# Planned C-section - Wait for labor or schedule?



## tammylc (Apr 4, 2004)

Does anyone know of any studies that talk about the effect on fetal outcome of waiting to go into labor vs. scheduling a c-section?

I've talked about this extensively on other threads, so I won't go into it here, but I'm currently breech and if the baby doesn't turn I'll very likely end up having a c-section.

Obviously the longer I wait, the greater the likelihood (however small) that the baby will turn on its own. But aside from that advantage of waiting, I've read bits and pieces here and there that indicate that labor is good for babies, and it might be better for the baby's health to wait until I naturally go into labor.

But according to my OB, scheduled sections result in lower maternal infection rates, and he wasn't familiar with any research about improved fetal outcomes from labor.

I'd appreciate any references or information you might have to offer.


----------



## AnaNicole (Jan 30, 2004)

How far along are you? Are you RH negative?

If you aren't RH negative they can try an external version (I assume you haven't already tried this). If you are, however, they can't. There are other things you can do to encourage your baby to turn--handstands underwater (!) apparently work for some women!

And remember, breech babies CAN be delivered vaginally. Many docs just don't want to.

If I were in your shoes, here's what I would do: try some natural version techniques and then yes, allow my body to labor. With close, but not stifling (i.e. without being confined to bed or on your back, God forbid), observation during labor I think you and your doctor will know when things need to be reconsidered.

Good luck!


----------



## Greaseball (Feb 1, 2002)

I haven't had a c/s, so I can only offer information from everything I've read. (Check out Silent Knife and Open Season.)

Labor contractions strengthen the baby's lungs and force out excess fluid. One reason so many c/s babies are sent to the NICU is that since they didn't experience contractions, their lungs are not strong enough to breathe right away and they need to be suctioned.

Another reason to wait is to be sure the baby is ready to be born. Not all babies are ready at 38-39 weeks, even with amnio and steriod shots. If you wait for labor you will know it's time.

Another reason to wait is that if the presenting part is well engaged in the pelvis, the doctor may decide that a vaginal delivery is safer.


----------



## joesmom (Nov 19, 2001)

Quote:

_Originally posted by Greaseball_
*...Labor contractions strengthen the baby's lungs and force out excess fluid. One reason so many c/s babies are sent to the NICU is that since they didn't experience contractions, their lungs are not strong enough to breathe right away and they need to be suctioned.*
I had an unexpected csection with Joe, & I had labored from early in the morning till 3pm when he was born, & he did not have to go to the NICU at all, nor did he have any problems nursing.

I have no scientific data to back this up but it seems to go along with what Greaseball said... I think I would wait to start contracting naturally.


----------



## its_our_family (Sep 8, 2002)

There are some benefits to waiting. The contractions to help stimulate the lungs. But the fluid is not all forced out because baby is not squeezed through the birth canal. (Bryce was in special care for 30 hours from this very thing). Yes, you know baby is "ready"

Benefits of scheduling: you get to pick your ob that does it. You can be more specific about your anesthesiologist and request certain things happen and certain things don't happen. You are more able to pick the type of pain management. Thinsg are much more calm in the OR. You will feel more prepared.

Some hospitals also require that a certain amt of fluid be through your iv before a c/b so that may be an issue but I don't know for4 sure.

I can list others. I have had an unplanned c/b and a scheduled one. The planned one was a much faster recovery. I had perfect pain management (which wasn't a lot but it was all stuff that would NOT make me loopy). I absolutely loved my planned experience. I awited till 40 weeks to have my repeat.

You could schedule it for after 40 weeks and see if baby turns (gives baby plenty of time) and if you go into labor first then there ya go.

If I were you. I would schedule it. Check out the c/b support thread


----------



## its_our_family (Sep 8, 2002)

Quote:

_Originally posted by Greaseball_
*If you wait for labor you will know it's time.
*
Is this really true?? Some women go into labor because their body says its time..not the baby

When it comes to recovery and such...planned is better. If your recovery is rough then the start of new baby-ness is hard. I labored with Tracy for 14 hours on pit before my c/b and recovery was hell.

My ob said that a uterus that goes through labor first is more likely to infect and cause heakling problems (but I have notheing on hand to back it up)


----------



## lilyka (Nov 20, 2001)

since your baby is breech there will be no great hurry to get them out. It won't be an emergancy situation so I think that there would be plenty of time for you to get proper prep, a good long wait for the anastesia to kick in and such. I can't imagine why there woiuld possibly be a hiogher infection rate. The only concern I can think about is that you wouldn't have been able to fast before the procedure. otherwise I would think waiting for labor is the optimal way to go. You lower the risk of prematurity
(I have never met a person, although I am sure there are some, who so much as waited for thioer due date for a planned c-sec. Most go 1-2 weeks early) and lower risk or respitory distress in the baby. I would say wait. also every minute you wait is one more chance for that baby to turn around.

Turn baby! turn baby! Sending turning thoughts your way so that you don't even have to make this descision


----------



## lilyka (Nov 20, 2001)

I wanted to add that even if you waited for labor to start doesn't mean you don't have some degre of planning. You know you wil be c-birthing so you can pick you ob assuming he is one who would come at any hour for a regular birth. also you can plan for what ned you use and pain relief options, and make a c-birth specific birth plan so that you are going in with your eyes totally wiode open. Since you will only experiance a little bit of labor it isn't like you have to worry about uterine fatigue like someone who has been through hours and hours of tourterous labor (and all of those women have my deepest respect. I would never make it that long without begging for a operation). And while the baby may not be able to squweeze out all the fluid a baby goes through a ton of phisiological changes between the time labor starts and they come out. every minute of warnign the baby gets is advantagous. My midwife wen over them with me when I was in labor but i was in the middle of a high risk labor and can't remally remember them all (I was 6 weeks early and she was trying to keep me in labor for 5 days :LOL I made it 8 hours. I can't even imagine how fast she would have come had they not been working so hard to slow it down.) but she said for every hour they could keep me in labor my baby would be be better because they kinda go into fuill throtle once labor starts and all those final details get taken care of.


----------



## Greaseball (Feb 1, 2002)

Quote:

The only concern I can think about is that you wouldn't have been able to fast before the procedure.
Actually, natural birth advocates say that NOT fasting is better. It doesn't make any difference in whether or not you will vomit. If you are awake and vomit, you are not very likely to aspirate. Most women who aspirate do not die from it, and if you vomit on an empty stomach the fluid will be more acidic and can irritate the lungs more than regular vomit.


----------



## its_our_family (Sep 8, 2002)

Quote:

_Originally posted by lilyka_
*
(I have never met a person, although I am sure there are some, who so much as waited for thioer due date for a planned c-sec. Most go 1-2 weeks early) and lower risk or respitory distress in the baby. I would say wait. also every minute you wait is one more chance for that baby to turn around.
*
I waited till 40 weeks and I would have waited longer but decided last minute







I was VBAC but unsure so I changed my mind. They will let you schedule a c/b for past 40 weeks.

Oh and you are right about the infection. I think that was VBAC women who end up with a c/b repeat...but I can't be sure. My mind is a little foggy









Like I said, I'd plan for 41 weeks maybe even 42 and that way you already have your "back up" plan and if you go into labor first GREAT! I would defenitely NOT go before your edd


----------



## tammylc (Apr 4, 2004)

Thanks everyone.

I am RH-negative - but I haven't read anywhere that that would contraindicate me for a ECV. (I was assuming they'd give me prophylactic Rhogam just in case.) I will have to ask the doctor about that - I just realized that my RH status did not come up during my appointment yesterday and that is an important piece of information to make sure he has.

Due to the late date at which we discovered all of this, if we decided to schedule a c-section it would probably end up being over 40 weeks (seeing as how I'm 38w3d now and haven't got my version scheduled yet). But thanks for all the thoughts.


----------



## Piglet68 (Apr 5, 2002)

The biggest risk of a scheduled C/S is incorrect dating of the pregnancy. If you are very sure of your conception dates, this isn't an issue. But a week can make a big difference at certain points during your PG, so if you are unsure of your dates, I would wait for labour to begin. If it's your first, you have a greater chance on a longer, more drawn out labour. If it is your second child or more, I would be concerned about rapid labour. You don't want to be rushed through the preparatory work, and you sure don't want to be experiencing labour pains while they are giving you the epidural or spinal, lol. Also, how far from the hospital are you? The absolute last thing you want is an emergency section. They'll anaesthetize you (general) and not only will you miss the birth, but your baby will be much more affected, and you will likely not be awake enough to bond or nurse right after the birth. Finally, if the baby is too far engaged in the pelvis by the time they open you up, they have to reach into the birth canal and push baby back into your uterus. Not only does it give me the heebie-jeebies to even think about this, but I can't imagine how that wouldn't be risky or even painful for the baby.

The benefits of scheduling are: you know who your OB will be. I don't know of any practices where your OB is guaranteed to be there, no matter what time you give birth (one realy nice thing about midwives!). It's nice to have the person who's been caring for you there. Recovery is almost certainly going to be easier, unless you are able to start the process really early on in your labour. It is very convenient if you are needing to arrange childcare for your older children, or for DH to take time off work, etc. You can get a good night's sleep and, if you are scheduled for early in the day, you'll be able to rest during the day and sleep that night - no throwing off of your sleep patterns.

I confess I did not know that labour helped remove fluid from the lungs. I thought it was passage through the birth canal that did this.

I thought that there were midwives who would do breech births? Is there no-one in your area that you can ask?


----------



## tammylc (Apr 4, 2004)

I'm a first time mom. My midwives would do a homebirth vaginal breech delivery if I was really insistent and willing to take on all the inherent risks, but it's beyond my personal comfort level.

At this point I'm probably leaning towards a scheduled section, but schedule for 40w+3 or 4 days. I am very certain of my conception date, so I'm not worried about the risk of prematurity.

Of course, really I'm just hoping that the baby will turn so I can have the homebirth I've been hoping for!


----------



## IslandMamma (Jun 12, 2003)

Quote:

_Originally posted by tammylc_
*Of course, really I'm just hoping that the baby will turn so I can have the homebirth I've been hoping for!*
I just wanted to add-- in addition to what all these wonderful mamas have said-- I second the stand on your head underwater thing. My babe was breech right up until just under 40 weeks (born at 42 and 2 days, though!), and boy did I get funny looks at the public pool! He actually switched positions a few times, but itt was one day, a few hours after my daily pool shenanigans, than I was yelling at the dog for stealing what was to be dinner, and wouldn't you know it? DS flipped.....and stayed.

There's still hope he'll turn, mama.









Have you considered moxibustion as well? I have a friend that had great results with that.

Good luck, and your birth will be magical and powerful no matter what happens!


----------



## OnTheFence (Feb 15, 2003)

Quote:

_Originally posted by Greaseball_
*I haven't had a c/s, so I can only offer information from everything I've read. (Check out Silent Knife and Open Season.)

Labor contractions strengthen the baby's lungs and force out excess fluid. One reason so many c/s babies are sent to the NICU is that since they didn't experience contractions, their lungs are not strong enough to breathe right away and they need to be suctioned.

Another reason to wait is to be sure the baby is ready to be born. Not all babies are ready at 38-39 weeks, even with amnio and steriod shots. If you wait for labor you will know it's time.

Another reason to wait is that if the presenting part is well engaged in the pelvis, the doctor may decide that a vaginal delivery is safer.*
I want to comment becaue I have done some resaerch on this and I posted some articles and studies on this subject on one of the csection threads.
Actually going into labor first and them going to the OR leads to higher mortality rates for borth infants and mothers. Risk of infection is greater, and it can also be less beneficial for baby.
Because your baby is breech, you have additional risks if you go into labor first. One is cord injury. A prolapse cord can be very serious and happened to my neighbor this past summer. She had to have an emergency csection after her water broke.
Also if you plan your csection, if you know you are having one, you can get the doctors you want and also schedule an anest. before hand. I hand picked everyone in the delivery room (except the student nurse) including the pediatrician and my L&D nurses. Also, IMO, it is better to have a scheduled csection during the week than in the middle of the night or on a weekend unexpectedly.


----------



## OnTheFence (Feb 15, 2003)

Quote:

_Originally posted by joesmom_
*I had an unexpected csection with Joe, & I had labored from early in the morning till 3pm when he was born, & he did not have to go to the NICU at all, nor did he have any problems nursing.

I have no scientific data to back this up but it seems to go along with what Greaseball said... I think I would wait to start contracting naturally.*
None of my babies had to go to the NICU and one was an emergency csection.


----------



## AnaNicole (Jan 30, 2004)

Quote:

_Originally posted by tammylc_
*Thanks everyone.

I am RH-negative - but I haven't read anywhere that that would contraindicate me for a ECV. (I was assuming they'd give me prophylactic Rhogam just in case.) I will have to ask the doctor about that - I just realized that my RH status did not come up during my appointment yesterday and that is an important piece of information to make sure he has.

Due to the late date at which we discovered all of this, if we decided to schedule a c-section it would probably end up being over 40 weeks (seeing as how I'm 38w3d now and haven't got my version scheduled yet). But thanks for all the thoughts.*
I'm glad I mentioned this! I too an RH neg and have been told many times that external version is NOT recommended for me, regardless of Rhogam. I could be wrong about this but that's been my experience. I would be interested to know what your doctor says about it!


----------



## Mom2baldie (Oct 29, 2002)

Kim,

Doesnt it matter what particular breech position the baby is whether or not you need to worry about cord prolapse? Actually, I know that it does. IF a baby is engaged in the frank breech position that is actually quite safe.

My son was frank breech and I was given the option of scheduling or waiting for labor. I scheduled because I was 19 and SCARED to go into labor at all. My son was born at 7:32 on a wednesday morning without having experienced any labor contraxs and I was unable to see him for 3 hours because of respiratory difficulties. I was not told this could be an issue beforehand and I was stupid and didnt do any research. A postpartum nurse told me that it happens very often with scheduled cesareans and also that babies have a harder time breastfeeding because they are so "sluggish".

I believe it after seeing the difference in him and my dd, who was VBACed.

If I had to make that decision again, I would wait for labor to begin and immediately when it did I would begin making arrangements to get to the hospital. By the time I actually had the cesarean I think that would be enough time to benefit the babies lungs.


----------



## tammylc (Apr 4, 2004)

AnaNicole - in my quick websearch, the strongest language I could find said that external version *might* not be recommended in Rh-neg mothers. And there are several references to routine Rhogam issuance following ECV.

I will certainly ask my doctor what his practice is, but it doesn't seem like the literature supports and out and out ban...


----------



## OnTheFence (Feb 15, 2003)

Quote:

_Originally posted by Mom2baldie_
*Kim,

Doesnt it matter what particular breech position the baby is whether or not you need to worry about cord prolapse? Actually, I know that it does. IF a baby is engaged in the frank breech position that is actually quite safe.

My son was frank breech and I was given the option of scheduling or waiting for labor. I scheduled because I was 19 and SCARED to go into labor at all. My son was born at 7:32 on a wednesday morning without having experienced any labor contraxs and I was unable to see him for 3 hours because of respiratory difficulties. I was not told this could be an issue beforehand and I was stupid and didnt do any research. A postpartum nurse told me that it happens very often with scheduled cesareans and also that babies have a harder time breastfeeding because they are so "sluggish".

I believe it after seeing the difference in him and my dd, who was VBACed.

If I had to make that decision again, I would wait for labor to begin and immediately when it did I would begin making arrangements to get to the hospital. By the time I actually had the cesarean I think that would be enough time to benefit the babies lungs.*
Actually I have read of prolapse cord with all breeches. My friend had a footling. It is more common in footling and in transverse breech, but it can happen in all of them.

None of my babies were sluggish, and I have been at the hospital and been there when many of a csection baby was born and the planned ones came out very alert and screaming. The only babies I knew of that went to NICU or for observations were after labors, and they were sluggish from other drugs and they were all boys. Boys born vaginally also can have breathing problems because their lungs mature at a slower rate.

I also had no problems with breastfeeding. I think if you are determined to do it, where there is a will there is a way. My son was not as eager to nurse as my daughter was, but he was alert and looking around and he was born at 38 weeks.

To me, I would not feel comfortable at all going into labor with a breech baby, especially as first timer. Now if it was my second or third baby and I could birth vaginally, that would be a whole other story.


----------



## OnTheFence (Feb 15, 2003)

Quote:

_Originally posted by tammylc_
*AnaNicole - in my quick websearch, the strongest language I could find said that external version *might* not be recommended in Rh-neg mothers. And there are several references to routine Rhogam issuance following ECV.

I will certainly ask my doctor what his practice is, but it doesn't seem like the literature supports and out and out ban...*
That would be enough for me not to do it to begin with. An ECV was traumatic enough for me (I ended up in the OR with an emergency csection).

Goodluck with weighing all the risks. Have you had the websters technique done? Are you having any success?


----------



## Mom2baldie (Oct 29, 2002)

Kim,

Sorry, after all my time at Mothering I STILL do not know how to quote so I will just try to remember what you said...

Yes, I agree that cord prolapse can happen with any breech presentation, as well as if the baby is vertex, but it is true that if the baby is engaged then the risk is dramatically decreased. So if thats the case for the original poster I would think that cord prolapse was something that she should spend too much time worrying about.

I think that if I have another breech baby (having already labored and VBACed before) I would just seek out a breech experienced midwife in the area and go ahead and plan a homebirth. However I can COMPLETELY understand how a first time mom might not be comfortable with that. Heck, I wouldnt have been either.

We both have our experiences and just because my cesarean born baby was sluggish and had trouble nursing and yours were the opposite doesnt really mean a whole lot. We are only 2 people. And the thing is that I could name a whole lot of women who had sluggish babies after csections, as well as after long labors and lots of drugs. That doesnt really matter either though. All we can really do is educate ourselves as much as possible and try to make the best decision for ourselves and our babies.

And incidentally, my son did end up nursing for 2.5 years. I guess when I was pregnant with him I spent too much time reading about breastfeeding and not enough researching childbirth. :LOL
Live and learn!


----------



## tammylc (Apr 4, 2004)

Quote:

_Originally posted by OnTheFence_
*That would be enough for me not to do it to begin with. An ECV was traumatic enough for me (I ended up in the OR with an emergency csection).

Goodluck with weighing all the risks. Have you had the websters technique done? Are you having any success?*
I'm sorry you had such a horrible experience with ECV. The OB I saw yesterday does about 2 a month, and has never had anyone have to go for an emergency c-s, so I'm totally comfortable getting the procedure from him.

I've been doing Webster, tilt board, underwater stuff, pretty much everything I can. Last night my midwives even did some diaphragmatic release and moxibustion!

I was actually feeling really hopeful about the baby's position today, because the baby was doing gymnastics in the middle of the night last night, and when I went for my Webster adjustment today, I tested Webster negative (pelvis aligned, no indication to do the technique). But my midwife just left and so far as we can tell, the baby is still breech.







I go back to the chiro tomorrow.


----------



## Greaseball (Feb 1, 2002)

I've read that ECV is not very safe or effective, and that most doctors don't know how to do it. I'd be very nervous about it. If I felt the need to change the baby's position, I would do all the "old wives" things - tilt boards, swimming, etc.


----------



## tammylc (Apr 4, 2004)

And I've read that ECV is quite safe. Certainly safer than a c-section.

If you read what I wrote, you'd see that I'm already doing everything natural I can to get the baby to turn (just spent 20 minutes on the tilt board, in fact). Vaginal breech delivery in a hospital isn't an option where I am, and I'm not willing to try a vaginal breech delivery at home (my midwives would do it if I really, really wanted them too, but they're not comfortable with the risk level either).

So I can try ECV and there's a 50% chance the baby will turn and I'll be able to have a vaginal delivery at home. Worst case scenario is that I have to have an emergency c-section (and my doctor has *never* had a version end in a section). When my only alternative is a planned c-section, this seems like a worthwhile option.


----------



## OnTheFence (Feb 15, 2003)

Quote:

_Originally posted by Greaseball_
*I've read that ECV is not very safe or effective, and that most doctors don't know how to do it. I'd be very nervous about it. If I felt the need to change the baby's position, I would do all the "old wives" things - tilt boards, swimming, etc.*
I agree with Greaseball.

I also want to say that in the last seven years if a woman didn't have success with Websters Technique she didnt have success with ECV either. I did all the things recommended by a midwife and it didnt work. I now know there was a reason behind it. I had a deformed uterus. I didn't trust my gut and did the ECV -- it just seems to me that if you are trying all these things, including Websters without success, I would be skeptical of ECV working.
I also wonder how much of the risks your doctor has told you about. I mean two a month, it would seem he would be able to tell you that babies gut bruised, get distressed, and some even poop meconium.
I am just of the belief that if a baby is still breech after all that you have done, then there is a reason for it and why mess with it further. Of course I am very anti-ecv. I don't think doctors are clear on the risks to the mother or the baby.
My friend was faced with this last Friday. Luckily by Monday morning after doing tilts, imaging, and talking to her baby her baby turned.


----------



## OnTheFence (Feb 15, 2003)

Quote:

_Originally posted by tammylc_
*So I can try ECV and there's a 50% chance the baby will turn and I'll be able to have a vaginal delivery at home. Worst case scenario is that I have to have an emergency c-section (and my doctor has *never* had a version end in a section). When my only alternative is a planned c-section, this seems like a worthwhile option.*
I guess I have some serious doubts about his claim. Also you need to know out of the 50% that do turn how many of those babies are csectioned anyway for other reasons. (like distress in labor, birth injury, cord problems)

I have been where you have been. I was wanting more than anything to have that vaginal delivery so it seemed worthwhile to me too. My doctor said that until me, she had never had an emergency csection happen, however out of all her versions that were successful more than half had csections for other reasons. If I had to do it over again I would have never attempted. I should have listened to my body -- baby was breech for a reason even after all my attempts to turn her. After that I made a promise to myself that if I knew of any other mom in that situation to impart what I learned, the hard way, on to her.

I also read ECV was safe. It was after I got past the surface of the fluff sites and "let me explain this to you in lay terms" on pregnancy or medical sites I began to realize that there was a lot of risk involved to both me and my baby.

My daughter was bruised on her butt and face and head. Many babies experience bruising from the proceedure. My baby pooped meconium and had decels in heart rate. Not only was it painful for me, and stressful, my BP bottomed out and I experienced nausea and faintness. And this is just a small portion of what happened. If I had been told any of these things could happen I would have forgone the proceedure. My doctor didn't forget to tell me these things, she just didnt think they were significant enough to tell me.


----------



## Mom2baldie (Oct 29, 2002)

Tammy,

I just want to wish you good luck at the chiro and with the ECV if you choose to do that. It really sucks that you are in this position after planning a homebirth. Im sure that this was the farthest thing from what you wanted. I will be thinking postive thoughts for you!

Also, I know that it sounds kind of hokey but have you tried to ask your baby why he/she is breech? My daughter was breech for a long while and after having a csearean with my son for breech this was terrifying to me. I read on the midwives archives that sometimes the baby just doesnt know he needs to turn and that he just needs to be told... I talked to my daughter in utero often and she turned obviously, she probably would have anyway though... I told you it sounds crazy but maybe you should give it a try? It certainly wont hurt anything!


----------



## its_our_family (Sep 8, 2002)

Quote:

_Originally posted by Mom2baldie_
*A postpartum nurse told me that it happens very often with scheduled cesareans and also that babies have a harder time breastfeeding because they are so "sluggish".
*
I don't believe this at all. My sons an unplanned and a planned were both c/b and both were terrific nursers. In fact, Bryce was supposed to be another 45 mintues (not sure why. I think it was weighing and such but ths another story) but they brought him in 45 minutes early because all he wanted to do was nurse. Anything that passed his face he tried to latch on









I'd think prolonged exposure to an epidural would make them more sluggish and with a planned c/b normally as soon as the epi takes effect you wait about 10 ,intes before surgery begins. Just because its planned doesn't mean it goes slow.


----------



## its_our_family (Sep 8, 2002)

A comment on webster....I had it don with Bryce. He wasn't breech but he was right of center and on my hip. I had the technique done about 6 tiems and each time he slid right into place but didn't stasy that way. Both of my kids were that way. NOt sure why they didn't like my cervix but loved my right hip.

Anyway, webster is a gerat idea. My chiro said that he has had 10 out of 12 babies flip (nopt including mine since he wasn't breech when he did it but he did reposition)

Good luck with everything! I know this might sound a bit snooty but...A c/b is not the end of the world. It has taken me quite a while to finally accept it. But it isn't. I hope your birth experience is a wonderful one!!


----------



## Mom2baldie (Oct 29, 2002)

Quote:

_Originally posted by its_our_family_
*I don't believe this at all. My sons an unplanned and a planned were both c/b and both were terrific nursers. In fact, Bryce was supposed to be another 45 mintues (not sure why. I think it was weighing and such but ths another story) but they brought him in 45 minutes early because all he wanted to do was nurse. Anything that passed his face he tried to latch on









I'd think prolonged exposure to an epidural would make them more sluggish and with a planned c/b normally as soon as the epi takes effect you wait about 10 ,intes before surgery begins. Just because its planned doesn't mean it goes slow.*
Well that okay, you dont have to believe it. Thats just what I was told by a nurse who had seen a lot of babies born by cesarean that had that experience. Everyone has different experiences as I said before and just because you had a wonderful scheduled cesarean and a very healthy baby doesnt mean everyone does.


----------



## OnTheFence (Feb 15, 2003)

Quote:

_Originally posted by its_our_family_
*I don't believe this at all. My sons an unplanned and a planned were both c/b and both were terrific nursers. In fact, Bryce was supposed to be another 45 mintues (not sure why. I think it was weighing and such but ths another story) but they brought him in 45 minutes early because all he wanted to do was nurse. Anything that passed his face he tried to latch on









I'd think prolonged exposure to an epidural would make them more sluggish and with a planned c/b normally as soon as the epi takes effect you wait about 10 ,intes before surgery begins. Just because its planned doesn't mean it goes slow.*
O yeah. I had an epidural vs a spinal for my planned csection. I had it and like 10 minutes later I was in the OR. One of the reasons many csection babies are sluggish is because they are born AFTER a mom has been in labor for awhile, already had a lot of intervention, mom has had some other meds like stadol or nubain -- a mother hit with pit, baby is getting slammed in that uterus -- I would imagine I would be sluggish getting out! Also these moms before they are sectioned are given sedative to relax them for the surgery.

IOF, you didnt have those with your last birth did you?
I know I didnt. I didnt even get anti-nausea meds. I was very alert and felt wonderful.

I've known a few people who got epidurals and waited around an hour before their planned csection but that is not the norm. With a spinal the window of time is short, so often spinal is done in the OR and within minutes of taking they are cutting you to get baby out. I just don't buy that babies are "drugged". Some of that stuff doesnt even have time to cross the placenta!


----------



## its_our_family (Sep 8, 2002)

Quote:

_Originally posted by OnTheFence_
*
IOF, you didnt have those with your last birth did you?
I know I didnt. I didnt even get anti-nausea meds. I was very alert and felt wonderful.
*
Not with Bryce but I did with Tracy...14 hour pit induction but no pain meds until right before my c/b But he wasn't sluggish at all eiher..but no meds until the c/b.

He didn't latch well but I think that was because he was induced at 38 weeks...another eason I would encourage those who do plan a c/b to wait till 40 weeks or more if there is no concern about labor first.


----------



## OnTheFence (Feb 15, 2003)

Quote:

_Originally posted by Mom2baldie_
*Well that okay, you dont have to believe it. Thats just what I was told by a nurse who had seen a lot of babies born by cesarean that had that experience. Everyone has different experiences as I said before and just because you had a wonderful scheduled cesarean and a very healthy baby doesnt mean everyone does.*
They are seeing a lot of babies born AFTER INTERVENTIONS I bet. My aunts baby was a vaginal birth and after a few hours of pit and drugs she came out pretty sluggish. I imagine I would too! I mean when they say csection babies are more sluggish -- which csection babies? the planned ones? or those from moms already in labor or who had interventions? also were there more boy babies that were sluggish than girls (very common)? There are a lot of factors that come into play.


----------



## its_our_family (Sep 8, 2002)

Quote:

_Originally posted by Mom2baldie_
*Well that okay, you dont have to believe it. Thats just what I was told by a nurse who had seen a lot of babies born by cesarean that had that experience. Everyone has different experiences as I said before and just because you had a wonderful scheduled cesarean and a very healthy baby doesnt mean everyone does.*
Also having spoken with an L&D nurse...she said it was a common misconception. But, I didn't read your post saying your babe was...so I am sorry if I seemed to be generalizing. I wasn't trying to. I just know a lot of women who "assume" things. But you obviously aren't assuming









Honestly, I just hate to see women get bummed because the birth they invision isn't necessraily gonig to happen when they can make the birth they do have a wonderful one.


----------



## Mom2baldie (Oct 29, 2002)

Quote:

_Originally posted by OnTheFence_
*They are seeing a lot of babies born AFTER INTERVENTIONS I bet. My aunts baby was a vaginal birth and after a few hours of pit and drugs she came out pretty sluggish. I imagine I would too! I mean when they say csection babies are more sluggish -- which csection babies? the planned ones? or those from moms already in labor or who had interventions? also were there more boy babies that were sluggish than girls (very common)? There are a lot of factors that come into play.*
Ummm...I dont know. I had just had surgery and wasnt feeling my best. I didnt know to ask whether the sluggish babies were after planned cesareans or scheduled and whether more of them were girls or boys.... My goodness.

Im not trying to go back and forth with either of you. I shared my experience like many others have and it seems that everytime someone does tell what happened to them someone else has to come back with "well that didnt happen to me...I just dont buy it..." Everyone is going to have their own experience! To sit and act like scheduled cesareans are so much better than perhaps being in labor for an hour or 2 is just very strange to me. Its surgery either way and it seems like letting a baby know that something is going on (feeling the contractions) would be better than having him or her just pulled out of your body with no transition to the outside world.


----------



## Mom2baldie (Oct 29, 2002)

Honestly, I just hate to see women get bummed because the birth they invision isn't necessraily gonig to happen when they can make the birth they do have a wonderful one. [/B][/QUOTE]

Yes, I agree. And Im glad that you did have a wonderful experience, but unfortunately just because someone gets to set a day and time for their child to be born that doesnt guarantee a good experience. I dont know...maybe I have been reading on ICAN for too long.


----------



## its_our_family (Sep 8, 2002)

Quote:

_Originally posted by Mom2baldie_
*
Im not trying to go back and forth with either of you. I shared my experience like many others have and it seems that everytime someone does tell what happened to them someone else has to come back with "well that didnt happen to me...I just dont buy it..." Everyone is going to have their own experience! To sit and act like scheduled cesareans are so much better than perhaps being in labor for an hour or 2 is just very strange to me. Its surgery either way and it seems like letting a baby know that something is going on (feeling the contractions) would be better than having him or her just pulled out of your body with no transition to the outside world.*
Ok, I see your point..and I apologized for gernealizing...

I can say IN MY EXPERIENCE I believe the above things I've said...is that better then?? Like I said, I'm sorry I generalized

I can tell you that IN MY EXPERIENCE recovery from a c/b is much much easier when you do not labor first and things are planned.

And in cases when there is no harm in laboring..ie cord prolapse from footling breech or something...then I think it is just preference. Babies born vaginally can sometimes have the same problems a c/b baby has with breathing...no matter how far into term they are


----------



## its_our_family (Sep 8, 2002)

Quote:

_Originally posted by Mom2baldie_
*Yes, I agree. And Im glad that you did have a wonderful experience, but unfortunately just because someone gets to set a day and time for their child to be born that doesnt guarantee a good experience.I dont know...maybe I have been reading on ICAN for too long.







*
And somtimes having the birth you want is the same way...from what I hear... isn't life fun! It never turns out how we expect









hehe..and I never liked the site


----------



## tammylc (Apr 4, 2004)

I think what this thread has demonstrated is that there's single answer that will be best for all mothers and all babies. No one's mentioned any studies or literature on the subject, so we're just comparing the personal experiences of a very small subset of the population.

Clearly both situations have their advantages and disadvantages. Thanks for sharing your experiences, and I'll keep them in mind if and when it comes time to make my decision.


----------



## OnTheFence (Feb 15, 2003)

Ok, here is something about planned verses not planned c/b.

http://www.kfshrc.edu.sa/annals/166/96-029.html

General Info:
http://www.the-health-pages.com/wome.../cesarean.html

About breathing difficulties in babies born before term:

http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/lin...3.01751.x/abs/

Information on Resp. Distress Syndrome in infants:
http://health.discovery.com/encyclopedias/2731.html

Here are the risks listed from just one consent form for ECV:
http://216.239.57.104/search?q=cache...hl=en&ie=UTF-8
RISKS Risks are uncommon and affect few mothers and babies. Nevertheless, there are some risks associated with the procedure. Please ask your obstetrician and midwife if you have any general or specific concerns.I may have side effects from the drug used. These side effects are rare but can include nervousness, drowsiness, tremors and palpitations (awareness of my heart beating). These usually only last a few minutes and settle by themselves.I understand external cephalic version (ECV) has the following specific risks and limitations: • I may notice some discomfort during the procedure but should alert the doctor if I experience pain. • ECV may not be successful. My baby may not turn or may turn back to the breech position immediately or some time afterwards. A second attempt to turn my baby may be recommended. • Rarely, the placenta may partly lift away from the wall of the womb and there may be some bleeding. The baby's heart rate may be slow after the procedure. If either of these happens, my baby may have to be delivered urgently via caesarean section. • In a few cases, some of the baby's blood crosses into the mother's circulation. This does not often cause any problems. If I have a Rhesus negative blood group, I will be given an injection (Anti-D) to prevent my body forming antibodies should there by a small exchange of blood from my baby • I will need to monitor my baby's movements afterwards. If these are reduced, I should alert and/or contact the labour ward.


----------



## mollyeilis (Mar 6, 2004)

Hi! I have no experience or stats for you, but I think you said you'd be going back to the chiro tomorrow/today.

I noticed that you didn't say Webster didn't work, but that it simply wasn't indicated yesterday. BIG difference, eh?

Anyway, good luck with the appointment!


----------



## tammylc (Apr 4, 2004)

Yep, I'm going back to the chiropractor in a couple of hours. We'll see if an adjustment is indicated today.

I've had 3 adjustments so far. I don't know how many it usually takes to be effective - my understanding is it's at least 2 or 3, and can be many more. And I've probably only got time for at most 2 or 3 more sessions.

I really, really wish I'd known about this 2 weeks sooner. Or maybe I don't. Maybe it wouldn't have made a difference and I would have just ended up stuck in indecision and uncertainty for even longer.


----------



## mollyeilis (Mar 6, 2004)

Do you see this chiro regularly, or is it only for the Webster?

Regardless, I'd suggest getting the rest of your spine adjusted as well (you may be realizing at this point that I am a chiropractor, albeit non-practicing now), as it might help your body deal with all this stress!

For what it's worth, if my babe turned breech now (I'm 36 weeks 1 day) and I felt my only option was c'section, I'd wait for labor. Just doesn't ever make sense IMO IMO IMO to schedule it. In My Opinion.

Then again, if I were having a c'section I'd be knocked out; being a chiro (for me) means never welcoming a needle in or near my spine...

But I'd likely go for the homebirth option (even unassisted) instead, so my opinion might not matter.


----------



## curlygrrl (Jan 22, 2004)

((hugs)) Tammy. You've gotten plenty of great advice and links so I just wanted to add my personal opinion. I would personally wait till labor starts. I haven't done a ton of research on it but I trust my body and my baby to be ready if labor starts on its own, ya know!

Good luck! I hope a C/B becomes unneccesary for you!

Tamara


----------



## tammylc (Apr 4, 2004)

Thanks for the links, OnTheFence. It's tricky of course, because what we're talking about is something that's in between a scheduled section and an actual emergency section. It's one thing to call when I start having contractions and say "I'll be in for my section in two hours" when there's no rush, as opposed to the "oh my god, we must get this baby out now" after 15 hours of labor emergency situation.

I just got the call, and my ECV will be Monday morning. I appreciate the words of advice and caution, but I've looked at a bunch of studies and talked to a bunch of people, and at this point it's a risk I'm willing to take. If that doesn't work, I will probably schedule my section for 40w+3 or 4 days, and be prepared for the fact that I might go into labor before the scheduled date.

Guess I should get to work on my c-section birth plan, so I'll have it ready when I need it.


----------



## tammylc (Apr 4, 2004)

Quote:

_Originally posted by mollyeilis_
*Do you see this chiro regularly, or is it only for the Webster?

Regardless, I'd suggest getting the rest of your spine adjusted as well (you may be realizing at this point that I am a chiropractor, albeit non-practicing now), as it might help your body deal with all this stress!
*
All of the stuff I've read about Webster says that you shouldn't get any other adjustments at the same visit. If I'm testing Webster negative again today, I'll ask my chiropractor about it.

BTW, yes, she is someone that I've just started seeing for Webster. But she'd been the most recommended person when I was looking for a new chiropractor, so I expect I'll continue to see her after the baby comes.


----------



## mollyeilis (Mar 6, 2004)

"you shouldn't get any other adjustments at the same visit"

Interesting. I left practice before getting a chance to take a Webster seminar, so I did not know that. I wonder why. I can see not wanting your thoracics or lumbars adjusted, but I would think an adjustment of your cervical vertebrae a little bit before the Webster would be JUST the ticket!

But your chiro who actually does Webster would know better than philosophical-ol'-me.


----------



## its_our_family (Sep 8, 2002)

Quote:

_Originally posted by tammylc_
*All of the stuff I've read about Webster says that you shouldn't get any other adjustments at the same visit.*
My chiro did...but at the same time I wasn't breech just malpositioned









I hope it works for you!

mollyellis-- I had some concerns about the needle (we see a chiro 3x a week for health maintenance) but he never said anything. He wanted me to homebirth vbac but I wasn't comfortable with it.

How does a needle cause long term effects? I didn't have any problems with my epidural before during or after. I guess I didn't think about it.


----------



## mollyeilis (Mar 6, 2004)

I have a horrible fear of the anaesthesiologist sneezing while putting the needle in my epidural space. Hello, paralysis!

I had the same fear while having Lasik...that I or the MD would sneeze. But blindness, to me, isn't quite the same thing as spinal cord injuries.

In my 5 years of practice and 2ish years of clinic, I took history after history of women of all ages who had long-lasting and hideous headaches after epidurals and spinals (with no prior history of headaches). That was usually part of what brought them in to see me. After seeing so much of the same history, I became even more wary than I had been.

Other than that, it's a personal preference, that happens to coincide with my former professional care of the spinal column.


----------



## its_our_family (Sep 8, 2002)

Got it. Those were things I had also heard. I was very picky about how the anesth did his work. I had it redone with my T because I could tell it was in crooked.

I was jsut making sure it wasn't anything else. Thanks!!


----------



## Piglet68 (Apr 5, 2002)

T

you "needle-phobic" mamas are making me crack up. I'm not at all needle-phobic, in fact I like to watch while they draw blood, etc. I find it quite fascinating.

But I'm absolutely terrified of the idea of labour pains for hours and hours and hours and then pushing out a baby. So when I read how you would do anything to avoid a C/S b/c of your fear of needles, etc. I have to giggle b/c for me, I'd take a dozen needles any day over 36 hours of labour!! I think *you* are the brave ones, lol. Just goes to show you how different we all are sometimes


----------



## Greaseball (Feb 1, 2002)

I also hate needles and all other forms of pain except for labor. I get put to sleep at the dentist for every single minor thing. I suppose it doesn't make much sense...:LOL


----------



## mollyeilis (Mar 6, 2004)

*Piglet68*, for the record I have no fear of needles. I give blood and all that.

It's the proximity to the spinal cord that's the kicker for me. As I mentioned, if I have to have a c-section everyone knows that they are to treat it as an emergency and simply knock me out. NO fiddling with needles and tubes and trying to avoid the spinal cord. Just gas me and wake me up shortly afterwards.

Paralysis is a real risk for an epidural or a spinal (or a spinal tap), and it's not one I'm willing to take. Luckily, hubby is on board with me.


----------



## Greaseball (Feb 1, 2002)

If my homebirth ended in a c-section I think I would want to be put to sleep. If it's a serious emergency, which is the only reason I would ever transfer, I'm not going to care about getting to see the birth or having dh there. The thought of big needles in my spine scares me too.

The only way I would want to be awake is if it were planned.


----------



## lilyka (Nov 20, 2001)

i'm with mollyeilis on the whole needle thing. I could care less what they stick in me it is where they stick. between my vertabrea is just somewhere needles don't belong. There are a whole host of other spots they can cram drugs into your body.


----------



## Susu (May 31, 2002)

tammy, i think you posted a great question. i am surprised that there isn't more information out there. if there was, i am sure this group would know it.

i do appreciate the links that OTF posted. the first one it thought was very interesting.

like others have said, i am more interested in information about procedures and outcomes than people's personal experiences. however, i do find personal stories interesting and since that is what forums are for i'll add my own (very personal) thoughts.









*"I haven't done a ton of research on it but I trust my body and my baby to be ready if labor starts on its own, ya know!"*

ok, i'll bite. i have done a ton of research on premature babies and many of them are not ready when their mom's go into labor.

i've also been wondering whether i should wait and go into labor first before i have a c/b, but have decided that it's probably safer not to. the problems from my first occured *because* of labor and add to that the risk of uterine rupture from a previous T cut i just don't want to take the risk.


----------



## CBokour (Jan 6, 2009)

I'm in the same situation, baby hasn't turned and she's 39 weeks. I've tried moxa, Webster technique, yoga (lots of down dog and cat cow) and had my first version last friday. I'm Rh neg and they gave me Rho gam before the procedure. So yes you can have a version with Rh- status! As a matter of fact I have another version scheduled for this Fri. And now I guess I'm going to find a pool! Thanks to all who have posted here its been very encouraging.







:


----------

