What does this mean: "The baby kept coming out then going back in"?

[Nan'sMom]

I know three people who had c-sections and they said it was because they were pushing and the baby kept coming out and then going back in. Anyone understand what this means? Does it mean that the baby started to descend into the vaginal canal but then went back up? Maybe because the woman was pronounced "complete" and told to push when her body wasn't ready, then had lots of V/Es? Blech...great reason for homebirth and no V/Es!!!

Oh, and two of them, as well as at least one other person I know, were told the cord was wrapped around the baby many times so the baby wasn't able to come out vaginally. Perhaps true, but it seems that odds are against this very rare occurrence happening with all of them.

Anyway, I've been wondering about this and if anyone knows what it means and can tell me, that would be great. TIA!

[AllisonR]

I've recentely read in Ina May's book that often 1st time mamma's the baby does descend a bit, then goes back up, then descends a bit more, then back up.... It is totally normal. The muscles are opening, the head is moulding, the tissues are stretching, and when the baby is on the way back up, mamma gets a tiny break. Apparentely less common after first births.

I also think the cord issue is possible but unlikely in so many people you know. Even if the cord is wrapped around the neck or even shoulders, baby can still be born vaginally. Ok, maybe if the cord is very short and it is wrapped 3 or 4 times.... but what are the chances? Seems the Doc's just don't know what a normal birth is, so it is off to the operating theater.

[Nan'sMom]

Cool--thanks! That makes sense!

I agree--OBs probably have never seen a "normal" unhindered birth. Plus, how likely are they to say "well, we did a c-section but your baby would have been just fine if we'd waited a bit for you to birth vaginally"?

[JeDeeLenae]

Originally Posted by "Nan'sMom

Cool--thanks! That makes sense!

I agree--OBs probably have never seen a "normal" unhindered birth. Plus, how likely are they to say "well, we did a c-section but your baby would have been just fine if we'd waited a bit for you to birth vaginally"?

I think they say things similar to that, but it normally is followed by, "Better safe than sorry," or some other comment that justifies it.

[TurboClaudia]

"coming out and then going back in" sounds like the babe's head couldn't move enough under the pelvic bone to crown and then be born. there is a point where babe's head gets caught on the pelvic bone and this helps move the pushing stage to where the baby's head can fully enter the vaginal canal (crowning) and then the rest of the body can be pushed out.

~claudia

[Kiki Runs]

DS did this (I think). What it means in our case is that I could push his head to crowning, then when I stopped pushing it would slip back "in" (but at all times during this occurrence, we could see and touch his head. So not really all the way in, KWIM?).

He wasn't caught on my pubic bone, he just was a hard push. *ahem* pushing on my back *ahem*


He ended up as a c/s, due to OB's failure to wait and everyone's failure to help me get on hands and knees. And my failure to keep refusing. Unnecessary c/s - DD was born UA and had a similar progression. It's NORMAL!!!

K

[DoomaYula]

It's "normal" I think especially when the mom has had an epidural and is flat on her back. I've seen a lot of purple pushing with the baby coming and going for about an hour before baby comes out. I mean like I can see the head while she's pushing, and then as soon as she stops, the head disappears. Maybe these women get exhausted (I wouldn't want to push for an hour!) maybe the doc discourages them, who knows...

As far as the cord wrapped, I've read some articles about it. There's a "somersault" maneuver for getting more room, and some ob's apparently just cut the cord while the head is still on the perineum.

[mwherbs]

so several things - one is that there was complete dilation and maybe a caput but baby not decending quickly enough-
remember that babies are not trains and that they spin to come out so in one part of the rotation it may feel closer than another part of the rotation-- where a baby is felt when they are posterior feels deeper and can trigger pushing before it is really time to be born then if the baby starts to rotate the person doing an exam may feel that the baby has receded--
or that the baby is rocking on the brim of the pelvis and dipping but not coming all the way down patience can help but it is about getting a baby born before mom and baby are too worn out- and purple pushing can really wear a mom out so can lack of food-- poor positioning...

[Mama Poot]

this happened in my first birth. My son was posterior and it took me 2.5 hours to push him out. I saw him crown, then disappear, then crown, then disappear. This was very demoralizing because the labor was already horrible and I remember watching this in the mirror above me. But its completely normal and does not warrant a section. I'm sorry that's happened to people. GRRRR.....:

[annettemarie]

My first did this, and I had 3 failed epidurals, a buttload of pit, and was flat on my back. He ended up being a forceps delivery.

[mama_b]

Originally Posted by Mama Poot

this happened in my first birth. My son was posterior and it took me 2.5 hours to push him out. I saw him crown, then disappear, then crown, then disappear. This was very demoralizing because the labor was already horrible and I remember watching this in the mirror above me. But its completely normal and does not warrant a section. I'm sorry that's happened to people. GRRRR.....:

: Your experience sounds identical to mine.

[amyjeans]

This exact situation happened to me during my 2nd UC. I contribute the "yo-yo baby decent" to the size of her big ole' fat head! Still, she came out eventually with a little bit of effort on my part. Perhaps she was stuck, I can't say for sure, but I knew something wasn't going right and so I intervened.
(you can read about it here: http://thesillingspage.tripod.com/savannah/ )

[AllisonR]

Originally Posted by amyjeans

This exact situation happened to me during my 2nd UC. I contribute the "yo-yo baby decent" to the size of her big ole' fat head! Still, she came out eventually with a little bit of effort on my part. Perhaps she was stuck, I can't say for sure, but I knew something wasn't going right and so I intervened.
(you can read about it here: http://thesillingspage.tripod.com/savannah/ )

amyjeans, thanks for the link. Lovely story. Ha, some interventions are useful : (DH breaking your waters) Did you measure her head? How big was it? Did she have a bit of moulding?

[amyjeans]

I think 18 or 19 inches in circumference? that's what the doc said. It was BIG! Her head was perfect...and uhm, no tears either!

[Nan'sMom]

Wow, thanks for all the good information! That makes more sense now...not the sections, but what the stories meant! Thanks!

[runningwithlola]

Originally Posted by kinsey43

DS did this (I think). What it means in our case is that I could push his head to crowning, then when I stopped pushing it would slip back "in" (but at all times during this occurrence, we could see and touch his head. So not really all the way in, KWIM?).

That happened to me with my first, just once. He crowned, I had to stop pushing for a minute, he slipped back in. Next push he crowned again, and it hurt so bad that I pushed even harder just to get it over with - I didn't want to feel the crowning again! lol! I only pushed for 20 minutes, thankfully.

I can see how it could happen several times. I don't think it's automatically an indicator of trouble, as others have said.

And, correct me if I'm wrong, but can't a doc/midwife cut the cord as it becomes visible, if it's around baby's neck multiple times? So a c-sec isn't necessary?

[amyjeans]

And, correct me if I'm wrong, but can't a doc/midwife cut the cord as it becomes visible, if it's around baby's neck multiple times? So a c-sec isn't necessary?

I am assuming "the cord wrapped", means around the neck- not around the whole body.
I am certain many mamas, midwives, doulas would tell you this is not a good thing to do. If the cord is wrapped- *in my opinion* that is not always an indication of distress. 2 of my 3 babies had the cords wrapped. Baby #1's head was out, cord wrapped and the OB actually cut her cord as she was still inside me. Doing this can be a very bad thing, because the cord is still supplying oxygen to the baby. The cord being wrapped does not prohibit oxygen, because the baby isn't breathing like you or I do, not yet anyway. She "breathes" through her cord. So by cutting it, is almost strangulating the baby. Thank God I pushed her out fast!
Baby #2 (UC) her cord was wrapped, and as she tumbled out, dh just sort of unwound her. She was, and is fine.
Not to say that docs don't do this, but it is not a wise thing to do in my opinion. Now what would be the alternative in a situation where the baby's cord is wrapped? Wait? C-section? Every birth scenario is unique and therefore needs to be treated a such. It's hard for me to make a generalization because the only births I know best are my own. But based on what I have learned her mainly, I'm pretty sure about this. Now around the whole body is another matter I think.
Anyone wanna help on this?