or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Pregnancy and Birth › Birth and Beyond › Reason for baby not coming out by 43 weeks?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Reason for baby not coming out by 43 weeks?

post #1 of 13
Thread Starter 

This is my first baby. I'm healthy, 28yrs old, normal blood pressure, etc. etc. 

 

I'm 43 weeks and have had 2 NST/BPP's done each one showed a perfect score.  He's not completely Anterior, but he's facing my back with his butt kinda angled out to either my left or right depending on his mood.  I don't know what that position is called...

 

Anyway, I've heard people say that sometimes babies stay in too long because they've got some hormone deficiency and can't initiate labor OR the cord is wrapped around them so many times they can't descend properly so your body stops labor to save them...  Could this be true? 

I am very worried about waiting any longer so today is the last day and then I have to give up my homebirth and go get induced. greensad.gif

post #2 of 13

I don't think we'll ever know for sure, but some women just take longer to 'cook' babies than others.  It often runs in families - do you have a family history of longer gestations?

 

My gran had a VBAC at 46 weeks, my mom was induced at 42 weeks with both me and my brother (so obviously would have gone a bit longer at least) and I had my babies by spontaneous labour at 43+1 weeks and 43+6 weeks.  Both perfectly healthy.

 

hug2.gifThere is a huge amount of societal pressure to *do* something to get babies out sooner rather than later, but from the research that I've done, there is no clear benefit to inducing arbitrarily at X weeks over a 'wait and see' approach.  If your baby is passing BPPs well then there is no reason to believe that there is a problem.  But the decision is ultimately yours, and it's a difficult one to make at the end of a long pregnancy.

post #3 of 13

I don't know the reason why some babies wait so long to show up - but the evidence that stillbirth increases after 43 weeks is pretty strong. Build a good relationship with the nurses on staff at the hospital you'll be induced at and try to make the best of it. Sending you good labor vibes!

post #4 of 13

DizzyDee,

 

When you throw out things like that, I think it's pertinent to provide actual statistics.

 

The most recent set of statistics tells us that the rates of perinatal mortality are:

 

6/1000 at 38 weeks

2/1000 at 40 weeks

2.30/1000 at 41 weeks

3/1000 at 42 weeks

4/1000 at 43 weeks

7/1000 at 44 weeks

post #5 of 13

Yes, to what phathui5 said - plus we don't know if there's a causal relationship or not.

 

OP - how are you now? Hope your baby is here and you're both doing well.

post #6 of 13


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by phathui5 View Post

DizzyDee,

 

When you throw out things like that, I think it's pertinent to provide actual statistics.

 

The most recent set of statistics tells us that the rates of perinatal mortality are:

 

6/1000 at 38 weeks

2/1000 at 40 weeks

2.30/1000 at 41 weeks

3/1000 at 42 weeks

4/1000 at 43 weeks

7/1000 at 44 weeks

 

 

I just had a client as for these stats!  THanks for posting!

 

Where can I find this info?

post #7 of 13

Here's a good reference on the statistics:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18998240

 

I have some of the figures from this article posted here:

https://picasaweb.google.com/karentroy/Random_stuff#5145704952082427314

 

PM me with your email address if you want a copy of the pdf.

 

(Note that the authors of this article use these statistics as justification to induce at 41 weeks - yikes!  Still, the stats are indeed the real numbers reported in large studies.)


Edited by kltroy - 6/16/11 at 10:15am
post #8 of 13

I got my stats from Gail Hart's book Research Updates for Midwives.

post #9 of 13

phathui5- what are the stats for 39 weeks?

 

 

post #10 of 13
In my case (similar circumstances: 28, normal pregnancy, normal blood pressure average weight gain and this is my first baby) I hadn't gone into labor on my own by 43 weeks. After the birth (membrane sweeps, breaking the water and finally augmented by pitocin) my birth team suspected I had a distended uterus due to my nearly 10 lb baby and the large amount of amniotic fluid I had been carrying. It seems the muscle was just too worn out by that point to get contractions going on it's own. I had originally intended to have a home birth, but in the end I was quite pleased with how everything worked out at the hospital. I feel that all the interventions I had were necessary and helpful. And for what it is worth, the OB and all my midwives said I am still an excellent candidate for home birth for future pregnancies.

I know the original post is from the beginning of the month, so I hope everything worked out well and you've got a baby in your arms now.
post #11 of 13

The main reasons are genetics & miscalculation of dates. Some women just carry longer. Their mothers & grandmothers also probably carried longer. Some women also have perfectly healthy babies "early". I know one woman who had babies who had all the characteristics of being full term, but she only went to 36 weeks. I know other women whose babies are have many signs of prematurity at 40 weeks. Just as we don't all hit puberty at the exact same age, we don't all gestate the exact same length of time and our babies aren't all ready at some arbitrary date.

 

There's also the fact that 40 weeks is NOT average. For a first time mother, nearly 42 weeks is average. Which means some will naturally go earlier than that and some will go later.

 

The other major contributor is if if you have longer cycles &/or ovulate later than 14 days. If you only go by the LMP, your dates are going to be off because the little wheels assume ovulation on day 14.

 

OP, I hope you had a good birth.

post #12 of 13
Thread Starter 


I think this might be what happened! My baby turned out to be over 10 lbs, and I think I only went into labor because of the herbs my MW gave me. My baby ended up flipping to sunnyside up and got stuck crowning :-(  But I had a C-section and he's perfectly healthy.

Quote:
Originally Posted by WildBlueAster View Post

In my case (similar circumstances: 28, normal pregnancy, normal blood pressure average weight gain and this is my first baby) I hadn't gone into labor on my own by 43 weeks. After the birth (membrane sweeps, breaking the water and finally augmented by pitocin) my birth team suspected I had a distended uterus due to my nearly 10 lb baby and the large amount of amniotic fluid I had been carrying. It seems the muscle was just too worn out by that point to get contractions going on it's own. I had originally intended to have a home birth, but in the end I was quite pleased with how everything worked out at the hospital. I feel that all the interventions I had were necessary and helpful. And for what it is worth, the OB and all my midwives said I am still an excellent candidate for home birth for future pregnancies.

I know the original post is from the beginning of the month, so I hope everything worked out well and you've got a baby in your arms now.


 

post #13 of 13

Congrats on your big baby!  I was 28 also when I was pregnant, went to 42 weeks before going into labor, and after 3 days of an attempted HB he got stuck and I had a c-section as well.  9.4 lbs.  So I know how you're feeling!  It's a whirlwind of emotions, but the healthy perfect baby is worth it.  The one plus to his size was that he had a big belly and would nurse a LONG time, really fill up, then be satisfied for a long time. 

 

Congrats!!!

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Birth and Beyond
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Pregnancy and Birth › Birth and Beyond › Reason for baby not coming out by 43 weeks?