Re: FW: Need info on measurements.... Thanks for the percentile information!

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
• Next message: Cindy: "Re: FW: Need info on measurements.... Thanks for the"
• Previous message: Roberta: "OBGYN.net's Perimenopause/Menopause Special Section Update"
• In reply to: Christopher: "Re: FW: Need info on measurements...."
• Next in thread: anonymous@obgyn.net: "Re: Mid-wives (Child birth is normal!)"

Mars (and baby-to-be 2/10/00)

P.S. Oh, and BTW, that would mean Cameron's femur length is right on average for a 23 week fetus, and the other dimension which remains to be known for certain, is larger than normal. I wonder if this could actually be a kidney measurement, as you said earlier I believe that his kidneys were "swollen" or large? Though it doesn't sound like DiParietal or whatever that word was, would be a measurement for that. Hmm... I gotta look this up...Ok, got it in my Webster's: "In anatomy, of the parietes, or walls, of a hollow organ, cavity, cell, etc.; especially, designating either of the two bones between the frontal and occipital bones, forming part of the top and sides of the skull." AHA, I was right, its a head measurement. :-)

So, it would seem that overall your baby measures just over average (66%), but that the thigh is right at average and the head is quite a bit larger than average. As Karen wrote, to put it in perspective, if you were among 100 pregnant women at 23 weeks in a room, about 50 of the fetuses would have shorter thighs than yours and 50 have longer ones. But your baby would have a bigger head than 95 of the others. :-) I think this is right. Sounds right, doesn't it?

At Wed, 14 Jul 1999, Christopher wrote:

>Percentile works this way. The average fetus/baby/child is in the
>50%ile-half the population is higher and half is lower.The higher the
>percentile the larger the measurement in comparison to the average and the
>smaller the percentile the smaller the measurement in comparison to the
>average. Being in the 95% means that that measurement is larger then 95% of
>other babies at that gestation.
>
>For example: my daughter was 13#10oz at her 8 weeks visit which puts her in
>the 95th %ile. So say there were 100 8 week olds in a room, Grace would
>have been bigger then 95 of them....in a statistically perfect world:)
>
>Ask your doctor if you are concerned. Chances are that if there was
>anything to really worry about he/she would have said something already.
>PLEASE REMEMBER: ultrasound is NOT an exact science-accuracy of
>measurements depends upon the skill of the sonographer and the cooperation
>of the baby. Bring the paper with you to your next appt and ASK!! that is
>what you are paying them the big bucks for:)
>
>Karen-Mom to: Katie (6/3/93)
> Jack (9/30/94)
> Ian (12/19/96)
> Grace (3/26/99)

• Next message: Cindy: "Re: FW: Need info on measurements.... Thanks for the"
• Previous message: Roberta: "OBGYN.net's Perimenopause/Menopause Special Section Update"
• In reply to: Christopher: "Re: FW: Need info on measurements...."
• Next in thread: anonymous@obgyn.net: "Re: Mid-wives (Child birth is normal!)"