IUGR / Small for Dates babies

Rowan was an IUGR baby but only just (born 2.5kg at 38 weeks). We were not allowed to stop waking her every 3 hours for feeds until she hit the 3kg mark. Then we were able to demand feed at night but still had to do 3 hourly in the day.

But as I say she wasn't THAT small by comparison to other IUGR babies so there wasn't a lot of monitoring or intervention.

A rambling way to say that I think it may go by weight?

Jack was IUGR, but luckily had a growth spurt (stopped cutting off his umbilical cord silly boy!) at about 39 weeks, so was eventually born 40w3d at 3.48kg. He dropped from the 75th% to 35th% in 7 weeks, and just kept dropping. They were meant to induce at 37, 38, 39, 40w but the hospital was far too busy to worry about a baby that was being deprived

I think they go by weight. We had to do 3-hourly feeds and demand feeding until he could drink 120ml at most of his feeds (was about a month old). He's still not growing fast, would have grown faster if he got out early but his tummy which was 4 weeks behind still has some catching up to do He's getting there though.

My cousin is oz had twins just 2 weeks after me and there was about a lb difference in size so she was induced. Apparently its quite common for twins?

Aoife's doing so well! You must be stoked!

Liam was born 6 days early weighing 5lb 1oz (2.3kg). It was only when I was at home reading over my hospital discharge papers that I saw they had IUGR written on them.

No one ever mentioned to me that I had to do anything differently due to his small size (my MW wasn't the most helpful after I gave birth though). But Liam has absolutely thrived since birth & has gained weight since day 1. He's now in the 50th weight percentile, up from the 3rd percentile at birth.

I too would say they'll keep monitoring until she reaches a specific weight. Her weight is comparable to a newborn who would definitely be waking up overnight for food. So it sounds to me that you're doing the right thing for her.

I was thinking that very thing

Rowan's still small - around 5 1/2 kg and 58cms. She looks like a chub though.

Speaking of which - I better get her weighed and measured again. I just realised it's almost been a month since I did it last (hence the estimates)

Intra- Uterine Growth Retardation (I think). It means the baby isn't growing properly in the womb.

Oh and I meant to say before - they're all the Dec babies because they were being considerate and getting out so the mummies could have New Year's drinks

Edited by Bobbie

Your doing a fabulous job Tishy! I really dont think I would cope with two. You are a

Just took Rowan into plunket today 5.56kg and 58 1/2 cms so my estimates above were almost bang on!

I think its the rate of growth that we as mothers are more concerned about, like you said. While most babies are classed as IUGR/SFD if they are a certain size, there are others (like Jack) who were a normal size yet were IUGR. I was just lucky (or unlucky because of the stress) that the growth was monitored so I knew why he wasn't growing so fast. My boy's still in the 35th% but is growing at a steady rate so the nurse isn't worried.

I think you're doing such an amazing job Tishy. I fully commend parents of twins - I have 2 cousins that have twins and see some of what its like - you guys must be amazing at multi-tasking lol!

My mum and my gran both had small babies. Rowan was doing fine up until the end when suddenly the bloodflow through the umbilical cord dropped and she was at the bottom of the percentile range.

I reckon that probably it's a hereditary thing in our family and just wasn't picked up in previous generations. So yep I think Rowan's sibling will probably be small as well.

But I have no idea if there's any scientific evidence.