Advanced search

Small for dates probably being induced!

(15 Posts)
AlisonDB Thu 27-Sep-12 12:09:41

Hi everyone,
This is my 2nd pregnancy,
I'm currently 28 weeks, we where told at 20 week scan that baby was small for dates,
Measuring about 1-1.5 weeks smsller than he should
So we had another scan yesterday,
Where the Dr said that he was still small,
She now wants me to have another scan at week 32,

Baby is currently on the 10th percentile And we have bern told if he continues on this percentile i will be induced at week 39.
If he drops below this i will be induced earlier week 37-38.

I would like to wait till week 39 rather than have to go sooner, but im also glad that she is not letting me go overdue, (this pregnancy for various reasons has been so far quite stressful)

I have though heard differing stories about labour being induced and would like to hear about other peoples experiences of being induced,

Versus natural labour:
• Was it more painful?
• is it faster/slower?
• are there more risks?

Any information good or bad is appreciated!
Thanks :-)

MoragG Thu 27-Sep-12 22:12:47

I was induced with DD1 (partly becasue she was small for dates, but mainly becasue my amniotic fluid was apparently dropping) and am now measuring small for dates with DD2 (currently at 31 weeks). We had one additional scan after the 20 week scan (and am scheduled for more at 32, 36 and 38 weeks, but these were decided on at my booking appointment becasue of DD1 being small). DD2 is apparently on the 12th centile, but there has been no mention of early induction so far. As DD1 was 9th centile but perfectly healthy it seems to have been accepted that I just have small babies!

With my induction with DD1 it was slow - process started on the Friday pm, and she was not born until the early hours of Monday. I was given 3 pessaries of which the first two didn't work in terms of getting labour started. Eventually my waters broke, and so I was put on the drip. The time from starting the drip to DD being born was around 9 hours. Part of the overall delay was waiting for a room to be free on the labour ward to get the drip started though!

As I have not had another labour to compare with it's hard to say how the pain was, but my impression is that with the drip the contractions are much more intense much more quickly rather than building up over time. I had an epidural which didn't work properly sad

In terms of complications a lot of people say that there is more chance of some kind of intervention with induction - with me I had ventouse at the end, but this was because her heartbeat was dropping and it turned out that the cord was around her neck.

I am hoping not to be induced with DD2 if at all possible, and in your position I would definitely want to wait until at least 39 weeks. However, it seems possible that the induction process might be a bit quicker with a second baby? Not sure about that!

AlisonDB Thu 27-Sep-12 22:27:25

Thanks, How many weeks where you when you where induced?

I really hope i can last until 39+ weeks,
Hoping if i can last till then i will be almost ready to go anyway!
my 1st son was born at 40w+ 2 days

Midgetm Thu 27-Sep-12 22:31:31

I was induced. DD was small for dates, I developed PET and baby had IUGR she was on 7th centile when born at 37 weeks. Induction didn't take long, it was painful as baby also back to back but once I had an epidural it was fine. Pushed baby out myself, no stitches, It was the right decision to induce as my placenta had already started breaking up a bit and I ended up needed an ERPC to get it all out. The induction itself was not really that bad, but I also had nothing to compare it to. I ended up with other problems and stayed in for ages, that was the worst bit.

MoragG Thu 27-Sep-12 22:32:12

Sorry should have said - I was at 39+ 1 when induced with DD1 - she was born at 39 + 4. Hope you can hold out until as late as possible! I am now starting to wonder if there will be any suggestion of induction again for me with DD2, but am definitely not planning to bring it up at my next appt!

armedtotheteeth Thu 27-Sep-12 22:35:58

10th centile is not that small - I'm surprised they would induce you if baby stays on.10th centile. Is there any other cause for.concern or was.your first baby especially big?

I was induced because growth appeared to be slowing but was told they would not induce for small size alone. Induction was fine, easy labour, helped by the fact that it was indeed a small baby!

armedtotheteeth Thu 27-Sep-12 22:37:51

(2nd centile, born day before due date)

Sleepwhenidie Thu 27-Sep-12 22:46:37

I'm surprised by that too, ds1 was on 9th centile, per scans and when born, but I had him naturally, in a birthing centre, no objection from drs.

Ds2 was really tiny, not even on chart from 20 weeks on. The decision to induce him at 39 weeks was also only taken when amniotic fluid dropped. He was born on 0.4th centile. 3rd baby, it will be easy, your body will know what to do and click in, they said _< hollow laugh>. it didn't. I found it much harder than 2 births without any drugs, probably largely thanks to a useless midwife but whatever, personally I would try and avoid induction if at all possible.

Startailoforangeandgold Thu 27-Sep-12 23:26:33

DD1 was small for dates and had low amniotic fluid levels. Cue lots of scans and loads of fetal heart monitoring sessions.

She was born a bit below the 9th percentile at 39+1. Naturally on the day she was due to be induced.
(Sex can induce labourgrin. Actually I suspect she knew she'd stopped growing and agreed with the consultant it was time to come out.)

My bump was no bigger with DD2, but I had far more laid back MWs. They didn't send me for any extra scans. DD2 was born at home at 39+4 exactly on the 9th percentile (6lb5oz a whole 2.5oz bigger than her sister).

So I've always wondered if the fuss was worth it, both PGs felt exactly the same.

This is the only time she's been bigger than DD1(14) who is 75% for hight and probably a bit over for weight, but no way am I going there.

DD2(11) has been, since she was one, exactly average.

Good luck OP, and don't worry the baby may be a bit small when it's born, but they'll soon catch up.

frazzledbutcalm Fri 28-Sep-12 12:22:14

I've had 1 labour where I went into labour myself and 3 inductions. In my experience there was no difference between any of them. All got quicker the more I had .. 1st labour 2 and half hours, 2nd labour 2 and half hours, 3rd labour 1 hour 40 mins, 4th labour 50mins (most of this time spent waiting for midwife to be ready!). Babies were 5lb 3oz, 7lb 1oz, 6lb 14oz, 8lb 3oz. Bizarrely, they said I was hiding 1st baby very well and it was going to be quite big for me (I was then 7 stone wet through and size 8), and he ended up being just 5lb 3oz. They said 2nd baby was small, I was measuring small, she ended up being 7lb 1oz. I'm never convinced they can truly tell how big/small babies are.
You hear horror stories about induction labours but you also hear good stories. Mine were all very good, very positive. Similarly you hear horror stories about natural labours and good stories about them also. I'd advise just to relax, have an open mind and just go with the flow on the day.
Good luck. x

MamaMary Fri 28-Sep-12 12:33:04

I was induced due to pre-eclampsia, 2 weeks early (i.e. 37 weeks).

Yes, I would definitely say that being induced early is much more painful than going into labour naturally when your body is ready. Being induced when you are overdue is different and much easier, IMO.

For that reason, I would personally say an epidural is essential for an early induction. I had one and was fine smile However, everyone's experience is always going to be different.

Good luck x

frazzledbutcalm Fri 28-Sep-12 13:00:26

Mama I don't agree about epidural. I was induced at 38 weeks due to pre-eclampsia. The induction and labour were very straight forward and quick. I really think it just depends on your body and how it 'does' labour tbh.

armedtotheteeth Fri 28-Sep-12 13:46:43

I only had gas and air (1 day early). Other two labours natural but no less painful.

terilou87 Fri 28-Sep-12 19:40:51

i was induced with dd1 and in comparison to dd2 it was a million times more painful i started labour at 10am i had gas and air, pethedine, dia morphine (this was the best for me) then an epidural at around 3am next morning then babys blood pressure started to drop with each contraction so rushed in for emergancy c sec had him at 4:27 am. with dd2 went in to labour naturally at 11:30am wasnt all that painful went to hospital at 3:30pm opted for diamorphine pain relief had her at 7:50 pm not saying it wasnt painful it was but it was easier. then dd3 labour started 9pm went to bed as pain wasnt too bad, woke up at 5am in agony got to hospital 6:30 it was too late for any pain releif and had her at 7:27 am and again alot easier than first. it is different for every one tho fingers crossed if you have to be induced all goes strait forward for you smile

AlisonDB Sat 29-Sep-12 03:05:39

Thanks for all your advice!
I really appreciate it, i really would now like to avoid induction if i can,
My 1st son was only 7.1lb when born, and apart from my brother, we are not a tall family, or a family who tend to have big babies.
i personally think they are reacting a little to much, and will definatly reguse to be induced to soon (unless they see another reason more dangerous than just being small)
I am only 5" now, when born i was 8.9lb
My brother by comparison who is 4 years younger than me was born 7.2lb he is now 6.1"
So i really dont believe that size at birth means too much!
Thanks again

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now