OP here. Yes the baby is both 6 lbs and 9th percentile because apparently that's what 9th percentile is for 39 weeks.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How is the baby 6 pounds but 9th percentile?

You are confusing two different people.

No I'm not. OP updated above and said this baby is showing at around 6 pounds.

Anonymous wrote:How is the baby 6 pounds but 9th percentile?

You are confusing two different people.

How is the baby 6 pounds but 9th percentile?

OP here- to 17:14- sorry to hear about your experience. In my case however, there is no growth restriction. I was assured of that repeatedly. Although one of the criteria present for growth restriction is that it's below the 10th percentile, there are also a host of other issues with growth restriction that I don't have- and the baby is , according to ultrasound, around 6 lbs. So again- no growth restriction- so not sure what the benefit to induction is.

Had almost the same thing happen to me as 16:25. Was induced, baby is healthy and was almost 2 lbs larger than was measuring on sonogram. The experience scared the daylights out of me though...

OP, I also have a small baby, who fell below the 10th percentile at 32 weeks, and I also am having no problems with the cord, placenta, etc. (The slow growth is most likely due to a heart defect the baby has). So I now know more about growth restriction and small for gestational age than I ever wanted to!

IUGR is just defined, technically, as any baby below the 10th percentile. And the standard of care for IUGR is to induce, because looking at straight statistics, IUGR babies don't do as well during natural labor or after 39 weeks.

In fact, most IUGR cases they recommend inducing at 37 weeks. Now, from everything I've learned from all the high risk doctors that have entered my life and my own research, most of that is true of IUGR caused by placental problems (cord blood flow, low amniotic fluid, etc). Not the sort of idiopathic growth restriction it sounds like you have. My doctor is willing to let me keep going as long as the baby is progressing (in actual growth, not just percentiles) and doesn't seem in distress. If you want a second opinion, I'd go see a maternal fetal medicine (MFM) specialist - they're really the experts in this sort of thing.

But just a note of clarification, there is such a thing as symmetrical growth restriction, and it's actually often worse than asymetrical growth restriction.

16:25 here. She was 6 lb, 3 oz, which is small, but not as small as they had told me she might be. The placenta was fine, her apgars were fine, and she is super healthy. She has remained around the 10th and 20th growth percentile since then. She is also the most easy going, happy, sweet baby I have ever met. I had severe pre-e with a previous pregnancy, and they were concerned that her growth issues might be related somehow - but I was never diagnosed with it this time, and there is no clear link.

16:25, if you don't mind me asking, how big was your daughter when she was born? Was your doctor able to diagnose anything after seeing the state of the placenta or pediatrician after seeing your baby?

OP here. 9th percentile is not growth restricted because the baby has been measuring small the whole time, and I am a small person- 5'2 and usually 110 lbs when not pregnant. Growth restriction is when there is assymetric growth- meaning abdomen small and head large, or when the baby has been measuring larger all along and drops in percentile. The placenta and umbilical cord look fine. So- no growth restriction that we know of.

Anyway, given that- not sure why the talk of induction?

I went through something kind of similar. My baby was measured at the 50th percentile at her 20 week ultrasound. I had to have regular ultrasounds because of another issue, and got concerned as I watched her percentile go down - 40th, then 30th, then 20th and 10th. When we hit the 4th percentile at about 36 weeks, the doc was concerned too. Being in a low percentile isn't a bad thing alone, but it's unusual for a child's growth in utero not to continue at a regular pace, I guess. I was induced at 39 weeks in large part because the doc thought that the baby might grow better outside the womb than inside. (That's a sucky thing to hear!) She was born small but heathy, and is now 9 months old and small but 100% healthy. My husband is 6' 3" and I'm 5' 7" so it's odd that we'd have a small baby (our other two kids aren't), but she is a perfect, happy little munchkin. Hope that my story is helpful somehow, and I wish you and your baby all the best.

Anonymous wrote:How certain are you of your dates? I'd think you'd want to cook a small baby LONGER... also late US size estimates are notoriously inaccurate.

I agree that estimates are off but if the baby is small due to placental insufficiency you don't want to cook the baby longer, you want the baby out so it can get nutrients directly.

Why isn't 9% growth restricted?

How certain are you of your dates? I'd think you'd want to cook a small baby LONGER... also late US size estimates are notoriously inaccurate.

9th percentile and no growth restriction? That seems a little odd. Does your OB have any ideas of what might be causing this?

Hello,

Im at 39 weeks and my dr mentioned today that he would induce me if I didn't give birth by my due date because the baby is at the 9th percentile- there is no growth restriction or anything, he says the baby is probably healthy, so I'm not really understanding why an induction would be needed- has anyone ever heard of this before or had this happen to them? Any information would be much appreciated.....