My first was 8lbs 14oz, much easier to birth than her smaller sister. Fat squishes and gravity helped her out.

"Babies who are very large (macrosomic - over 4500 g) can sometimes have difficult and, occasionally, traumatic births. One suggestion to try to reduce this trauma and to reduce operative births has been to induce labour before the baby grows too big. However, the estimation of the baby's weight in utero is difficult and not very accurate. Clinical estimations are based on feeling the uterus and measuring the height of the fundus of the uterus, and both are subject to considerable variation. Ultrasound scanning is also not accurate. Induction, if undertaken too early, can lead to babies being born prematurely and with immature organs. The review of trials, assessing induction of women when it was suspected that their baby was above 4 kg, found three trials involving 372 women, none of them with diabetes. There was no evidence of any benefit in terms of caesarean section or instrumental births, or in outcomes for the baby. However, these studies were too small to be sure of the outcomes. Further research is in progress."

The results section of the Cochrane Review also states:

"Perinatal morbidity was not statistically different between groups (shoulder dystocia)."



2) In the Archives of Gynecology & Obstetrics, September 2008. Sadeh-Mestechkin, Walfisch, Shachar, Shoham-Vardi, Vardi & Hallak, in their study entitled "Suspected macrosomia? Better not tell" noted that:

"Our ability to predict macrosomia is poor. Our management policy of suspected macrosomic pregnancies raises induction of labor and cesarean delivery rates without improving maternal or fetal outcome."


3) In 1994, in The Chinese Medical Journal, Yan, Chang & Yin, in their article "Elective cesarean section for macrosomia?" studying the births of 207 macrosomic babies concluded that:

"Elective Cesarean section on macrosomic infants to prevent dystocia is not recommended because most of them can be delivered vaginally."



4) In 2000, in the European Journal of Obstetrics, Gynecology & Reproductive Biology, Mocanu, Greene, Byrne & Turner studied the births of 828 macrosomic babies born over a 5yr period in their report entitled "Obstetric and neonatal outcome of babies weighing more than 4.5 kg: an analysis by parity" they concluded that:

"The poor antenatal predictability of macrosomia, the high rate of vaginal delivery and the low incidence of shoulder dystocia would not support the use of elective caesarean section for delivery of the macrosomic infant either in primigravidae * or multigravidae."

* Editor's Note: Primigravidae = First Time Mother, Multigravidae = Second or More time mother.


5) In april 1995 in Obstetric Gynecology in their research "The outcome of macrosomic infants weighing at least 4500 grams: Los Angeles County + University of Southern California experience" looking at 227 births of macrosomic babies, Lipscomb, Gregory & Shaw noted that:

"Vaginal delivery is a reasonable alternative to elective cesarean for infants with estimated birth weights of at least 4500 g, and a trial of labor can be offered.".


6) In 2006 in the American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology, Chauhan, Grobman, Gherman, Chauhan, Chang, Magann and Hendrix reviewed the evidence for performing an elective ceasarean or an induction for suspected macrosomia, in their article "Suspicion and treatment of the macrosomic fetus: a review." they noted that:

"Due to the inaccuracies, among uncomplicated pregnancies suspicion of macrosomia is not an indication for induction or for primary cesarean delivery."


7) In 1996, Rouse, Owen, Goldenberg, Cliver, in "The effectiveness and costs of elective cesarean delivery for fetal macrosomia diagnosed by ultrasound" published in JAMA 1996. estimated that

"to prevent one case of permanent brachial plexus injury, 3,700 women with an estimated fetal weight of 4,500 g would need to have an elective cesarean section for suspected macrosomia at a cost of $8.7 million per case prevented."

if you've read enough of these threads you will have seen that ultrasound estimates of weight are often notoriously off, AND that many women give birth vaginally to bigger babies. i know of 3 women lately who gave birth vaginally to 10+ pound babies. even if your baby is that big (and your baby may not actually be), you can still give birth to your baby.

it makes me mad how many practices are telling women their babies are going to be "big". the only sure result of it is making women feel freaked out and like they aren't going to give birth to their babies. lots of things happen during labor to make way for your baby to come out.

do your research. learn about the risks and benefits of induction. for a first birth, an induction doubles your chance of cesarean. you can always refuse if you don't want to be induced. i would at the very least find out your bishop score before being induced to make sure it is favorable. if you are having bloody show that is encouraging.

also for a bigger baby some believe that they may find it easier to make their way out if you are able to be mobile and change positions, etc. if you have an epidural or are induced and attached to a zillion machines this might be more difficult.

check this out:
http://www.pregnancybirthandbabies.com/Big_baby.htm

good luck to you.

i was just told today im having a 10 pound baby im 8 days overdue & freaking out! this is my first baby! ive only gained about 50 pounds im so confused! im being induced in 2 days. im having bloody show right now could this mean im going into labor? that would be nice instead of inducing with drugs

I would induce early if you can. They told me the same thing and I went a week past my due date and my baby ended up being 11 pounds. Had to have a c-section because his head never came down. Anyway, if you can, get induced early. I was so uncomfortable that last week. I could barely walk.

Was told at 37 week ultrasound that baby was already almost 8 lbs. DS was born 5 days later at 6 lbs, 8 oz....ummm...off by much?

Don't worry.

They told me the same thing....Guess what!!! They was right my son was 9lbs 15oz 23in long!!!

I was told that my first child was 5 pounds at 29 weeks - she was born at 34 and some days weighing 3lbs 13 oz - they can be wrong

Hi. I'm a mom of two boys...first was 9lb, 15 oz, the second was 10lb 3oz. Both vaginal deliveries...first one no episiodomy, yes with the second. Healed just fine. I'm convinced that the size of my big babies had the benefit of making them better sleepers (even if that's not true!). Plus, ultrasounds can't tell you everything. Hang in there and congrats! Great news.

Anonymous wrote:After being told I was measuring small, my 9 pounder made it through just fine. Her shoulders did get a little stuck and the Dr. gave me an episiotomy, however the tear wasn't that bad and it healed perfectly. All that said, I've been induced both times (for other reasons) and have had no regrets whatsoever.

I wonder why doctors and technicians even bother to estimate baby size, because it seems they are off (by at least 2 lbs) just as often as they are semi-accurate. I was told around 35 or 36 weeks that my baby was already 7.5 lbs, and when I gave birth one day late, he was 7lbs, 4 ounces. He either lost weight in the last month, or they were VERY off. DO NOT WORRY!

After being told I was measuring small, my 9 pounder made it through just fine. Her shoulders did get a little stuck and the Dr. gave me an episiotomy, however the tear wasn't that bad and it healed perfectly. All that said, I've been induced both times (for other reasons) and have had no regrets whatsoever.

Anonymous wrote:My USound was reliable. They predicted a big baby and I had a big baby. They saw the cord was around her neck and it was around her neck and causing distress. Once again, I am blown away by the rejection to the advances in modern medicine that have time and time again saved many women and babies lives. I dont regret my USound predictions or my Csection. In fact, I celebrate them today---Happy Mother's Day.

Even a broken clock is right twice a day.

My mom was not a large woman (5'4") and she had three of my dad's giant 9.5 lb babies. She was fine. There's a possibility your baby won't be that big, and even if he/she is, it doesn't mean it'll be worse than having an 8-pounder. (let's face it, the biggest part is the head. the baby's head might not be larger than that of your first child.) You're going to be fine - good luck! (My daughter was 8 lbs, heavier than most of my friends' babies, but I didn't feel like my labor was any worse than theirs.)

One of the PP's here. My sister had a 10 lb baby. She was (and is again, b*tch) 5'2" and a size 2!!!!!!!!! No epidural, long labor, she had on the small end of a 2nd degree tear and her recovery was just fine. I am 5'7, also was a size 2 (not anymore ) had a 6.5 lb baby, short labor, and also had a 2nd degree tear, though I actually had more stitches than her. We are both in great athletic shape, and both of our doctors told us we'd have big babies based on ultrasounds. So funny -- hers was right, mine was wrong. Her doc pushed a c-section, so she fired him and hired a midwife.

We both had natural, drug free childbirths. I was there for hers, and was amazed that, pushing out a 10 lb baby didn't seem much harder for her than pushing out my pipsqueak.

Moral of the story? It is more than possible for narrow, little women to give birth to a healthy baby and stay in good shape "down there." Sis claims that going natural (which she's the least "crunchy person I know" was what saved her tears -- she just switched position a lot and her midwife did a great job of supporting her perennium.