Back to back labour Vs "normal" labour

[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]

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 but when i was at home in labour i could cope in the end i opted for an epidural 12 hours in and i would say that was there fault not mine

 

[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 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.