Is a big baby a reason to have a CS?(22 Posts)
Been discussing this with my consultant. I do NOT want a CS, but we both have an inkling this baby will be big like DD was (8lb 4oz at 39 weeks). I'm measuring a little big for dates and will have a growth scan at 36 weeks. Consultant says we shouldn't rule out elective CS as sometimes big babies get stuck resulting in emergency CS. DD was failed venutose and forceps, and was quite literally pulled out with all the drs strength!
Should I be worrying about emergency CS?
Planned CS has less risk than em CS, but if you can manage a vaginal delivery then that's safer - unless your dr believes that it won't be safe, then planned CS might be your best bet. Good luck!
Do you know why your first baby was a ventouse? Was it because she was big? And are you particularly small yourself? I had two big babies- 9lbs 9 and 10lbs6 with short uncomplicated labours, but I have (depressingly) wide hips!
I believe the failed venutose was her position. I really must chase up my notes from last time! I think if I managed it last time (just) then I should be able to this time (I hope!). I am thinking of pushing for induction at 39 weeks IF my body is ready, no point otherwise!
Hmmm, my third child was 9lb 12oz and I birthed him super quick without a single stitch! An exam at the beginning of this year and the doctor exclaimed I had a pelvis that was deceiving him - ie, I'm quite petite looking but have
a huge bucket pelvis child bearing hips, apparently.
There is a theory that your body won't grow a baby it can't get out due to size - unless you have GD, of course. But the baby can screw things up by not being in the optimal position. Most babies DO get themselves into the correct 'head down, chin down' position.
Second births, on the whole will be easier that the first. My aunt's firstborn was a whopper, and ventuose. Her second was a slightly bigger whopper... and flew out unassisted! Doesn't mean it goes that way for everyone, naturally, but as I say, on the whole second births? Well, your body kinda 'knows what it's doing now'.
How do you feel about a cs? If it looks like that'd be the safest way to go then you need to give it serious consideration. I know with ds2 (the 9lb 12oz-er) they were estimating about 8lbs of baby so the growth scans (I measured 3 weeks ahead at one point) aren't really an exact science.
i had 3 big babies (8.10, 9.10, 10.5) all SVD. no intervention needed i am now working on the fourth and all of a sudden i am being told i may need a cs for high bmi as well as big baby never heard it before and was very shocked, but have no intention of having a cs if it is not a medical emergency. i am fairly certain my body will be fine with what it is making
My first 2 c-sections were due to big babies and a small pelvis. The were 10lb 8oz and 8lb 6oz (2 weeks early and 4 weeks early). But their heads couldn't even engage in my pelvis as they were so big and me small (I'm 4ft 11in).
I dont think it is. My Mum's cousin had 3 big babies, all around 9-11lbs in weight and she gave birth vaginally to all three with an epidural. Unless you have a very small pelvis, then I don't think that big baby means CS.
Thanks for your replies. I'm not big, usually a size 10-12 and 5'4". I had no issues progressing in labour last time, it was actually fast! Just the pushing that things stopped, I pushed for 2 hours and nothing! My mom is the same size and birthed three 9lb babies....surely genetics say I can too!?!
I had a big second baby (10lb 1oz) naturally and I'm usually a size 8/10 and don't have big hips. The delivery was easy and recovery was easier and quicker than my 7lb first baby. Had anyone have known how big she was, my mw said I would have been booked in for elcs - so I'm very very glad that they didn't know and I had her naturally.
My second baby was 10lb6oz, born naturally after induction at term, painful but easy labour. No stitches/damage. I was offered a CS but didn't like the sound of the recovery - and I'd already had a VB with my first baby who was 9lb6oz
My mum was about your height and even smaller at a size 4-6 when she had her first two kids.
Her first was just under 10 pounds, I was 11 and next was 12. The only small baby she had was my younger sibling who was 3 months premature.
She birthed all her kids naturally without epidural and only gas and air.
My first was 11 lb 2 and I was a size 10-12 although quite tall at 5"6 I had forcept delivery
A lot about birthing big babies is about positioning - theirs and yours.
Mine were 8.10, 9.3 & 11, all SVD, and each birth was easier, faster, and less damaging to me than the previous one. Possibly because I'd been stretchedto there and back, but more probably because (a) my body knew how to do it, (b) my mind believed my body could do it, and (c) my labouring and birthing positions improved with each birth.
By 'improved' I mean more mobile and more upright.
One-off growth scans are unreliable. You would apparently need a series of at least three late scans to get any accuracy.
My first was 10lb13oz, only discovered at term that she was going to be big, I had a growth scan where they measured her shoulders and there was no way she would have fit. So, in that instance - Yes!! I feel as though I dodged a bullet, it could have been catastrophic.
I am pg again and have already said that if it's another big one I would prefer another ELCS, which the consultant was fine with. I'm very tall and so is DH so it looks likely and i'm normally a size 8 so not big at all. I'm more concerned with the end than the means if that makes sense.
ds1 was 7lb 9, and was forceps delivery. ds2 was 9lb 13 and back to back, but no intervention other than gas and air required - am no hero, did beg for epidural at one point but t'was the middle of the night and anaesthetist on duty was in a&e dealing with an emergency. I am 5'3 and a bit, if that's relevant?
Anyway, I suppose my point is, that no, a big baby may not necessarily mean a cs, but I would see what consultant thinks nearer the time.
My 8lber was the hardest to get out. The other two were fine and were 10lb and over 11lb.
I have two 7lbers, average sized heads etc. I had an emcs with both and have been told that I can't give birth vaginally. It's nothing to do with the size of my babies (obv, they weren't huge at all) but to do with the shape of my pelvis.
I think weight alone, as you can see from the responses, doesn't make a lot of difference unless you're talking extreme weights. Position and head circumference make the biggest difference.
Now I could be wrong but I believe that rcog guidelines state that a big baby is only an indication for a lscs if there is diabetes involved. As in such a case the baby has had external factors influencingthe growth past what it should naturally have been. 8lbs4pz is not that big and it's not unusual to have an instrumental delivery with your first. It doesn't mean that you would need either an instrumental or a lscs with your second. Your body has already birthed a decent sized baby, no reason it can't again.
It's good to hear stories in which women birthed a big baby with no intervention or emcs. I DO NOT want either.
Not convinced by the wife's tale that your body produces babies it can give birth to. There is a reason 1 in 4 women used to die in childbirth and big babies was a big cause. I ended up with ecs with baby over 10 pounds and the consultant said it was physically impossible for me to birth a baby that big as my pelvic opening was too small.The surgeons gasped when they pulled him out, such was the size of his head!
He told how his own gran had lost 3 babies in the same way- in the past they just had to let the poor baby pass away and deliver a few days later( when the baby reduced in size) according to him and hopefully the mum survived.I was so sad when he told me this for all those little mites who never had a chance in the past.How lucky we are today.
Natural is always the best option if you can but personally i will have an elective c section this next time to save the fruitless 30 hour labour.
Join the discussion
Already registered? Log in with:
Please login first.