Mothering › Forums › Pregnancy and Birth › Birth and Beyond › Cord blood banking vs. delayed cord clamping.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Cord blood banking vs. delayed cord clamping. - Page 2

post #21 of 23

When to clamp the cord has been a controversy since I was a young mom. Research continues to show that delaying cord clamping benefits the baby. Waiting allows more umbilical cord blood volume transfer and can even help prevent anemia. Here's a recent study from South Florida's Center of Excellence for Aging and Brain Repair.

 

I like to look at the results from the Cochrane Reviews as they review and summarize research all over the world: "This review of 11 trials showed no significant difference in postpartum haemorrhage rates when early and late cord clamping were compared. For neonatal outcomes it is important to weigh the growing evidence that delayed cord clamping confers improved iron status in infants up to six months after birth, with a possible additional risk of jaundice that requires phototherapy."

 

For some families, delaying cutting the cord has spiritual significance and is called Lotus Birth, first popularized by Jeannine Parvati Baker. According to Sarah Buckley, "Lotus birth is the practice of leaving the umbilical cord uncut, so that the baby remains attached to his/her placenta until the cord naturally separates at the umbilicus...at 3 to 10 days after birth." Sarah writes about Lotus Birth in one of our most popular articles: "Ecstatic Birth," first published in Mothering Magazine in 2002. 

 

Lotus Birth is a topic of frequent conversation on MDC. Here's the most recent thread.

post #22 of 23
I also researched this a lot and waited till the cord stopped pulsing and then collected. Our midwife said she would try to get enough of a collection but couldn't guarantee it.
The directions in my kit specifically said to wait and then gave an end time as before the placenta was birthed. It even had procedure for sections. We waited at least 10 minutes.

It would be interesting to see what the composition of collections are w delayed vs immediate.

Jessica
post #23 of 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by jessjgh1 View Post

I also researched this a lot and waited till the cord stopped pulsing and then collected. Our midwife said she would try to get enough of a collection but couldn't guarantee it.
The directions in my kit specifically said to wait and then gave an end time as before the placenta was birthed. It even had procedure for sections. We waited at least 10 minutes.

It would be interesting to see what the composition of collections are w delayed vs immediate.

Jessica


I would be interested in this too... from what I understand though ten minutes is an average time until the cord stops pulsating and it could be as long as 15 or 20 minutes... in any case, the required collection amount is probably different if you want to bank the blood for your family vs. donating it for research, which is what I was inquiring about when I called around to ask. Also, I just read an interesting article that explores both sides to delayed vs. immediate cord clamping: http://www.womenshealthforyou.com/2011/04/wait-till-cord-stops-pulsing.html Not that I'm changing my mind or anything, but it was interesting to hear an argument for immediate cord clamping... still doesn't make sense to me though.

 

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Birth and Beyond
Mothering › Forums › Pregnancy and Birth › Birth and Beyond › Cord blood banking vs. delayed cord clamping.