Mothering Forum banner
1 - 3 of 3 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,762 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
My ds is 6 weeks old. He is my second child...my first was a c-section (the docs thought she would be too big). I fought for a VBAC for my ds. At 42 weeks, I ended up having another c-section with no labor. When the doc opened me up in the OR, he said,"It's a good thing you didn't go into labor...your uterus is so thin, it's transparent." He told us that I would have probably had a uterine rupture. Is there any truth to this?

Mommy to Ian
: and Julia
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,641 Posts
Hmmm, my OB and I were talking about dehiscence vs. true rupture today, and she mentioned something about transparent uterus. It was a bit off the main track of our conversation so we didn't focus on it but she was saying that she would call a transparent region in the uterus dehiscence... a dangerous situation... I thought dehiscence was when just a small region at the scar site completely opened.

I'd say that if your doctor was telling you the truth about having a thin uterus that it would be likely you could have ruptured, but I'm no doctor or mw so I can't say for sure.

I'm glad that you are both okay!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
921 Posts
No, this question comes up from time to time on ICAN. There is no research that supports the thin uterus= rupture statement that women who get RCS are told by their docs... their docs are just making an *assumption*- "well it looked pretty thin, its a good thing you didn't labor"- actually there is data that shows that a lower uterine segment where a baby has not yet been pushed out if is going to be thinner than a lower uterine segment where the mom has pushed a baby out before. Who knows how many moms have successfully VBAC'd on "paper thin" uteri??

take care
 
1 - 3 of 3 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top