Early induction due to predicted baby weight

[Anonymous]

Those "guesstimates" of baby weight at the end are notoriously off. I went in for a growth scan with my 3rd because my first was 9.5lbs and they estimated that baby weighed 6.5lbs at 37 weeks. Seemed low (especially given how big my belly was) but sure that was the estimated size. Gave birth exactly one week later and the baby was 8lb10oz. SUPER BIG DIFFERENCE!! His head was so far down in my pelvis they couldn't get a good measurement. If I had made it to 41 weeks (like my first) he would have been closer to 11lbs.

[Anonymous]

My first they freaked me out over size telling me how big they thought the baby was. My sister had an 11 plus lb baby (lay) and I was worried. Baby born on due date at 8.8, and was also very long.
2nd they started earlier with the “baby is so bog” routine.
Born at due date, 7.6.
I’m five feet tall. They were basing this on Dundalk height and the baby didn’t drop, making the fundal height larger for longer (something like that, it’s been almost a decade at this point).
Even ultrasound measurements can be off for size estimates.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'd push back on this and stay firm. Unless your health is impacted, ie your blood pressure is going up, or the baby's health is impacted, there's no need for an induction because of predicted birth weight.

These predictors for birth weight are notoriously wrong. Also, you are much more likely to have to have a c-section if the induction stalls. A c-section, while very common, is major surgery.

This, all the way.

If you care about evidence based maternal medicine (vs. fear based), "big baby" is not a reason alone for early induction.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I’m another “their measurements weren’t close” but in the other direction. My “might need NICU too small!” baby was born 6lbs 12oz. So while the measurements are notoriously wrong...they’re not only wrong in the direction you’re thinking in this case.

Induction at 39 weeks actually has the lowest risk of c-section, even as compared to spontaneous labor, so I would not let a c-section risk by itself deter you.

https://www.nih.gov/news-events/news-releases/induced-labor-39-weeks-may-reduce-likelihood-c-section-nih-study-suggests

From your own article "a difference that was not statistically significant."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m another “their measurements weren’t close” but in the other direction. My “might need NICU too small!” baby was born 6lbs 12oz. So while the measurements are notoriously wrong...they’re not only wrong in the direction you’re thinking in this case.

Induction at 39 weeks actually has the lowest risk of c-section, even as compared to spontaneous labor, so I would not let a c-section risk by itself deter you.

https://www.nih.gov/news-events/news-releases/induced-labor-39-weeks-may-reduce-likelihood-c-section-nih-study-suggests

From your own article "a difference that was not statistically significant."

It’s the very next sentence:

“However, the proportion of cesarean delivery was significantly lower for the induced group (18.6 percent), compared to the other group (22.2 percent).”

I’m an evidence based medicine proponent and this is...evidence.

[Anonymous]

They did this for my second baby. First baby was 8'11 at 41 weeks. Second baby was 8'9 at 39 weeks. I felt like it was a good decision. They were worried he would be much larger but 39 weeks was the earliest they would induce for just weight.

[Anonymous]

Both of mine were overdue and had extra scans right around the due date. Both were estimated around 9 lbs. The first was just under 8 and the second was 10.5

I remember the estimates get less reliable the closer you are to 40 weeks because of the head position, but I don't know how reliable 36 weeks may be. Probably better than mine a day or so before each was born.

I induced the first at 40w1d and it was not a good experience so I asked to hold out a little longer with the second (expecting to have a similar sized baby). I went into labor overnight right before I was scheduled for an induction at 40w5d. The labor/delivery experience better, however, there were issues for the baby and me due to size.

Doctors told me they would never have me go 40w again if I had more kids. In my case "prediction of big baby" would be based on previously very big baby and measurements.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I might split the difference and induce at 40 weeks this time. By 41 weeks, the baby would probably be quite big but 40 would still be manageable.

How big are you, OP? Different answer if you’re really petite.

+1

I had to get induced past 41 weeks because the baby was 9lbs. If I had the baby at 40 weeks, baby would have been the normal range at about 7.5 to 8lbs.

My second baby was induced at 39 weeks due to gestational diabetes, and the baby was close to 8lbs already.

I grow them big, and I'm super petite. No, I didn't gain a huge amount of weight. I actually had to be on a strict diet and exercise due to the gestational diabetes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I might split the difference and induce at 40 weeks this time. By 41 weeks, the baby would probably be quite big but 40 would still be manageable.

How big are you, OP? Different answer if you’re really petite.

+1

I had to get induced past 41 weeks because the baby was 9lbs. If I had the baby at 40 weeks, baby would have been the normal range at about 7.5 to 8lbs.

My second baby was induced at 39 weeks due to gestational diabetes, and the baby was close to 8lbs already.

I grow them big, and I'm super petite. No, I didn't gain a huge amount of weight. I actually had to be on a strict diet and exercise due to the gestational diabetes.

Sorry, but no. Your fetus did not gain a pound and a half in the last week.

[Anonymous]

Here's the thing - this is your third kid. So you've got a bunch of data from the first two - namely that 1) so far, your body doesn't go into labor on its own in a timely manner. You've already had to be induced both times - chances are you're going to be induced again. 2) Can you look back at your records and see if your measurements from your previous babies were roughly accurate? It would seem (I'm totally guessing here) that that's relevant because things like the shape/position of your uterus probably impact those measurements.

I guess if I thought the baby was going to be bigger than my others, and I knew I'd probably have to be induced ANYWAY, I don't see a big downside to a 39 week induction.

[Anonymous]

I know someone who at 36 weeks the baby was measuring large.. close to 9lbs. They induced at 37 weeks because of this, baby was OVER 10lbs and so unstable it had to go to NICU. Imagine if mom had "pushed back firm" and she went to 38-40 weeks. Jeez.

[Anonymous]

As someone with an almost identical medical history, omg I would never turn down a 39 week induction. Sweet relief

[Anonymous]

How old are you? I was induced with my 2nd but only because I was 41 y/o. Induction because of size is totally BS, as long as you don't go over 40 weeks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:How old are you? I was induced with my 2nd but only because I was 41 y/o. Induction because of size is totally BS, as long as you don't go over 40 weeks.

Going past 40 weeks is ok actually. Its after 41 weeks when issues can arise.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:As someone with an almost identical medical history, omg I would never turn down a 39 week induction. Sweet relief

++