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

Is this normal procedure from hospital regarding transverse baby?

11 replies

Cruiser123 · 09/02/2022 21:09

Hi, I'm currently 37 weeks and 4 days pregnant. Baby is transverse at the moment and I had an appointment in the hospital today to discuss this.

The doctor asked me if I wanted to have an ECV done or if I want to schedule a C-section.

I said I would like an ECV as it was successful in my first pregnancy with my son.

She then went out to discuss this with the head consultant. When she came back, she told me that they want to wait if baby turns naturally. She said with an ECV there is a danger the baby will turn back.

She booked me for another appointment in 2 weeks time, when I will be 39 weeks and 4 days, so almost 40 weeks pregnant!

I asked her what will happen if baby is still transverse at this stage and she just replied: "We will discuss your options then".

Is it normal to leave baby in transverse position for such a long time?

What happens if I go into labour at home and have a cord prolapse? This would be a medical emergency!

Also, if baby hasn't turned by almost 40 weeks, an ECV will be less likely to be successful than now!

The same hospital did an ECV for my son when I was about 37 weeks pregnant.

So basically they will leave me no other option to have a C-section then?

I'm just so confused by their decision and I think they are putting the baby and me at risk 😔

Does anyone have any advice? xx

OP posts:

Concestor · 09/02/2022 21:13

Contact the consultant midwife and talk it through with her. She will be able to help you understand all your options

KitDeLuca · 09/02/2022 21:30

I was hospitalised from 36 weeks due to baby being transverse and risk of prolapse cord if I went into labour. 4 weeks of walking up and down and sitting on a birthing ball did not help baby move and I had a c-section at 39 + 4
EVC was mentioned but not really recommended (not sure why) but they would not let me go home

Original poster

Cruiser123 · 09/02/2022 21:33

@KitDeLuca

That is why I am so confused why they wouldn't admit me and be happy for me to go transverse until almost 40 weeks pregnant?

OP posts:

KitDeLuca · 09/02/2022 21:44

I wasn't keen on being admitted at the time but once I accepted it and I knew baby was ok I was happy to go as long as possible to get as close to term as I could. Every day was a gamble between will I go into labour and be an emergency section or should we wait another day before doing elective? I sympathise. It is stressful

MartinMartinMarti · 09/02/2022 22:01

DD was transverse, and I think they told me that ECV’s are less successful for transverse than breach babies, as it’s easier for them to slip back.

I didn’t have to stay in hospital when I was near term with her, but I live close by and always told to race in if I felt the nearest twinge. I don’t know why different people get different advice on that!

I ended up having a (brilliant) planned section.

CovidCorvid · 09/02/2022 22:05

ECVs are less successful for transverse but it doesn’t mean they’re not worth trying. One thing I’ve seen before is an ECV followed immediately by a controlled ARM (rupture of membranes) then induction commenced straight away. Once the membranes have been ruptured it’s very unlikely baby would turn back.

PissedOffNeighbour22 · 09/02/2022 22:28

I've just been through a similar situation and had a CS on Friday.
Baby was transverse and then became unstable lie as constantly moving between breech, transverse and oblique. I was told if the baby stayed unstable I would have to have a CS which they planned for this Friday (11th), due date was 14/2. I was scheduled a scan last week and told that if the baby was still unstable I would have to be admitted and stay in hospital until the baby was born as the risk of cord prolapse was too high due to other medical issues I have. In their opinion I live too far away from the hospital and being semi-rural I wouldn't get an ambulance in time.
I was admitted and all the staff seemed to think it was a waste of time me being there as I had no signs at all of going into labour any time soon. I asked to go home and was brought a sheet of paper to record that it was at my own risk and they would accept no liability. I was advised to request an earlier CS if available and given a steroid injection in case the baby had to come earlier than 39wks. I had a follow up steroid injection the next day and a CS date was found for 4th feb.

I had my CS last Friday - but only because a midwife stayed on to cover other staff as they were going to cancel it otherwise and who knows when I would have got in. The consultants/doctors treated me as if I couldn't be bothered to go through a natural birth. They said the baby was obviously turning and I had no need for a CS so I could go home and wait to go into labour. I said no, I want the CS as planned. They didn't seem to understand or agree that unstable lie is dangerous and that I live too far from a hospital so it was too risky.

CS went as planned and my little boy was born with no issues. I left hospital the next day.

Fleur405 · 09/02/2022 22:30

So I don’t know because my baby turned at 35 weeks but I was told that if she was still transverse at 36 weeks they would be offering intervention at that point. Given that she turned before my 36 week appointment we didn’t discuss exactly what would happen and when. Remember that you can always ask for a second opinion.

gingerhills · 09/02/2022 22:50

I had transverse twins. The hospital I had them at insisted on a planned caesarean. Another hospital I attended post-partum told me they would have tried for a natural birth. Knowing what I know now about the dangers that would have put the babies under, I am SO glad I went for the caesarean. I know two babies is more dangerous than one, but I wouldn't risk it. The CSection was fine. No pain at all. I was up and about way quicker than friednds who had natural deliveries with tears, infections etc.

oopsyu · 09/02/2022 22:57

I declined an ECV however they were going to do it at 38 weeks (I did have reduced movements though) and if successful would have induced straight after. 39+4 seems late to leave it.
If you want an ECV I'd be asking for the next soonest appointment to have it done with an induction if successful.
What happened with your son, did you go home after the ECV or stay in hospital?

HamCob · 09/02/2022 23:17

@KitDeLuca

I was hospitalised from 36 weeks due to baby being transverse and risk of prolapse cord if I went into labour. 4 weeks of walking up and down and sitting on a birthing ball did not help baby move and I had a c-section at 39 + 4 EVC was mentioned but not really recommended (not sure why) but they would not let me go home

Same. The hospital didn't offer an ECV. I was told that as my baby was transverse/unstable lie it was pointless as he would likely turn back to his favourite position 5 mins after the procedure! I stayed in hospital from 35 weeks until my csection at 38 weeks. It was a complete pain being in hospital for 3 weeks but I did at least feel reassured that in an emergency I was in the best place. If you haven't already then do seek advice on what to do to prevent a cord prolapse if labour starts at home. In a nutshell you need to call 999 and go down on all fours with your bottom in the air.

Flip