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

Pregnancy

Talk about every stage of pregnancy, from early symptoms to preparing for birth.

Flip

Original poster

did your baby engage with your 1st baby?

13 replies

MummyToToby · 04/06/2006 21:54

i have been told if your baby doesn't engage, it is cos you are having a big baby. i just wanted to know how much truth this held. also i have been told if your baby doesn't engage induction won't be successful and you may need a cs. has anyone had a successful induction without their baby engaging?

OP posts:

Are your children’s vaccines up to date?

Set a reminder

Piffle · 04/06/2006 22:05

my ds was not engaged at 41+4 and they were planning to induce me
I decided not to turn up to the appt, and he arrived safely of his own hasty accord at exactly 42w
Short labour, easy, home after 1 hour
So I'd says Bollox :)
And he was 7lb 11 oz

TuttiFrutti · 05/06/2006 10:00

My experience seems to confirm the rumours you have heard. I had a big first baby (9lb 8), his head was never engaged, and I ended up with a failed induction and C-section. I remember one of the doctors saying "I just can't understand why this baby's head isn't engaged" 20 hours after labour had started. I had fibroids though which may explain why his head couldn't get down.

lahdeedah · 05/06/2006 10:13

I had similar experience to Tutti Frutti, though I don't have fibroids. My baby's head never engaged, I was induced at 13 days overdue, she wouldn't move down into the birth canal so ended up with emergency c-section. She was 8lb 10oz, so she wasn't huge but a good size!

CarolinaMoose · 05/06/2006 10:19

my baby's head was only 1 or 2 fifths engaged before I went into labour. It engaged fully after 20-odd hours of contractions but took a lot of hip-wiggling by me and made a weird kind of grinding sensation/sound, so didn't just slip in.

He was 9lb 12oz and ended up being delivered by cs for failure to progress.

Otoh my sister's baby's head didn't engage till she was in labour and she delivered him without assistance - he was just under 7lb though.

If the head isn't at all engaged it can be risky if your waters break, because the cord can fall down below the baby's head and get compressed - I think that may influence what happens re induction, but I would check with your MW.

juuule · 05/06/2006 10:24

My 1st baby's head was about 2fifths engaged so not fully. I was induced because they said that the baby would be at least 9+lbs and I was overdue. Induction worked and baby was 7lb13oz.

hotmama · 05/06/2006 10:29

I didn't fully engage with either of my dd's - but I think this was more to do with them being back to back - which I didn't know - otherwise I would have been crawling to get them to turn.

DD1 was 8.10 and dd2 was 9lb - not huge but I am only 5.4.

I think it has more to do with postioning of the baby and therefore the pressure on the cervix rather than size - but I could be wrong.

hulababy · 05/06/2006 10:32

DD's head engaged quite earlish IIRR. She wa sonly little - 6lb15oz. However we had a failed induction and resulted in a c esction.

Uwila · 05/06/2006 11:17

My first didn't engage. I was induced (shouldn't have been). Had emergency section a day anad a half later. The reason was that she was wrapped up in the cord. Had someone given me a scan to see why she hadn't engaged, this would have been revealed and I could have a had a peaceful planned section.

Sometimes, however, if the baby's head is too big that can be a reason not to engage. And if that is the case, yes, I image chances of section are very good.

I have no idea what your situation is. But, my advice would be if they start talking about induction, start asking why your baby has not engaged, or why youhave not gone into labour. If they say "hmmm... don't know" tell them that isn't good enough. Get a scan, ask them where the cord is, and ask them to measure the head. They probably won't want to do this. But, I assure you a scan is better than a failed induction followed by an emergency section.

LeahE · 05/06/2006 11:59

DS didn't engage (and growth scan showed he was big) -- discussed with consultant who said they would be happy to let me go over but if I got to 42 weeks and he still wasn't engaged they'd suggest (although not insist on) an elective c/s rather than induction as in her experience under those circumstances induction only worked around 20% of the time and they'd prefer to avoid putting me through a failed induction followed by emergency c/s.

As it turned out my waters went in the early morning of 39+4 and I went into labour -- 40 hours later and after 90 mins pushing he'd only got down to 0 station. They considered ventouse but felt it was too risky so had emergency c/s.

He was 10lb 5.5oz at 39+5 in the end (he was also back-to-back, the little tinker -- had been beautifully anterior for weeks and weeks but turned somewhere in the last couple of days in spite of my doing all the "right" positioning things).

jellyjelly · 05/06/2006 12:07

aM QUITE SMALL BUT HAD 9LB boy engaged quite early.

Laura032004 · 05/06/2006 13:12

DS never engaged, and I went into labour at 40+12. I had regular contractions for several days, but didn't progress beyond 3cm. They broke my waters and put up a syntocinon drip, but they didn't work. Ended up with an ec/s. His head was on the 99.8th centile

Laura032004 · 05/06/2006 13:12

Was only 7lb 13.5 oz though.

diddle · 05/06/2006 14:15

mtt - My baby is big and its head is engaged, has been for a few weeks. so from about 36 wks it was engaged, and at 36 wks it was 61/2lb

Flip