Please or to access all these features

Add post

Watch this thread

Save thread

Start a new thread

Flip thread

Hide thread

My feed

Active Unanswered threads

Getting started FAQ's

Unanswered threads Acronyms Talk guidelines

Hide shortcut buttons

Talk

Childbirth

Share experiences and get support around labour, birth and recovery.

Flip

1 2 3

Original poster

Back to back baby will i go into labour naturally

68 replies

lollipopz · 22/12/2006 11:40

Hiya, my due date is tomorrow, found out on tuesday that the baby is back to back, as he,s already 3/5 engaged it is probably unlikely he will move!
Have heard horror stories about back to back births and was wondering a few things:

First of all is it more likely i will need induced, or can labour still start naturally??

Is the birth really awful, or can you manage without an epidural? it is my third child and i have never had an epidural, and dont wish one, so want to know that the pain will be managable with out it!

thanks in advance!!

OP posts:

Are your children’s vaccines up to date?

Set a reminder

MrsTittleMouse · 22/12/2006 14:16

Mine was back-to-back and born on the due date. I managed without pain relief until 8cm, then a half dose of pethidine got me through 2 hours of pushing. If she hadn't been such a big lump, or if I'd have given birth before, that would have been that and I'd have given birth no problems. As it was, she never turned out of OP and got stuck, at which point I asked for an epidural in (ahem) no uncertain terms before they used ventouse.
This isn't your first though, so according to my MW it'll be easier for the baby to turn during labour.
Good luck!

Original poster

lollipopz · 22/12/2006 15:32

OMG dont want to get overly excited but.. just had a big show. no blood in it but was about the size of a golf ball, this could be a good sign??
Having radom pains like trapped wind too! Dont want to get my hopes up, had a sweep on wed so that could have dislodged it!!
Anyway feeling much better about op birth, thanks for all the support!! xx

OP posts:

wannaBeOnTopOfTheChristmasTree · 22/12/2006 15:43

my ds was back to back and I went into labour naturally two days after my due date. contractions started at 12:30 and were 7 mins apart. by 3:00 they were 2 mins apart and I went to hospital. was 9 cm dilated, not bad for only 2 and a half hours of contractions and a first baby? however ... due to him being back to back I found it hard pushing and was actually pushing for 4 hours. eventually he was born by ventouse. so labour fine, delivery nightmare.

lulumama · 22/12/2006 15:50

a show ...yep...that is a show.....sweep doesn;t dislodge it as such, but gets the dilation started..which as your cervix is soft and antererior , is the next stage

BUT - birth could be hours or days away yet...however, these are all good positive signs.....x keep us posted !

Original poster

lollipopz · 22/12/2006 21:10

Yeah i know!! still feel lok though just uncomfortable, going to have an early night and hope somethings happening when i wake up!

OP posts:

lulumama · 22/12/2006 21:10

sleep well.....xxxx

Original poster

lollipopz · 23/12/2006 07:56

Well nothing happening!!!
Had the most intense pain though inbetween my legs about an hour ago that woke me up. and its still feels really tender, cantshut my legs lol

OP posts:

SleepInHeavenlyPeace · 23/12/2006 08:45

ooooh exciting!
DS1 was born in July back to back.
I had to be induced because my waters had broken and contractions were not getting stronger. Sounds like you won't need inducing which is a very good thing!!!
I had to be on my back for ages as they were monitoring me which was HELL. When I could walk around it was much better. I ended up in labour for 4 hours on gas and air, and then made it to the pool which was amazing relief, so - yes - it can be done.
When it is your first you don't know what to expect!

GOOD LUCK!!!!!!!

lulumama · 23/12/2006 08:50

don;t worry......all good........make sure you eat and drink today, just in case....everything is stretching and moving now, ready for birth....takes a little time..but you;ll get there!

Original poster

lollipopz · 23/12/2006 08:57

Yeah i will, i'm getting everything completely organised for my 2 dds today, stocking filled and everything just incase i dont make it on xmas morning! really hoping i'll be here though, dont really trust dh to do it properly, dont know why !!
so going to hit the shops soon but not for too long, dont fancy waters breaking or something in the middle of packed town centre!!lol
Then i'm gonna take prezzies to everyone i wont see on xmas day!
So will check back in later, but will make sure dh treats me to a slap up lunch just in case!!

OP posts:

PeachyIsNowAChristmasFruit · 23/12/2006 09:21

DS2 was back to back. i ent into labour naturally, a week early. It was stop and start, and dragged on for 44 hours, most of which were virtually painless and having one fast labour and one slow as well, I'd definitely recommend it. I did nearly end up being snet to the main hospital for intervention, but the MW did exercises with me and that was avoided.

Good luck and best wishes X

Kazziegirl · 23/12/2006 09:23

Both of mine were back to back. I went into labour spontaneously both times. DS was 2 weeks late and DD was born on her due date. With DD I only used tens machine. Best of luck lollipopz - hope all goes well.

DizzyBinterWonderland · 23/12/2006 09:31

dd was back to back. she's my only first baby so i have nothing else to compare it to.

i went into labour spontaneously, 8 days late after refusing sweeps from over eager midwife.

i used birth pool and gas and air for pain relief, gave birth out of water though because i had syntocin drip to keep things going. this was after she still wasn't born 27 hours after my first contraction and i was stuck at 5cms.

it was fine, didn't even have epidural with the drip, which the midwife seemed pretty amazed by. consultant said i'd have to have epidural, i said i'd prefer not to. he said the pain would be horrific, it wasn't.

lulumama · 23/12/2006 09:32

see..lots of positive OP baby stories! make sure you have a really good lunch..tell them you are in labour..might get it on the house! LOL

WeWishUAMerryXmasNANappyNewYr · 23/12/2006 09:58

i was induced with my back to back baby BUT i didn't actually know ds was back to back until the mw examined me at the hospital. he must have turned round between then and my last antenatal appointment which was about 4 weeks previous due to me having exams.

WeWishUAMerryXmasNANappyNewYr · 23/12/2006 10:00

oh and i didn't think it was too bad. makes sense now why i had a lot of back pain during pregnany though and a "back" labour. i always get back pain furing my period too duno if this has anything to do with it. i was induced at 6:30pm started getting back ache at 10:30. 2:30 pm waters broke, pain muchm ore intense. ds arrived 5:10 am.

LIZS · 23/12/2006 10:20

ds was OP and noone realised until late on(which may have been an advantage since it meant I didn;t worry about it in advance). It was a slowish labour (but he was my first) but started spontaneously. Lots of backache but bearable, then 5-6 hours on gas and air. My tip keep mobile and upright, I was monitored as his heartbeat was erratic, and remained on the bed way too long in retrospect. He was ventouse in the end.

thirtysomething · 23/12/2006 10:34

dd was op and i went into spontaneous labour at 38 weeks. It was pretty quick although she got stuck at tne end and needed forceps. However my first baby - ds - wasn't op and he got stuck too so think this is more to do with my pelvis anyway. It didn't seem to make a huge difference but they did make me lie on my back and wouldn't let me move around (crap hopsital, another story!) which I think prolonged it a bit. The other thing was it was only when a doctor appeared towards the end and shouted at the midwife that they actually seemed to realised dd was back to back. Nobody had really articulated this up until then (this was just before the pushing bit) so I think the fact that you know already will make it far easier to manage the birth! Good luck, will be thinking of you!

SHHHHsantaiscoming · 26/12/2006 11:27

lollipopz thanks for starting this thread. I am 35 weeks and from my last mw appointment at 33 weeks my mw has told me that ds2b is slightly back 2 back..Not sure if this is is helpful or not (compared to being back 2 back iykwim) but all I had heard was negative stories about back to back birth. My mw told me come my next apppintment at 36 weeks (should be 35 but due to christmas/new year.....) she will give me tips to turn baby if he is still back 2 back.....

I went to the hospital last week for antid and asked for babys position to be checked and he's still the same. MW was NOT helpful and replied "Oh yes it does mean labour will be longer and more painful". Yeah thanks for your help..as though I am not petrified enough. I'm bricking it.

Following tips from here I am trying to prepare myself..I have been on my birthing ball for the last few days...I need to ask others: The issue about tummy button being "normal" when baby is back 2 back..well my tummy button changes...some days its an outie and some days normal..CONFUSSED..??????!!!!!!!!!!!!

lulumama · 26/12/2006 12:42

don;t worry too much re the belly button thing..babies don;t stay still in the womb..and he is wriggling about still and it will depend where he is lying and which bit is under the belly button

OP babies can and do turn in labour, even if they don;t, there are things you can do to make it a bit easier on yourself..

if he is slightly back to back, according to the midwife , i wouldn;t worry to much...have a look at the info and links about encouraging an ROA position....xx

SHHHHsantahasbeen · 26/12/2006 13:04

thanks lm...This is my 2nd and with dd all seemed straight forward text book..went into labour on time, 10 hr 50 min labour etc ..guess I expected things not to always be straight forward.
Suppose also the closer you get to due date the more worried you become..well I do anyway. .

lulumama · 26/12/2006 13:47

don;t worry.....relax, visualise a lovely straightforward birth..no reason why not, is there?! off out now..put your feet up and have someone feed you some chocolates !

Pruni · 26/12/2006 14:08

Message withdrawn

foxinsocks · 26/12/2006 14:12

my first was back to back (shamefully, can't remember whether the second one was or not) and was still fairly quick for a first labour. It was painful on my back but giving birth on all fours helped (with dh rubbing my back) - took the pressure off my back. I wanted an epidural but the labour was too quick/too far advanced.

Try not to stress too much about it. There's still loads of time for the baby to turn and even if it doesn't turn, it's honestly not the end of the world.

hunkermunker · 26/12/2006 14:17

DS1 was back to back and his due date was 24th March (I saw him as the one egg I had produced on a scan on the day I conceived - coincidentally my birthday - plus I had three early dating scans, so his due date not at all in question) - he was born in the water ten days late after a straightforward labour without pain relief. I went into labour naturally - induction was booked for 12 days overdue.

I found the most useful thing was DH and the midwives taking it in turns to massage my lower back - hard. They were all saying they were worried they'd hurt me (and I did have slight bruising on my back afterwards!) but I just kept saying "Rub harder!"

Good luck - and it's definitely doable. Look forward to hearing your birth story.

Flip

1 2 3