# Back to back labour Vs "normal" labour



## amandad192

Has any body had one (or more) of each??

How would you compare them??

Liam was back to back and my whole labour experience was horrific. 

Please reassure me that a normal delivery is easier!


----------



## lynnikins

ive not had a back to back labor and both my normal ones were pretty ok on the whole i found keeping upright really helped me stay in control both times and even though they were vastly different experiences then i wouldnt opt to go a more medicalised route with either. 

have you looked into positioning (spinning) babies which can help baby get in the right position for labor


----------



## MrsPsandQs

I had back to back Labour too so can totally sympathise with your experience. I too am clinging onto the hope that it won't happen again and 'normal labour' is less excruciating!! I did everything I could to ensure she wasn't back to back but she obviously had other ideas!


----------



## Blah11

Tbh I think it just depends on the woman. I didn't find my back to back labour that bad.


----------



## Blah11

lynnikins said:


> ive not had a back to back labor and both my normal ones were pretty ok on the whole i found keeping upright really helped me stay in control both times and even though they were vastly different experiences then i wouldnt opt to go a more medicalised route with either.
> 
> have you looked into positioning (spinning) babies which can help baby get in the right position for labor

I lay on my side the entire labour. Being upright was horrendous for me as the contractions are all in your back.


----------



## amandad192

lynnikins said:


> ive not had a back to back labor and both my normal ones were pretty ok on the whole i found keeping upright really helped me stay in control both times and even though they were vastly different experiences then i wouldnt opt to go a more medicalised route with either.
> 
> *have you looked into positioning (spinning) babies which can help baby get in the right position for labor*

I haven't looked into it yet. My midwife told me Liam was back to back but didn't say anything about it making labour more difficult/painful or about ways to get him to turn.

I've raised my concerns with my MW this time and she has told em she will help me in every way she possible can to get this baby to turn if he/she is back to back.


----------



## Guppy051708

I had back to back labor as well. I think if you can have a posterior baby, then you can do anything! If you don't have a baby back to back I'm sure labor will be a breeze in comparison. If you do there is a good chance labor won't be as long as your last so that will help too. 

There is such thing as optimal fetal positioning. If you do chiropractic care, exercise, swim, etc it's supposed to help....I did everything humanly possibly and it made no difference, he was still op. But it coukdnt hurt to try :)


----------



## mum22ttc#3

I agree with Blah on both posts. I think it just depends on the individual. Ive had a back to back labour and two 'normal' labours (one induction though) I dont think any was worse than the other and didnt find any that bad.
I also had to lay on my side to as the other positions were just to uncomfatable, I found laying on my back was the worst :flower:


----------



## Guppy051708

Even though back labor hurt, I think how long the labor was made it harder to cope. The lack of sleep was def worse than the back pains


----------



## pink sparkle

Ive had a normal and back to back and i defo think the back to back labour harder. The contractions with the back to back labour were much more painful..ive got everything crossed for a normal delivery this time..fingers crossed for you to hun x


----------



## violetsky

My back to back labour was so intense, I've never felt pain like it! I had to be on all fours during it, no WAY could I have laid on my back. Haven't had a normal labour to compare it to though, but I'd like to think if I am lucky enough to have another baby, I'll have a normal labour and it will be much less painful lol!


----------



## callyd

I was having back labour with my second child before it turned into an emerg csection. The pain of the contractions with back labour was MUCH worse than with my firstborn, who was not back to back. So yes, I would say "normal" is easier and hurts less from my experience.


----------



## dan-o

I only know what back labour is like, as I've only had one baby. For me it was very intense once I got past 5cm, but also very fast! I stood up for most of the labour & knelt over the back of the bed to get rid of my ant rim. For me sitting on a ball or lying down was excruciating, I had to stay upright! I pushed while laying on my back though & that bit was fine. I used G&A and my mum helped me do pelvic rocking to cope :flower: 

If I'm lucky enough to have another baby, I'd love to experince a 'normal' birth next time!

I tried everything to get baby to turn from OP, nothing worked & he even came out sunny side up lol! x


----------



## holly2234

Blah11 said:


> Tbh I think it just depends on the woman. I didn't find my back to back labour that bad.

Mine was back labour and i didnt find it that bad either.

I kept upright the whole time and had her on a birthing stool.


----------



## Mya209

My back to back labour was very very painful and quite long. Every single contraction made me scream even the first ones! Ive only had one labour so can't compare.


----------



## dacosta

my first was back to back although i've only just recently found that out. it was hell. but, my waters went early (trickled didn't gush) and i decided to trust the hospital when they said it would be best to induce me. little did i know baby was back to back and being induced was the worst things they could have done. it meant i couldnt move off the bed which is a big no-no for back to back babies; you must be mobile to be successful or so i've read. 

mine was excruciating to the point where i remember at one point my brain just shut down and i felt as though i was standing next to myself - really weird and horrible sensation that i never want to happen again. i had an epidural after that, but again, stuck to the bed meant baby wasn't going to turn so it all ended in a c-section. 

at least this time i know not to be induced (i dont think they will anyway due to c-section last time) so if my waters go early, there's no way i'm staying stuck to a hospital bed with drips in me. i'm gonna move as much as i can and really hope i can make baby turn. (baby is currently back to back :( ) i'm trying to spend as much time draped over a birthing back, hips tilted forward, cushion behind my back whilst driving and no slouching in the sofa (sigh). 

please god let me have a normal labour!!!!! back to back was hell for me.

having said all that, i've read stories where people have breezed through a bac to back labour so who knows, but being petite i don't hold out much hope that i'll be able to delivery back-toback successfully despite having the knowledge from last time.


----------



## Bexxx

Isla was back to back for most of my labour until the end where she did a big spin and went into a 'normal' position. 
I definitely noticed a difference though as I could lay on back all of a sudden whereas before that just wouldn't have been possible with the pain. I had to be all fours/upright. It was a lot worse back to back I found, it was very intense. Contractions in my stomach were much better than in my back.


----------



## Soos

my last labor was back to back and the pain was INTENSE. this time i'm gonna use TENS machine n case baby will also be OP, people say for back labor it's the way to go.


----------



## georgina.miss

heya i had an induction and had to stay laying on my back the whole time aswel as having a back to back and i can honestly say the pain was the worst ive ever, ever felt although saying that i had the drip which apparently makes them worse and an epidural which didnt work so im not sure what aused the pain to be so bad in the end!!lol

Jacob done a spin at the last minute and got into the right position so thats still possible for u too :D xx


----------



## maybethisit

I've now had two back labours and they were very different - my son was back to back and the labour was absolutely fine - they did try to get him to turn during labour though by manoevering me around so I guess that may have worked, but I was in active labour by then and more than 5cm (was 5cm on admission with him) and it was still very manageable. 

With Amelie I was induced early due to pre-eclampsia, but was still able to move around - I presume this was because I didn't have syntocyn or anything similar, just the tablet pessary the night before and then waters broken - she was also posterior and this time the pain was incredibly intense, far far worse than with my son, but the labour was very quick (in active labour for about 1 hour 20 mins before she was born!). The speed I suspect was due to the pre-eclampsia as pre-e labours are often hard and fast but the pain in my back was a whole new ball game. She must have turned at some point late on though as she was born the right way round, having been posterior for the past 10 days! 

So yep, my experience is that it can go either way - be very manageable or not so much. But even with Amelie, I was just waiting for an epidural, so if she hadn't come so quickly the pain wouldn't have lasted much longer anyway, so there are options. I didn't want an epi ideally and was quite scared of the idea in principle, but the reality when I was there was that I was desperate for one so there is always that option! But you do cope, either way - I just had gas and air and tried to visualise the contractions bringing the baby nearer, and stayed upright to try to help the pain xx


----------



## lucy_x

I had a back2back labour and didnt find it too bad, but iv not had anything to compare to


----------



## kelly2903

i had back to back labour with my 1st so im praying this baby comes out the right way and makes it a little easier my 1st labour was long and painful and it took me about 2 hours to push her out :(


----------



## kelly2903

dacosta said:


> my first was back to back although i've only just recently found that out. it was hell. but, my waters went early (trickled didn't gush) and i decided to trust the hospital when they said it would be best to induce me. little did i know baby was back to back and being induced was the worst things they could have done. it meant i couldnt move off the bed which is a big no-no for back to back babies; you must be mobile to be successful or so i've read.
> 
> mine was excruciating to the point where i remember at one point my brain just shut down and i felt as though i was standing next to myself - really weird and horrible sensation that i never want to happen again. i had an epidural after that, but again, stuck to the bed meant baby wasn't going to turn so it all ended in a c-section.
> 
> at least this time i know not to be induced (i dont think they will anyway due to c-section last time) so if my waters go early, there's no way i'm staying stuck to a hospital bed with drips in me. i'm gonna move as much as i can and really hope i can make baby turn. (baby is currently back to back :( ) i'm trying to spend as much time draped over a birthing back, hips tilted forward, cushion behind my back whilst driving and no slouching in the sofa (sigh).
> 
> please god let me have a normal labour!!!!! back to back was hell for me.
> 
> having said all that, i've read stories where people have breezed through a bac to back labour so who knows, but being petite i don't hold out much hope that i'll be able to delivery back-toback successfully despite having the knowledge from last time.

i can understand how you felt i couldnt be mobile for my 1st labour due to blood issues and i had to be on a couple of drips and baby had to be monitored constant so they made me lay down i was even told off when i tried to get on to all fours on the bed cause the pain my back was that bad they wouldnt find another way to monitor lilly they just made me lay back down and i think they got alot of verbal abuse from me because of that :dohh:but when i was at home in labour i could cope in the end i opted for an epidural 12 hours in :growlmad: and i would say that was there fault not mine :wacko:


----------



## Honeybear1976

Hi, I've had 3 very different births, 1st ds was posterior and came out that way (no last minute turns for me!!) was led on back for most of it, not very nice at all, midwife did try to make hang onto the back of the bed on my knees but every time a contraction rocked me I fell back down :haha: It was very painful in my back and I did have an episiotomy, but labour was 11hrs 15mins from very first contraction till placenta was delivered which apparently is fast for 1st baby and I know lots of ppl one being my best friend who all had c sections for posterior babies, so I feel lucky to have managed it. My 2nd (dd) was transverse till about 37wks and then after rocking on all fours for wks she turned the right way round and was delivered in 8hrs start to finish, no back pain lovely :) I'm guessing it was also easier and quicker because you know what to expect :) 3rd (ds) I had severe early onset pre eclampsia and had an emergency section at 31wks so again very different. Hoping for a hospital water delivery this time :)


----------



## kelly2903

midwife confirmed my baby is down my right hand side just as the 1st was with spine far to the right so im researching on how to get my bubz to move her spine round so she is in a better position :)


----------



## xxEMZxx

I was in agony about a week in my back before I went into labour and my midwife assured me that Liam wasn't back to back. Anyways when I went into labour the hospital midwife said Liam WAS back to back, however he turned halfway through thank god.


----------



## XJessicaX

I had a back to back baby which was stuck in that position! bloody excruciating!!!


----------



## Guppy051708

Just wanted to update about #2s birth...far different than my first! 

My first was posterior/back to back/sunnyside up. I didn't even go into labor until 41+4 and I had him at 41+5My water broke first. Contractions were 4 min apart from the get go. PURE back labor hell for all of it! It took a long time to get into active labor but it was sooo bloody painful the entire time. All of it was in my back. I was in transition for 9 hours and pushed for 6 hours. Water was broken a total of 30.5 hours

But with DS2, my water broke first. It started at 38+2 and i had him at 38+3. Contractions didn't even start until like 17 hours in. NOOO back labor-at all. Contractions were far apart at that point. But once active labor actually started i went from 4cm-10cm AND baby AND placenta in 1 hour and 40 minutes....so it was a hell of a difference. I did have double peaking contractions and those hurt like the dickens. Very intense BUT no back labor. I will tell you, i will take double peaking contractions over back labor ANY day of the year! Pain wise, that birth was by far better. My water was broken for a total of 31 hours, but i was only in intense waves for about an hour and a half verses 30 hours with my first.


----------

