Back to back babies during labour - Is enough to being done to detect and support

[NurseryRhymesStuckInMyHead]

Just wondering whether others who had back to back (OP) or ROT or LOT babies found that their local maternity services had the skills to detect and support labour in a way that would give mothers the best chance of avoiding interventions during labour in these cases?

My experience was that even though the labour played out as a textbook OP (anterior placenta, start stop extremely long early labour, very slow active labour) OP was not detected until very late (8cm dilated) and then no one told me and no one even suggested trying some different positions that might help the baby turn... Such a shame really as these births seem to have a much higher rate of intervention so really I could have done with all the help I could get! Did anyone else have the same experience?

I know some babies turn easily on their own so I'm not suggesting interfering if things are going well anyway, but if they are not progressing wouldn't it be good to have someone skilled to suggest some different positions, not do ARM, do anything else that might help before interventions?

Yes Keep. Hindsight is a wonderful thing isn't it. I'm sorry you are also in this position.

I went on to have two more normal V births and I think it was only after those that I realised just how bad that first birth had been. The daft thing is that I had high blood pressure verging on pre-eclampsia too so you would have thought that a caesarian was the way to go.

My labour was 36 hrs with very slow progress and lots of hip/back pain - back to back presentation was only spotted (I think) by the 5th midwife I went through, after ARM had happened and meconium in waters had sent me from MLU to consultant led unit. Had an epidural at that point as contractions post ARM were unbearable. It took Syntocin to get my contractions going again enough to get to final stage and then I delivered with ventouse.

Both mine were op and it was missed, I had a feeling my second was during pregnancy as bump was
Same shape as previous pregnancy but I was dismissed!

Only 1 mw picked it up during an examination in my first pregnancy but when I mentioned it to my
Community mw she had a feel of
Bump and said baby was in the right position.

I wish I had known that my first baby was op, it was a long, painful, awful labour and I was completely traumatised when I fell pregnant agai . I genuinely thought my
Labour was an typical experience.

I therefore requests a cs and as part of the process they put me in touch with a trauma mw who told me baby had been op and explained how that affected my labour - this was the first time I knew he was op and talking it through helped me enormously!

Anyway as I said My second was also op and it was missed but he was a much easier and less painful
Labour.

I don't think I'll have a third as
I suspect labour will be difficult again, think my babies just like to lie a certain way

I don't recall it being mentioned that my DD was back to back until after she was born - but I was not exactly paying attention during labour if it was. My labour was actually relatively quick - 12 hours from first contraction and only 3 hours active labour (examined at 4cm for the first time 3 hours before she arrived). However it was total agony and I was really unable to lie down, sit down or stand or move around at all. But once I got into the water it felt like moments from being 4cm to being fully dilated, not sure if being in water has helped others in this situation?

I am now quite concerned about the potential speed of second labour (due in 7 weeks) if this one is ideal presentation, if my back to back labour was relatively quick compared to others. Also worried that I won't recognise how progressed I am if it is a lot less painful than last time and will leave for hospital too late!

Blurton - just seen your update. I'm so pleased they are taking it seriously! Im glad it's helped you and I hope they can learn from it. It sounds like some really positive stuff is coming out of the discussions you've had. Thanks for including the info they gave back its really interesting. It's good that they would admit a woman at 3cm if they kept coming back but really why don't they just believe her the first time? I find that a bit baffling...although better than turning them away entirely I suppose. Really interesting about the NICE guidelines. Let's hope they offer something sensible for these types of labours! I guess that's a fair point about ARM I would never consent to it again tho (I didn't really consent to it the last time either). At best it only shortens labour by an hour and if it's harder for the baby to turn you could be increasing labour by hours or increasing the likelihood of complications. But I understand the point the obstetrician makes.

From what I've heard back to back is usually only a problem with DC1. After that everything has been stretched so there is more room for subsequent DCs to turn. Does anyone know if that's true? Does anyone know if the same applies if u had a c section when fully dilated? Or would that mean that not everything has stretched so back to back would be a problem again?

I'm not sure what the numbers are jamming, but anecdotally I've know of 2 mums in real life who've had 2 babies (DC1 and 2) that have been OP and problematic. I know VBACs are generally more successful if you reached 10cm first time round - but that's a general figure not specific to OP positioning. One of the women I know who had 2 OP babies - before her second labour she was told that it was unlikely to be as bad again but it in the end she sustained life changing birth injuries from her 2nd labour. So not always only a problem with dc1. Sorry, not trying to be all doom and gloom,m she was ridiculously unlucky for that to happen - but it can.

Hmmm this makes a big difference to whether I would go for VBAC or ELCS if baby is back to back again. Anyone else know anything about DC2 being back to back and if is as problematic as DC1?

Both of my babies were back to back. Both straightforward homebirths. First labour was much longer than the second, but still only 10 hours or so. I laboured the whole time either on all 4s or squatting, no way could I sit or lie down. I don't think it's necessarily an issue although maybe mine was helped by homebirths as no need to lie down for examinations etc

Both of mine started out anterior but went posterior during labour. I had a really long, shitty labour with first DC ending in ventouse, no idea if he'd turned but second DD was born posterior. The midwives were surprised so hadn't realised from examining me. I needed a small episiotomy with the second but was a much better experience than the first. I suspect it was more like most people's first labours - 10 hours early 8 hours established labour and an hour of pushing. Still less than half as long as my first labour!

Oh also other reaaon why I think homebirth made it easier was that I wasn't against the clock - think I was pushing for maybe 1.5 hours.

Pink - did they come out back to back or did they turn? I'm not a candidate for home birth but luckily my hospital aren't clock watchers. There was no concern about that at all the clock with DC1.

TeamFinn- I didn't know they could turn from anterior to posterior in labour. I wonder if that's was DC1 was trying to do.

Jamming no idea with DD1 as she came in a big rush in the end and bounced off the bottom of the birth pool.... suspect she turned as she took a while. DD2 turned in labour.