PREGNANCY-BIRTH Messages for July, 2000: Re: Accuracy of 36 week ultrasound for estimated fetal wt/head circumference

search:

Re: Accuracy of 36 week ultrasound for estimated fetal wt/head circumference

From: RareEndo (anonymous@obgyn.net)
Wed, 19 Jul 2000 16:42:57 -0500 (CDT)

Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
Next message: jeanette: "bloodclot behind placenta"
Previous message: Jennifer: "What is the quickest?"
In reply to: Harvey S. Marchbein, M.D.: "Re: Accuracy of 36 week ultrasound for estimated fetal wt/head circumference"

At Sat, 1 Jul 2000, Harvey S. Marchbein, M.D. wrote: >
>At Sat, 1 Jul 2000, Lisa wrote:
>>
>>I had an ultrasound yesterday at 36 weeks to assess fetal size. My
>>first ds was born via csection after 17 hours of labor including 2 of
>>pushing. I had decided that if they said this baby was less than 7 lbs
>>right now I would go for a vbac, over 7 1/2 and I would keep my
>>scheduled csection and the grey area inbetween I would decide about
>>later! Their estimate was 6lbs 13 oz which I realize can be off by a
>>pound or so in either direction
>
>10-15% variability.
>
>>however his head circumference was at
>>39.2 weeks. My first ds weighed 9lbs 9 oz at 41 weeks and his head was
>>huge.
>>
>>Anyway, does anyone know the accuracy of measuring head circumference by
>>ultrasound at this point in pregnancy?
>
>Head measurements are just that. they can't necessarily predict
>problems with delivery, as evidenced by recent papers indicating
>sonography as being less reliable than previously thought with respect
>to choosing C/S vs. VBAC.
>
>>Thanks in advance!
>>
>>--
>>Lisa
>>
>--
>Harvey S. Marchbein, M.D. FACOG, FACS
>Great Neck, New York
>
>**Note: Opinions expressed here are for educational purposes only
>and, as such, do not constitute a physician-patient relationship.
>This information is not intended to supplant the need for you to
>consult with your physician prior to choosing therapeutic options
>and/or interventions.
>
>**Private emails cannot be entertained due to time constraints,
>consequently no private emails will receive a response.
>
>**Thank you for your understanding ;-)

Hi Lisa,

I just wanted to add that my u/s and estimate for fetal size were right on the money.... I was assesed at 36,38 and 39 weeks. At 36 weeks they estimated that the baby was over 8 lbs but thought the large amount of amniotic fluid may have came into play. At 39 weeks they could not measure with the machine everything would just say over 10lbs. They use something I recall being Leopolds Method or Menuever... Ask about that and just so you no my son was born 10lbs and 1oz.... LOL nice try but this women was not going to attempt a VBAC.....(although I wanted to in the worst way, my daughter wouldn't drop at 7lbs 11oz first section was due to PROM and cephalopelvic disproportion....)

Best Wishes and Congrats Jessica

Next message: jeanette: "bloodclot behind placenta"
Previous message: Jennifer: "What is the quickest?"
In reply to: Harvey S. Marchbein, M.D.: "Re: Accuracy of 36 week ultrasound for estimated fetal wt/head circumference"

recommended search...

OBGYN.net forums endometriosis zone Web

use when must restrict search to only the pregnancy & birth forum...
Enter search keywords:
Returns per screen: Require all keywords:

Return to Report TECHNICAL Problems ONLY to: webmaster@obgyn.net
Last Updated: Thu Jun 18 13:38:40 2009

Women's Insurance Checklist from Auto Insurance Quote