# Biggest head circ. at birth?



## neverdoingitagain (Mar 30, 2005)

I just had a conversation with a guy who says his wife had a c-section due to their childs head being too big. They measured it by ultrasound and declared it too big







: So many things wrong with that...
Anyway, they gave her the choice of trail by labor or c-section, she labored and pushed for 5 hours(on her back) before getting a c-section.
Now my question is, what is the biggest head delivered naturally? I had a couple pinheads(13inches) so I really can't say. My best friend had a very fast natural birth to a baby with a 17 inch head(and no tearing







)
Anyone got bigger?


----------



## JamieCatheryn (Dec 31, 2005)

Are we talking head circumference measured immediately after birth or after the molding has gone back to normal? Don't forget that skulls are made to mold and overlap on the way out. I just read a mom on here who's baby didn't mold much and was born with 15.25". My son's head is huge but he molded to a huge Alien looking conehead and was 13" at first.


----------



## neverdoingitagain (Mar 30, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *JamieCatheryn* 
Are we talking head circumference measured immediately after birth or after the molding has gone back to normal? Don't forget that skulls are made to mold and overlap on the way out. I just read a mom on here who's baby didn't mold much and was born with 15.25". My son's head is huge but he molded to a huge Alien looking conehead and was 13" at first.









: Thats why I was so







: when he told me they measured the baby's skull in utero and declared it too big.
So I guess to clarify, right after birth.


----------



## Belle (Feb 6, 2005)

Dd1's head was 14.75" at birth. She also had a nuchal hand and I didn't tear much. The on-call OB was surprised that I had such a big baby. Her head wasn't molded too much. I also had a doctor many years before she was born that I would have difficulty giving birth because my pelvis is so small.








for her


----------



## liseux (Jul 3, 2004)

I don't think the head is the biggest part, its the shoulders--depending on baby's position.


----------



## nashvillemidwife (Dec 2, 2007)

But the shoulders come out one at a time. The largest diameter that passes through the pelvis at any one time should be the head.


----------



## Turquesa (May 30, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *neverdoingitagain* 
I just had a conversation with a guy who says his wife had a c-section due to their childs head being too big. They measured it by ultrasound and declared it too big







: So many things wrong with that...
Anyway, they gave her the choice of trail by labor or c-section, she labored and pushed for 5 hours(on her back) before getting a c-section.
Now my question is, what is the biggest head delivered naturally? I had a couple pinheads(13inches) so I really can't say. My best friend had a very fast natural birth to a baby with a 17 inch head(and no tearing







)
Anyone got bigger?

Just curious--and you may not know--but how accurate was the ultrasound reading v. the Real Thing?


----------



## liseux (Jul 3, 2004)

"But the shoulders come out one at a time. The largest diameter that passes through the pelvis at any one time should be the head."nashvillemidwife

True, unless you have shoulder dystocia, which is why I said, depending on the position the shoulders can be the biggest. The head is designed to mold though and I thought these days when dr's recommend c/s for big babies the concern was s.d., not a big head so much.


----------



## Eben'sMama (Jun 29, 2006)

Both of my boys' heads were 15.75" at birth. DS1 was born via c/s due to complete breech presentation from 30 weeks on, despite trying absolutely everything to turn him. DS2 was born via c/s after 72 hours of horrible back labor and 4 hours of pushing. His head had molded somewhat, but what still *huge*. OTOH, they were both ~11 pounds, so their huge heads were in proportion to the rest of their bodies, I suppose.


----------



## jenneology (Oct 22, 2007)

Alright help me with my metric conversion...

The biggest head circumference I've heard of at birth (vaginal) was 38 cm, which is how many inches?

My handy dandy metric calculator says that's 14.9 inches. Not the biggest reported here.


----------



## HarperRose (Feb 22, 2007)

Ds2 was my biggest head circumference at 14.25, measured 3 times because I was in disbelief.


----------



## Leisha (Jan 16, 2008)

I had a c/s because of dd's head being too big to fit through my pelvis.

She didn't have a big head at all (35.5 cm (or 14 inch) circ), but my pelvic opening is too small: about 8-9 cm where it shoud be minimum 11 cm.
I asked my gynaecologist about it repeatedly and she said there was no way my baby could be born vaginally. I asked if that is common and she said it's fairly rare.

She sent me for a scan to measure my pelvis when I went to my appointment at about 41 weeks and my baby had still not "dropped" at all. She told me that, if there was any chance of the baby being born vaginally (I think there is a "grey area" where they can't be sure if it'll fit or not, because you can't know in advance how much the pelvis will "stretch" during labour/birth, and how much the baby's skull plates can slide to overlap etc), they would let me go into labour and see how things went (if necessary they could still do a c/s).

But after the scan they phoned me to say it definitely had to be a section.

Anyway, what I'm trying to say is: it isn't really the baby's head being too big, but the mommy's pelvis being too narrow! But maybe that's what the guy from the OP meant.

The fact that they did let her go into labour, makes me think that maybe she was in that "grey area" where you can't predict if things will stretch and compact enough









OTOH, I hear that there's a lot of unnecessary c-sections in the US, right? So who knows...


----------



## nashvillemidwife (Dec 2, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *liseux* 
True, unless you have shoulder dystocia, which is why I said, depending on the position the shoulders can be the biggest.

Even if you have a shoulder dystocia, the shoulders still come out one at a time. The oblique diameter of even a big shoulder should still be smaller than the diameter of the head. Dystocia is caused by positioning, not necessarily the size of the shoulders.


----------



## Keeping up (Apr 7, 2004)

My first had a head circumference of 15.4cm or 39 cm - it was beautiful and round (but it was a forcep delivery because of heart decels).

She was a petite little thing otherwise though - 7lbs. 2oz. I make babies with really big heads. Her cousin at 9lbs. 13oz. had a smaller head.

The other babies - weighed more but basically fell out at birth - she paved the way with her big noggin!


----------



## neverdoingitagain (Mar 30, 2005)

Just to add more info to what I was told. This was their youngest child and apparently there is some sort of birth defect in his family that creates large heads. This particular baby had it, but I am not sure about the actual size of the baby's head.
As I mentioned, my best friend youngest was 17 inches, so I'm sure its possible to give birth naturally up to that size. Though, man...that had to hurt...


----------



## liseux (Jul 3, 2004)

"The oblique diameter of even a big shoulder should still be smaller than the diameter of the head. Dystocia is caused by positioning, not necessarily the size of the shoulders. "nashvillemidwife

I wish that were true in my case, it was big shoulders and a bad position. If the shoulders were smaller than the head, then if the head came out easily, with no tears, the shoulders would slide right out. But in my case they both get caught. I only mention this b/c I thought providers were much more worried about s.d. than about CPD.


----------



## Redifer (Nov 25, 2006)

15" and 15.25" here. Neither one molded, they both almost shot right out. Big-headed babies run in our family hehehe.


----------



## dlm194 (Mar 23, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Leisha* 

She didn't have a big head at all (35.5 cm (or 14 inch) circ), but my pelvic opening is too small: about 8-9 cm where it shoud be minimum 11 cm.
I asked my gynaecologist about it repeatedly and she said there was no way my baby could be born vaginally. I asked if that is common and she said it's fairly rare.

Anyway, what I'm trying to say is: it isn't really the baby's head being too big, but the mommy's pelvis being too narrow! But maybe that's what the guy from the OP meant.​
​
​

Interesting....







Did she explain to you how inaccurate those scans are? And how the only true way to know if a woman can deliver her baby vaginally is to actually allow her to labor?

I labored with my first baby who never dropped into my pelvis. My midwife called it quits at 5cm and sent me off for a c-section. The doctor "checked" while he was doing my c-section and said my pelvis was oval-shaped (therefore too narrow) and I had a thick sacrum so vaginal birth never would have been possible. They said she couldn't fit so that's why she never descended into my pelvis.

My second baby arrived, vaginally, without complications. She was a long labor and, again, didn't drop into my pelvis for a lonnnngggg time (until I was ready to push, I think!). But my midwife with that baby had a different theory about my pelvis.







She thinks its too roomy and my babies just like to float there before locking into place. I'm going with that theory.









I've talked to plenty of women who labored and were unable to push their babies out even after hours of unmedicated pushing. (You'll get plenty of those stories on here) Yet, their subsequent babies came vaginally.

You are probably *not* broken so if you have another baby, it would be worth seeking a second opinion. My cousin had a scan with her baby who was breech. They declared her pelvis "marginal" for vaginal birth and her baby, who was about 9.5lbs and breech (which is usually a tougher delivery!), pretty much fell out. She barely made it to the hospital in time.​


----------



## dlm194 (Mar 23, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *neverdoingitagain* 
Anyway, they gave her the choice of trail by labor or c-section, she labored and pushed for 5 hours(on her back) before getting a c-section.

Any chance the baby was posterior? That can make a big difference.


----------



## heidirk (Oct 19, 2007)

I just wonder what would ae happened if the'd helped her squat?







:


----------



## Romana (Mar 3, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Leisha* 

So who knows...


I just wanted to say . . . what an absolutely beautiful baby you have!


----------



## Leisha (Jan 16, 2008)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *dlm194* 
Interesting....







Did she explain to you how inaccurate those scans are? And how the only true way to know if a woman can deliver her baby vaginally is to actually allow her to labor?

I labored with my first baby who never dropped into my pelvis. My midwife called it quits at 5cm and sent me off for a c-section. The doctor "checked" while he was doing my c-section and said my pelvis was oval-shaped (therefore too narrow) and I had a thick sacrum so vaginal birth never would have been possible. They said she couldn't fit so that's why she never descended into my pelvis.

My second baby arrived, vaginally, without complications. She was a long labor and, again, didn't drop into my pelvis for a lonnnngggg time (until I was ready to push, I think!). But my midwife with that baby had a different theory about my pelvis.







She thinks its too roomy and my babies just like to float there before locking into place. I'm going with that theory.









I've talked to plenty of women who labored and were unable to push their babies out even after hours of unmedicated pushing. (You'll get plenty of those stories on here) Yet, their subsequent babies came vaginally.

You are probably *not* broken so if you have another baby, it would be worth seeking a second opinion. My cousin had a scan with her baby who was breech. They declared her pelvis "marginal" for vaginal birth and her baby, who was about 9.5lbs and breech (which is usually a tougher delivery!), pretty much fell out. She barely made it to the hospital in time.

Thanks for your reply! And i also read your story (from the link in your sig) - it's inspiring. The whole website seems interesting, i bookmarked it and I 'm gonna read some more.

I might get a second opinion when I have another baby, in a couple of years.

However I did ask two other gynaecologists about it, and they both explained it pretty much the same way - and said that if there were any chance that I could have a normal delivery, they would allow me to go in to labour and see how things progressed...
Plus I overheard another one talking about me and he said (to an intern I think) "did you SEE the results of the scan??" like somehow they were quite weird or abnormal or something







(OTOH I guess maybe he meant "did you see the results of the scan?? why on earth are they giving her a c/s" )

But, I guess it couldn't hurt to get another opinion! The ones I asked all work for the same hospital etc so i guess they have the same view/policies on things.

Anyway I did do some research (ok, by research I mean googling







) after I was told my pelvis was too narrow. And I know the chances of it _actually_ being too narrow to birth a baby are really _really_ low. But I figured, ok I guess I'm one of those few people









Romana: aw thanks







I think she's gorgeous too, but of course I'm biased







that's my favourite picture of her so far I think, she looks so angelic in it


----------



## mamaw/two (Nov 21, 2005)

Well, my first was 14.5" at birth. #2 was 14" and #3 was 15.5" (he seriously shot out!). They measured his head 3 times and said they never see heads that big! Obviously not the largest though, I just have to say WOW to a 17" head!


----------



## wombatclay (Sep 4, 2005)

DD1 ended in a c/s (32+ hours of unmedicated/natural birth, family practice dr, doula attended, etc etc etc). She was posterior and asynclitic and her head was off the charts for a newborn but dead average for a two month old.







She still has a huge head.

DD2 was a vbac. However, despite what turned out to be a nice exit strategy and a totally normal noggin, she developed shoulder dystocia. And I was one of the women for whom the gaskin manuever didn't work. (my vbac provider had trained with Ina and even birthed her first on the Farm with Ina attending) I can assure you both shoulders came out at the same time causing a 4th degree tear. No fun.

Positioning makes a huge difference though! Not that I'd give weight to ultrasound measurements... a trial of labor with accomplished providers, a confident/comfortable mama, and a well positioned babe should birth most noggins!


----------



## lifeguard (May 12, 2008)

Ok - wow - I'm so impressed/jealous with those of you with big headed babies & no tears! Mine was only 38cm (13.75") & I have 3rd degree tears. Just goes to show head size doesn't matter that much - lol.


----------



## Mommal (Dec 16, 2007)

DD's head diameter was 13 in. Lovely natural birth, 1 tiny tear that did not require a stitch.

I've noticed that a lot of my mom friends who've given birth via c-section have babies with "huge" and "off the charts" heads. They say that their docs have told them "Oh, there's no way this baby could have gotten through your pelvis, his/her head was just enormous." I always wonder if the reason the c-section babies' heads are so big is that they don't get a chance to get squeezed and molded by the birth process, since they're just sky-hooked out through the abdomen.

For those moms who've been told that they have freakishly small pelvises, I'd like to recommend this article. I think it should give you hope for your next go-round, if you decide to have more babies!


----------



## Dahlea (May 15, 2008)

My baby's head was 14" and he was posterior until a few minutes before birth and I delivered naturally, and a friend's was 13"-she had a c/s because of the head being "too big". Very sad.


----------



## Mamato3wild ponnie (Jan 6, 2007)

My 4th baby, a home water birth with me squatting with every ctx by choice ...was 15cm head and 10 pounds 2 ounces. His head was not cone shapped..perfectly round. He did have some bruising on his forehead though. I had a skid mark...no tearing.


----------



## thepeach80 (Mar 16, 2004)

I ended up w/ a c/s w/ my oldest, his head was 14.75" I think, but he was asynclitic and he wasn't coming out. I had an u/s at 33 wks and his head was measuring 38 wks already!







He's 5.5yo and his head is still at the top of the charts, he was my chubby baby.

The 2 after that were VBACs, but also had much smaller heads, 13.25" and 13.5" I think. There heads have always been lower on the charts than AJ's and they're also built smaller as well.


----------

