Tell me about birthing a big baby vaginally! - Page 3

[tanyam926]

Congrats on your healthy babe!

My ds2 was 10 lbs. 12 oz., I measured about 2 wks ahead my whole pg (not sure if bc of size or bc my dates were off since still BF ds1 and no menses).

I had a homebirth, pushed for 45 min. It was actually MUCH easier than when I had my 8 1/2 lb. ds1 in the hospital.

It seems that it would be easier to have a big baby away from the hospital (or any size baby really ) bc there are less interventions that would stall or interfere w/labor.

[starshine1001]

Glad to hear your good news! DS#1 was 8lb, 7oz. DS#2 was 10lb, 1oz. with a nuchal hand. Both were unmedicated, but the labors were very different from each other, and #1 was in the hospital and #2 was in a birthing home. I won't lie and say that birthing a 10+ pounder was easy for me...it wasn't. But it was actually an easier, less painful labor and birth than my first. It took me over 6 hours to go from 8 cm to complete...whatever "complete" was...I wasn't checked immediately prior to his birth. Could have been 10 cm, could have been 12 cm...whatever it took for him to get out! I had a very powerful ejection reflex, and from the moment that I HAD TO PUSH to the moment he was born was about 5 contractions, during only one of which I "assisted" my body in pushing. It was really an awesome experience!! Oh, I had a little tear due to the nuchal hand...healed super fast...

P.S. I also gained 8 lbs in 2 weeks at around 32 weeks and was measuring 48 cm at term. I measured approx. 4 cm ahead from the very beginning. I had a scan at 20 weeks to make sure all was well, but didn't have another after that. My midwife offered it to me, if I wanted it...I said "No, we both know he's big. We'll just leave it at that!" She could tell by feeling my belly around how big he was...she was within an inch of length and an ounce of weight! She's GOOD!!

[LacieD]

DS1 was 8 lbs. 5 oz. and was born at 38w5d - according to the u/s, this little guy is measuring 9 days ahead, which is kind of a weird coincidence.

[Synchro246]

My baby was only 8.5lbs BUT his head was in the 95th percentile (14.75'' WITH heavy molding) and I had him.

GL mama.


Oh, and I know you said you know that US are notoriously inacuurate, but I thought this would give you heart anyway. I have two friends who were told their babies would be 11+lbs and one was 8.5 and one was 9.75. Both were pressured into c-sects and both had head circumferences smaller than my 8.5lber

GL mama.

[Belia]

Lacie- I'm glad to hear that everything went well today! What a relief. Yes, I'm also at Midwest. I've been seeing Penny almost exclusively because I'm high risk for a couple of reasons and someone there (Therese?) thought she would freak out the least.

[Novella]

I'm 5'10" and pre-pregnancy weights around 150-155lb. I birthed:
1. 9lb 14.25oz (some tearing that required stitches. One shot Demerol that was just useless/troublesome).
2. 9lb 1.5oz (couple stitches)
3. 11lb 1oz (the very EASIEST! Nurse had to grab him as I tried to move from wheelchair to bed after zooming into the hospital!)
4. & 5. then twins. . . they were more "normal-sized"

While other health factors may suggest an honest-to-goodness legitimate cue for a c-section, size alone DOES NOT! I echo the other stories about the inaccuracy of ultrasound for size in late pregnancy: I know a woman who was sectioned for her "huge baby" and baby was 2lb less than anticipated (turned out to be around 8.5lb). My doctor mentioned that he had seen the inaccuracy of near-term ultrasound weights many times while in med school and could never put any faith in it at all!

[LacieD]

I love Penny. I saw her for the first time a couple of weeks ago because we went to Meet the Midwives and found out that she had a homebirth. I wish I'd been seeing her all this time! I see Amy mostly, and Janet occasionally.

[NatureMama3]

I just birthed a big baby vaginally less than 2 weeks ago. he was 10lb 13oz (very nearly 11lb). Labor was 5 hours start to finish with only 15 minutes of pushing. I'm NOT a large person, only 5 foot 2 inches. I would NOT do a c-section just for a large baby, ever!

I won't lie, labor with a big baby was a HELL of a lot more painful than it was with a smaller one (last son was 8lb 10oz). But--it was also faster both in time and pushing time too so that can make it more painful too.

[veganf]

My biggest baby, 9lbs5oz, was my fastest easiest birth (though the most painful because it was so fast all I had were transition contractions).

[cathicog]

Originally Posted by loraxc

I'm curious--at what point does shoulder dystocia become a more serious risk? That would be my only concern with a really big baby. Or is it not really all that tied to size?

Not tied to size per se, as position. You can have a 7.5 lb baby hang up a shoulder on the pubic bone...Hands and knees positioning does wonders.

[LizD]

Congratulations!

My last was ten pounds. He was posterior, and it took two hours of pushing before I got the gumption really to push. It was not pleasant, but he got out (with a caput like a whole other head). If I had been in the hospital I would have had a cesarean for sure. I did tear, but I tore with my daughter also; that doesn't concern me much.

You *can* grow a baby that's too big for you. I saw this many times as a doula, usually with ladies who ate absurd things, or absurd amounts of healthy things. As my midwife was stitching me, I asked for some raisin toast, and she said, "Now I know why you had such a big baby- you've eaten nothing but bread since I got here!"

I know a lady who had an almost-twelve-pounder at home, etc etc. It just depends. What seems consistent to me, though, is that labor should start naturally. I have had friends and clients start the castor oil due to fear of transfer for a "big" baby, make themselves sick, start a sluggish labor, and end up with an emergency c-section.

But relieved for you that it's now a non-issue!