Log In Sign Up

Worried about VBAC after a C-section


Forum: VBAC: Vaginal Birth After a Caesarean

Notices

Welcome to the JustMommies Message Boards.

We pride ourselves on having the friendliest and most welcoming forums for moms and moms to be! Please take a moment and register for free so you can be a part of our growing community of mothers. If you have any problems registering please drop an email to boards@justmommies.com.

Our community is moderated by our moderation team so you won't see spam or offensive messages posted on our forums. Each of our message boards is hosted by JustMommies hosts, whose names are listed at the top each board. We hope you find our message boards friendly, helpful, and fun to be on!

Like Tree1Likes

Reply Post New Topic
  Subscribe To VBAC: Vaginal Birth After a Caesarean LinkBack Topic Tools Search this Topic Display Modes
  #21  
June 18th, 2012, 12:45 PM
Mega Super Mommy
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: El Paso, TX
Posts: 1,153
Quote:
Originally Posted by Starr33 View Post
I am going though the same feelings now...first 2 births were vaginal, but pushed for 3 hours and they were just a little too much to the side and were not coming out, so they used Forceps and Vaccum. My 3rd was a c-section because of placenta previa and I am torn between VBAC or repeat c-section. I would love to try a vaginal birth. My Dr. said I am a good candidate cause I had 2 previous vaginal births, however I read on American Pregnancy and it said a reason for not being a good candidate for VBAC is having diabetes and I have gestational diabetes...Plus I am sooo scared ot uterine rupture...So I have no idea what I will do yet....
I am a type 1 diabetic and had a vba2c. Don't let them scare you with that. Now, if it is uncontrolled and you have a 12lb baby, then maybe yeah, but diabetes by itself is not a good reason not to vbac in my opinion. Yes there is a risk of rupture, but it is a very low risk, less than one percent.

My baby was 8lb12oz and there were no problems.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #22  
July 22nd, 2012, 04:47 PM
Veteran
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 122
Quote:
Originally Posted by flitabout View Post
First thing to remember you body will not grow a baby to big for your body. My brother weighed in at 9lbs6oz and I weighed 6lbs12oz. Second babies are definitely not aways bigger.
Sometimes they do.. I was told in the c section with my older son that he was simply to big to fit and in my birth report it says that diffrence between mothers hips and babys size are a factor in the c section

He was 9 lbs 15 oz and 20 inches and his head cirumfrence was 15 inches.

I read a study ( icelandic one, im from iceland) that in vbac there is more risk of complication if the baby is bigger than 4500gr ( 9 lbs 15 oz).

That is one reason that i did not atempt VBAC with my younger son since i had an ultrasound to find out how big he was at 38 w and the ultrasound said 10 lbs 6 oz, so the doctor said she just could simply not reccomend inducing me since nothing was happening and the baby was this big so i had a repeat c section at 38w 5 days.

Now we are TTC and i have read a lot more and i am going to attempt VBAC and just crossing my fingers that the baby will not be to big!
Reply With Quote
  #23  
July 22nd, 2012, 05:08 PM
Mega Super Mommy
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: El Paso, TX
Posts: 1,153
Was the ultrasound accurate? They told me at 37 weeks (38 by my book) that he was 8lb14oz. When I had him TWO WEEKS LATER he was 8lb12oz. It was definitely off. They tried to give me that line that "because he is macrosomic, vbac is a bigger risk". Turns out he was not macrosomic! He missed it by 1oz lol.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #24  
July 22nd, 2012, 05:15 PM
Veteran
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 122
What is macrosomic? ( sorry english is not my first language so i dont know all the big words)

no the ultrasound was not 100% accurate he was born 5 days later and was 9 lbs 15 oz. But it is within the 10% scale, they say that that 10% in accuracy is normal for the ultrasound.. But a midwife was examing me the same day i had the ultrasound and she said that he was9 lbs 6 oz ( and given that they grow 9 oz a week) so she was pretty accurate
Reply With Quote
  #25  
July 22nd, 2012, 05:19 PM
Mega Super Mommy
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: El Paso, TX
Posts: 1,153
It means an abnormally large baby, by medical standards anything 8lb13oz and over.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #26  
July 22nd, 2012, 05:25 PM
Veteran
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 122
Quote:
Originally Posted by majicmaid View Post
It means an abnormally large baby, by medical standards anything 8lb13oz and over.
Ok thank you here in iceland an abnormally large baby is 9 lbs 15 oz and bigger.. Diffrent standars in diffrent countries i guess the average icelandic baby is 8 lbs 5 oz
Reply With Quote
Reply

Topic Tools Search this Topic
Search this Topic:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:05 AM.



Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0