Earliest time MW will do a sweep??

[Leilababyno1]

Hi,

Just curious as to how early after term an NHS MW will not object to a stretch and sweep? I am expecting a 'large' baby, had 2 growth scans already, one with the consultant who has said baby is going to be 9lbs+

It's my first, will a MW consider a sweep before 40 wks?

Thanks!

I don't think so. procedure is for them to wait till 41 weeks as your not really classed as overdue until 42.

depends on the MW, I was offered a sweep at 40 weeks because DD2 was predicted to be big. I declined though as I had to dash off straight away to collect DD1 from preschool!

ended up going 11 days over and producing a 10lb3oz DD2!

Aaaarghh....really RobynLou? That's what I'm worried about! I am only 5'3' and petite, don't know how I would get out a '10 pounder' without some sort of intervention?! Well done you!

In my area I know the MW offers a sweep at 40 weeks for first babies, so I guess I will just have to suffice with that!

Fingers crossed!

yep, but she arrived in 5 hours from the first contraction (which happened 3 hours before I was due to be induced!) and was born without any interventions and just a tens machine for pain relief, she was back to back all the way out too which added another layer of problems...

big doesn't necessarily = difficult. whatever the weight most babies heads are very similar in circumferance, so long as they haven't got swimmers shoulders you'll be fine

good luck x

Depends on local policy. A sweep's no use if your cervix isn't ripe though, and the earlier it is, the less ripe it's likely to be.

And small women can have big babies without intervention.

And growth scans can be inaccurate :)

Thank's for the reasurrance! Though this is my first, so not that optimistic on a short labour?! But.. you're right I will just have to try and stay positive.

Ta!

Thank's Flisspaps- Obviously, I would only opt for a sweep IF my cervix was favourable...I know the ripening stage can differ for everyone.

I will ask at my next antenatal, when I will be 38+ weeks and see what the MW says- Thanks!

Please don't worry about weight. Nature intends it so in general you don't make babies too big for you. Weight doesn't make a labour/delivery difficult. Head circumference and position are what makes the difference. In fact bigger babies are often reported as 'easier' to birth as gravity plays a part.

I had a 7 pounder that got utterly, utterly stuck because she was facing the wrong way. My friends had a very straightforward and intervention-free birth with an 11 pounder. Don't get hung up on the weight.

Thank's ShowOfHands- I do hear what you're saying, but I have two very close friends who are both petite and had 9lbs+ babies- They DID have difficult births with intervention, which was down to size of baby.... I know this isn't everyones experience, but It can make delivery more difficult for some.

Technically, we should all have babies that are proportionate to our build/height etc...but that isn't always the case especially if you have mixed race parentage etc..

I understand what you're saying but I spent a lot of time with a friend (a researcher) who was pregnant and told she would struggle to deliver (she's tiny, her dh is from a different culture and very large). What she found after a lot of research is that although of course there are examples of cephalo-pelvic disproportion and it is a cause of cs, successful vaginal delivery is more likely than instrumental/cs with babies of a larger size. I suppose what she found was that it's an arbitrary thing to focus on almost because the incidence of other problems for example with average babies- like failure to progress in the first stage -are just as likely. I'm not explaining myself well but I suppose what I mean is that you're no more likely to have an instrumental delivery/cs just because you have a bigger than average baby.

Chuck in problems with incorrect weight predictions and a lot of interesting research into how care is affected by the hcp's belief that the woman will struggle to deliver and actually you can probably say that true CPD is lower than they suspect.

I do understand the worries about something like CPD or shoulder dystocia and am not belittling them but was just trying to reassure you that position and head circumference are more indicative of ease of birth and that it's all on a spectrum. You can have a tiny baby and a terrible delivery and a big baby and an easy delivery. Of course your view will also be coloured by the experience of friends.

Good luck whatever happens. I can't express how amazing it is becoming a mother.

don't worry

Big babies are gorgeoous and don't necessary mean a difficult labour. I had two big boys 10lbs and over 11lbs, both were easier than my 8 lber and gorgeous cuddly babies.

Thank's ShowOfHands- I do understand where you're coming from. I will hope for a positive labour.

cece- I can't believe there is a 'big baby' website, ha..brilliant! Thank-you!

It totally depends on your mw. Mine did a sweep at 39+6, as I asked for one.

I think it's at her discretion. A friend who was an older mum, would have ben induced at 40wk by policy, got her me to qgree to one at 37wk. Another didn't get her sweep at 41 as things were unfavourable

*got MW to agree
Damn phone.

My sister in law is a small, very slim woman. Her first child was over 10Ibs, The second was just under 10Ibs.

Both were natural water births with no stitches.

And the scans can be wrong. My sister in law was predicted a 6-7ibs baby. He was 10 days over due and weighed 9Ibs 8oz

Both my babies were predicted to be big. First was 7Ibs 12oz, second was 8Ibs and a quarter oz. I had a lot more problems with them as both were back to back births and both times I experienced 3rd degree tears

So big does not neccessarily mean more problems.

And even though I had horrific pregnancy with dd2, constantly being sick, spd etc my mw would not offer a sweep until after due date. I was due to see her at just over 40 weeks but went into labour naturally at 39+5

But no harm checking with her. Good luck