Mothering › Forums › Archives › Birth Professional › childbirth with no cervix?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

childbirth with no cervix? - Page 2  

post #21 of 30
Quote:
Originally Posted by bananababies View Post
Bingo!
I asked her today "So if you don't have a cervix, what is keeping the baby in?" and she said that there is a tiny bit of cervix left and lots of scar tissue. Which now makes me nervous - I hope that she can open up enough to have a vaginal birth. Does anyone have any insight?

The story behind her cervix being removed is that she had cancer on one half, and she had the surgery to remove it but they removed the wrong side! So she had to have surgery again to remove the correct side, leaving her with little to no cervix.

they removed the wrong side of her cervix!?!?!?!!?!??
is she getting compensated? I'm speechless.
post #22 of 30
Wow, I can't believe they removed the wrong side!! But how in the world did they eventually realize the error?
post #23 of 30
Thread Starter 
I hope she's being compensated too, but I'm not really comfortable asking her!

I really don't know how they discovered it was the wrong side - either during the surgery or at a follow-up appointment, I assume.

She still hasn't started labor yet, but she has been having a lot of pre-labor/bh contx.

I've noticed that EPO is used to soften the cervix...anyone have any idea on how it might work for scar tissue?
post #24 of 30
They removed the wrong side!?

The last birth I was at...she had some scar tissue that was keeping her from progressing for a bit during labor. We had her taking Evening Primrose orally and also applying it on her cervix each night (I believe it was started at about 35 or 37 weeks).
At one point during her labor we discussed massaging it to encourage the scar tissue to break up...but at that point her body and EPO had a great deal of breaking it up, we just waited it out and within 50 mins she progressed from a 5 cm to having a baby in her arms.

Sooo....I would def. suggest EPO to her...if it doesn't help...it at least wouldn't do any harm.
post #25 of 30
Here's my guess (and of course no one can really know without looking at medical record!) of what really happened. I think this mom is confused about the procedures she had. In a woman who wishes to keep her fertility and has localized cervical cancer, a cone biopsy (kind of a of misnomer since a large chunk of cervix removed, not really a biopsy) can be performed. If you think of the cervix as the neck of the uterus, basically they remove the outer portion of the cervix in a cone shape, so a deeper, but narrower piece of the internal cervix is removed and a wider, shallower piece of the outer cervix. I've never heard of a procedure that removes "half" of the cervix, nor would removing half preserve cervical function. I'm guessing perhaps her margins still showed cancer or dysplasia and a second cone was then done, deeper than the first. The non-pregnant cervix is 4-5 cms long, and a cone specimen is usually like 2-3 cms long from the narrowest part to the outside, leaving some cervix behind. Frequently women who have had a previous cone biopsy have a cerclage in pregnancy (a stitch to hold the cervix shut) as they are at higher risk of earlier cervical incompetence. This is removed at 36-37 weeks, and many women labor fairly soon after - but many don't and go into labor on their own weeks later. I have seen women with previous cervical procedures have issues with scar tissue, though. Often, these women efface fully but don't dilate well, and sometimes you can manually break up the scar and that helps. The most amazing case of that I saw was a woman who was obviously in hard labor, but not dilating, and the doc used his finger to break some small adhesions he could feel stretching across her 1 cm dilated cervix that was 100% effaced. Immediately, she was 9 cms! She birthed her baby not long after.
Anyway, it is unlikely this woman has *no* cervix as there likely would be no way to retain a pregnancy and removing the whole cervix basically would mean taking off the whole bottom part of the uterus. Most likely she had a cone and has a shortened cervix and had the stitch to help her make it to term.
Here is a fairly good picture of a cone biopsy (note I did not read the accompanying text so I don't know if it's any good - I was just looking for a picture!)
post #26 of 30
thanks so much doctorjen!!!
post #27 of 30
great picture link drjen, thanks!
post #28 of 30
Thread Starter 
Thank you drjen! That was a great explanation. That's why I came here - I knew someone would clear things up for me!

I don't wanna go around spreading misinformation, but I could only explain based on what my friend told me! Maybe she's just used to "dumbing" it down for people and didn't bother explaining the whole thing to me.
post #29 of 30
she could have had lesions on the outside of her cervix removed and they removed the wrong part on the outside (err..well as outside as a cervix can get. you kwim, the part in the vagina) then redid it and left her with a very thin one...
post #30 of 30
don't shoot me, but I now have this image of Elaine, from Seinfeld, in one episode where she steals a sliver off a slice of cake. only then it's uneven, so she has to keep cutting more and more of the cake so it doesn't look like it's been nibbled at.
in the end she ate the whole thing.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Birth Professional
This thread is locked  
Mothering › Forums › Archives › Birth Professional › childbirth with no cervix?