KandyKinz
Longtime Mama
- Joined
- Mar 9, 2010
- Messages
- 3,683
- Reaction score
- 0
thanks for allowing me to vent girls
And lousielou here's my very personal opinion but do keep in mind that it has been tainted by some years of midwifery training which isn't necessarily a good thing iykwim....
Rupture is rare but it can happen and when it does it can be a scary thing. Outcomes correspond very closely with how fast it is managed and as such detecting uterine seperation early is an important part of keeping mom and baby safe. FHR abnormalities are often the first sign seen when a uterus begins to rupture, pain between contractions can be a clue but in labour that can be pretty hard to assess and checking your pulse regularly can be just as invasive as fhr checks.... Over here ob guidelines encourage continuous efm for VBACs. Quite frankly I do understand their rationale but given the outcomes of studies which look at EFM usage I agree that this form of continuous monitoring is just asking for probs and that the risks of seeing 'pathology' when not there is much higher then the risk of rupture. As such I support both approaches. IA has a much better track record in terms of picking up only the abnormalities that need to be picked up on. With EFM it is VERY VERY easy to subjectively over analyze every little blip... With IA only significant abnormalities tend to be noticed..... And studies have repeatedly shown that only with responding to the significant abnormalities detected by IA are outcomes improved... where as over managing every blip found on EFM has been found to actually worsen outcomes. So statistically speaking knowing a little appears to be better then knowing nothing and it is also better then knowing too much.
Here IA protocol states they should listen to baby q15 mins in active labour and q5 mins or after q contraction while pushing regardless of whether you are having a vbac or not... Personally, if I were your midwife I would be highly recommending [but certainly not demanding] this routine monitoring
And lousielou here's my very personal opinion but do keep in mind that it has been tainted by some years of midwifery training which isn't necessarily a good thing iykwim....
Rupture is rare but it can happen and when it does it can be a scary thing. Outcomes correspond very closely with how fast it is managed and as such detecting uterine seperation early is an important part of keeping mom and baby safe. FHR abnormalities are often the first sign seen when a uterus begins to rupture, pain between contractions can be a clue but in labour that can be pretty hard to assess and checking your pulse regularly can be just as invasive as fhr checks.... Over here ob guidelines encourage continuous efm for VBACs. Quite frankly I do understand their rationale but given the outcomes of studies which look at EFM usage I agree that this form of continuous monitoring is just asking for probs and that the risks of seeing 'pathology' when not there is much higher then the risk of rupture. As such I support both approaches. IA has a much better track record in terms of picking up only the abnormalities that need to be picked up on. With EFM it is VERY VERY easy to subjectively over analyze every little blip... With IA only significant abnormalities tend to be noticed..... And studies have repeatedly shown that only with responding to the significant abnormalities detected by IA are outcomes improved... where as over managing every blip found on EFM has been found to actually worsen outcomes. So statistically speaking knowing a little appears to be better then knowing nothing and it is also better then knowing too much.
Here IA protocol states they should listen to baby q15 mins in active labour and q5 mins or after q contraction while pushing regardless of whether you are having a vbac or not... Personally, if I were your midwife I would be highly recommending [but certainly not demanding] this routine monitoring