View Single Post
Old 10-09-2012, 02:28 PM   #18
canadianbakers's Avatar
Registered Users
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: MB, Canada
Posts: 9,221
My Mood:
Re: Going pat 41 weeks...really dangerous?

Originally Posted by apurkeyp View Post
The rate of stillbirth increases after 38 weeks and significantly after 41.
Interesting. Where did you find these facts?
Going by my own experiences, I have had 4 healthy babies, born at 39+5 or past.
And one stillborn baby. At 23 weeks.

OP - With Levi, I was wanting a VBAC. I talked to my OB at my 40 week appointment about what the plan was. I told him I had no problems going to 42 weeks, if that's how long my body & baby needed to decide it was the right time. At 42 weeks, I would agree to have AROM and possibly pitocin (depending on how things went after AROM) for induction.
He said that was exactly what he had been planning/thinking, and that was just fine with him. He didn't want any extra testing or anything from 40-41 weeks, but after 41 weeks he did ask that I come in every 2-3 days for that week (so it would only have been a couple times anyways) for a NST and a quick u/s (if the NST didn't look good) just to check on baby. If everything looked fine, we would keep going.

Levi was born, after labor started on its own, at 41 weeks 4 days.
FWIW, he didn't look or seem overdue - he was nearly the same weight/size as DD and DS1, who were both born at 39+5. He actually had some trouble breathing for the first couple hours, and was in the NICU for O2 and observation - I can't imagine how much harder a time or more of a NICU stay he may have had, had we been induced at 40 weeks or earlier.

Basic nutshell - personally, I have no issues going to 42 weeks. Again, personally, I would not go past 42 weeks. But I can understand others who do, if mama and baby are still looking good.
Momma to R (12), Z (10), I (8), L (4), P (2) & J (Apr 14, 2015)
remembering Elliana Lucy (2.7.12)
canadianbakers is offline   Reply With Quote