or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Pregnancy and Birth › Birth and Beyond › Prolonged ROM = "extra crispy" looking baby?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Prolonged ROM = "extra crispy" looking baby?

post #1 of 3
Thread Starter 

My son was born at 41w5d with a good amount of vernix still coating him and babies in my family are all born 41-43+ weeks. So needless to say I was surprised when my daughter was born at 40w2d by my estimate (39w5d by my EDD). She, however, was born with lots of peeling and very wrinkly (little old lady hands!).

 

Now, I did likely have ROM for a week prior to the birth (very, very little to the point that we really weren't sure and it was only maybe three times in the week leading up to the obvious ROM), possibly as much as a month before (again, same very little but only once or twice). There was definite ROM over 48 (possibly closer to 55-60) hours before she was born with lots of periodic gushes during all but the last 12-18ish hours of that time. 

 

So, I was wondering, could that account for her being "extra crispy"? I was thinking maybe the ROM is why she was born so early and maybe that's also why she was so wrinkly. I just can't seem to wrap my head around a baby in our family being fully cooked so early. orngtongue.gif

post #2 of 3
Thread Starter 

bump!orngbiggrin.gif

post #3 of 3

I definitely don't have an expert opinion on this, but I'd say it's a good possibility it could be from leaking, even a little, up to a month early.  How did your placenta look?  If it was healthy looking, then I'd definitely say it was from the early ROM.  If was also a little dried out, maybe she was just ready a lot earlier than you expected.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Birth and Beyond
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Pregnancy and Birth › Birth and Beyond › Prolonged ROM = "extra crispy" looking baby?