A long cervix means a caesarean for me... is this standard?

[TrishyC]

Hi All!

I am thrilled to say that I had my 5mth scan yesterday and all is well with our little boy! Yay!!

Only thing is that I told my gyno that I had a c-section with my DD and what was her recommendation for this next birth... she asked me why I had a c-section last time and I told her that it was due to me not dilating (I got to 3cm and stayed there for more than 8 hours and LO's heart rate was up and so it was decided). She was looking at the monitor and said that I will have to have c-section again because I have a long cervix... apparently 6cm when a normal length is around 3cm(!). She said in her mind there was no question that the same thing would happen if I tried to go natural again.
Anyways, I don't have a problem with going caesarean again but was just wondering if this had happened to anyone else and is it standard procedure or is my gyno over-reacting? She is very good but I am always curious for more opinions.
The little googling I have done seems to confirm her thoughts.
Thanks for any help! xxx

 

[_Hope_]

Congratulations that all is well with little one!

I'm so sorry but I can't help with your question but didn't want to read and run. Hope someone comes along soon that can help x

 

[luv2jig]

Never heard of this, but I researched it a little and found that in some studies women with longer cervices tend to take longer to dilate and efface. Since most doctors/hospitals put a time limit on dilation they would suggest a c-section after so many hours.

However, I can't find a medical reason for why a c-section would be required.

 

[MedMom]

[Aside to luv2jig--I'm also a soon-to-be doctor & mom Yes, I know, "medmom" was a premature name choice on both counts...what can I say?]

I did a search for you, too. I'd second what luv2jig says; there are a number of studies which show that chemical induction of labor may not be as successful in women with long cervices (in other words, if they're induced with pitocin, etc., women with long cervices are more likely than other women to end up getting a Caesarean), and there's one study which showed that long cervical length in the second trimester predicted that women were more likely to wind up getting a Caesarean. But no guidelines or anything suggesting that having a long cervix means you HAVE to get a Caesarean--just that it's a little more likely that you will.

 

[TrishyC]

_Hope_ - Thanks hun!


luv2jig and MedMom - Thanks so much for your research! Very cool of you both and much appreciated!
I can see what you mean as is the case with a lot of scenarios these days... as soon as ANYTHING appears long or more pained for the mum, baby, or indeed the hospital(!) then it's a c-section! HOWEVER, considering what i went through the last time.... I cannot do that again. I may have a lower pain-threshold, not sure, but I don't think it is worth my while... so I will probably just opt for a c-section.

I am still keen to hear if anyone has personal experience with this so please post if you do - cheers!

 

[Ammulu]

@TrishyC, I have a very long cervix and I had two c-sections. It was not scheduled c-sections though. The first time my waters broke at 34 weeks and my labor didn't progress when chemically induced. I had mild contractions for 20 hours and they had to go in for emergency C-section as my son's heartrate was going down. Second time I went for vbac. Went into labor at 37 weeks and three days. Had contractions for about 24 hours after which I was taken to have a C-section. They didn't want to leave it too long as it was vbac. Both time I didn't progress beyond 3 CMS and they struggled to check as my cervix was not only long but also bent.

 

[Bella1185]

Funny you post this! Literally JUST had a conversation with my obgyn about reasons for a scheduled c sections (im having one this time as DD was emergency csec and figured out retroveted uterus but ANYWAY) we were going over some of the most common reasons and one of them was elongated cervix!