Mothering Forum banner

1 - 10 of 10 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,375 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
If I go to term, there will be 2 years, 11 months between my c-section and my vbac. does that lower the risk of UR at all, or is it just as high with someone who only has 12 months between births?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,872 Posts
I've read different things: To wait at least 9 months, 12 months, 18 months, and 24 months.<br><br>
My assumption would be yes, by waiting longer, you'd likely be healed more than someone who waited only a few months.<br><br>
However, I wasn't able to get a solid consensus on this issue, so personally, we decided to wait 24 months after my C section before TTC. There will be 2 yrs, 10 months between C & VBAC. I'm not worried about any great risk of rupture.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,648 Posts
My midwife says at least 18 mo is ideal. But these two will be 16 mo apart and she's cool with it.<br><br>
FWIW, the short time was one of the reasons we did not VBAC last time. It was only 19 mo and the doc wanted to induce with pitocin. I did not feel comfortable with that.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
773 Posts
I might be wrong on my numbers, but from what I recall...<br><br>
<18 months = 3-4% UR rate<br>
>18 months = 0.5 or lower UR rate<br><br>
I'm not sure how well those studies were done though, as far as accounting for induction and augmentation, which definitely increase UR rates.<br><br>
I'll have about 17 months between DS and this next baby, so I figure I'm close to that 'ideal' period. Honestly though, I'm not really worried, even with the higher rates. I've read other studies that say that your scar tissue heals as much as it's going to in about 3 months or less.<br><br>
I think it's all about playing it smart. You'll have a lower UR risk than someone with 12 months between births, but not if you allow augmentation or something. Plus, I've heard a lot of great things about red raspberry leaf tea, and its success with toning the uterus for delivery. So if that person with 12 months drinks it religiously, and you don't... then who's to say? All in all, play it smart and you'll get the best chance available to you. <img alt="" class="inlineimg" src="http://www.mothering.com/discussions/images/smilies/smile.gif" style="border:0px solid;" title="smile">
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
662 Posts
I thought I had read somewhere 12 months? Sounds like there is no real solid consensus on it.<br><br>
There is 29 months between my first 2 and that topic was never brought up by anybody I saw during my 2nd pregnancy.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,132 Posts
So it's just based on time between birth and not time between pregnancies then? I've been meaning to do some more research on this because I already have baby fever <img alt="" class="inlineimg" src="http://www.mothering.com/discussions/images/smilies/nut.gif" style="border:0px solid;" title="nut"> (but am going to patiently wait for dd to decide when she wants to wean herself so probably won't be getting pregnant for at least a couple of more years)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
291 Posts
Well, you dohave a better percentage than someone who has less than a year between births. For example, I have a friend that had a c-section and became pregnant 2 months later. She wanted to try for a VBAC, but her office does not perform them that close together. She decided she would have another c-section instead of finding another physician. However, the percentage of rupture is not as large as doctors make it out to be. Of course you have a better chance, but moms who don't wait as long still have a great chance for a successful VBAC.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,872 Posts
<div style="margin:20px;margin-top:5px;">
<div class="smallfont" style="margin-bottom:2px;">Quote:</div>
<table border="0" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0" width="99%"><tr><td class="alt2" style="border:1px inset;">
<div>Originally Posted by <strong>PapayaVagina</strong> <a href="/community/forum/post/7925487"><img alt="View Post" class="inlineimg" src="/community/img/forum/go_quote.gif" style="border:0px solid;"></a></div>
<div style="font-style:italic;">So it's just based on time between birth and not time between pregnancies then? I've been meaning to do some more research on this because I already have baby fever <img alt="" class="inlineimg" src="http://www.mothering.com/discussions/images/smilies/nut.gif" style="border:0px solid;" title="nut"> (but am going to patiently wait for dd to decide when she wants to wean herself so probably won't be getting pregnant for at least a couple of more years)</div>
</td>
</tr></table></div>
I always took the stats to mean the time from C-section birth to pregnancy (when your uterus would start changing/expanding), not from birth to birth.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
14,038 Posts
Some studies look at the length of time between the c/s surgery and the next conception and some look at the time between the c/s surgery and the next labor/birth. I know this drove me crazy when I was researching this...<br><br>
It looks like (roughly...very roughly) the lower UR rates come when the time between surgery and CONCEPTION is around a year (or more) and the time between surgery and BIRTH is about 2 years (or more). And that's more or less the same thing. (Of course, there was that recent study showing that ANY pregnancy/birth was probably going to be lower risk/healthier if it came between 2 and 5 years after the previous birth, but that study wasn't VBAC specific.)<br><br>
Oh, this comes from a sort of unofficial meta-analysis of the studies/data on the Turkowski VBAC site (<a href="http://www.worldserver.com/turk/birthing/rrvbac2005-9.html" target="_blank">http://www.worldserver.com/turk/birt...bac2005-9.html</a>) so it's just what I cobbled together when researching things after my own c/s, not an "official" study or anything like that.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,648 Posts
<div style="margin:20px;margin-top:5px;">
<div class="smallfont" style="margin-bottom:2px;">Quote:</div>
<table border="0" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0" width="99%"><tr><td class="alt2" style="border:1px inset;">
<div>Originally Posted by <strong>pfamilygal</strong> <a href="/community/forum/post/7924446"><img alt="View Post" class="inlineimg" src="/community/img/forum/go_quote.gif" style="border:0px solid;"></a></div>
<div style="font-style:italic;">My midwife says at least 18 mo is ideal. But these two will be 16 mo apart and she's cool with it.<br><br>
FWIW, the short time was one of the reasons we did not VBAC last time. It was only 19 mo and the doc wanted to induce with pitocin. I did not feel comfortable with that.</div>
</td>
</tr></table></div>
My midwife said with 16 months between and with it being after 2 c/s my risk was about 0.9% without using pitocin. I'm okay with that. I'll be going unmedicated in the tub with a doula and midwife at a major hospital with Level III NICU. The doctor will be in-house if I need him. The only interventions I have to have it intermittant monitoring (1 ctx every 30 minutes with a doppler - after an initial 20 minute strip on arrival) and a heplock (I am a very hard stick and would like one in case it's needed).
 
1 - 10 of 10 Posts
Top