So I'm 35 weeks pregnant with MZ twins. Both are vertex. There is a 13% difference in their weight right now, with Baby B being the larger one. My periantologist sent the recommendation of, "planned c-section at 38 weeks" to my OB. My OB and peri both say this is simply the recommendation and I may attempt to birth them vaginally. The recommendation is simply based on the fact that Baby B is bigger...
I personally don't see the reason for a c-section based on ultrasound measurements that are only 13% apart, but it's hard for me to do much research at the moment because of the contractions my laptop tends to give me (weird huh?).
So could you ladies...
1.Give me your personal experiences if your circumstances were close to mine
2.Give me any links to research/info that could prove useful in easing both DH's and my minds for going against the Dr. recommendation
Baby crying, I'll try to revisit and be more clear.
Also, bear in mind that u/s measurements for size are notoriously NOT accurate for the third tri.
mom of (8) (5) (3) and born at home on Christmas day!
My doc told me that I *might* have to re-dialate to fit the bigger baby, and that it *could* take up to an hour or two, but mine were actually born only 10 min apart -- and it would have been sooner but I spent a few minutes telling everyone in the room that I was done and going home after one baby and that the other baby could just stay in there.
mom of (8) (5) (3) and born at home on Christmas day!
Three big girls (10) + (almost 9!);
One little boy (6) and a full on toddler (8/12) born with TAPVR (repaired at 6 days old).
I'm not much help on outcomes, as I had preemies and had to have a section for baby B (after birthing baby A vaginally) for reasons having nothing to do with her size. Good luck to you - I hope you get to birth some nice big babies vaginally in a few more weeks!
Honestly just hearing your stories have eased my mind. The recommendation sounded like a CYA to me also. It's frustrating that I can't get a REAL recommendation from a peri or OB because they are too scared of some sort of malpractice suit. I will try to birth these boys vaginally. I don't see any reason for a c-section.
I still don't know if I will follow the 38 week part of the recommendation. When I was pregnant with DD they thought she was 7 lbs at the end based on ultrasound. I went into labor naturally at 40 weeks 4 days and she was only 5 lbs. 14 oz!! I think I might tend to birth small babies, so it worries me to take the twins at 38 weeks. I went ahead and scheduled two NST's after the 38 week point, but my OB and peri don't know this yet.
I don't have personal experience for you about the weights, as my second twin was 1/2 pound smaller. But I certainly can concur with other posters about the inaccuracy of ultrasound measurements. Our perinatologist expected our boys to be around 5-5.5lb. They were 7 and 7.5. I also know a woman who was sectioned strictly b/c they said she'd never be able to birth that HUGE +10lb baby inside. The baby was about 8lbs.
And I echo the sentiments that c-section simply b/c they THINK Twin B is bigger is a bnuch of horse-pucky. Why would anyone think a woman couldn't birth a large baby that's a second twin, simply b/c the first baby is smaller? Women birth large singletons all the time (my other kids were 10lb, 9lb, and 11lb) and those situations don't have the advantage of a first baby "paving the way" as they call it.
I also send support your way that you are on the right track to be concerned about a 38-week delivery just for the heck of it. There's true obstetrical emergencies, and then there's lots of bad advice and intimidation. Twins aren't any less-deserving than singletons of having the advantages of growing and maturing in your womb until they signal readiness to be born (ie. by labour starting naturally).
Not sure that I'm crunchy, but definitely a "tough chew".
That said, B was 4 lbs 14 oz and A was 3 lbs 11 oz. My OB's and peri's were sure I would have gotten a vag delivery (deliveries!) if A's HB hadn't done that. They saw no problem with the weight difference or the positions (B was head down, A was transverse) even!
Well, I gave birth to the boys! We went in for another ultrasound on August 21. I was 36 weeks and 1 day. The ultrasound showed that baby A hadn't grown in the 2.5 weeks between ultrasounds. The periantologist had me get up and try to change baby A's position over and over so he could keep re-measuring baby A. We couldn't get a larger measurement so we decided to induce. The ultrasound also showed that baby B had moved to transverse. This periantologist gave the okay for a vaginal delivery and left to call my OB. I guess my OB and all the other OB's in her group suddenly got scared and would only deliver by c-section. The periantologist thought this was silly and said that they were just trying to cover their butts. So he got on the phone with the on call periantologists at our hospital and found a few that agreed to attempt a vaginal birth. The labor and delivery were suprisingly easy compared to DD. I got both babies out in 3 pushes with baby B footling breech. Baby A weighed 4 lbs 14 oz and Baby B weighed 5 lbs 9 oz. Both were the picture of health despite their weight. They roomed in with us and we left the hospital 48 hours later. Both boys are exclusively breastfed and are now WELL above their borth weights.
SAHMlovin' fan to DD 10/00 & DS 10/04 If your ds is intact, keep him safe, visit the Case Against Circ forumCirc, a personal choice, Your sons11/986/99anti-tobaccoThyroid cancer survivor. With & & (Boxer) wishing 4 &