are tendencies to difficult labours inherited genetically?

[babyonboard]

I am just wondering as my mum had a very difficult 48 hours + labour with me,2 weeks overdue, and I weighed 10'2, she then had placenta previa, then a breech baby with my siblings.
I am hoping these things aren't passed on genetically.
So far we have had very different pregnancies. i have had many ailments- spd, bad morning sickness, low blood pressure and fainting, anemia etc, whereas she was totally fine throughout most of hers.
Does anyone have actual medical knowledge about this, or just anecdotal experience..
My midwife asked about my mums labours and it is on my notes but I always forget to ask her.
as labour gets ever closer I am getting a bit worried!

BoB - I personally think that is is hereditory. Like you pelvic size/shape etc etc. My Mum had 4 straightforward and relatively quick labours. I have had 2 the same.... not exactly scientific, but I'm sure the midwife told me that it was genetic.

Ooops, should add... I don't think the position of the baby or placenta praevia are hereditory! More just the efficiency of your womb and the size/shape of pelvis.

In the case of myself and my mother there does seem to have been a strong element of heredity, in particular that both of us gave birth vaginally three times without no tearing or stitches.

I don't know - my mother's whole gynaecological / obstetric experience has been different to mine. She's a walking textbook of problems - everything from endometriosis and retroverted uterus to a molar pregnancy. We're also quite a different build.

I do think that there is some family indication of how long your gestation will be though: i.e. if your grandmother, your mother and your aunts all tended to go towards 42 weeks, then there's no reason to think that you'll be popping at 39 weeks...

RZ - THats a fair point.... all 4 of my Mums children were born between 37-39 wks. Both my children were born at 39wks.

well..it's confusing..i was two weeks overdue..my brother was born at 34 weeks via caesarian, and my sister at 38 weeks via caesarian (obviously both due to the complications...)
I am a lot taller and slimmer than my mum, and she was fairly overweight at the time of all her deliveries. She has also had endometriosis, and had serious problems ttc, whereas I fell pregnant whilst on the pill.
she also had none of the pregnancy related ailments I have..and she had ver ybad stretchmarks from quite early on, whereas I have had none so far.

Another anecdote: I was a first baby, transverse and my mum had a c-section. Ds, my first child, was transverse...etc. Frank transverse presentation is very unusual in first pregnancies and it was suggested to me that there may be a hereditory factor at play - pelvic shape or something. She went on to deliver a second time naturally, against her will, with what she describes as a dreadul labour. My other live delivery was also a c-section for failure to engage and potential cord prolapse...

wow..so it seems you can expect a fairly similar delivery...argh!
Though I don't know how her subsequent labours would have been as my siblings were born early via c-section, so maybe I was just a difficult one!hehehe

I dont believe it personally

mum had 4 labours, all different, I have had 2, both different

my mum had 5 rotton labours. The worst one was where she was induced with my brother (they reckoned she couldn't go over her due date as she was too old - 39!!).

DH has an enormous head and he went into foetal distress - horrible forceps elivery.

I decided for an elective CS, despite my OB poo-pooing y reasons.

Guess what - DS in an oblique lie with a huge head (measured every day for 4 days by the paediatrician). The junior docotor said afterward - 'be grateful you didn't even try for a conventional delivery'.

I'm not sure, I don't know if there is any real evidence. There is so much to consider. My mum had two awful and two easy. I've had two awful and one nearly easy - I'm definitely due an easy one now! We both went very overdue and had big babies. However my sister had two very easy, both waterbirths, one at home (she is a midwife, i'm not sure that makes a difference, she did get awful PND). Interestingly my build is like my mum's (pear/hourglass) whereas my sister is taller and more of an apple shape.

Well Mum had just me, and had a backache labour, as did I, threw up during labour, as did I, and delivered within 12 hrs, I delivered in 8, Mum had to have her waters broken, as did I....pretty similar here then.

Had a thought - perhaps one of the reasons they ask about one's mother's labour(s) is for psychological reasons as much as to ascertain a genetic disposition. One's feelings around birth, expectation of pain, damage, powerlessness - or alternatively happy positive empowering images - could be / are drawn very much from what one has heard from one's closest relatives. (Isn't this the reason ole Britney gave for having an elective Caesarean...? )

My consultant is a great believer in the maternal line being a factor to consider when advising mums to be. For example, my mother, grandmother and great grand mother all had horrific births as did I. Interestingly, almost all the babies were seriously overdue and on the whole they were induced. Our inherited "problem" is a small pelvis. My grandmother had 6 still births and 2 live babies and my great grandmother had 14 and just one live baby. Of course, I was ignorant of all of this as my mum didn't want to worry me and what a mistake that was. 48 hours of hellish labour, emergency section at the end followed up by counselling from the birth trauma unit. Incidentally, I went into the whole birthing process with a birth plan involving ideas of remaining mobile, minimal pain relief as well as very positive empowering images and they got me nowhere.

Don't know really but in our family short early labours seem to be the norm, my mother had me at 29 weeks (after falling down the stairs apparently) and my brother at 34 weeks, I was an abruption and was 3 and a bit pounds, brother was a 2 hour labour and was 6lbs) I know! I tend to think my mother got her dates wrong and she smoked and drank throughout both pregnancies.

I had DD in 4h 20 mins no complications and at 37+5 weeks, she was 6lbs 3ozs.

Hoping for a short labout with this one too.

The women in my family do not dilate, that seems to be hireditry (how do you spell...)as my Gran, mum, aunt, cousin and now me all had problems dilating. My mum was in active labour for 36 hours with me and only dilated 2cm, I was in active labour for 17 hours with my daughter and only got to 9cm b4 the baby got distressed (too late for ceasarian, doc got the knife out.. 23 stitches later I had my baby!) and my daughter was the only natural birth in my entire family going back 4 generations (if u can call it natural...!)

My Mum had a pretty rubbish labour with me, yet mine with DD was short (3 hours) and uncomplicated. So for us, it would seem there is no link.

My mum had a horrible labour with her first baby (me) - induced, drip, rotational forceps so I was CONVINCED I'd be the same (esp as I seem to be a clone of my mum). As it turned out i had an easy labour & delivery & I'm sure that's because I wasn't induced and had an active first stage at home. Unfortunately my poor sister than went on to have a very long labour and rotational forceps.....

my mum had an emergency c-section with her ds as she counld not deliver naturally and the baby neck was breaking and then then had a planned one with me coz they knew she wouldn't be able to do it.

but i had i completely natural birth with no interventions, episiotomy or tear, so i never followed a trend at all.

My mother is a snake-hipped creature who weighed about seven stone all her pre-menopausal life (and not a lot more now) who told me breezily that chilbirth didn't hurt a bit and she'd just coughed out me and my sister.

Harrumph.

As anyone who has ever seen me will attest, 'snake-hipped' is not a term you'd use for me, but my first labour was a 36 hour pig, and both of them hurt like hell.

All the babies in my family - my mother's, my sister's and mine - have been born before 40 weeks, though. In their case it may be the snake-hippeditude, but I bust that theory wide open.

I think there is no link, in my opinion. My mother had 4 of us, and we were all completely different...so which one shows her 'real' way of labouring...impossible to say.

Sems quite a mixed bunch of experiences..i guess I'll let you know and add mine to the equation in a few weeks time..hehe
fingers crossed those who say it has no bearing are richt as I don't want a very overdue and large baby or a premature one..

my mum - had three quick 'easy labours'. I had two c-sections. One emergency and one elective (sort of).