Can you even go into labour if your baby is posterior and not engaged?

[Boot]

I'm 40+1 weeks. As of yesterday, the baby was still not properly in my pelvis and had turned posterior. I am 3cm and very soft (but the midwives stretched me to 3cm and I had been using epo). The midwife said that the reason I was not yet in labour was because of the position. She has me on a course of pulsitilla (sp?). I am attempting a vbac. First baby never engaged in the pelvis although I got to 7cm during labour but then he got stuck.

I'm trying to help the baby turn with my own positioning and exercises but I'm starting to despair that I will go into labour unless I can get the head to engage. Has anyone been in my position and had labour start spontaneously and the baby turn and engage during labour?

I feel crampy and have regular braxton hicks but no contractions. I just feel like it's never going to happen and the longer I go past dates the bigger the baby gets and the less likely I am to get my vbac.

If anyone has any position stories or worlds of encouragement that would really help. tia

[BtotheG]

My dd wasn't completely posterior - she was facing to the side and slightly forward, but she definitely wasn't engaged prior to the start of labor. I had one cervical check at 36 weeks, and I was 1cm dilated at that point.

Labor started on my EDD. I had some light random contractions in the morning, and then my water broke in the early evening. Contractions became regular after my water broke, but they weren't very strong and they stayed 5 minutes apart. The two things that got my labor going were 1) Power walking - and I mean arm-pumping, sweat-inducing, power walking through my neighborhood, and 2) laboring standing up with my hands on my knees and leaning forward. The walking got my contractions going, and once they were strong enough, I figured out what position I needed to be in to get her turned (based on what felt most comfortable).

My labor was 7 hours total from my water breaking to delivery. Nothing much happened for the first six hours, but after walking and laboring in the forward leaning position, I felt her turn, then engage, and once that happened she came quickly - so quickly she arrived before the midwives.

So IME, baby doesn't haven't to be OA or engaged for labor to start. And for me, walking and trying different positions worked to get her turned and engaged.

I don't have experience with VBAC (this was my first baby) but I wouldn't despair! It's totally possible you will go into labor even without your baby engaged. Will you have freedom of movement to labor and deliver?

[34me]

My water broke at 4am on my EDD and she was not engaged. Found out while I was pushing that she was posterior too . Labor was 12 hours but it was really only "hard labor" for about an hour. It was consistant the whole was through though.

[limette]

Yup. Both my kids were posterior and not engaged until well in to labor. Both due date babies.

[SusieRain]

My first was posterior and very high at the start of labor. I was only 1-2 cm dilated and not completely effaced. I started laboring on the eve before his due date. He was born on his due date (just barely).

It was a LONG labor of 27 hours, but that was inflated by the fact that I was TOLD when to start pushing and it caused my cervix to swell. So, then I had to stop and wait for a while (hours) until the swelling went down and then I FINALLY had an unstoppable urge to push and he was born within 30 minutes.

[lunita1]

My second daughter was born posterior, and didn't engage until AFTER I had started pushing. Definitely possible.

[arianascrunchymama]

My DD engaged early- like 34 weeks early. But she was full on posterior when labor begun and born 35 hours later still posterior with her brow presenting. I was 50% effaced and 2cm dilated at 36 weeks and started prodromal labor at 36w6d (she was born at 37w2d) I think "poor" presentation causes prodromal labor in a lot of women. It's your body's way of trying to help you get the baby into a better position, IMO.

[Luvmykiddos03]

Originally Posted by arianascrunchymama

My DD engaged early- like 34 weeks early. But she was full on posterior when labor begun and born 35 hours later still posterior with her brow presenting. I was 50% effaced and 2cm dilated at 36 weeks and started prodromal labor at 36w6d (she was born at 37w2d) I think "poor" presentation causes prodromal labor in a lot of women. It's your body's way of trying to help you get the baby into a better position, IMO.

I believe that's true...at least in my case...because both my posterior babies were accompanied by prodromal labor, while my anterior babies were not.

Anyways-yes, it's possible. Had a posterior baby UHBAC! Mine engaged, then came out, and engaged again several times before birth. Definitely engaged when labor started. I didn't know he was posterior until he was born, but the back labor was very familiar to my first posterior baby, so I definitely had a feeling he was. (I've had both posterior and anterior babies...there is definitely a difference!) Needless to say, I did as my body commanded of me, and out he came without a problem!

Babies will come out! I assure you that! I think some midwives don't trust birth as much as they claim.

[at_the_hip]

Yes...very possible!! 2 of my 4 girls were born posterior!

[emnic77]

Yep, my DS was not engaged until labor started and he was also posterior.
My midwife did suggest belly binding as a way to pull him more upright in my abdomen and get his head to put more direct pressure on my cervix...no idea if it worked or not, I went into labor at 41 weeks and 1 day, so it could just be coincidental.

[Boot]

Thanks everyone. I feel better knowing it's possible. It's just so hard to be trusting of the process when you've already had a c section. I'm trying my best to relax and let nature take it's course. I'll let you know what happens.

[Plummeting]

Absolutely! DD was born at 38 weeks, sunny side up, about 24 hours after a midwife appt at which I was 0% effaced, 0 cm dilated and she was at a -3 or -4 station (I don't remember which). All signs pointed so far from me going into labor soon that my midwife commented on how it would be fine for her to leave for her mini-vacation the next morning, since I didn't look like I'd be going into labor any time soon. Fortunately my water broke (before contrax started) at 2:30 in the morning, so at least it happened before she left town.

[Boot]

Phew! Today the midwife says the baby is engaged and facing sideways. She says it will happen this weekend. Fingers crossed and thanks for the good stories.

[wbg]

Originally Posted by Boot

Phew! Today the midwife says the baby is engaged and facing sideways. She says it will happen this weekend. Fingers crossed and thanks for the good stories.

Thinking of you....

[annekh23]

yep, the thing is, with cervical dilation, we all behave differently, plus, we all have different contraction patterns, if you couldn't go into labour with a non engaged posterior baby, then no one would go into labour with a breech or transverse baby, we'd all only go into labour with an LOA baby we know that isn't true!

My 2nd baby was OP, didn't stop me having precipitate labour, seems like I jump straight to transition and dilate fast, dilation was slightly slower with a high OP baby than a low LOA baby, but we're still talking only 2 hours. Second stage took a lot longer, longer than the 1st stage of that labour and my entire previous labour put together! But for me there didn't seem to be much relationship with going into labour and height and position.