has anybodys first baby not engaged and had to be referd for a scan?

[starynight]

Hi
Im asking the question for my sister shes 39 wk and 6 days and has been getting pain in her pelvis and groin for the past week along with tummy cramps an back pain that sometimes make her double over.

She attended her mw appointment yesterday who said baby sounds like shes on her way had a feel and babys not engaged ( was 4/5ths 2 weeks ago). Midwife then said ooh its a mystery come back monday and if shes still not engaged you will need a scan make sure you dont need a c.sec.

Anybody know if its normal for first time babys not to be engaged yet?
And what are they lookin for on this scan? Babys size?

She does not no what shes measuring its not been recorded but her bumps only tiny just trying to explain things and give reasurence as shes getting her self all eorked up about a c.sec thanks

My first wasn't engaged at all. I was more than half way through labour and he was still only 2 or 3/5ths engaged. No one ever mentioned a scan or possible c section because of it.

Ive never heard the c.sec bit either i just thought all babys could engage at last minute wether its your 1st or 3rd. The midwife didnt seem to botherd when she thought this was her second but after realising its her first thats when she started talking about c.sec.

Just a guess, but could it be because the mw isnt sure whether the baby is breech or cephalic? They don't use u/s to determine engagement so I'd be suprised if it was this and 39+ is very late for any kind of useful growth scan so the scan is more likely to be for presentation. Not sure about the cs issue though unless she meant a cs if the baby was breech? Could your sister ring the mw and ask?

Doubt they would do a c section for that. When its twins, there is obviously a baby that isn't engaged. Makes no difference, they still come out the same way.

I'm a soon to be first time Mum, so am new at this, and may be completely wrong, but I did read in a book yesterday, that they are sometimes slightly more concerned about first babies not being engaged late on because if a first baby turns out to be breech at a late stage, there is less room for it to move around and get in the head down engaged position late on when there's very little cat-swinging room in there. They worry about it less with subsequent babies as everything is roomier and babies are more often turning completely and engaging later on.

If baby was 4/5 engaged, and is now not, they could just be checking that s/he has not turned completely and can't get back.

This could be complete cr@p though, I know lots of babies turn and engage really late (although plenty do the opposite - my DSis's was 4/5 engaged 2 weeks out and ended up breech which was only discovered in labour and resulted in Emergency CS), and is as everything only based on likelihood and probability rather than what is actually happening to your DSis and her baby. I am sure they are just talking about a scan so that whatever happens, they know what they are dealing with and are probably just trying to limit the likelihood of a surprise.

D

Thanks for your replys everyone babys not breech at the minute could this maybe be incase she decides to wiggle back to breech position.

The midwifes not really explained alot to her all way through to be fair just trying to get through to the other midwife.

My baby did not engage. I had a scan at 41 weeks to determine why. I won't go into all the details of what happened to me because mistakes were made by the sonographer which are unlikely to repeated. However, there are a several reasons why a baby might not engage - as mentioned above the baby might have turned, the baby could be tangled in the umbilical cord, there could be excess amniotic fluid providing a 'cushion' in the pelvis which makes it harder for the baby's head to move down to there.

With my DD she turned out to be tangled up and physically could not engage. I had a CS, it was fine and I now have a healthy 2.6 year old.

When my MW said DS wasn't engaged at my last check, I assumed it meant it was going to be a while before he came out. He was 10 days early despite not being engaged previously. There was never any mention of being worried about him not being engaged.