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

1 2

Original poster

38 weeks - first pregnancy -head not engaged .....

27 replies

TarkaTheHeadlessOtter · 05/10/2006 14:35

this is my sisters first pregnancy and the birthing centre have told her she cannot go there because babies head is still high and not engaged.
She has been referred to a consultant.
What does this mean - does any one know or have any experience as she is worried
TIA

OP posts:

Are your children’s vaccines up to date?

Set a reminder

beckybraAAARGHstraps · 05/10/2006 14:36

My babies' heads didn't engage until it all kicked off apparently. Not sure what the "still high" bit means.

Original poster

TarkaTheHeadlessOtter · 05/10/2006 14:43

was that your first one Becky?

OP posts:

beckybraAAARGHstraps · 05/10/2006 14:44

Both! And both were late, and still didn't engage. They were reluctant to emerge...

PrettyCandles · 05/10/2006 14:44

It's not uncommon for a baby's head to remain un-engaged (or 'free') until labour begins, though it is unusual in a first-timer, but birthing centres are extremely fussy in whom they accept, especially for first-timers. It's not necessarily a problem, though she may have to accept that she will have to give birth in hospital - which can still be a fine experience, and she can still be looked-after in a low-tech, birthing-centre manner.

Original poster

TarkaTheHeadlessOtter · 05/10/2006 14:47

thankyou both. My sister said the midwife said 'strange' which did not instill confidence in her and then said 'well you wont be giving birth here'
Personally i have heard of lots of subsequent but not first births where this happens

OP posts:

Munz · 05/10/2006 14:48

my first one - head was only just in (4/5) from about 34 weeks, engaged at the (around) the 38 week mark and then I was in labour the day after he was my first turned up 8 days early.

as for the consultant bit - I saw one as was uinder consultant care (only met her the once thou) she did a scan at 35 weeks to check Joey's size and then said ok book an apt for X date (day b4 due date) and we'll talk then about induction etc. as it happens he came along on his own.

not sure about the high thing thou.

Elibean · 05/10/2006 14:53

It happened to me - dd's head started to engage, then 'floated' away again. Turned out I had a lot of amniotic fluid, hence the floating and bobbing off...

I don't think it can mean anything very bad, just puts ???s in as to place of delivery, and (unlikely) mode of delivery. Hopefully the consultant will be able to put her mind at rest, and if she wants a low tech birth she can still have one in hospital.

Wishing her well!

Original poster

TarkaTheHeadlessOtter · 05/10/2006 14:54

thanks everyone I am sure this will set her mind at rest

OP posts:

poppynic · 05/10/2006 14:58

I saw a private obstetrician right through my first pregnancy (in NZ where MUCH more affordable). Didn't do a late scan as everything seemed fine. I went 13 days over before they insisted on inducing. It turned out the head wasn't engaged and baby was sitting up high and continued to do so until they broke my waters. The consultant said that would just be because of the shape of my body. Anyway as soon as that was done the labour continued with a hiss and a roar and about 1 hr 40 mins later ds was out. (No drugs as I didn't think it was respectable to ask for any after only 1 hour and then it was too late...) The only possible problem with the baby not being down before breaking the waters was if the cord came first and that would require an immediate cs. But it was all understood in advance - the theatre was clear - and I felt very safe during the whole thing. Good luck to your sil.

Original poster

TarkaTheHeadlessOtter · 05/10/2006 15:09

thanks poppynic

OP posts:

emzickle · 05/10/2006 16:35

my baby's head isnt engaged either, im 36 + 1 and having labour pains - been told may not be allowed home birth as for first time mummies they like the head to be well engaged by now, if not it could indicate a long and slow labour, resulting in a very tired mum and a transfer to hospital in my case x

emzickle · 05/10/2006 16:36

oh bloody hell, im 39+1 weeks, not 36, sorry

Mercy · 05/10/2006 16:41

dd's head didn't engage until I went into labour. Not a single Dr or midwife mentioned that it could be a problem so this is news to me!

I had a completely straightforward labour which lasted for about 6 hours (dd is my first child and now 5.5)

Good luck emzickle and Tarka's sis!

mrsflowerpot · 05/10/2006 16:57

Both of mine have been high and free at term. If they are high rather than unengaged they are nowhere near being in position for labour as I understand it. The potential issues are cord prolapse (cord coming out first because baby's head is not in position) and pelvic disproportion (ie baby is not engaged because it and pelvis don't fit). I was told that breaking waters is inappropriate in these cases because of the cord risk.

I have had elective c/section with both. With ds, I was in honesty rushed into it by the consultant who scared me a bit. So with dd, I was determined to try for a vbac, but in the end I went to 42 weeks without her dropping at all and without so much as a twinge of labour pains, so I had a section again. Since then, I've been told that in my case, it probably is something to do with the shape of my pelvis stopping them descending.

Original poster

TarkaTheHeadlessOtter · 05/10/2006 17:01

ok!! some slightly less encouraging news there!! good luck emzinkle

OP posts:

sallyrosie · 05/10/2006 17:04

My LO's head didn't come down till beginning of second stage - had big bag of bulging membranes in front of the head. No one mentioned it as being a problem (although they did want to do an ARM)

mrsflowerpot · 05/10/2006 17:07

I'm sorry! I did think twice before I posted, honest, I don't want to scare anyone.

There is I think a big difference between just being unengaged and being high and free. Consultant said it was the high up-ness that was the issue with me. He also said that if I were to go into labour spontaneously, then that would be a very good sign that it would work itself out during labour.

Original poster

TarkaTheHeadlessOtter · 05/10/2006 17:12

dont worry mrs flowerpot - i am here to find out -not get a rose tinted view!

OP posts:

TuttiFrutti · 05/10/2006 17:26

My baby's head didn't engage even after several hours of (induced) labour and I ended up with an emergency cs. Found out afterwards this was because I had fibroids blocking the baby's exit route. I also found out that there is only a 20% chance of an induction being successful if the baby's head hasn't engaged beforehand - they tend not to mention these things at the time!

asur · 05/10/2006 17:32

my DS didn't engage till I was in labour. Ended up a very slow long labour (57hrs) which ended in c-section but that wasn't related to the engagement... Has your sister had any BHs? Apparently they help the head engage - I never had any that I felt so maybe that makes a difference? Not much help but thought I'd let you know my experience. Oh, at 37weeks I was offered to see a consultant but I refused...

Original poster

TarkaTheHeadlessOtter · 05/10/2006 17:39

interestingly 'no' asur - she did say she had not really had any....
I wonder if a big bag of fore-waters could be the problem and arm would cure this?

OP posts:

Elibean · 05/10/2006 18:08

asur, that is interesting...I hardly had any either, and although dd did engage, she unengaged again fairly soon after. And I was told the same thing about risk of cord prolapse - but they did induce me, nonetheless, just wouldn't let me go home once induced in case intervention was needed.
As it turned out, I was one of the 80% and ended up with a csection.
I have to decide on mode of delivery in a few weeks' time with #2, and am not having any Braxton Hicks this time either....hmmmmm...

asur · 05/10/2006 18:23

Elibean - not sure if this is true, but also read that BHs aren't as noticeable in subsequent pregnancies so maybe you have had some and just not noticed? Don't know how true that is though and it doesn't really help with your decision but good luck either way!

good luck to your sister too Tarka

Eliboo · 05/10/2006 20:36

Thats odd, I'm sure I read they were more noticeable in subsequent pgs! Ah well - thanks, either way!

PrettyCandles · 06/10/2006 09:11

Asur, I think it's the other way around, that BHs are more noticeable in subsequent pregnancies. Certainly it was that way for me - AFAIK I had no BHs with no1, and was totally overwhelmed by them with nos2 and 3.

Flip

1 2

Swipe left for the next trending thread