How long a labour is too long?

[emyandpotato]

Wasn't sure whether to post this here on in Home Birthing but thought I'd get more responses here!

With LO I was in slow labour for three to four days (lost track, but he was born on the 11th, and I know I was in labour at my sister's birthday meal on the 8th, and the night before that). He has a number of problems, a lot of which he's still being testing for a cause. My mum has said on quite a few occasions that some of his issues may be due in part to the very long birth, and she's even suggested slight/mild (I'm sorry, I don't know the correct term) cerebral palsy, which I doubt, but it's still a possibility. Obviously I wouldn't want to have caused LO any problems by not going in to hospital sooner, but I have no idea if I did cause him these problems.

I called the hospital a couple of times but because contractions went from every few minutes to every ten and back and forth for a few days, they didn't let me come in. I managed fine at home, and I didn't feel like anything was wrong, I was just tired and in pain. I didn't get checked out so obviously no idea at what point from the contractions started would have been considered active labour. I was ready to push when I finally had appropriate contractions for them to let me in.

This time I'm planning a home birth. The thought of another long labour doesn't bother me. The only thing I'm worried about is 1) is it safe to labour for so long? and 2) will they make me transfer to a hospital after a certain length of time? If so, after how long?

 

[MrsVenn]

Well with DD, I laboured for 17 hours and had a horrific time postnatally but DD was healthy despite being 42+2 weeks.

With DS, I was officially in labour for 2 weeks then had him suddenly in less than 2 hours! He was 41 weeks. No issues again, very different experience and he's healthy.

So in answer to your questions:
1) I believe it's safe, I was high risk and under the consultant midwife and supervisors..not one was concerned.

2) Our policy is if your waters go, within 24 hours you have to have started contractions otherwise, you have to be admitted to be put on to the drip. If you're waters haven't gone and you have regular contractions, they'll encourage labouring for a while (to nearly every 4 mins) and then admit as you get close. This is the policy for my trust but may differ for yours. Stop start labour they're not fussed by even if over due like I was. You'd be booked for induction eventually.

 

[emyandpotato]

Thanks that's really helpful! Gosh two weeks, you poor thing!

 

[MrsVenn]

It was niggly pain and I just walked through it and carried on as normal, I found it annoying more than anything but when the time came, I'd done over half without realising so would happily do it like this again, hehe.

 

[MrsKChicago]

I've never heard that simply being in early labor for a long time is a problem. It's only an issue if your water has broken, or if you're in active labor and not progressing. Grandmothers sometimes come up with interesting theories, but I'm more likely to trust a doctor or midwife. If you're concerned, asking your provider might ease your mind.

 

[Feronia]

I don't believe there is any correlation with a long labour and having problems with the baby. I was in prodromal labour for 3 weeks (37-40) and then active labour for 56 hours before DD was born at home. In that time, her heartrate never indicated distress, and she was born peacefully in the water. She's never had any health or developmental problems.

 

[BunnyN]

Doctors don't really count labour until it is active. Its the number of hrs you were in active labour they write on your notes. To be counted as active you have to be 4cm dialated and having regular contractions. Not everyones bodies follow the rules though. I never did have regular contractions, even during pushing. I had a long labour 38hrs, total. I don't really know how to count my active labour. I was having strong contractions for about 30hrs. The MW ended up writing 27hrs on my notes but at the time she hadn't thought I was in active labour because of the contractions being so irregular. I actually think labour being slow made it easier on LO because she got lots of breaks between contractions. Her heartbeat was super steady through the whole labour and she was eventually born without problems.

I've never heared of a long early labour in itself causing a problem for the baby. Maybe it could be a problem depending on what is causing it? Usually the only complication is an exausted mum. Early in labour there is not a lot of pressure being put on the baby. Once the babys head etc is actually being squeezed there is always the possibility it won't cope well with the contractions. From what I understand that is more common in induced or fast labours though.