Parenting Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for parents, grandparents, nannies and others with a parenting role. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

My wife is 33w 5 days pregnent as per LMP. All her USG done till far except the last one which was done couple of days backed the USG fetal age was 1 week ahead of LMP. The last USG she wen't through showed the fetal age to be 2 weeks behind the LMP. Our doctor mentioned that this is not a good sign as this is indicating that the baby is not growing properly. So he was suggesting an early delivery within 37-38 wk. As far as I have researched I found that

  1. USG dating is more reliable in early pregnency when the proportional growth of all babies are consistent.
  2. At later pregency the USG dating is +- 2 weeks.
  3. Baby growth at later pregnency is not uniform.

So my question is

  1. Is it really a concern if USG fetal age is 2 weeks behind LMP fetal age?
  2. Is it enough reason to go for early delivery?
  3. Can the USG dating be wrong considering a 3 weeks prior scan showed the USG age to be 1 week ahead of LMP age.
  4. The weight of baby was estimated to be 1.7033 kg. Is it normal for 33 wk?

We are really worried and concerned. Even the doctor we are visiting is the best Gynacologist in our city.

share|improve this question

closed as off topic by Torben Gundtofte-Bruun Jan 2 '12 at 8:31

Questions on Parenting Stack Exchange are expected to relate to parenting within the scope defined by the community. Consider editing the question or leaving comments for improvement if you believe the question can be reworded to fit within the scope. Read more about reopening questions here.If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

I don't want to downvote this, as you're clearly worried, but this question requires significant editing. It's highly specific to your situation, so it's not good as a general question that other people can use. It's about a medical issue, which isn't ideal for this site, as the answer requires specialist knowledge. There's heavy use of TLA's (three letter acronyms), which makes the question harder to understand. – deworde Jan 1 '12 at 22:11
Also, the key part of the question is unclear, as it's hard to work out which ultrasound came first, the "2 weeks behind", or the "1 week ahead". That's the most important part of the question, and it's been buried amongst the bullet points. – deworde Jan 1 '12 at 22:17
I have closed this question because the focus of the question is pure medical advice, which is explicitly off-topic to this site as per our faq. The asker really needs to talk with another doctor. Deworde's answer is the best we can offer on this site. Don't believe the Internet -- believe a doctor you trust! – Torben Gundtofte-Bruun Jan 2 '12 at 8:33
up vote 4 down vote accepted

I would recommend asking for a second opinion from another doctor, rather than internet research. The facts you've found on the internet are pretty much general advice, whereas what your doctor says is taking into account your medical history.

For example, there are millions of potential complications that the standard internet advice won't take into account, from age to hereditary conditions.

Also, doctors generally won't raise concerns with parents unless there's something important that they need to make a decision about.

Nobody on here is as well equipped to advise you as your doctor, as this is a purely medical issue.

I would say that 2 weeks early isn't highly troubling, it may just be that they think it'll be safer to have your child under controlled observation, in case it's not getting the correct nutrients at this stage.

share|improve this answer

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.