Skip to main content
Skip to main navigation
Skip to talk navigation

Active discussions

Please or to access all these features

Add post

Watch this thread

Save thread

Start a new thread

Flip thread

Hide thread

My feed

Saved Active Unanswered threads

Getting started FAQ's

Unanswered threads Acronyms Talk guidelines

Hide shortcut buttons

Talk

Flip

Get updates on how your baby develops, your body changes, and what you can expect during each week of your pregnancy by signing up to the Mumsnet Pregnancy Newsletters.

Get updates on how your baby develops, your body changes, and what you can expect during each week of your pregnancy by signing up to the Mumsnet Pregnancy Newsletters.

Childbirth

First baby not engaged at term - what chance do I really have of avoiding a cs?

18 replies

lucysnowe · 25/03/2008 16:06

Hi all

Just got back from my midwife - I'm 40+1 - who says that the LO is just at the brim of my pelvis and the cervix is too far away to attempt a sweep.

The baby was breech at 37 weeks but since it turned I've been on lots of long walks, being bouncing on my gym ball etc but no joy. My bump is pretty small - there's nowhere for the LO to go but down - so I've half persuaded myself my pelvis is too small for the poor LO to fit and that a unproductive labour and caesarian will be the only outcome.

Has anyone been in this situation and had a spontaneous birth/induction without cs?

Thanks!

OP posts:

Report

phlossie · 25/03/2008 16:12

Hi - this is 2nd baby experience, so not sure if that makes any difference... She turned from breech to head down at 36 weeks. The day before I went into labour she was back to back. When I checked into hospital in labour she was only 3/5 engaged and she was born naturally and spontaneously 45 mins later!
With my first baby, my cervix was too closed to attempt a sweep, and I ended up being induced at term +10.
So I'd say the two were unrelated, and that it doesn't nessecarily mean you'll have a C-section... someone else may disagree...

lucysnowe · 25/03/2008 16:47

Thanks phlossie!

I know it is more common for subsequent babies to be unengaged so would like to know especially about first babies but v. interesting to read about your experience!

My bub appears to be back to back as well - it really is being awkward on purpose. ;)

OP posts:

redadmiral · 25/03/2008 17:04

There will be lots of people with advice on how to encourage your baby to move down, and it may well do so in the next week or so.

An unproductive labour and section is not the only outcome, but at least you know the facts. I didn't and was bitterly disappointed when I had to have an EMCS. In the end it was a fantastic birth - you really don't need to worry either way!

AtheneNoctua · 25/03/2008 17:10

I would ask them to check where the cord is before I let anyone induce me.

However, if I was 40 weeks pregnant and some gave me the choice of a planned section vs. induction I'd take the section on the spot.

vacaloca · 25/03/2008 17:13

Ah, I was JUST reading about this today. Here's some useful info. It's not bad news and for what is worth, none of my babies engaged and I still went into spontaneous labour at 40+2 and 40+3.

vacaloca · 25/03/2008 17:15

Just noticed you said baby was back to back - probably the reason why it hasn't engaged and just as well - you don't really want him/her to engage until it's in a good position. Even more info here

TuttiFrutti · 25/03/2008 17:57

Don't let them induce you if the baby's head is still not engaged then. This is what happended to me, and I ended up with an emergency c-section after an excrutiating 23 hour labour. I researched it afterwards and found inductions when the baby's head isn't engaged only have a 20% success rate.

Having said that, you stand a very good chance of the baby engaging in the next few days, so don't panic! Try not to spend all your time worrying (easy for me to say, I know ) but just think, in a very short time you will be meeting your baby.

Rohan · 25/03/2008 18:35

You got some good links and info there, but I'll add a quick smidge of anecdotal evidence anyway....

My first baby wasn't engaged at 40weeks, nor at 41 weeks....she engaged with a big old thunk at 41+5, played with my bladder for a few days then popped out vaginally and uninduced at 42+3...in about three hours flat. Not a stitch.

I also had a very small bump!

Good luck!

lucysnowe · 25/03/2008 19:37

Thanks for all the posts - vaca, thanks for the links! Interesting to read about the cord as Athene also mentions - that wasn't discussed at all when I saw the consultant today and it is good to be informed about that. (DH was born with a prolapsed cord, I wonder if it's genetic??)

It's annoying because two weeks ago the bub was apparently left occiput anterior and 1/5 engaged. Things seem to be getting worse (less productive anyway) and I don't know why!

Rohan - nice to hear a positive story - thanks! Tutti - may well ask for the stats for my hospital. I am happy to have an elective cs but would really like to avoid an emergency one if I can.

OP posts:

redadmiral · 25/03/2008 19:53

Yes, when I was in labour they were SO jumpy about cord prolapse (and rightly so), though up to that point it had hardly been mentioned.

AtheneNoctua · 25/03/2008 21:17

My comment about the cord was more about the possibility of it being wrapped around the baby and suspending him/her and therefore keeping him/her from engaging. If that is the case, being induced is unlikely to end any way other than section. So , before agreeing to induction, you might ask for a scan to find out where the cord is. (they will probably refuse, but then you can always refuse induction)

I completely agree with yoursentiments that an elective is preferable to an emergency.

jaynz · 25/03/2008 21:33

Elective would be preferable to emergency if we had esp and could predict accurately that we would need an emergency section. Fortuately the pro's to normal birth far outweigh the pro's to section.

Trust your body just because the book says its usual doesn't mean its normal for you. Island women hardly ever have engaged babies - not even in labour, so for some its just not the way things work.

Be patient and trust your baby too

carrielou2007 · 25/03/2008 21:52

My dd did not engage as she was transverse due to a problem with my uterus. She was also back to back.

I wanted to avoid a cs as was told due to my problems was very likely to also need a hystrectomy at same time if I had to have a cs.

6 failed sweeps, 3 failed inductions, long long (very painful sorry) labour with very bad tearing and forcepts but healthy baby. She was also big which I feel slowed things down as I am not big at all and had the normal sized bum iwth cartoon stuck on bump look!! Born at 40+17 and healthy!! I didn't find the 'you forget about the pain when you hold your baby in your arms' to be true for me but if I had to do it all over again to have her then yes I would.

Your baby will arrive when he/she is ready and whilst I really really did not want a cs it is not how your baby gets here but that he/she gets here safely at the end of the day. Good luck!!

lucysnowe · 26/03/2008 20:12

Ye gods carrie, but glad to hear all was well in the end! When the midwife rooted for my cervix it was painful enough so in some ways I'm glad a sweep doesn't seem to be an option at the mo.

Am feeling a bit more positive today. After all the LO does have 10 days or so to sort itself out and it did unexpectedly turn cephalic of its own accord.

Am just worried that since I've done all I can to make it engage and it hasn't, there must be a good reason why not and any contractions (induced or otherwise) will hurt the poor mite. Can that be a problem? In some ways an induction would be preferable in that case... but then there is the cord to worry about!

OP posts:

phlossie · 28/03/2008 14:57

That was a very good point about not being engaged until it's in a proper position. According to my mum, I was back to back and turned during labour, so it could happen.

Re planned CS vs induction - I was TERRIFIED of being induced and had said I'd prefer a section, but actually it was okay. Nothing happened after the prostglandin pessaries (2 over the space of ten hours), nor after membrane rupture - my cervix was still too tight. At 6pm, after being hooked to a drip for 7 hours without so much as a niggle, the consultant came to tell me he was booking me into theatre at 10pm - at that exact moment I had my first contraction. By 10pm I was 4cm dilated, by 11pm fully dilated and ds was born at 11.44pm! I tore, but it was okay. In fact, it was bloody brilliant!

Just looked at the date of you last post... you may have had it by now - let us know!

mumofnone · 28/03/2008 18:53

carrielou 40+17 -- how did you cope?

lucysnowe · 28/03/2008 19:40

Nope, nothing's happened yet!

Went to the m/w again today who has confirmed that the LO is back to back, which is probably why it hasn't descended properly.

Options now are to do a bit of positioning to see if that does anything and otherwise wait until my induction at 42 weeks. In some ways I would prefer that to anything sudden like rohan's experience - if only because I am a neurotic first timer...

OP posts:

maxbear · 28/03/2008 19:53

I would say that in my experience (as a midwife) you are still likely to be able to have a normal birth, but you may well go quite overdue. We are supposed to send women to see a consultant if they are term with an unengaged head, but it isn't actually a problem in most cases. Not entirely surprising in your case as it is still getting used to being head down. Keep up the walking and forward leaning positions and stay positive.

Flip

Please create an account

To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.