or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Pregnancy and Birth › Birth and Beyond › Late Baby Question
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Late Baby Question

post #1 of 12
Thread Starter 

My first two babies were 40 weeks to the day.

 

My third was 41 weeks, but I think it was because of a ton of emotional stress right at 40.  As soon as that resolved, she was born.

 

My fourth was 41+5, and I induced with acupuncture.  I didn't think it would work, and didn't want to get to 42 with a "now what?" situation.  (My midwives were okay to let me go to 44, btw).

 

Anyway, as I am reading birth stories, I'm wondering if later babies tend to have a cord issue, or the mama has a good deal of stress of some kind.  My fourth was all tangled up in her cord, and couldn't move down.  She was born in one rapid push, and my placenta followed soon after.  It was almost as if she had been born "normally", she would have had a placental abruption AND cord compression. 

 

So, for those women who have had a later baby...did you baby have a cord issue at birth that potentially slowed it down? 

post #2 of 12

My 3rd was born at 42 weeks (all other births rights around 40 weeks) and my guess was that she was poorly positioned.  I induced with castor oil under MW's supervision, and had my longest labor... I felt like I had to work hard to get her to descend.  But no cord/placental issues at all.

 

I was also under the most emotional distress during that pregnancy, which did not resolve itself until long after the birth....

post #3 of 12

42+w twice, no cord issues at all.

post #4 of 12

44 weeks and 43 weeks, and no cord issues or other problems with either. 

post #5 of 12

My last baby was a 42 week-er and had no cord issues.

post #6 of 12

43+1 weeks (positioning issues) and 43+6 weeks (super fast birth) - no cord issues with either that I was aware of.

post #7 of 12

My second baby had a true knot and nuchal cord & was born at 40+1 (tons of stress at the time as well). My third baby had no entanglement, but her cord was very thin and unhealthy looking. She was born at 39 weeks and was my smallest as well. We also had some big, major, very stressful things going on before her birth. We made a huge step in getting the situation resolved and she was born the next day. 

post #8 of 12

40w6days and no cord issues.

post #9 of 12

All my pregnancies were very long,  all my births were trouble free and all my babies were perfectly healthy.

post #10 of 12

of my babies that went over 40 weeks...

 

41.2, no cord issue but a very distressed/compromised baby. Required 2 weeks NICU, ventilator, etc.

40.3, no cord issue

40.4, no cord issue

 

I know the 40.3 and 40.4 aren't that late, but i'm adding them in for fun.

post #11 of 12

What's the hypothesis?  That stress or postdates causes cord issues?  Just trying to suss out what you suspect...

 

This is just off the cuff and I am not a HCP, etc.-- but I'd actually expect later babies to be LESS likely to have cord issues.  No?  Because they are more likely to be "cooked" and have gotten themselves into a good position, not have room to move into a less favorable one, etc.  Plus bigger babies (which, all things being equal, later babies would be) tend to be more optimally positioned and also have less room to move around a whole lot and get "tangled," etc.  Just going with odds here-- no absolutes, of course.

 

This is aside from the fact that d/t the overuse of interventions in most births (speaking of US births, now), a lot of cord issues are iatrogenic-- such as prolapse caused by AROM, too-early induction (based on faulty U/S dating and such) and augmentation which can lead to babies in suboptimal positions, etc., etc.  Because these things, almost by definition w/in the hospital system, tend to be performed on babies <41 weeks, and often <40 weeks, I'd strongly suspect that the rate of cord issues among those "on-time/earlier" babies would be "artificially" even higher.  I mean, hand in hand with the fact that 41+ week babies are correlated with less-interventionist care, because so many hospital HCPs won't "let" you go beyond 41, or sometimes even 40.

 

Does that make sense?

post #12 of 12
Thread Starter 

No, I'm not saying the postdates causes the cord issues, but perhaps the other way around.  I don't think my dd could normally start labor because she was so tangled up in her cord.  That happened at 36 weeks...I felt it.  She was spinning and spinning like usual (I had a ton of room), and then she stopped, and only had small movements after that..  After that I could feel her cord wrapped around her back and sandwiched between her and the uterine wall.   So I was curious if other mom's had the same experience.  Wondering if a baby getting tangled in the cord seemed to delay labor.

 

The stress thing was secondary and a different issue.  Just another curiousity questions.  Probably better rephrased: Do you feel that you didn't go into labor because of stress?

 

Anyway, I didn't intend both questions together.  I know that lately I make perfect sense to myself, but not much to others.  Pg brain, I guess. :)

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Birth and Beyond
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Pregnancy and Birth › Birth and Beyond › Late Baby Question