Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Childbirth

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

Original poster

If you're first was back to back, was your second?

31 replies

Havetothink · 02/05/2018 21:13

My first baby was back to back, waters went first then nothing and the resulting induced labour was rough, nearly ending in CS (though from things I've read it could have been worse). I am now expecting our second, due October, and really hoping it won't go the same way. Midwife has told me there's no reason to think it will, but she's also the same midwife that last time told me back to back is not a problem when it comes to giving birth Hmm. I'd just like to know what the odds are. If you had a back to back birth the first time did it go any better with the second or was it the same again?

OP posts:
RaininSummer · 02/05/2018 21:14

No it wasnt.

GinaLinetti99 · 02/05/2018 21:15

Both of mine were back to back.

The semi-retired midwife who helped deliver DD2 said that she felt that some women just carried that way. I did all of the suggested exercises on spinning babies and had a very active second pregnancy, but it didn't make a difference.

WinterWonders · 02/05/2018 21:16

No, my second labour was 'normal', which was a huge relief!

BikeRunSki · 02/05/2018 21:17

No.

First was back to back footling breech.

Second was in standard position, but I had a uterine rupture with her.

Pinkponiesrock · 02/05/2018 21:18

My first was back to back, horrific foreceps birth and it took about 3 days in labour!
2nd and 3rd, about 4 hours in labour each and popped out no bother!

qu1rky · 02/05/2018 21:18

My 2nd wasn't back to back but both induced, so neither were great.

MistyMeena · 02/05/2018 21:20

First was back to back followed by loads of complications. 2nd was textbook, no problems at all.

radi8tor · 02/05/2018 21:20

My first was a lovely, easy birth.

My second was excruciating and back to back.

I'm not having a third!

Alabasterangel6 · 02/05/2018 21:22

My first was back to back, horrific foreceps birth and it took about 3 days in labour!
2nd and 3rd, about 4 hours in labour each and popped out no bother!

Ditto exactly!!! After too much worry about it happening again.

Alabasterangel6 · 02/05/2018 21:22

Bold fail, sorry

Marmaladdin · 02/05/2018 21:22

First was a horrendous back-to-back labour . Episiotomy, forceps etc.

Second fell out. Literally fell out.

chickywoo · 02/05/2018 21:24

1st was back to back ended up with forceps, 2,3 &4 were back to back also but normal delivery all hurt just as much but thankfully labour was shorter with each birth!

VioletCharlotte · 02/05/2018 21:26

No, first was back to back, but second wasn't.

Barnaclesbrother · 02/05/2018 21:27

Following with interest.... no 1 was back to back, forceps, enormous tear and pph. No 2 due July.... im weighing up another attempt at vaginal delivery vs elcs. Obstetrician happy to do either but thinks risk of malposition is less is second pregnancy so I’m really keen to hear others stories.

EyeRollChampion · 02/05/2018 21:28

First was back to back. The next 3 were all normal. Try not to worry, I've never ever heard of this being a recurrent problem.

ShowOfHands · 02/05/2018 21:30

My waters broke spontaneously/out of the blue and my consultant said that often it's a sign that the baby is poorly positioned. Waters break not because you're labour ready but because they're putting pressure in the wrong place. I then had a long and very tough labour, back to back, then OT, with a lot of intervention and a crash cs.

When my waters broke at 36 weeks with dc2, I suspected the same thing. I was right. Back to back, v long and an emcs.

steppemum · 02/05/2018 21:32

1st back to back, long drawn out labour, and 2 hours pushing

2nd not back to back and about 4 hours from first contratciona dn she popped out very easily

3rd not back to back, wa sinduced, midwife broke my waters to start labour dd born 1.5 hours later, very easy, except she was bloody huge.

BakedBeans47 · 02/05/2018 21:37

No, second wasn’t back to back but I still had excruciating back pains

MollyDaydream · 02/05/2018 21:43

Yes, all three were. All long and painful labours but they did get easier.

Twodogsandahooch · 02/05/2018 21:46

No

MrsBungle · 02/05/2018 21:46

No second baby wasn’t back to back and was a quick and easy birth - thank goodness!

SunnyL · 02/05/2018 21:48

Yes until about 5 hours before going into labour when she turned. It felt horrid but not as bad as back to back labour. Apparebtly my pelvis is just shaped that way

daisychainer · 02/05/2018 21:50

No

Balancingact12 · 02/05/2018 21:55

My first wasn’t back to back but awful birth - lots of complications though thankfully we are both ok now. Second birth was undiagnosed back to back , a 9lb baby (drs estimated 7lbs 3 days before) but was a quick and relatively straightforward birth! I’d choose it over the first “normal” position anytime,,, though both were too quick for epidurals so very painful Sad

Original poster
Havetothink · 02/05/2018 22:40

My waters broke spontaneously/out of the blue and my consultant said that often it's a sign that the baby is poorly positioned. Waters break not because you're labour ready but because they're putting pressure in the wrong place.

ShowOfHands This sounds exactly right, my waters didn't break they popped like a cork, zero dilated, not a contraction in sight, not even BH.

But overall looks like it's mostly positive experiences second time round, that's somewhat reassuring Smile

OP posts: