Baby born "late" at 39 weeks?

[Ninagrrl]

So this is a strange story to me and no one, doctors included, have ever explained to me why this happened, just that my date must have been off. But I know it wasn't. When my son was conceived, I was charting BBT, OPKs and only DTD 1 time in a 2 week block. I wasn't trying to conceive that cycle, persay, but figured timing couldn't hurt so I got my +OPK, saw my temp drop next morning, DTD and 2 weeks later had a BFP. Mind you, I was on progesterone trying to lengthen my cycles due to a luteal phase defect. So, the short version of this, I know within a day or so of conception so I know my due date was likely Dec 5th. They gave me EDD of Dec 8th.

On Dec 2nd my water broke and there was maconium present. No contractions, breech presentation, maconium, and estimated to be 12lbs due to GD, I ended up having him by EMCS. After he was born the doctors had decided that my EDD was wrong and that he was a week to 10 days overdue. Not possible. Going between the 2 dates he was early to mid 39 weeks. He did show signs of being late though. The maconium, no vernix, long brittle nails, and very dry, peeling skin that took almost 2 weeks to clear up.

I know all babies grow at their own rates, but I guess I'm looking for similar stories of babies showing signs of being late when they are earlier in term. I'm having my second baby in a month and I'm really hoping for a VBAC. If I cook my babies faster then the average, I'm afraid of going "overdue" and having worse complications that come with baby being "late". They won't induce and I want to avoid a c-section but I'm afraid of going past 40 weeks.

Sorry for the long story, just really getting anxious about this and hoping for someone who might have an answer that can help me relax a bit. Figured I'd post here since it's about birth stories not really pregnancy. Wasn't sure where else I should post this that would get seen.

 

[amjon]

The placenta can break down faster with GD (especially uncontrolled, if he was really big from it it likely was not tightly controlled). They checked blood flow to my placentas weekly and looked for any signs of calcification or breakdown.

 

[lanaross]

yes I was about to say that your placenta might have started aging prematurely. It happened to me, waters broke at 35+1 and he was born with long nails, dry skin, pretty good weight. They did placenta analysis and said that it was *slightly* aged, no reason as to why. I also had incompetent cervix so nobody really know the actual reason. But since I am not planning anymore kids, I didn't really look into that. Also my dates could have been off by a week maximum.

 

[summer rain]

I'm sure I saw some research recently that found that some babies do develop faster than others in the womb and so 40 weeks might not be the exact normal gestation of all babies xx

 

[MindUtopia]

I agree it's possible that it had something to do with the GD or perhaps some sort of placental abnormality. Check and see if there are any notes recorded anywhere by whoever inspected your placenta after birth (they have to do that and they should have recorded anything abnormal). There are plenty of babies who are 'overdue' by 2-3 weeks or more though who don't have any of the things you've described so those aren't only caused by going overdue. And meconium is just one of those random things that just happens sometimes, though in non-late babies, it's usually a sign of stress. So whatever precipitated the emergency c-section likely also caused the meconium.

I wouldn't let it worry you too much next time around. You don't just 'overcook' your babies. Your body knows what it's doing. Just take care with the GD in case it happens again, but you can totally have a VBAC despite all that and you deserve to find a doctor who will support you in that. There are fabulous VBAC communities online (have you seen the Birth Without Fear blog/website? Worth a look) and lots of ladies who have done it.

 

[minties]

Interesting! I had Sophie at 39 + 2, and had GD as well. She was coated in thick vernix, and was still really hairy all over. My GD went untreated until 34 weeks. So for me having untreated GD didn't effect the placenta (which was big and healthy). I had a c-section and the surgeon commented that she was "no where near ready" to have been born by a natural labour, whatever that meant. Even though according to MY ideas from sex and ovulation I was 39+6.

She still got the dry peeling skin though, which I thought was normal for most newborns.

 

[CaptainMummy]

I used opks etc and also we dtd once the whole cycle... and the edd they gave me was aug 24th (opk made it 25th so they were accurate.) This is for dd2

she was born at 41+2, she had really thick vernix all over her bum/back and was really hairy on her face/back/shoulders. She also didnt have an oz of fat on her (she was 8lb 1oz and as skinny as a rake!) She had very dry hands and feet/legs for ages. I probably would have been pregnany for ages had they not induced me!

Dd1 was also born at 41+2 and was chubby, bald all over, no vernix at all, lots of meconium in waters and she had perfect skin from day 1

 

[Ninagrrl]

Thanks everyone. My GD wasn't controlled much at all in my first pregnancy and the care I got before and after I had my son was a nightmare but that's another story. This time around I have not only different doctors but I live in a different part of the country. The medical care here is vastly more superior then that I was getting with my son. I wasn't med controlled and they basically gave me a glucose meter, told me this is what you eat and this is what you don't eat and sent me on my way with no monitoring. I didn't know what I was doing and my numbers were almost always high. I was told I was fine. I ended up developing type II diabetes which isn't very surprising because both of my parents are diabetic and I'm the only kid out of 4 with diabetes so far. I was horribly neglected by my doctors and they never retested me so my diabetes went unchecked for more than 6 months after my son was born. I ended up with a BGL of 540, which for those using the other scale, anything over 500 can cause coma or even death. I was blown up like a balloon with a horrible rash all over my lady parts due to high concentration of sugar in my urine, sleeping all the time and they didn't test me for diabetes until I took matters into my own hands, tested my BGL and told them about the results. I suffered from mild kidney damage and I was only 28. Because of this experience, I have a hard time trusting doctors so I like to be on top of all the information that I can.

Anyway, my GD is very well controlled with both diet and meds and baby is weighing 58th percentile so will probably be on the bigger side of average but not a huge baby. My doctors do support a VBAC and know how much I want to go as natural as I can. I guess I just can't help but worry about it. My son is special needs and has a lot of physical conditions that might have contributed to a not so normal pregnancy to begin with and this pregnancy has it's own set of different complications so it just makes me anxious to get through this without any other complications and have a happy and healthy baby girl.

 

[minties]

540!? If that is what I am thinking of, thatls shocking. Is that the HbA1C number? I have impaired glucose tollerance and my last number was 38. If it's something else...sorry.

 

[Ninagrrl]

No that was my blood glucose level taken with a glucose meter. Normal non-diabetic range normally between 70 - 100, GD range is 70 - 120, non gestational diabetic range is 70 - 140. Anything 200 - 400 can have severe symptoms of ketones and sugar in urine, can cause kidney damage, will cause frequent urination, hot flashes, tiredness, irritability and all those lovely symptoms. This range is where most people are when they find out they are diabetic because of the symptoms. 500 + is extremely dangerous. I was sleeping more then being awake and had to wash myself every hour or deal with what I thought was a chronic yeast infection. There was a layer of discharge (sugar buildup) that once washed away I would find momentary relief.

Your A1c is a long term measurement that the doctors office takes and sends to a lab. Normal non diabetic a1c is between 4 and 6, controlled diabetic range is anything under 7. Mine was a 10.3 but that is because it had been slowly going up over a 6 month period. Recently had my A1c done and my number is a 5.9.

There are two different scales for measuring blood glucose levels and depending on what country you live in there are different guidelines. I live in the US so I'm going by US standards.

 

[eulmh82]

Never heard of this but this is Interesting. My friend gave birth at 37 weeks to an eight pound baby so she always jokes he'd have been a ten pounder if he d come on time

 

[amjon]

Thanks everyone. My GD wasn't controlled much at all in my first pregnancy and the care I got before and after I had my son was a nightmare but that's another story. This time around I have not only different doctors but I live in a different part of the country. The medical care here is vastly more superior then that I was getting with my son. I wasn't med controlled and they basically gave me a glucose meter, told me this is what you eat and this is what you don't eat and sent me on my way with no monitoring. I didn't know what I was doing and my numbers were almost always high. I was told I was fine. I ended up developing type II diabetes which isn't very surprising because both of my parents are diabetic and I'm the only kid out of 4 with diabetes so far. I was horribly neglected by my doctors and they never retested me so my diabetes went unchecked for more than 6 months after my son was born. I ended up with a BGL of 540, which for those using the other scale, anything over 500 can cause coma or even death. I was blown up like a balloon with a horrible rash all over my lady parts due to high concentration of sugar in my urine, sleeping all the time and they didn't test me for diabetes until I took matters into my own hands, tested my BGL and told them about the results. I suffered from mild kidney damage and I was only 28. Because of this experience, I have a hard time trusting doctors so I like to be on top of all the information that I can.

Anyway, my GD is very well controlled with both diet and meds and baby is weighing 58th percentile so will probably be on the bigger side of average but not a huge baby. My doctors do support a VBAC and know how much I want to go as natural as I can. I guess I just can't help but worry about it. My son is special needs and has a lot of physical conditions that might have contributed to a not so normal pregnancy to begin with and this pregnancy has it's own set of different complications so it just makes me anxious to get through this without any other complications and have a happy and healthy baby girl.

Did a MFM monitor the placenta? It may not have been as controlled as you think. We thought mine was controlled from my 4 readings a day but the placenta started to show signs it wasn't. We dealt with it immediately and the Endo put me on a continuous monitor to find I was having spikes at times I wasn't checking.

 

[Noodlebear]

My son was born at 38+5 (after having to be induced because of a stalled labour) and had long brittle nails, flaky skin and when my waters were broken there was meconium present. For days all the midwives asked me if he was late and were all shocked when I said he wasn't, as if I was completely stupid and had just forgotten when he was due or something. Just because they're the usual signs doesn't mean they ring true for each and every baby, the same with most other things. I think that perhaps my LO was just ready at around 37 weeks instead of the usual 40 and he was struggling to make an appearance on his own.

 

[Ninagrrl]

Did a MFM monitor the placenta? It may not have been as controlled as you think. We thought mine was controlled from my 4 readings a day but the placenta started to show signs it wasn't. We dealt with it immediately and the Endo put me on a continuous monitor to find I was having spikes at times I wasn't checking.

My GD was not in control with my first pregnancy and even though my son was estimated to be really big and I was considered high risk, the only thing they did was growth scans every 2 weeks until 36 weeks and then every week after that. I was not monitored for GD, they didn't ask about my numbers, they didn't check my placenta or my ketones, protein in urine, amniotic fluid. No monitoring at all. They otherwise pretty much just scheduled a c-section, told me my baby was breech and estimated at 12lbs and that was it. He was born 9lbs 6oz.

My GD is controlled THIS pregnancy and I'm very well monitored, ultrasounds every week where they check placenta and cord due to 2 vessel cord, amniotic fluid check, heart check, and vital organs. I get growth scans every 4 weeks and my last one is next Wednesday. NSTs twice a week. They also make me keep track of my numbers and my A1c is currently 5.9 as of 4 weeks ago. My protein and ketone counts are looking great and are actually improved since my BFP. The difference is different doctors and a different health care system. I happen to live over 3000 miles away from where I was when I had my son and live in a major metropolitan area that has amazing medical programs, many hospitals and practices and access to some of the best specialists within the US. One of the reasons we chose here is because of that and the other programs that are available to my son as he is severely globally delayed with physical and behavioral disabilities. My care now to what it was with my son is really night and day.

 

[Quackquack99]

They said something similar about summer as she was born at 39+5 and she had long brittle nail, extremely dry skin and meconium was present but she was a diddy 6lb8.

 

[Ninagrrl]

Just wanted to update everyone here that I got told today that they will not let me go past my due date because they think it might have been placenta problems with my son and want to avoid it with this one. The bad news is that if my daughter doesn't come by Dec 20th then I will not be having my VBAC and will likely be in the hospital for Christmas recovering from a c-section so now I'm really hoping she comes week early. Good news is that it took a bit of the anxiety away to know that I won't be going over. Thank you everyone for your replies, it has made me feel better knowing that it wasn't some freak thing that happened.

 

[sillysapling]

I'm really glad that you have better doctors this time- it does sound like your doctors completely fell down on the job and it also sounds like the GD was a big problem. I hope that you get your VBAC!

There are natural ways to encourage/induce labor- you may want to look into them if you're comfortable with that. If you aren't, that's fine.

I used opks etc and also we dtd once the whole cycle... and the edd they gave me was aug 24th (opk made it 25th so they were accurate.) This is for dd2

she was born at 41+2, she had really thick vernix all over her bum/back and was really hairy on her face/back/shoulders. She also didnt have an oz of fat on her (she was 8lb 1oz and as skinny as a rake!) She had very dry hands and feet/legs for ages. I probably would have been pregnany for ages had they not induced me!

Dd1 was also born at 41+2 and was chubby, bald all over, no vernix at all, lots of meconium in waters and she had perfect skin from day 1

I was born 3 weeks early, my partner was born 3 weeks late- both healthy, normal labor, etc. I was 6 lb 8, my partner was 8 lb something- neither of us wildly large or small. I've heard of people getting induced after 38 weeks and the baby having problems associated with premature births- then there are babies who are born at 36 weeks perfectly healthy.

Babies are just tiny people- they grow at different rates.

I think that the medical community really forgets that sometimes. I understand the need for rules of thumb- but it's important to remember that rules of thumb are just guidelines, they aren't set in stone rules for every situation.

 

[amjon]

Did a MFM monitor the placenta? It may not have been as controlled as you think. We thought mine was controlled from my 4 readings a day but the placenta started to show signs it wasn't. We dealt with it immediately and the Endo put me on a continuous monitor to find I was having spikes at times I wasn't checking.

My GD was not in control with my first pregnancy and even though my son was estimated to be really big and I was considered high risk, the only thing they did was growth scans every 2 weeks until 36 weeks and then every week after that. I was not monitored for GD, they didn't ask about my numbers, they didn't check my placenta or my ketones, protein in urine, amniotic fluid. No monitoring at all. They otherwise pretty much just scheduled a c-section, told me my baby was breech and estimated at 12lbs and that was it. He was born 9lbs 6oz.

My GD is controlled THIS pregnancy and I'm very well monitored, ultrasounds every week where they check placenta and cord due to 2 vessel cord, amniotic fluid check, heart check, and vital organs. I get growth scans every 4 weeks and my last one is next Wednesday. NSTs twice a week. They also make me keep track of my numbers and my A1c is currently 5.9 as of 4 weeks ago. My protein and ketone counts are looking great and are actually improved since my BFP. The difference is different doctors and a different health care system. I happen to live over 3000 miles away from where I was when I had my son and live in a major metropolitan area that has amazing medical programs, many hospitals and practices and access to some of the best specialists within the US. One of the reasons we chose here is because of that and the other programs that are available to my son as he is severely globally delayed with physical and behavioral disabilities. My care now to what it was with my son is really night and day.

I still say it wasn't as controlled as you think. My A1C was only 5.2 and all readings I got fine. Without the continuos monitor you don't know what your BS is doing 24 hours a day.

 

[Ninagrrl]

I still say it wasn't as controlled as you think. My A1C was only 5.2 and all readings I got fine. Without the continuos monitor you don't know what your BS is doing 24 hours a day.

What you are saying still doesn't make sense. My GD was NOT controlled with my son which is why I had so many complications. My BS was extremely high and always over 200 and after I had my son when they actually took my A1c 6 months after my A1c was a 10.3.

I'm saying my GD IS in control now. I know it is because I test my BS 4 times a day, I'm on both Metformin AND insulin to control my GD and I'm not new to diabetes. I've been diabetic for 4 years now. My A1c dropped from an 8.7 in the beginning of my pregnancy down to a 5.9 in 2 and a half months. Those numbers don't lie. My blood sugars run from 70 - 120 now. Also my protein levels in my 24 hour urine samples have dropped significantly. That is about as controlled as I am going to get.

 

[Alegria1981]

Hi, I see this thread is a bit old but I had a baby recently born at 38 weeks and 3 days with dry skin and long nails. He was my 5th child and first with such drk skin. Because my fourth child had a (not so serious) milk allergy, a specialist (rather misinformed one) told me to avoid dairy at the end of the pregnancy this time around. I complied (with some cheating) and told my OB who didn't think much of it, just said in passing that I could have soy if I wanted. I thought at the time (not that I was thinking much about it) that my prenatal had calcium but I had been switched and it didn't . To tell you the truth at that late stage in pregnancy I was not thinking completely clearly and was busy... So yeah no dairy and no calcium supplement and a baby with very dry skin... I also felt I had less breast milk at the beginning... Could it be related?? Were any of you with exaggeratedly peeling newborns on a calcium restricted diet?