Is it possible for the skull bones of a 42 week foetus to be too hard to squeeze through the pelvis, without there being anything "wrong" with skull (like fused bones or similar)?
I saw an old post on here where someone said that happened with their baby (it was Janeybops I think), and I read an article that mentioned it recently.
My ds was born by cs at 42+1 because of arrest of descent - his head didn't move down from zero station in 17 hrs of active labour (I was 9cm by the end) - and I wonder if this is why? There was no obvious malpositioning.
interesting one. I am currently doing my essay on prolonged pregnancy (errr, then why am I on mumsnet....?) and although I've heard anecdotal evidence from qualified colleagues that the fetal skull fuses, I can't find it in any of the textbooks research articles I have in front of me here, right now.
If I find something, I'll get back to you. Or perhaps Mears can join in and give us the benefit of her knowledge...
In your case, was your baby big, cos I'm reading that a lot of the time the baby gets too big to pass down the birth canal...
Thanks Oatcake. He was 9lb 12oz, but that is only 4oz over my own birth weight, and I am quite tall with broad shoulders and hips. His head circumference was on the 50th centile at birth, so it's not that he had a big head.
Mm, thats interesting, I had never thought of that. My ds was born at 42 weeks, and I had the same prob, where I couldn't progress through the second stage of labour, and after 2 hours of pushing and not getting anywhere, I had to go for a c section (plus, they lost the babies heart beat) Mind you, when DS was born, his head circ was on the 99th centile, and I am only 5ft. OUCH!
As a midwife I was taught that post mature babies have skull bones that are less likely to 'mould' as well in labour. Moulding is where the bones partly over-ride each other to enable the head to become smaller to pass through the pelvis. I have to say though I have seen many women deliver without any problems at 42 weeks. Often it is more likely that induction has taken place at that stage of pregnancy. I am not sure whether the problem is more a result of induction than being 42 weeks IYSWIM? More likely to be in a position that is not as upright as it could be because of fetal monitoring.
In theory it could be that the head is larger and less likely to mould. How mobile were you in labour Carolina?
I went into labour spontaneously at 40+13. I was completely mobile (mostly standing up) until I got stuck at 6cm. I'd been at 6cm for 4 hours (6hrs after active labour started) when they decided to put in a syntocinon drip and epidural. That was in for about 8-9 hours and I only dilated another 3cm in that time. I even tried to stay sitting upright with the epidural in, as if that would help.
Ds's head didn't engage fully until about 20hrs into pre-labour and there was a real grinding sensation when it did. It had been 1-2/5 engaged for a few weeks before then.
I think you will never really know the reason, whether it was due to lack of moulding, poor uterine activity of pelvic disproportion with head. It may well be that if you labour in a subsequent pregnancy you will not have that problem. Sometimes labour isn't efficient first time round.
Let's hope so Mears! I guess I'll just have to wait and see. In a funny way it puts my mind at rest that you've said I'll never know why it didn't work out the first time. It's been bugging me for 9 months now! I'd hate to think it was something that could have been fixed if the right MW had been there.