I was induced at 42 weeks and it was fine, not fun but fine. I was scheduled to be induced with number 2 at 42 weeks and went into labor that day on my own, that labor was just as difficult. I wouldn't choose to be induced (and my midwife told me with #2 I could go to 43 weeks with NST every other day and I said no way), and I am glad my midwives let me go to 42 weeks as my first was only 6lbs 13 oz.
I think as dating ultrasounds become more routine, the controversy over this will diminish. The argument I hear the most against inducing at 40 weeks is "What if you ovulated late and are really only X." Dating ultrasounds are pretty accurate though, so I think the risk is pretty low.
But I've never made it anywhere near 40 weeks so what do I know.
I am curious about dating ultrasounds. If they are super accurate, then why is LMP still standard for dating? And then there's the whole "measuring ahead/behind" thing - some people measure ahead and still go way overdue, and vice versa.
Not questioning your post, just thinking about this in general.
Interesting that I'm the only person in this thread so far who regrets her induction. The whole thing, from the 22 hours in labor, to the additional 24 when I was practically immobile and being treatedfor my pp hemorrhage, were awful.
I seriously regret mine. It was a bit different because my water had broken, but my dr pretty much insisted that I be induced when labor didn't start.
I think as dating ultrasounds become more routine, the controversy over this will diminish. The argument I hear the most against inducing at 40 weeks is "What if you ovulated late and are really only X." Dating ultrasounds are pretty accurate though, so I think the risk is pretty low.
But I've never made it anywhere near 40 weeks so what do I know.
I am curious about dating ultrasounds. If they are super accurate, then why is LMP still standard for dating? And then there's the whole "measuring ahead/behind" thing - some people measure ahead and still go way overdue, and vice versa.
Not questioning your post, just thinking about this in general.
I think they still use LMP as a starting point but the due date is usually determined by US. They are most accurate during the first trimester. I had IVF and my first Us was at 6 weeks and my due date was June 1. I went for my first regular OB check around 8 weeks and that US determined a date of June 4. But in my Head I always stayed with June 1 . I was induced on May 24
I insisted on a dating u/s too and my midwives generally don't do them for no reason.
I just said I wasn't sure of my cycles because I had just stopped breastfeeding and i hadn't had a PP period etc. It was a lie. I HAD had one period but I also was using ovulation strips and knew I ovulated super late (like day 21-22 I think). Anyway based on LMP I'd have had a due date of a whole week sooner than it really was. Having gone to 42 weeks with #1 I wanted an accurate due date this time to avoid the evil pitocin
I was glad in the end because I was 40+5 when I went into labor and if I'd been 41+5 I'd have been going insane again lol
I think induction at 39+ weeks is no big deal if someone is planning to get an epidural. The problem I think is when people don't want an epidural, becuase pitocin contractions are so much more painful in my experience.
so a better shot at non-epi birth is probably had by waiting I would think.
also I think many of us are insane people who start peeing on sticks at 7dpo so we know when we are pregnant immediately and aren't likely to be off by much at all. Being off by a week or more is probably not that common these days I imagine
Post by karinothing on Apr 24, 2015 9:37:20 GMT -5
I think inductions for sure serve their purpose. I wouldn't think they lead to more c-sections if the mom's body is ready to give birth. Like clearly, some folks are induced whose bodies just aren't ready yet (for wahtever reason) and I think those likely have a higher chance of ending in a c-section. I would like to see a study abotu the rate of c-section after induction based on mom's initial Bishop score.
But my midwives don't deliver past 41 weeks 6 days and they will offer you an induction around that point so you can continue to deliver with them. They don't generally offer dating ultrasounds if you have regular cycles or were charting.
I think a LOT of women across this county do not get dating ultrasounds. Expecially in more rural areas.
What would you have preferred after your water broke and you didn't go into labour?
I would have preferred to keep waiting
how long did they give you though? I'm pretty sure if you don't go into labor within 24 hours the risk of infection goes up and that's why they push for induction as you reach the end of that window.
I think induction at 39+ weeks is no big deal if someone is planning to get an epidural. The problem I think is when people don't want an epidural, becuase pitocin contractions are so much more painful in my experience.
so a better shot at non-epi birth is probably had by waiting I would think.
also I think many of us are insane people who start peeing on sticks at 7dpo so we know when we are pregnant immediately and aren't likely to be off by much at all. Being off by a week or more is probably not that common these days I imagine
I actually think I'd have a better shot at an epi free birth if I had an induction. I have been thinking about this since I am considering an epi-free birth with my hypothetical third child. lol. My induction was 5.5 hours, with less than 2 hours of pain. I can do 2 hours. I wonder if it would have been longer if I hadn't had the pitocin driving the contractions.
Hmm I don't know though, it was also your second birth. Mine was the opposite (induction first, then not for the second) and my second labor was much shorter.
so it could be that whether you are induced or not #3 just flies out after an hour of contractions lol
I think inductions for sure serve their purpose. I wouldn't think they lead to more c-sections if the mom's body is ready to give birth. Like clearly, some folks are induced whose bodies just aren't ready yet (for wahtever reason) and I think those likely have a higher chance of ending in a c-section. I would like to see a study abotu the rate of c-section after induction based on mom's initial Bishop score.
What they did for the induction did matter in that study - using cervical ripening agents decreased c-section risks, breaking water did not, etc. The statistics in it are about a million times past my level of understanding, but it's cool because it looks at a ton of different stuff.
how long did they give you though? I'm pretty sure if you don't go into labor within 24 hours the risk of infection goes up and that's why they push for induction as you reach the end of that window.
That's doctor/hospital specific. When I called saying my water broke with no contractions, the doctor told me I could wait (but then I'd be on the clock since I was outside of a controlled environment) or I could come in and start an induction (but then they don't run the clock as long as mom and baby are both doing okay). I opted to come in right away, and they said they wouldn't do cervix checks after the initial one to try to maintain as sterile of an environment as possible and predicted a 36+ hour induction given my terrible Bishop score. It ended up being 16 hours, which shocked everybody. I don't know if that policy was the hospital's policy or my practice's policy. I have friends who were limited to the 24-hour clock, but they delivered at different hospitals with different practices.
I think inductions for sure serve their purpose. I wouldn't think they lead to more c-sections if the mom's body is ready to give birth. Like clearly, some folks are induced whose bodies just aren't ready yet (for wahtever reason) and I think those likely have a higher chance of ending in a c-section. I would like to see a study abotu the rate of c-section after induction based on mom's initial Bishop score.
What they did for the induction did matter in that study - using cervical ripening agents decreased c-section risks, breaking water did not, etc. The statistics in it are about a million times past my level of understanding, but it's cool because it looks at a ton of different stuff.