Unfussy Uterus - interested how many of you feel this could be true for you
sunshine76 · 16/05/2011 17:50
This was in the New Scientist.
Since I read this last week I can't help thinking this really applies to me and my situation.
With my daughter it took us more than a year of well timed intercourse, temping, charting etc. But once I got pregnant it was successful - she is 3 in Sept.
We said lets try again in Oct 2009, got pregnant first time no-temping, only vaguely 'trying' - that ended in a miscarriage at 10 weeks.
We decided to leave it for a while, forward to Sept 2010, said let's try again, got pregnant first time again, only had sex once in the assumed fertile window, but no temping/charting etc. That ended in miscarriage too at 11 weeks.
After that we decided to try again quickly (no temping/charting just guessing at the fertile window) and got pregnant within two months, lost that one at 5 weeks.
So it seems to me that I am getting pregnant very very quickly but none are viable. I am 34 now and 31 when I had my daughter so not sure if age would be an issue.
Just interested who else has a story a bit like mine and how many women out there this non fussy uterus theory might apply to?
I don't believe there is anything they can do about it at the moment, but for me it provides a little bit of comfort that this could be the reason I am miscarrying, and I need to keeping trying and hoping that we get a sticky one soon.
Thanks for reading and please share your story if you would like.
luckyfor2 · 16/05/2011 20:16
Hi sunshine I read this article last week and wasn't surprised at all. I have had 2 children 5 and 4 and then three mc over the past year. Each time I have managed to get pregnant straight away. I actualy said to my friend after my second mc how it seemed like I got pregnant whatever even if the egg/sperm wasn't right. After my third mc my consultant also said that people who get pregnant very easily did seem more at risk of mc then those who took a long time to conceive. I've had all the tests done and noting has come back but in my last mc I did get to 15 weeks and there was nothing wrong with my baby so that one is a bit of a puzzle. Anyway I think the article makes perfect sense. I'm 8 weeks pg now so obviously terrified. I hope things work out for you.
Northernlurker · 16/05/2011 20:32
That is really interesting. I have been fortunate enough to have never miscarried BUT I did get pregnant v quickly in my twenties. It's interesting to speculate isn't it if even a small increase in maternal age might make that much difference for woemn like me? Terribly sad and frustrating though for women like the op who get pregnant and suffer loss.
sotough · 17/05/2011 19:30
hi there, i think there's definitely something to this theory. i am 36 now but was 34 when my miscarriages started. i get pregnant very quickly, and had four miscarriages in a row. I know several other recurrent miscarriers, like myself, and we all get pregnant very easily.
mumatron · 17/05/2011 19:47
I'm pretty sure this is the reason for my recurrent miscarriages. Well, coupled with my dp poor sperm morphology was the reason given to me by my consultant.
I fell pg with my ds while on depot injections, pg with dd1 while on the pill.
Feel pg again 5 times within no more than 2 cycles.
4 first trimester losses.
Basically we were told that dp's crap sperm were fertilising my eggs and producing embryo's that probably had defects of some sort. These would normally fail to implant but my uterus was letting them implant anyway.
milkyway07 · 17/05/2011 21:16
Hi, I too am a RMC sufferer who gets pregnant within the first month of trying. I had my DD when I was 24 and my first mc when I was 26, so agree that age has nothing to do with it. I have had 4 first trimester miscarriages in a row and got pregnant first time with all four. Interestingly, it took us 2 months to conceive DD and that was my first pregnancy.
This article is really interesting, and if my mc's are due to an "unfussy uterus" then like you OP, this also gives me hope that maybe the next one will be sticky. I am 6 weeks pregnant at the moment and conceived first month trying again - hopefully 5th time lucky.
mumatron · 17/05/2011 21:47
i'm only 29 so i don't think age is a factor in my case. mc happened when i was 26-27.
good lucky milky i had my dd2 after 4 rmc so it can happen.
milkyway07 · 17/05/2011 22:23
Thanks mumatron That's interesting, all mine have happened (so far) between 26-27 years too. This is my first try after hitting 28.
mumatron · 18/05/2011 06:38
are you taking any medication? i took heparin until 14 weeks in my last pg. even though my blood tests never really showed a definate problem.
milkyway07 · 18/05/2011 10:47
My bloods came back normal aswell, but I'm on high dose folic acid and baby aspirin aswell as high dose vitamin D, as they found I have a vit D deficiency.
mumatron · 18/05/2011 19:17
Fingers crossed that things work out for you this time
LAF77 · 18/05/2011 21:27
I have become pregnant without trying as well. I came off the pill last January and was pregnant in February. When we had the go ahead to try again after my MC again in April, it happened right away in August and lost it in Sept. I wasn't expecting to get pregnant in October as I wasn't within the ovulation window and I got pregnant regardless and lost it in December.
My cousin has also had 4 miscarriages and she advised me that she conceived her daughters when she used the ovulation kits and only in the window. Any time outside of then she miscarried.
I couldn't believe her that it was true. We learn in sex ed and biology that pregnancy shouldn't be successful if the conditions are not right.
I am going through the tests at Saint Mary's and I feel that I owe it to myself to have everything checked out before I try again. I will see them next week and will ask about this theory and if there is something that can be prescribed for treatment or if they subscribe to the theory.
LIBBY70 · 18/05/2011 21:57
Yep this definately applies to me. All my pregnancies I got pregnant 1st or 2nd time of trying (usually 1st time). Luckily have 3 DC's but have had 4 early MC's in the last 18months. Am 40 but seem to get pregnant too easily only to miscarry.
When i was trying NOT to conceive we used condoms, one split so also took morning after pill-still got pregnant!
sunshine76 · 18/05/2011 22:15
Thanks for sharing your stories - seems there is quite a lot of women this non-fussy uterus could apply to.
With three miscarriages I am unsure whether to go for tests now or just keep trying, my DD is perfect so I know we can do it...reluctant to get on the test merrigoround...
All my miscarriages have been different, so hoping it is a run of bad luck. I think I will risk one more then seek help...
Chestnut99 · 19/05/2011 23:09
This is very interesting and is ringing bells with me too. Also bit scarey as I am just pregnant again after 3 MMCs, 2 since my DS was born. Each of my 5 pregnancies has happened within 3 months, the 2nd MMC was literally "shall we try?" and next morning I was pregnant ...
Has anyone discussed this with a RMC specialist? Am seeing mine on Sat but he is pretty gruff, talks in undeciphered medical code and doesn't waste words IYSWIM so not the easiest person to ask lots of questions to ...
hairylights · 20/05/2011 18:12
Me too. 43, no dc, and four pregnancies in 12 months , 3 of which have been missed miscarriages, I'm now 5 + 4 and bricking it. All pregnancies achieved within first month of trying.
Chestnut99 · 21/05/2011 14:36
Asked my RMC consultant. he said initially that it sounded like nonsense but when when I tried to explain it better, he asked me to e-mail the article to him.
Have discovered today that my fertility levels are extremely low (am 40), which was a bit of a shock given that I have fallen pregnant three times since last summer ... So this could be the answer - duff embryos which never should have got going at all.
pudding25 · 21/05/2011 22:25
I have had 2 miscarriages in the past 8 mths and both times got pregnant at the drop of a hat (I just turned 39). DD (aged 3) took a couple of months to conceive. It sounds a feasible theory. I have just been tested for blood clotting and I am fine. Not sure if I can face trying again for a while if at all.
Coconutfeet · 22/05/2011 10:14
And me. I'm 43 and, since giving up breastfeeding last August, I've been pregnant every single cycle that I've had resulting in three miscarriages and a chemical pregnancy. I've got one ds and had a miscarriage before him too. I'm currently undergoing testing at my local recurrent miscarriage clinic. I've got my next appointment in July and will mention it to her then. I'm very interested to know what other RMC doctors have said. Thanks for posting this op. I've been wondering whether there's anything in this for a while.
LAF77 · 23/05/2011 21:16
I did some research on the doctor and found this article.
It seems like St. Mary's and Professor Quenby have been involved. I'll definitely ask more questions when I go on Wednesday.
LAF77 · 30/05/2011 10:07
Just had to add this link which was posted on another thread for those who are lurking.
I'm pasting this part of the article which clarifies it for me. I am in the superfertility category as I conceive on the first attempt. It still doesn't make sense to me as I know people who fall pregnant without planning to and are able to carry their baby to term. It helps to start to shape why recurrent miscarriage might be happening to me.
Biologic fertility is measured using TTP . Based on an average MFR of 20%, a simple mathematical model predicts that 74%, 93%, and 100% of normally fertile couples will conceive in 6, 12, and 24 months, respectively . Along the same lines, moderate and severe subfertility are defined by MFR of 5% and 1%, respectively. On the other side of the spectrum is superfertility, characterized by a MFR of 60% or more. In this context, the term ?superfertility? refers to enhanced efficacy in achieving pregnancy but not increased life-births. Superfertile couples achieve 94% and 100% of pregnancies within 3 and 6 months, respectively . It has been estimated that 79% of the population is fertile, 18% subfertile or infertile, and 3% superfertile , . Our retrospective analysis of TTP revealed that 40% of RPL patients report very short time to conception for each pregnancy. Thus, the prevalence of ?superfertile? couples in this population appears to be considerably higher than expected. Arguably, a majority of patients did not, or at least not consistently, report very short TTPs but this is not unexpected as the likelihood of conception is dependent upon many additional variables, including timing and frequency of coitus and the presence of coexisting disorders, such as suboptimal sperm quality or ovulatory, tubal and uterine defects. Hence, additional well-controlled, prospective studies are warranted to test our assumption that the superfertile end of the fecundity spectrum is as much a pathological condition as subfertility.
Coconutfeet · 30/05/2011 15:03
This is fascinating LAF77. Thanks for posting. I think I might also be in the superfertile category as I've had 3 mcs and a chemical pregnancy since last September - i.e. a pregnancy every single cycle I've had since stopping BFing. I also got pregnant very quickly before I had ds, had a MC then got pregnant with ds on the following cycle.
Several friends have said, "well at least you're getting pregnant which is great at your age (43)". But it's just not helpful if I just keep losing each one.
Did you discuss this with your doc at the recurrent miscarriage clinic?
LAF77 · 30/05/2011 17:50
Hi coconut I didn't discuss this with my doctor as I didn't actually see a doctor, just a sonographer and a nurse that took blood. I will discuss it with them when I am there in 3 weeks time.
My first cousin had 3 miscarriages and then her daughter. She had another miscarriage and then her second daughter. She told me that the only times that she was successful, she used the OPKs and only in that window and the pregnancies worked. I dismissed this as some sort of placebo or wishful thinking, but maybe she is right. When I have the go ahead, I will use the OPK and only TTC in this time frame. I asked her about how far the pgs got, but she didn't tell me.
For me, I want to be sure that there isn't another reason why I could be miscarrying.
Have you used the OPKs coconut in your past pgs?
Coconutfeet · 30/05/2011 18:45
I use a Clearblue fertility monitor, which seems to do the job. I was meant to be having a month off last month after an ERPC which then had complications and dragged on for ages and ages, but was taken by surprise when I got a Peak really early, having dtd the night before. Sure enough - chemical pregnancy.
I'm not sure I understand what your cousin means - when she wasn't using OPKs she got pregnant but they didn't work out? Surely there's only a limited fertility window anyway? Or does she mean that they waited until they got a positive OPK and then went for it, rather than say every other day throughout the month? Sorry - I'm full of cold today so probably being a bit slow!
LAF77 · 30/05/2011 20:36
My cousin said that when she didn't use the OPKs she go pregnant and then went on to miscarry. When she had the successful pgs, they only TTC'd during the ovulation window and not before or after.
It's my thought exactly, you shouldn't be able to get pg outside of your fertility window. I've never used OPK's, just going for it when I think I'm ovulating, but perhaps I need to bring less spontaneity to the process. Science tells us that if the fertilised egg is not right, it should not implant and disintegrate and go out with your period.
Perhaps with those of us with "super-fertility" our bodies allow an egg to develop that wouldn't do so in other women, the "non-fussy uterus." Logically, it doesn't make sense to me, but there are many things that happen that defy logic.
Anyway for me, I've done the blood tests at St. Mary's now and I can wait to see what they say, if they can find anything wrong with me, but I will use the OPK's next time. If there is a chance I can do anything to prevent my 4th miscarriage, I will do it.
LittleWhiteWolf · 30/05/2011 20:58
I got pregnant right away when I was 23 and had my DD. Then I got pregnant again in December and later in February, again right away, but I lost both of lose at 6 and 11 weeks, although the latter was an mmc and the baby had stopped growing at 8 weeks-ish. I guess it makes sense that if ones uterus is allowing for embryoes to implant past the normal window or is accepting non-viable embyoes that it would stand to reason for a woman in this situation to be more at risk of misscarriage.
Very factual and I guess helpful to have a reason for the mcs, but what are you supposed to do with that information? How exactly do you train your uterus to be a bit more fussy? I think I need to look into this more because right now its just making me more down about the potential for losing more babies
To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.