or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Pregnancy and Birth › Birth and Beyond › Planned C-section - Wait for labor or schedule?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Planned C-section - Wait for labor or schedule? - Page 2

post #21 of 58
Quote:
Originally posted by tammylc
AnaNicole - in my quick websearch, the strongest language I could find said that external version *might* not be recommended in Rh-neg mothers. And there are several references to routine Rhogam issuance following ECV.

I will certainly ask my doctor what his practice is, but it doesn't seem like the literature supports and out and out ban...
That would be enough for me not to do it to begin with. An ECV was traumatic enough for me (I ended up in the OR with an emergency csection).

Goodluck with weighing all the risks. Have you had the websters technique done? Are you having any success?
post #22 of 58
Kim,

Sorry, after all my time at Mothering I STILL do not know how to quote so I will just try to remember what you said...

Yes, I agree that cord prolapse can happen with any breech presentation, as well as if the baby is vertex, but it is true that if the baby is engaged then the risk is dramatically decreased. So if thats the case for the original poster I would think that cord prolapse was something that she should spend too much time worrying about.

I think that if I have another breech baby (having already labored and VBACed before) I would just seek out a breech experienced midwife in the area and go ahead and plan a homebirth. However I can COMPLETELY understand how a first time mom might not be comfortable with that. Heck, I wouldnt have been either.

We both have our experiences and just because my cesarean born baby was sluggish and had trouble nursing and yours were the opposite doesnt really mean a whole lot. We are only 2 people. And the thing is that I could name a whole lot of women who had sluggish babies after csections, as well as after long labors and lots of drugs. That doesnt really matter either though. All we can really do is educate ourselves as much as possible and try to make the best decision for ourselves and our babies.

And incidentally, my son did end up nursing for 2.5 years. I guess when I was pregnant with him I spent too much time reading about breastfeeding and not enough researching childbirth. :LOL
Live and learn!
post #23 of 58
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by OnTheFence
That would be enough for me not to do it to begin with. An ECV was traumatic enough for me (I ended up in the OR with an emergency csection).

Goodluck with weighing all the risks. Have you had the websters technique done? Are you having any success?
I'm sorry you had such a horrible experience with ECV. The OB I saw yesterday does about 2 a month, and has never had anyone have to go for an emergency c-s, so I'm totally comfortable getting the procedure from him.

I've been doing Webster, tilt board, underwater stuff, pretty much everything I can. Last night my midwives even did some diaphragmatic release and moxibustion!

I was actually feeling really hopeful about the baby's position today, because the baby was doing gymnastics in the middle of the night last night, and when I went for my Webster adjustment today, I tested Webster negative (pelvis aligned, no indication to do the technique). But my midwife just left and so far as we can tell, the baby is still breech. I go back to the chiro tomorrow.
post #24 of 58
I've read that ECV is not very safe or effective, and that most doctors don't know how to do it. I'd be very nervous about it. If I felt the need to change the baby's position, I would do all the "old wives" things - tilt boards, swimming, etc.
post #25 of 58
Thread Starter 
And I've read that ECV is quite safe. Certainly safer than a c-section.

If you read what I wrote, you'd see that I'm already doing everything natural I can to get the baby to turn (just spent 20 minutes on the tilt board, in fact). Vaginal breech delivery in a hospital isn't an option where I am, and I'm not willing to try a vaginal breech delivery at home (my midwives would do it if I really, really wanted them too, but they're not comfortable with the risk level either).

So I can try ECV and there's a 50% chance the baby will turn and I'll be able to have a vaginal delivery at home. Worst case scenario is that I have to have an emergency c-section (and my doctor has *never* had a version end in a section). When my only alternative is a planned c-section, this seems like a worthwhile option.
post #26 of 58
Quote:
Originally posted by Greaseball
I've read that ECV is not very safe or effective, and that most doctors don't know how to do it. I'd be very nervous about it. If I felt the need to change the baby's position, I would do all the "old wives" things - tilt boards, swimming, etc.
I agree with Greaseball.

I also want to say that in the last seven years if a woman didn't have success with Websters Technique she didnt have success with ECV either. I did all the things recommended by a midwife and it didnt work. I now know there was a reason behind it. I had a deformed uterus. I didn't trust my gut and did the ECV -- it just seems to me that if you are trying all these things, including Websters without success, I would be skeptical of ECV working.
I also wonder how much of the risks your doctor has told you about. I mean two a month, it would seem he would be able to tell you that babies gut bruised, get distressed, and some even poop meconium.
I am just of the belief that if a baby is still breech after all that you have done, then there is a reason for it and why mess with it further. Of course I am very anti-ecv. I don't think doctors are clear on the risks to the mother or the baby.
My friend was faced with this last Friday. Luckily by Monday morning after doing tilts, imaging, and talking to her baby her baby turned.
post #27 of 58
Quote:
Originally posted by tammylc
So I can try ECV and there's a 50% chance the baby will turn and I'll be able to have a vaginal delivery at home. Worst case scenario is that I have to have an emergency c-section (and my doctor has *never* had a version end in a section). When my only alternative is a planned c-section, this seems like a worthwhile option.
I guess I have some serious doubts about his claim. Also you need to know out of the 50% that do turn how many of those babies are csectioned anyway for other reasons. (like distress in labor, birth injury, cord problems)

I have been where you have been. I was wanting more than anything to have that vaginal delivery so it seemed worthwhile to me too. My doctor said that until me, she had never had an emergency csection happen, however out of all her versions that were successful more than half had csections for other reasons. If I had to do it over again I would have never attempted. I should have listened to my body -- baby was breech for a reason even after all my attempts to turn her. After that I made a promise to myself that if I knew of any other mom in that situation to impart what I learned, the hard way, on to her.

I also read ECV was safe. It was after I got past the surface of the fluff sites and "let me explain this to you in lay terms" on pregnancy or medical sites I began to realize that there was a lot of risk involved to both me and my baby.

My daughter was bruised on her butt and face and head. Many babies experience bruising from the proceedure. My baby pooped meconium and had decels in heart rate. Not only was it painful for me, and stressful, my BP bottomed out and I experienced nausea and faintness. And this is just a small portion of what happened. If I had been told any of these things could happen I would have forgone the proceedure. My doctor didn't forget to tell me these things, she just didnt think they were significant enough to tell me.
post #28 of 58
Tammy,

I just want to wish you good luck at the chiro and with the ECV if you choose to do that. It really sucks that you are in this position after planning a homebirth. Im sure that this was the farthest thing from what you wanted. I will be thinking postive thoughts for you!

Also, I know that it sounds kind of hokey but have you tried to ask your baby why he/she is breech? My daughter was breech for a long while and after having a csearean with my son for breech this was terrifying to me. I read on the midwives archives that sometimes the baby just doesnt know he needs to turn and that he just needs to be told... I talked to my daughter in utero often and she turned obviously, she probably would have anyway though... I told you it sounds crazy but maybe you should give it a try? It certainly wont hurt anything!
post #29 of 58
Quote:
Originally posted by Mom2baldie
A postpartum nurse told me that it happens very often with scheduled cesareans and also that babies have a harder time breastfeeding because they are so "sluggish".
I don't believe this at all. My sons an unplanned and a planned were both c/b and both were terrific nursers. In fact, Bryce was supposed to be another 45 mintues (not sure why. I think it was weighing and such but ths another story) but they brought him in 45 minutes early because all he wanted to do was nurse. Anything that passed his face he tried to latch on

I'd think prolonged exposure to an epidural would make them more sluggish and with a planned c/b normally as soon as the epi takes effect you wait about 10 ,intes before surgery begins. Just because its planned doesn't mean it goes slow.
post #30 of 58
A comment on webster....I had it don with Bryce. He wasn't breech but he was right of center and on my hip. I had the technique done about 6 tiems and each time he slid right into place but didn't stasy that way. Both of my kids were that way. NOt sure why they didn't like my cervix but loved my right hip.

Anyway, webster is a gerat idea. My chiro said that he has had 10 out of 12 babies flip (nopt including mine since he wasn't breech when he did it but he did reposition)

Good luck with everything! I know this might sound a bit snooty but...A c/b is not the end of the world. It has taken me quite a while to finally accept it. But it isn't. I hope your birth experience is a wonderful one!!
post #31 of 58
Quote:
Originally posted by its_our_family
I don't believe this at all. My sons an unplanned and a planned were both c/b and both were terrific nursers. In fact, Bryce was supposed to be another 45 mintues (not sure why. I think it was weighing and such but ths another story) but they brought him in 45 minutes early because all he wanted to do was nurse. Anything that passed his face he tried to latch on

I'd think prolonged exposure to an epidural would make them more sluggish and with a planned c/b normally as soon as the epi takes effect you wait about 10 ,intes before surgery begins. Just because its planned doesn't mean it goes slow.
Well that okay, you dont have to believe it. Thats just what I was told by a nurse who had seen a lot of babies born by cesarean that had that experience. Everyone has different experiences as I said before and just because you had a wonderful scheduled cesarean and a very healthy baby doesnt mean everyone does.
post #32 of 58
Quote:
Originally posted by its_our_family
I don't believe this at all. My sons an unplanned and a planned were both c/b and both were terrific nursers. In fact, Bryce was supposed to be another 45 mintues (not sure why. I think it was weighing and such but ths another story) but they brought him in 45 minutes early because all he wanted to do was nurse. Anything that passed his face he tried to latch on

I'd think prolonged exposure to an epidural would make them more sluggish and with a planned c/b normally as soon as the epi takes effect you wait about 10 ,intes before surgery begins. Just because its planned doesn't mean it goes slow.
O yeah. I had an epidural vs a spinal for my planned csection. I had it and like 10 minutes later I was in the OR. One of the reasons many csection babies are sluggish is because they are born AFTER a mom has been in labor for awhile, already had a lot of intervention, mom has had some other meds like stadol or nubain -- a mother hit with pit, baby is getting slammed in that uterus -- I would imagine I would be sluggish getting out! Also these moms before they are sectioned are given sedative to relax them for the surgery.

IOF, you didnt have those with your last birth did you?
I know I didnt. I didnt even get anti-nausea meds. I was very alert and felt wonderful.

I've known a few people who got epidurals and waited around an hour before their planned csection but that is not the norm. With a spinal the window of time is short, so often spinal is done in the OR and within minutes of taking they are cutting you to get baby out. I just don't buy that babies are "drugged". Some of that stuff doesnt even have time to cross the placenta!
post #33 of 58
Quote:
Originally posted by OnTheFence

IOF, you didnt have those with your last birth did you?
I know I didnt. I didnt even get anti-nausea meds. I was very alert and felt wonderful.
Not with Bryce but I did with Tracy...14 hour pit induction but no pain meds until right before my c/b But he wasn't sluggish at all eiher..but no meds until the c/b.

He didn't latch well but I think that was because he was induced at 38 weeks...another eason I would encourage those who do plan a c/b to wait till 40 weeks or more if there is no concern about labor first.
post #34 of 58
Quote:
Originally posted by Mom2baldie
Well that okay, you dont have to believe it. Thats just what I was told by a nurse who had seen a lot of babies born by cesarean that had that experience. Everyone has different experiences as I said before and just because you had a wonderful scheduled cesarean and a very healthy baby doesnt mean everyone does.
They are seeing a lot of babies born AFTER INTERVENTIONS I bet. My aunts baby was a vaginal birth and after a few hours of pit and drugs she came out pretty sluggish. I imagine I would too! I mean when they say csection babies are more sluggish -- which csection babies? the planned ones? or those from moms already in labor or who had interventions? also were there more boy babies that were sluggish than girls (very common)? There are a lot of factors that come into play.
post #35 of 58
Quote:
Originally posted by Mom2baldie
Well that okay, you dont have to believe it. Thats just what I was told by a nurse who had seen a lot of babies born by cesarean that had that experience. Everyone has different experiences as I said before and just because you had a wonderful scheduled cesarean and a very healthy baby doesnt mean everyone does.
Also having spoken with an L&D nurse...she said it was a common misconception. But, I didn't read your post saying your babe was...so I am sorry if I seemed to be generalizing. I wasn't trying to. I just know a lot of women who "assume" things. But you obviously aren't assuming

Honestly, I just hate to see women get bummed because the birth they invision isn't necessraily gonig to happen when they can make the birth they do have a wonderful one.
post #36 of 58
Quote:
Originally posted by OnTheFence
They are seeing a lot of babies born AFTER INTERVENTIONS I bet. My aunts baby was a vaginal birth and after a few hours of pit and drugs she came out pretty sluggish. I imagine I would too! I mean when they say csection babies are more sluggish -- which csection babies? the planned ones? or those from moms already in labor or who had interventions? also were there more boy babies that were sluggish than girls (very common)? There are a lot of factors that come into play.
Ummm...I dont know. I had just had surgery and wasnt feeling my best. I didnt know to ask whether the sluggish babies were after planned cesareans or scheduled and whether more of them were girls or boys.... My goodness.

Im not trying to go back and forth with either of you. I shared my experience like many others have and it seems that everytime someone does tell what happened to them someone else has to come back with "well that didnt happen to me...I just dont buy it..." Everyone is going to have their own experience! To sit and act like scheduled cesareans are so much better than perhaps being in labor for an hour or 2 is just very strange to me. Its surgery either way and it seems like letting a baby know that something is going on (feeling the contractions) would be better than having him or her just pulled out of your body with no transition to the outside world.
post #37 of 58
Honestly, I just hate to see women get bummed because the birth they invision isn't necessraily gonig to happen when they can make the birth they do have a wonderful one. [/B][/QUOTE]

Yes, I agree. And Im glad that you did have a wonderful experience, but unfortunately just because someone gets to set a day and time for their child to be born that doesnt guarantee a good experience. I dont know...maybe I have been reading on ICAN for too long.
post #38 of 58
Quote:
Originally posted by Mom2baldie

Im not trying to go back and forth with either of you. I shared my experience like many others have and it seems that everytime someone does tell what happened to them someone else has to come back with "well that didnt happen to me...I just dont buy it..." Everyone is going to have their own experience! To sit and act like scheduled cesareans are so much better than perhaps being in labor for an hour or 2 is just very strange to me. Its surgery either way and it seems like letting a baby know that something is going on (feeling the contractions) would be better than having him or her just pulled out of your body with no transition to the outside world.
Ok, I see your point..and I apologized for gernealizing...

I can say IN MY EXPERIENCE I believe the above things I've said...is that better then?? Like I said, I'm sorry I generalized

I can tell you that IN MY EXPERIENCE recovery from a c/b is much much easier when you do not labor first and things are planned.

And in cases when there is no harm in laboring..ie cord prolapse from footling breech or something...then I think it is just preference. Babies born vaginally can sometimes have the same problems a c/b baby has with breathing...no matter how far into term they are
post #39 of 58
Quote:
Originally posted by Mom2baldie
Yes, I agree. And Im glad that you did have a wonderful experience, but unfortunately just because someone gets to set a day and time for their child to be born that doesnt guarantee a good experience.I dont know...maybe I have been reading on ICAN for too long.
And somtimes having the birth you want is the same way...from what I hear... isn't life fun! It never turns out how we expect

hehe..and I never liked the site
post #40 of 58
Thread Starter 
I think what this thread has demonstrated is that there's single answer that will be best for all mothers and all babies. No one's mentioned any studies or literature on the subject, so we're just comparing the personal experiences of a very small subset of the population.

Clearly both situations have their advantages and disadvantages. Thanks for sharing your experiences, and I'll keep them in mind if and when it comes time to make my decision.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Birth and Beyond
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Pregnancy and Birth › Birth and Beyond › Planned C-section - Wait for labor or schedule?