Mothering Forum banner

1 - 3 of 3 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,907 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
I mean specifically in like primips or more mainstream women who don't try to change the position? I've been reading a lot of birth stories online where the first baby is breech or transverse and the women end up getting c-s. I'm just wondering if, in the past, a first baby was more likely to be LOA? Has something changed?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,368 Posts
I don't think that they're necessarily more common, but I do think that c-sections are more common. Seems like many of the people I know with "malpositioned" babies had their sections scheduled at 36 or 37 weeks, which doesn't really allow baby the optimal time to turn. Even my client whose baby is currently breech and is very adamant about allowing him to turn has her section scheduled at 39 weeks.<br><br>
So, while I don't know that I'd say malposition is more common, I would say that c-sections for malpresentations are more common, if that makes sense.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
826 Posts
I don't think they're more common. I think that the ability to diagnose them (especially through u/s) has pushed people into making assumptions about the babies not being able to get where they need to be during labor. My second was posterior well into labor/pushing and needed a lot of coaxing to make it to LOA.<br>
My first was transverse until 37 weeks, breech until 39, and transverse again prior to my induction/c-section. I was scheduled for a section at 39 weeks and had he waited an extra day to turn, I would have had it then.
 
1 - 3 of 3 Posts
Top