Marianne, thank you so much! This is most useful information. The point
about the head circ is that the original measurement was (33.5) at birth,
and the measurement I made was at 8 days (34cm). This indicates an increase
of .5cm in a week. As your data indicate that growth of 2cm in a month is
normal, then that concern, at least, I can set aside. I had, however,
arranged to talk to one of the paeds about the appearance of the cranium,
and if people are interested, will post the outcome of that consultation.
Lesley
----------
> From: [log in to unmask]
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Cc: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Anterior fontanelles
> Date: Thursday, December 16, 1999 21:08
>
> > Can anyone say whether a very wide anterior fontanelle in a 39+ week
baby,
> > born following iol for (obvious) IUGR is significant in any way? The
> > fontanelle doesn't bulge, and isn't tight, but there are huge gaps
along
> > the suture lines. The head circumference is 34cm, .5 cm larger than at
> > birth, but I suspect that all these measurements are inexact. Info
> > gratefully appreciated.
> >
>
> Without seeing the baby and without knowing the gestational age at birth
and
> therefore the number of days that this head circumference took to
increase by
> .5 cm, it is difficult to make a judgement.
>
> However this information may be helpful. I have selected the mean head
> circumferences of babies borns between 33 and 43 weeks of gestation in a
> series of 10443 babies born in 1994. I don't suppose head circumferences
> will have changed that much since! 34 cm seems bang on for 39+ weeks if
the
> pregnancy was to be concluded at that gestational age.
>
> HEAD CIRCUMFERENCE AT BIRTH
> GESTATIONAL AGE AT BIRTH Mean N Std. Deviation
> 33 27.667 15 11.859
> 34 29.184 31 7.904
> 35 32.698 49 1.426
> 36 32.667 165 3.914
> 37 33.498 522 2.926
> 38 33.872 1501 2.766
> 39 33.906 2276 3.685
> 40 34.238 3408 3.731
> 41 34.778 2055 3.269
> 42 34.685 370 4.301
> 43 35.400 10 1.125
> Total 34.100 10443 3.709
>
> However you suggest that the measurement may be inaccurate and that it is
> very true. I have again taken the frequency by measurement as identified
and
> although you ought to have a near perfect normal distribution, some
decimal
> points are far more common than others. I have only taken the
measurements
> betwee 33 and 35 cm to demonstrate the inaccuracy.
>
> HEAD CIRCUMFERENCE Frequency
> 33.0 1140
> 33.2 9
> 33.3 8
> 33.4 7
> 33.5 726
> 33.6 1
> 33.7 9
> 33.8 4
> 34.0 1886
> 34.1 1
> 34.2 10
> 34.3 10
> 34.4 12
> 34.5 943
> 34.6 4
> 34.7 9
> 34.8 5
> 35.0 1729
>
> I hope that this information may be useful, or at least informative. But
if
> the midwife is concerned not so much with the circumference but with the
> appearance of the cranium itself, I would suggest referring the baby to a
> paediatrician.
>
>
> Marianne Mead
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|