Baby Too big for pelvis??

[jess32]

Hey Everyone,

Well I am currently 34 and a bit weeks and have just got back from Ob's visit. He has booked me in to have a growth scan to check the size of the baby and also position of the head because he is concerned that my pelvis may be too small to deliver a big baby (I'm only 157cms) , he said the head is still mobile and that the bub is 'a fair size for 34 weeks.'
He is a great Ob and I trust him completely and know that he is all for natural births wherever possible. He said that whatever happens, he would let me go to my due date and then see if the babys head has dropped into place but ultimately in the next few weeks he would like to see the babys head engaging. Aside from that come my due date if these things haven't happened then I will probably need a caesar.
Has anyone else been in this position? I really didn't want a caesar unless medically necessary and now having been told this am a bit worried. Any of your stories would be much appreciated!

Thanks for taking the time to read.....

Jess

[aussienic]

i was told this with my 2nd baby. at our 36 weeks scan he was measuring off the charts. I was so adamant I did not want a c/s. in the end I had one but he was born weighing 9lb 14oz at 37 weeks. (waters broke)

anyways.. From what I have read they can do a special scan of your pelvis to see what size can fit through.. kwim?

Good Luck. I hope you get the natural birth
if not c/s aren't so bad. not ideal but not so bad

[Yael]

Hi Jess,

Here are 3 articles which will be very helpful.

1) about big babies - Big Baby? Then You Must Read This Article...

2) about small pelvis - Small Pelvis? Here's The Truth About Cephalopelvic Disproportion (CPD)

and 3) about ceasarians - Caesarean Myths Exploded

All of them i found very interesting reading! A lot of babies don't engage until the very end of pregnancy, or during labour itself, and 34 weeks would be pretty early for it to happen anyway.

And it is very hard to estimate baby's size anyway. And even if it is a big baby, our bodies are designed to birth babies, they do fit out - i promise! There are plenty of stories on here about people having 10, 12 pound babies with not even a tear!

I wouldn't get to worried about it all now, wait and see what happens over the next 6 weeks, and take it from there. I wouldn't be letting myself get talked into any intervention this early, when most likely the situation will change anyway

Good luck!

[Rouge]

Height doesn't matter when it comes to babies, there are plenty of women in other cultures who are small in stature that have given birth to large babies. There is no way to observe via ultrasound whether or not your pelvis will fit your baby, so I don't know how your ob came to that conclusion? And I have also known plenty of women who's babies haven't engaged by 34 weeks?

I was told I would never birth my children as my first baby was born via "emergency c/s" which I strongly believe was unnecessary, and purely out of convenience. My second baby I was told I would never birth due to the size of my babies and my apparent pelvis size. My son was 9lb 11oz and I birthed him without drugs and no tearing.

If you want to work towards achieving the birth you want research it, its not about the size of your pelvis or baby, its how you birth your baby that will have the biggest impact on the outcome of the birth.

[Trish]

Jess, my SIL is around 4'9, not sure what that is in cm's, but shes very short. LOL. Anyway, the whole way through her preg there was one thing or the other that looked like it was going to be a c section. Bub was breech and according to the Dr's very large. Also she was "too short". Bub turned around at 36 weeks (from memory) and Dr's still wanted to recommend her for a c section. She was adament that she wanted a vaginal delviery and with me as her support person we dug our heels in.

The OB was pretty much setting her up for failure. I so wish he came to see her afterwards !!

For over half of SIL's preg she was told her dates were out by 10 days. Even though we both knew better (i mean, who concieves 2 days after AF, which is where they were putting her). So not only did we have the battle of the babies size there were the constant arguements about dates and then them wanting to induce her.

She had her baby. Vaginally, with 15 hours of labour. All 4.04kgs of him. He was covered in vernix and did not look one bit over cooked. She did this without tearing and only had a little gas for the last 30 minutes. She was upright for most of her labour and remained very mobile. Also her baby did not engage until labour began, so don't let that one be put over you either. Loads of bubs don't engage until later.

Stick to your guns hun. If this is what you want then go for it.

I wish you well and hope you get the birth experience you want

[Feathertop]

At 34 wks I wouldn't worry too much about engaging, mine was only 3/5 engaged 8 days over and in a posterior position - he dropped and turned during labour. Also, size on US can be out by as much as a pound either way towards the end of the pregnancy, so again, may not give a perfect indication. My dr thought I'd have a smaller baby by the feel and looking at my size (I'm 157cm), and he thought I'd go early again due to size. But I went over, and Angus was an average weight for any height (7lb13) and longer than average. It's the luck of the draw about whether they'll fit or not, and in my opinion, you don't know until you give it a really good try. I pushed for 3 hrs and he just didn't move down well - when they got me to theatre for the c section as a result, the surgeon had a look and feel of my pelvic anatomy and discovered I had an anomaly in the shape of the bones which was blocking a normal delivery. Disappointing but I'm so glad I did everything I could to have a vaginal birth. I can't change the anatomy of my ischial spines, as the dr's said "if he'd come at 36 wks he might have fit" - but again, you don't know until you get there really!


Oh, and my mother who is shorter than me had 2 normal sized babies easily - just the luck of the draw.

[sushee]

Another thing to consider is the fact that many times, your baby will not grow as fast in the third tri. I was consistently told that Charlie was measuring 4 weeks ahead in size, but at 33 weeks things slowed down and he was born full term at 7lb14oz vaginally, and I'm not very tall either at 162cm. My Dr said that the believed that he may have a large head (and it was at 37cm) but that's about as much of a guess that he could hazard. Because unfortunately - and my Dr admitted this - it's a very inexact science and no one will quite know how big your baby will be until it's born.

[Antheia]

I'm only 155cms and i've birthed a 4.23kg and a 4.1kg baby. My second one (4.1kg) shot out like a rocket too. So it is very doable.

[BellyBelly]

Many babies (first time babies included) engage at labour. What if your baby's due date is 1-2 weeks inaccurate? Your Ob will give you a caesar because your baby isn't ready? Any labour is good for a baby, so he should at least trust your body enough to give it a go, and then assess from there - it's just easier and quicker if he books a caesar in now... but likelihood is you will birth this baby fine. I hope you check out those articles before you get led further down the garden path!