Showing posts with label vaginal birth after cesarean. Show all posts
Showing posts with label vaginal birth after cesarean. Show all posts

Tuesday, July 3, 2012

Due Date For VBAC Not an Expiration Date

This was originally posted on truebirth.com but has disappeared and due to difficulty finding a copy, I'm reposting it here because it is good information. None of the following content is mine, though I certainly back the sentiments (and I inserted an asterisk for a footnote).
 http://shirebacon.com/wordpress/wp-content/themes/Shirebacon/images/ICAN-Logo.png



Due Date for VBAC: Not an Expiration Date
By Danell Swim April 27, 2008


Being a woman with a prior cesarean, I’ve become extremely supportive of women who choose a vaginal birth after a cesarean (VBAC) like I did. It seems that my support is often falling on deaf ears, as time and again, women are coerced into repeat cesareans for ridiculous reasons. The latest of which, is women who are pregnant after the due date.

I just read of another woman who is “attempting a VBAC” with her doctor. She’s desperately hoping that she’ll go into labor before her Estimated Due Date (EDD), because if she goes even a day past, the caesarean will be scheduled immediately.

This is happening all too often, as doctors seem to believe that an EDD is actually an expiration date. To back up this ideology, they use ridiculous claims to coerce women to go along with these scheduled c-sections. They say that the stillbirth rate increases after 40 weeks, that the number of successful VBACs is lowered, and that the baby will get too big which will make a vaginal delivery too dangerous. There is no evidence to back up these claims, yet doctors continue to practice according to myth and rumor rather than clear medical information.

Despite evidence to the contrary, doctors are still insisting that women only be allowed to attempt a VBAC if labor occurs before the EDD. And, they sell this policy as an actual attempt is made to give the woman an opportunity to have a VBAC in this manner. But how likely is it that a pregnant woman will go into labor before her due date? For that, we have to look at the information regarding EDDs.


About your Due Date

The first piece to understanding your estimated due date (EDD) is the origins. No doubt when the due date calculators online, plus your doctor’s office and any wheel chart all calculated your due date, you assumed some scientific equation that averages out all births? You’d be wrong.

How would you feel knowing that the man who invented the 40 week pregnancy due date, was born… oh, about 230 years ago.* Other notable events in the year of 1778 were: Captain Cook’s discovery of the Hawaiian Islands, England’s declaration of war on France (again), the Revolutionary war raging on, and Franz Karl Naegele’s birth in Germany.

It is called Naegel’s Rule:

           The rule estimates the Expected Date of Delivery (EDD) from the first day of the woman’s Last Menstrual Period (LMP) by adding a year, subtracting three months and adding seven days to that date. This approximates to the average normal human pregnancy which lasts 40 weeks (280 days) from the LMP, or 38 weeks (266 days) from the date of fertilisation. Example, if LMP was 8 May 2007, then +1 year = 8 May 2008, -3 months = 8 February 2008, +7 days = 15 February 2008; whereas precisely 280 days would be 12 February 2008.
It is remarkable that in such an archaic time of obstetric knowledge, someone was able to come up with a method of dating gestation that is still used today. The only problem with that is that it’s terribly inaccurate, yet doctors continue to use it as gospel.

A study was published in 1990 that examined the average length of pregnancy for white women. Essentially, they found that if you take the date of the LMP + 1 year - 3 months + 15 days (if the woman has not had a prior vaginal birth). If the woman has had a vaginal birth, you add 10 days instead.

So if I were to have my LMP on May 8th 2007, I’d jump ahead to May 8th 2008, then subtract 3 months to February 8th 2008. If I’d already had one baby vaginally, my EDD would be February 18th 2008. If I’d not had any prior vaginal births, my EDD would be February 23rd.

That’s a far cry from February 15th, as Naegel’s Rule states.

Due Date Theories        Previous Vaginal Birth       No Previous Vaginal Birth
280 Day Rule                      February 12th                        February 12th
Naegel’s Rule                      February 15th                        February 15th
Avg White Women              February 18th                        February 23rd

Information is limited as to other ethnicities, but one study in England found that Black and Asian women had a gestation approximately 1 week less than white women. In addition, they found that “preterm” black and Asian infants were less likely to exhibit signs of being preterm, which gives more evidence that those babies are more developed than white babies. In layman’s terms: they’re fully cooked. However, previous deliveries, ethnicity and familial traits are never taken into account when estimating a due date. Which is what makes it so unfair that doctors are treating these estimates as scientific evidence.

What this means for VBAC Moms

Let’s assume that Jane Doe is planning her VBAC. Her doctor supports her, but says that she has to go into labor before her due date. Let’s suppose that Jane is white, and hasn’t had any children vaginally before. Her doctor uses that handy dandy chart to predict her due date as May 7th. But, odds are that she won’t go into labor until May 15th.

Poor Jane, has a doctor that was just humoring her with promises of a VBAC. When in reality, he could have predicted all along that she’d end up with another c-section. After all, these are the doctors, they’re the ones that are supposed to be reading the studies and keeping up to date on things as trivial as average gestation.

The VBAC rate is plummeting in this country to less than 9%. Part of this is due to the malpractice fears, and the (soon to be revised) American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists recommendations, but it’s also due to so many doctors refusing to treat VBAC women as anything but a ticking time-bomb. And, they know that with threats of shoulder dystocia, uterine rupture and placenta accreta, they can scare these women into repeat cesareans if they don’t meet the impossible deadline of their false estimated due date.

Unfortunately for women who desire a VBAC, there’s little you can do but to keep looking for another care provider. Keep looking until you find one that truly understands how the normal human body functions, and is most concerned with giving the patient the birth that they want and need.

Doctors just don’t seem to understand this. And that’s why they keep amusing themselves by allowing women to attempt a VBAC under these circumstances. It’s disturbing how many of them are insisting that VBAC patients deliver before 40 weeks, and it’s ridiculous that women are allowing them to make those decisions for them.

Because let’s face it: having a VBAC isn’t about proving anything, or becoming a “real woman” as so many would like to believe. Having a VBAC is about making the choice to have a healthier birth, a healthier mom and baby, and a healthier reproductive future. It’s about being able to hold your baby without pain.

That’s worth finding another doctor (or midwife).


References:
Overdue? (more info for calculating your due date)
Plus-Size-Pregnancy
Wikipedia on Naegele’s Rule
The length of uncomplicated human gestation.
Does gestation vary by ethnic group?

Written by Danell Swim · Filed Under Editorials

article archived here

*The creator of the EDD was actually Harmanni Boerhaave, a botanist who used the Bible to create the due date system (he found evidence in there that human gestation is supposed to be 10 lunar months... and then he did the math wrong). So not only was his method created hundreds of years ago, but it was by a botanist... who messed up the math by 15 whole days. Naegele merely publicized the idea and got the "rule" name after himself.

Saturday, May 14, 2011

Don't Schedule Cesareans for Breech babies!


Breech presentation is not a valid reason to schedule a cesarean. Yet, whenever a care provider finds a baby in the breech position in the last few weeks before the EDD, they ask the parents to pick their baby's birth day.

Now, people consider breech presentation one of the main reasons to have a cesarean. However, while I'll agree that with the prevailing ignorance of the average obstetrician in catching breech babies, in the hospital, it may be safer to have a cesarean--if the baby is presenting breech in labor.
https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhxEiw26EOAgXoXtkeuCkbYWez4xoy677u4zwMMfkfPgQJaOaX3i_q1GPjowyZSRzggllisNTBHN8IrP9HbynatTk7V_CnOMlVQ-V69EvYo9xg1uZ8P-zbLcqFi-1b9QVhfeusNtYclDmw/s320/BreechPositions2.jpg
Babies can turn in the womb as late as in active labor, into a vertex, or head down position. So, scheduling a cesarean is foolish, especially if it's scheduled before your EDD. An EDD is not a good measure of when the baby is coming, unless you see it as the middle of the average: 38-42 weeks. So, scheduling a cesarean for 38 weeks is not a good idea unless you have full placenta previa or another reason that labor must be avoided.

Ideally, you should go on with a breech pregnancy with the belief that baby will turn. You can use the techniques at Spinning Babies to help a stubborn baby point in the right direction. If you are approaching the big day and you've tried positions, inversions, chiropractic care, shining a light down low, etc. and baby is still breech, many obstetricians can perform what is called an external cephalic version.

A version should be a last resort, as it is uncomfortable and comes with its own set of risks, including PROM (premature rupture of membranes), premature labor, bleeding and fetal distress leading to the need for an emergency cesarean. The success rate is around 65%.

Ideally, you will have a care provider who is trained in breech vaginal birth, which 70% of breech babies are candidates for. This is not a 'new' thing. In fact, it is an old skill that has been virtually lost with the popularity of the cesarean. A transverse baby is a definite risk out--you can't birth a baby shoulder first! Footling breech is considered too dangerous by most care providers to attempt a vaginal breech birth. Baby breathes through the cord and it can become dangerously compressed in a breech birth. The likelihood of this in a footling breech is 15-18%.

Frank breech is the ideal for a vaginal breech, as the baby's legs protect the cord. In full-term, vertex babies, 0.4% suffer from cord prolapse. In frank breech, 0.5% will experience this complication. So, you can see the rate is very similar. The next risk comes with complete breech babies, which have a compression rate of 4-6%, a significant rise, though not as dangerous as footling breech.

Ideally, you should give baby time in labor to finally turn vertex. At the worst, if you end up with a cesarean due to an unsafe breech position that will not resolve or you are uncomfortable with the risk of breech vaginal birth, you will have given your baby all the time he or she needed to 'cook' and even a brief trial of labor can give the baby the benefits of labor, which prepares the baby for life on the 'outside.' At best, your baby will turn in early labor and you will go on to have the birth that you desired and that gives your baby the best start in life.

At the very least, you should research your options and remember that you have the right to make this choice! A cesarean is major abdominal surgery. As common as it is, so are complications--for both you and baby. Scheduled cesareans may be more convenient, but they are not safer than vaginal birth (except when labor would be dangerous in the first place).

Happy Birthing!

Monday, December 27, 2010

VBAC With Multiples IS Possible!

"In women with twins a trial of labor after a previous cesarean section is a safe and effective alternative to routine repeat cesarean delivery."1


(note for those watching video--TTTT is twin-to-twin transfusion and IUGR is intra-uterine growth restriction)

"A French study... suggested that Caesarean delivery more than triples a woman's risk of dying in childbirth compared with a vaginal birth."

http://www.homebirth.org.uk/vbactwins.htm

http://www.radmid.demon.co.uk/twins.htm

"When a cesarean is necessary, it can be a lifesaving technique for both mother and baby, and worth the risks involved. With half the cesareans being performed deemed unnecessary by WHO, the risks these mothers and babies are exposed to are avoidable and costly."

"An analysis in Great Britain revealed that women were 5.5 times more likely to die of an elective cesarean, than a vaginal birth (9 versus 2 per 100,000). A Dutch study found that [ceareans] caused seven times more deaths than vaginal births (28 versus 4 per 100,000)."

"Vaginal delivery when a first twin is vertex and a second is nonvertex (breech) is a safe alternative to cesarean section, according to a study presented at the HGO World Congress of Gynecology and Obstetrics."2

"In selected cases vaginal delivery of triplet gestations can be accomplished without increased maternal or neonatal morbidity and mortality and may significantly decrease maternal hospital stay and postoperative morbidity. (Am J Obstet Gynecol 1998;179:1133-5.)"3


1. http://www.ajog.org/article/S0002-9378%2896%2970274-0/abstract

2. http://www.thefreelibrary.com/If+second+twin+is+breech,+vaginal+delivery+still+safe%3A+study+of+107...-a0112542267 and http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0CYD/is_1_39/ai_112542267/

3. http://www.ajog.org/article/S0002-9378%2898%2970119-X/abstract

Please remember that I had a cesarean myself and that I do not post this in ignorance to the procedure nor without compassion to those who have undergone it. This is merely informational to present that [attempted] vaginal birth is a viable and safe option for twins and some triplets, even if they are a VBAC. I am not a doctor and this does not substitute for medical advice.