 2002] "

Good luck.

Ziobro

C-Section on Thursday & measuring too small

To: ossg-pregnant

Hi buddies,

I am having a (repeat) C-Section scheduled on Thursday, August 26th.

My whole issue is during my last office visit he tells me that I am

measuring smaller than I should.

He decided to do another u/s (my 5th one) to check the Amitotic fluid.

He started asking questions like how much did my daughter weighted

(9lbs3oz) and was she early or late (3weeks early) and then he went

through my file with the nurse but said nothing to me or my husband

to what was going on.

My daughter was big and she was 3 weeks early from the EDD b/c of

Toxemia.

Not too much of a difference from this baby – This baby is scheduled

3 weeks early on Aug 26th from the (REAL from my period) EDD of Sept

13th.

This Dr visit (he's almost ready to retire) he did measurements of

the baby and told us that she was under weight and small for her age

at only 6 pounds.

It made me cry b/c I have gained just as much with this pregnancy as

I did with my daughter (pre-WLS).

I feel like I failed…that this baby is so small compared to my

daughter.

My Dr changed our due date to Sept 6th b/c she measured bigger than

normal.

He said she may even be older but the average size comes to a week

older in size.

Last month during an u/s my daughter had a roll under her chin and Dr

laughed and said she's " big and healthy " .

That's when he scheduled the C-Section b/c she was (still) big for

her size.

Or was it b/c of the WLS surgery…don't understand that b/c I gained

just as much.

I have been going to my Dr's twice a week all this month b/c of me

being high risk for Toxemia so the due date stays the same I can't

push it back.

I am so confused -- how can a Dr say she's measures bigger than

normal -- big and healthy…Until the week before my surgery and say

she's smaller and weights only 6 pounds?

I only have 4 more days to find out if he is right or wrong but I

can't stop thinking about why there would be such a big difference.

Any one with ideas?

August 23, 2004

The ultrasounds said our son Jonas born 3 weeks ago was 6.5 pounds a

few weeks before he was born....He was born weighing 8 pounds and 8

ounces.

The doctors because I was not gaining weight and was still losing

weight while pregnant assumed he was still about that size because

of my body.

Chrystal

Wife to Jace - together 6 Years!

Happy Mommy to - 4 Years Old!

Baby Jonas Born August 2, 2004 8 Pounds & 8 Ounces!

Zookeeper for 2 big dogs and 6 cats who let me feed them!

http://chrystallife.50megs.com/

http://members.ebay.com/aboutme/seeswensonauctions/

> Ultrasounds are notoriously inaccurate. Here are the statistics

from

> one large study (1717 women between 24 and 43 weeks gestational

age)

> done in 1998. The percentage is the number of babies within 10% of

the

> weight measurement assigned to them by the practitioner after

> ultrasound and a clinical hands-on exam were performed by separate

> clinicians (so they couldn't influence each other), according to

> weight estimate method.

>

> babies weighing less than 2500 grams (5.5 pounds): ultrasounds 63%,

> clinical exam 49%

> babies weighing 2500 to 4000 grams (5.5 pounds to 8.8 pounds):

> ultrasounds 70.6%, clinical exam 75.1%

> babies weighing over 4000 grams (8.8 pounds): ultrasounds 58.8%,

> clinical exam 61.3%

>

> The key take-away for me is that NO method of guessing a baby's

weight

> to within 10% of actual is more than 75% accurate... that means

that

> 25-51% of the time, they are off by more than 10%!! And if the baby

> was not tiny, experienced clinicians are more accurate than

> ultrasound.

>

> It's a crapshoot. If the baby otherwise seems healthy, I would try

not

> to worry about it too much. There's nothing you can do anyway,

other

> than asking them to delay the c-section so that if she really IS

> small, that she has a chance to develop further, reducing her time

in

> the NICU.

>

> Have you considered discussing IV magnesium supplementation with

your

> OB? http://www.lewrockwell.com/sardi/sardi13.html It is widely

used to

> reduce toxemia (pre-eclampsia) but some doctors are apparently

still

> unaware of it, or unwilling to try it, because it's not an

expensive

> patented drug.

>

> " Finally, a just-released study of 10,141 women in 33 countries has

> shown beyond a " reasonable doubt " that intravenous magnesium

reduces

> the risks of eclampsia among women with pre-eclampsia. The relative

> risk of eclampsia was reduced by 58 percent and the mortality rate

> nearly cut in half among women receiving magnesium compared to

those

> who receive a saline drip. The authors of the study concluded that

> " magnesium sulfate is remarkably effective at reducing the risk of

> eclampsia. " [The Lancet 359: 1877-90, June 1, 2002] "

>

> Good luck.

>

> Ziobro

>

> C-Section on Thursday & measuring too

small

> To: ossg-pregnant

>

> Hi buddies,

> I am having a (repeat) C-Section scheduled on Thursday, August

26th.

> My whole issue is during my last office visit he tells me that I

am

> measuring smaller than I should.

> He decided to do another u/s (my 5th one) to check the Amitotic

fluid.

> He started asking questions like how much did my daughter weighted

> (9lbs3oz) and was she early or late (3weeks early) and then he

went

> through my file with the nurse but said nothing to me or my

husband

> to what was going on.

> My daughter was big and she was 3 weeks early from the EDD b/c of

> Toxemia.

> Not too much of a difference from this baby – This baby is

scheduled

> 3 weeks early on Aug 26th from the (REAL from my period) EDD of

Sept

> 13th.

> This Dr visit (he's almost ready to retire) he did measurements of

> the baby and told us that she was under weight and small for her

age

> at only 6 pounds.

> It made me cry b/c I have gained just as much with this pregnancy

as

> I did with my daughter (pre-WLS).

> I feel like I failed…that this baby is so small compared to my

> daughter.

> My Dr changed our due date to Sept 6th b/c she measured bigger

than

> normal.

> He said she may even be older but the average size comes to a week

> older in size.

> Last month during an u/s my daughter had a roll under her chin and

Dr

> laughed and said she's " big and healthy " .

> That's when he scheduled the C-Section b/c she was (still) big for

> her size.

> Or was it b/c of the WLS surgery…don't understand that b/c I

gained

> just as much.

> I have been going to my Dr's twice a week all this month b/c of me

> being high risk for Toxemia so the due date stays the same I can't

> push it back.

> I am so confused -- how can a Dr say she's measures bigger than

> normal -- big and healthy…Until the week before my surgery and say

> she's smaller and weights only 6 pounds?

> I only have 4 more days to find out if he is right or wrong but I

> can't stop thinking about why there would be such a big difference.

> Any one with ideas?

August 23, 2004

The ultrasounds said our son Jonas born 3 weeks ago was 6.5 pounds a

few weeks before he was born....He was born weighing 8 pounds and 8

ounces.

The doctors because I was not gaining weight and was still losing

weight while pregnant assumed he was still about that size because

of my body.

Chrystal

Wife to Jace - together 6 Years!

Happy Mommy to - 4 Years Old!

Baby Jonas Born August 2, 2004 8 Pounds & 8 Ounces!

Zookeeper for 2 big dogs and 6 cats who let me feed them!

http://chrystallife.50megs.com/

http://members.ebay.com/aboutme/seeswensonauctions/

> Ultrasounds are notoriously inaccurate. Here are the statistics

from

> one large study (1717 women between 24 and 43 weeks gestational

age)

> done in 1998. The percentage is the number of babies within 10% of

the

> weight measurement assigned to them by the practitioner after

> ultrasound and a clinical hands-on exam were performed by separate

> clinicians (so they couldn't influence each other), according to

> weight estimate method.

>

> babies weighing less than 2500 grams (5.5 pounds): ultrasounds 63%,

> clinical exam 49%

> babies weighing 2500 to 4000 grams (5.5 pounds to 8.8 pounds):

> ultrasounds 70.6%, clinical exam 75.1%

> babies weighing over 4000 grams (8.8 pounds): ultrasounds 58.8%,

> clinical exam 61.3%

>

> The key take-away for me is that NO method of guessing a baby's

weight

> to within 10% of actual is more than 75% accurate... that means

that

> 25-51% of the time, they are off by more than 10%!! And if the baby

> was not tiny, experienced clinicians are more accurate than

> ultrasound.

>

> It's a crapshoot. If the baby otherwise seems healthy, I would try

not

> to worry about it too much. There's nothing you can do anyway,

other

> than asking them to delay the c-section so that if she really IS

> small, that she has a chance to develop further, reducing her time

in

> the NICU.

>

> Have you considered discussing IV magnesium supplementation with

your

> OB? http://www.lewrockwell.com/sardi/sardi13.html It is widely

used to

> reduce toxemia (pre-eclampsia) but some doctors are apparently

still

> unaware of it, or unwilling to try it, because it's not an

expensive

> patented drug.

>

> " Finally, a just-released study of 10,141 women in 33 countries has

> shown beyond a " reasonable doubt " that intravenous magnesium

reduces

> the risks of eclampsia among women with pre-eclampsia. The relative

> risk of eclampsia was reduced by 58 percent and the mortality rate

> nearly cut in half among women receiving magnesium compared to

those

> who receive a saline drip. The authors of the study concluded that

> " magnesium sulfate is remarkably effective at reducing the risk of

> eclampsia. " [The Lancet 359: 1877-90, June 1, 2002] "

>

> Good luck.

>

> Ziobro

>

> C-Section on Thursday & measuring too

small

> To: ossg-pregnant

>

> Hi buddies,

> I am having a (repeat) C-Section scheduled on Thursday, August

26th.

> My whole issue is during my last office visit he tells me that I

am

> measuring smaller than I should.

> He decided to do another u/s (my 5th one) to check the Amitotic

fluid.

> He started asking questions like how much did my daughter weighted

> (9lbs3oz) and was she early or late (3weeks early) and then he

went

> through my file with the nurse but said nothing to me or my

husband

> to what was going on.

> My daughter was big and she was 3 weeks early from the EDD b/c of

> Toxemia.

> Not too much of a difference from this baby – This baby is

scheduled

> 3 weeks early on Aug 26th from the (REAL from my period) EDD of

Sept

> 13th.

> This Dr visit (he's almost ready to retire) he did measurements of

> the baby and told us that she was under weight and small for her

age

> at only 6 pounds.

> It made me cry b/c I have gained just as much with this pregnancy

as

> I did with my daughter (pre-WLS).

> I feel like I failed…that this baby is so small compared to my

> daughter.

> My Dr changed our due date to Sept 6th b/c she measured bigger

than

> normal.

> He said she may even be older but the average size comes to a week

> older in size.

> Last month during an u/s my daughter had a roll under her chin and

Dr

> laughed and said she's " big and healthy " .

> That's when he scheduled the C-Section b/c she was (still) big for

> her size.

> Or was it b/c of the WLS surgery…don't understand that b/c I

gained

> just as much.

> I have been going to my Dr's twice a week all this month b/c of me

> being high risk for Toxemia so the due date stays the same I can't

> push it back.

> I am so confused -- how can a Dr say she's measures bigger than

> normal -- big and healthy…Until the week before my surgery and say

> she's smaller and weights only 6 pounds?

> I only have 4 more days to find out if he is right or wrong but I

> can't stop thinking about why there would be such a big difference.

> Any one with ideas?

August 23, 2004

ita,

Every baby is so very different. If you had said that baby was 4 lb,

I would be more concerned, but 6 lb is a good size, sweetie...And,

it is just an estimate...Was everything okay with your fluid levels?

Was the baby active and moving in the u/s? Think about those things

and take things one step at a time, k? I know you are nervous and

worried but YOU HAVE NOT FAILED AT ANYTHING...okay?

Wishing you the very best on Thursday and hope you will keep us

posted!

Hugs,

Z

EDC Nov 10

> Hi buddies,

> I am having a (repeat) C-Section scheduled on Thursday, August

26th.

> My whole issue is during my last office visit he tells me that I

am

> measuring smaller than I should.

> He decided to do another u/s (my 5th one) to check the Amitotic

fluid.

> He started asking questions like how much did my daughter weighted

> (9lbs3oz) and was she early or late (3weeks early) and then he

went

> through my file with the nurse but said nothing to me or my

husband

> to what was going on.

> My daughter was big and she was 3 weeks early from the EDD b/c of

> Toxemia.

> Not too much of a difference from this baby – This baby is

scheduled

> 3 weeks early on Aug 26th from the (REAL from my period) EDD of

Sept

> 13th.

> This Dr visit (he's almost ready to retire) he did measurements of

> the baby and told us that she was under weight and small for her

age

> at only 6 pounds.

> It made me cry b/c I have gained just as much with this pregnancy

as

> I did with my daughter (pre-WLS).

> I feel like I failed…that this baby is so small compared to my

> daughter.

> My Dr changed our due date to Sept 6th b/c she measured bigger

than

> normal.

> He said she may even be older but the average size comes to a week

> older in size.

> Last month during an u/s my daughter had a roll under her chin and

Dr

> laughed and said she's " big and healthy " .

> That's when he scheduled the C-Section b/c she was (still) big for

> her size.

> Or was it b/c of the WLS surgery…don't understand that b/c I

gained

> just as much.

> I have been going to my Dr's twice a week all this month b/c of me

> being high risk for Toxemia so the due date stays the same I can't

> push it back.

> I am so confused -- how can a Dr say she's measures bigger than

> normal -- big and healthy…Until the week before my surgery and say

> she's smaller and weights only 6 pounds?

> I only have 4 more days to find out if he is right or wrong but I

> can't stop thinking about why there would be such a big difference.

> Any one with ideas?

August 23, 2004

ita,

Every baby is so very different. If you had said that baby was 4 lb,

I would be more concerned, but 6 lb is a good size, sweetie...And,

it is just an estimate...Was everything okay with your fluid levels?

Was the baby active and moving in the u/s? Think about those things

and take things one step at a time, k? I know you are nervous and

worried but YOU HAVE NOT FAILED AT ANYTHING...okay?

Wishing you the very best on Thursday and hope you will keep us

posted!

Hugs,

Z

EDC Nov 10

> Hi buddies,

> I am having a (repeat) C-Section scheduled on Thursday, August

26th.

> My whole issue is during my last office visit he tells me that I

am

> measuring smaller than I should.

> He decided to do another u/s (my 5th one) to check the Amitotic

fluid.

> He started asking questions like how much did my daughter weighted

> (9lbs3oz) and was she early or late (3weeks early) and then he

went

> through my file with the nurse but said nothing to me or my

husband

> to what was going on.

> My daughter was big and she was 3 weeks early from the EDD b/c of

> Toxemia.

> Not too much of a difference from this baby – This baby is

scheduled

> 3 weeks early on Aug 26th from the (REAL from my period) EDD of

Sept

> 13th.

> This Dr visit (he's almost ready to retire) he did measurements of

> the baby and told us that she was under weight and small for her

age

> at only 6 pounds.

> It made me cry b/c I have gained just as much with this pregnancy

as

> I did with my daughter (pre-WLS).

> I feel like I failed…that this baby is so small compared to my

> daughter.

> My Dr changed our due date to Sept 6th b/c she measured bigger

than

> normal.

> He said she may even be older but the average size comes to a week

> older in size.

> Last month during an u/s my daughter had a roll under her chin and

Dr

> laughed and said she's " big and healthy " .

> That's when he scheduled the C-Section b/c she was (still) big for

> her size.

> Or was it b/c of the WLS surgery…don't understand that b/c I

gained

> just as much.

> I have been going to my Dr's twice a week all this month b/c of me

> being high risk for Toxemia so the due date stays the same I can't

> push it back.

> I am so confused -- how can a Dr say she's measures bigger than

> normal -- big and healthy…Until the week before my surgery and say

> she's smaller and weights only 6 pounds?

> I only have 4 more days to find out if he is right or wrong but I

> can't stop thinking about why there would be such a big difference.

> Any one with ideas?

August 24, 2004

Like another poster said, a six pound baby is not all that small... my babies

before RNY all weighed in at 5 1/2- 6 lbs and they were all very healthy and

had no problems whatsoever and are three of the healthiest girls I have ever

seen to this day. Just think of it this way.. your baby will stay a baby for

just a little longer than those mommies that have 9 pounders! I am sure that

there is nothing you did wrong.....Just relax and enjoy your new tiny bundle

because they sure dont stay small long!

Open RNY 11-15-2002

#4 Due 2-8-2005

August 24, 2004

Like another poster said, a six pound baby is not all that small... my babies

before RNY all weighed in at 5 1/2- 6 lbs and they were all very healthy and

had no problems whatsoever and are three of the healthiest girls I have ever

seen to this day. Just think of it this way.. your baby will stay a baby for

just a little longer than those mommies that have 9 pounders! I am sure that

there is nothing you did wrong.....Just relax and enjoy your new tiny bundle

because they sure dont stay small long!

Open RNY 11-15-2002

#4 Due 2-8-2005

August 24, 2004

ita,

If you really press these docs they will all admit that none of their

measurements and tests will be 100% accurate. I have heard from several women

who were told they were going to have huge babies and then end up popping out 6

pounders and vice versa. Also, keep in mind that if your baby girl is small,

maybe thats just the way she is supposed to be. My Hannah is small but she is

perfect and healthy in every way, alert and doing everything like she should.

What does your gut tell you? If I were you I would go with your instinct, Mom's

know their babies better than the docs, even when they are still in their

tummies.

Axelrod

C-Section on Thursday & measuring too small

Hi buddies,

I am having a (repeat) C-Section scheduled on Thursday, August 26th.

My whole issue is during my last office visit he tells me that I am

measuring smaller than I should.

He decided to do another u/s (my 5th one) to check the Amitotic fluid.

He started asking questions like how much did my daughter weighted

(9lbs3oz) and was she early or late (3weeks early) and then he went

through my file with the nurse but said nothing to me or my husband

to what was going on.

My daughter was big and she was 3 weeks early from the EDD b/c of

Toxemia.

Not too much of a difference from this baby - This baby is scheduled

3 weeks early on Aug 26th from the (REAL from my period) EDD of Sept

13th.

This Dr visit (he's almost ready to retire) he did measurements of

the baby and told us that she was under weight and small for her age

at only 6 pounds.

It made me cry b/c I have gained just as much with this pregnancy as

I did with my daughter (pre-WLS).

I feel like I failed.that this baby is so small compared to my

daughter.

My Dr changed our due date to Sept 6th b/c she measured bigger than

normal.

He said she may even be older but the average size comes to a week

older in size.

Last month during an u/s my daughter had a roll under her chin and Dr

laughed and said she's " big and healthy " .

That's when he scheduled the C-Section b/c she was (still) big for

her size.

Or was it b/c of the WLS surgery.don't understand that b/c I gained

just as much.

I have been going to my Dr's twice a week all this month b/c of me

being high risk for Toxemia so the due date stays the same I can't

push it back.

I am so confused -- how can a Dr say she's measures bigger than

normal -- big and healthy.Until the week before my surgery and say

she's smaller and weights only 6 pounds?

I only have 4 more days to find out if he is right or wrong but I

can't stop thinking about why there would be such a big difference.

Any one with ideas?

Children are a blessing, and a gift from the Lord. -Psalm 127:3

August 24, 2004