Advanced search

2nd baby induction at 41 weeks or wait

(20 Posts)
catsnhamsters91 Sat 30-Nov-19 17:57:48

What are people's thoughts? I'm 40+2.

The recent Swedish study suggests that being induced at 41 weeks is safer than 42. Also I think I am in slow latent labour because I'm getting irregular contractions. Does that make a difference to how easy/successful the induction would be? In general I am anti induction because I have heard so many horror stories and last labour was awful. But I am wondering whether to go for it. Maybe second baby it would work better?

Any experiences?

OP’s posts: |
CFlemingSmith Sat 30-Nov-19 18:00:42

No advice, but just wanted to say I was induced at 41 weeks and it was a wonderful experience and I felt totally in control

DieHardISaChristmasFilm Sat 30-Nov-19 18:03:43

The later the induction, the increased rate of still birth. I'd always go earlier (from 39 weeks)

CatteStreet Sat 30-Nov-19 18:05:05

I was induced with my third at 40+10, as is standard where I live. Nothing (bar twinges) happened for several houra and then I went from 2cm to birth in 20 minutes. shock
As experiences go, it was fine (those 20 mins were obv very painful but I think the doctor was more shocked than I was - she was only in the room by chance and there was no MW there).

I think 40+10 (where dates are reasonably certain) is a reasonable point to induce and I don't believe induction is always to be resisted/avoided at all costs. The stillbirth risk does begin to rise significantly after that point.

CatteStreet Sat 30-Nov-19 18:07:32

Oh, I had had nothing in the way of contractions before the induction, nada, zilch, despite walks up hills and the like. I'm not sure already being in latent labour makes much difference.

SpuriouserAndSpuriouser Sat 30-Nov-19 18:13:40

Does that make a difference to how easy/successful the induction would be?

Yes, if things are already getting started naturally then a successful induction is more likely, and you would likely need less help/medication to get things started than someone who is further from going into spontaneous labour. This is something you can discuss with your midwife, a quick cervical exam can give a lot of information about how likely an induction is to succeed.

Ultimately it's a decision you need to make for yourself, but there is pretty compelling evidence in favour of not letting a pregnancy continue past 41 weeks and honestly an induction is what I would choose for myself in your shoes.

catsnhamsters91 Sat 30-Nov-19 20:08:32

Thanks everyone. It's good to hear it hasn't been bad for everyone. And that all these pains I'm having right now might help matters. Obviously I am worried about still birth. Also worried about the induction not working properly though and having instrumental birth / csec, also I had really hoped to have a more natural delivery this time which I feel will be impossible with an induction.

OP’s posts: |
catsnhamsters91 Sat 30-Nov-19 20:54:53

Also, do you think it's worth asking for another sweep before being induced?

OP’s posts: |
OrangeZog Sat 30-Nov-19 21:05:28

I’ve never been induced but I’ve had a baby die. I don’t think any of the horror stories you have heard about induction are likely to be comparable. Why risk it?

catsnhamsters91 Sat 30-Nov-19 21:26:13

@OrangeZog I am so sorry for your loss. You're right of course, from that point of view there is only one choice. It doesn't always seem that clear when you have some midwives encouraging you to wait another few days alongside monitoring. Thank you for your message.

OP’s posts: |
OrangeZog Sat 30-Nov-19 21:29:18

I hope it all goes well for you. I’ve heard lots of people say they were pleasantly surprised by how well their inductions went which is perhaps an indication of how we often hear the worst stories but not the others to balance it out. I’ve also heard lots of people go into spontaneous labour and feel it was a bad experience. When we only experience labour one way it’s hard to know how it could have been on different circumstances.

MamaFlintstone Sat 30-Nov-19 21:32:28

I wouldn’t wait past 41 weeks, the evidence is quite compelling. But my view might be skewed anyway because I had a perfectly straightforward 38 week induction so I know it’s not the horror story it can be made out to be.

Northernlurker Sat 30-Nov-19 21:41:38

When I was having my kids I was quite anti induction. I insisted on being booked for induction at 42 weeks not 41+4. Not required because my second and third babies were born at 41 weeks. However now I've read so much more about stillbirth I would be keen for induction at 41+1.

17caterpillars1mouse Sat 30-Nov-19 21:53:36

I've had one spontaneous birth and one Induced (2nd baby) though I was only 38+3 weeks and didn't need the pessary as they could break my waters, just. My induced labour was by far much easier than my spontaneous birth, only needed gas and air and took 7hrs from them breaking my waters.

GrumpyHoonMain Sat 30-Nov-19 21:57:00

I chose induction for the same reason from 40 weeks. If your cervix has already started to soften and dilate and your mw is able to comfortably do a membrane sweep then the prostaglandin gels / pessaries at the start might be all you need to get going.

CatteStreet Sat 30-Nov-19 22:01:11

Fwiw, my induction was my only non instrumental birth. I went into spontaneous labour with the other two and ended up with ventouse both times, despite vastly differing lengths of labour.

MrsCharlesBrandon Sat 30-Nov-19 22:11:11

I've been induced with all 3 of mine, all fairly easy births despite the drip for the last 2. Even had a water birth with DD1 as I'd only had the pessary.

Dd1 was 41+6 - over Christmas so weird ward bookings. Dd2 39+4, Ds 41+ 3.

Ds's placenta had started to break down when he arrived, any longer and I'd have lost him.

Personally if I had to do it again, I wouldn't wait.

EveryFlightBeginsWithAFall Sat 30-Nov-19 23:16:37

Well back in the day I was left until nearly 43 weeks before induction. No choice in the matter.

He was 43+ weeks by the time induction worked and a whopping 2

These days with studies and increased risk of stillbirth I wouldn't risk it. All my other dc were early, although I lost a baby at 20 weeks due to incompetent cervix. I think it's not worth the risk

catsnhamsters91 Tue 03-Dec-19 12:00:49

Thanks everyone I've decided to go for it x

OP’s posts: |
Autumntoowet Fri 06-Dec-19 09:17:32

* The recent Swedish study suggests that being induced at 41 weeks is safer than 42.*
Which study? The one that is inconclusive and therefore morally and scientifically wrong to quote?

Actually, the evidence is not compelling at all. It is old, biased and weak. I refused mine and will do again.
Dates are based on statistics and charts and studies are not accurate bad use women are not being allowed to labour naturally and therefore we can’t get an appropriate data sample.

For medical reasons inductions can be life savings.

Based on dates only to put women through the conveyor belt of healthcare not so much.

Ask for the risks as they will only tell you the risks of not being induced.

You are likely to end up with an assisted delivery for instance.

Just research well and then decide, do not make a decision based of fear based on inconclusive studies

Join the discussion

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

Join Mumsnet

Already have a Mumsnet account? Log in