My husband's question was about the timing. Why did they need to do the c-section "2 weeks early"? Could they have waited? I don't know if she was bleeding, etc., but the impression I got was that she wasn't.
Does anyone know at what point they need to do a section for Previa?
I always wonder with praevia - do they just cut right through the back of the placenta to get the baby out? Presumably it's down there where the LT incision is made...? Doesn't that pose risks? Or do they cut higher? Or what?
They absolutely do *not* cut through the placenta when sectioning for previa. The risk of death or disability from previa is the result of the risk of damage to those blood vessels during labor, they'd just about kill you if they sliced through them during surgery. They'll locate the placenta by ultrasound and then do what they have to do to get around it. My c-section turned out to be the standard-issue lateral incision, but I was lucky. They do sometimes have to do classical incisions, or, in drastic cases, hysteroscopy.
Perhaps she'd begin dilating or effacing? Perhaps the last praevia baby her ob lost was born at 39 weeks? Perhaps her ob was going on holiday and she didn't want an otherwise-unknown to deliver the baby? Could be anything but probably isn't related directly to the praevia.
In this specific case where we do not know the ob or have access to the notes we have no way of knowing. My point was NOT that c-sections don't save lives in the case of praevia, only that the exact timing of that c-section might well be unrelated to the actual woman and baby in question. Clearly she had to have the section, but did she HAVE to have it at 38 weeks? Could 37 or 39 have been overall "better" or safer? Maybe, we've no way of knowing. Why could it NOT have been unrelated to the praevia?
But 38 weeks isn't "early" - my brothers abrupted at 30+4. Why 38weeks specifically in this case when we all know abruption can occur at any time and can be fatal for both mum and baby (perhaps you missed my earlier post about my mothers experience?)? If a baby can die at 30, 33 +4, 37+1 from abruption due to previa why wait until 38?
I actually think she must have a good doctor...I would say many other doctors would push for an earlier surgery.
When people say things like "maybe the surgery was done then because the doctor was going on holiday", the vibe I get is definitely "bad doctor."
I also have been diagnosed with complete placenta previa but it's posterior. My doctor has me scheduled for a C-section at 39 weeks. I have been reading many many posts that say it's better to have c-section at 38 weeks like you're all discussing. I asked my doctor about this and she said because you're not bleeding and you're cervix is completely closed, we can try to go for 39 weeks. I guess deep inside my heart I'm worried and I'm not sure if it's good to wait that long. There are several factors that I'm considering. First, I live 40 minutes away from hospital so if I bleed, I will have to go to the nearest hospital which is 7 minutes away to an unknown facility with unknown doctors. Second, I heard that having posterior previa was at least better than anterior previa. Please let me know what you think on this. Third factor, is that I have made it to 37 weeks with no bleeding and my doctor checked me 3 days ago and found that I'm still completely closed.
I asked her if I can be admitted to the hospital and stay there under supervision until my scheduled c section and ofcourse the answer was no. The only way I can be admitted is if I'm going to go ahead with the c-section.
I'd love to hear your thoughts and comments on this. Should I push for c section at 38 weeks?
This. My chiro was planning a HB with her baby due last October. She had a complete placenta previa (which was only dx with u/s...there was no indication otherwise, which is so rare!) and had to be sectioned right at 37 weeks because she could not risk going into labor at all.