[Marquise]

Needing to tap into the vast EB reservoirs of experience and advice.

I'm 40 +5, and had a midwives' apt today, which was supposed to be for a stretch and sweep.
During the VE she discovered that baby had retreated up a bit from last check, and that she couldn't feel my cervix (which is what I assume she meant by 'unfavourable').

We discussed induction - and had just agreed that I would be induced at 42wks on the dot (after coming in for gel the night before) when she suddenly did a double-take about my age (I'm 39) and booked me in for an obs meeting on monday to discuss, suggesting that obs would want me to be induced earlier than that.

The thing is, baby is still quite high and cervix likely to still be unfavourable by them. I haven't read very much about the implications of this for an induction - but what I have read seems to suggest that it leads to a much more painful, intervention-laden labour. Is this the case? I have a medical history of serious childhood (congenital) illness, and I have a high pain tolerance....but I know what I'm like when I'm in pain, and I need to move around. Not be tied around the belly, on my back. Not canulated if at all possible - I have terrible veins and it regularly taken drs 5 incredibly painful goes to get it in - and so I ma VERY VERY KEEN to avoid induction and the inevitable epidural etc which seems to follow.

How much worse does an unfavourable cervix make it? and how long have older mothers gone without an induction?

thanks for all advice......

[elizabethany]

When I was induced, despite the drip, monitoring and such stuff, the hospital recommended I was not on my back anyway. I chose to stay on the bed, but gave birth lying on my side.

[Corella]

I'm not sure what your age has to do with an induction tbh.

How your cervix was today doesn't indicate how it will be tomorrow or in 8 or 9 days so I wouldn't stress. Perhaps look at some acupuncture though for ripening? Internal evening primrose oil? Acupressure?

[Marquise]

they are willing to let you go a full 2 weeks overdue if you are less than 35yrs, but only 9-10 days if over 35.
I've been acupuncturing away like a demon. Hope it helps!

tbh I'm more worried about the idea of inducing with an unfavourable cervix - that's the part that seems to be really bad, anecdotally.

[feliz6]

I was inducec with an unfavourable cervix at 41+1. Obs ordered double the amount of gel they would usually. Midwife initially was unsure but after she took a look she felt more comfortable that the regular amount of gel just wasnt going to be enough. Anyway the gel made contracrions start but I still had to have a drip later and bsby suctioned out with episiotomy. I had hoped to give birth without epidural but I didn't. So, I guess my experience can at least give you hope that the gel can start labour in someone with an unfavourable cervix.

[soontobegran]

OP the state of your cervix can change very quickly so an unfavorable one now may not be in a couple of days.
Everyone is different but there is no doubt that being induced with an unfavourable cervix does increase the chance of prolonged labour and intervention but of course not always.
Hopefully your body will prepare itself in good time.
Lots of good luck.

I'm not sure what your age has to do with an induction tbh.

Because of the increased risk of SB with advanced maternal age.

[lucky 2]

Hi OP,

I hope I've moved your topic into the right forum for you but I thought it best to move it out of the Breastfeeding forum.

I hope all goes well with your labour and birth.

Kind regards,

lucky 2
Moderator

[Marquise]

jeez, how'd it get in there?

sorry - I am useless at technology......

[Marquise]

sonogran, do you think I should try to see the obs earlier than monday? To check cervix? or that something my shared care GP could do?

[ez21]

Hi OP

I was induced at 40+5 and a couple of days before induction my Ob was able to reach my cervix and would have been able to break my waters. When I was in hospital for the induction a few days later, the baby had moved back up and my cervix couldn't be reached to break waters (they told me that my cervix was unfavourable). They put the gel in, which softened the cervix and things moved down a bit. I was in hospital overnight with waters broken the next day (the gel work enough so that this could be done). I was put on a drip an hour later as labour didn't progress on its own.

In terms of my labour experience with a drip, it was fine. I laboured standing up, except for the last few minutes, which I spent on the bed. I was able to walk around too.

The drip is turned up according to how you are progressing. I was told that they try to mimic the natural progression of labour and if things are moving too quickly they will turn the drip back a bit. My labour was quicker than my first (spontaneous) labour but I don't think it was any harder on my body. The pain was much the same as my first labour. Contractions were on top of each other at the end, but the midwife turned the drip back, which made things much better. I didn't have any intervention and only used gas.

Overall, my experience was very positive and much the same as a spontaneous labour. Also, please don't think that an epidural is inevitable if you are induced. It's important to consider the possible outcomes but don't get carried away. (I was only 31 for the birth of DS2).

Best of luck, try not to stress.