Too Early to Induce? Help!

Archived User

Too Early to Induce? Help!

I'm 22 year old woman who is expecting my first child.  I was expected to give birth on November 9, 2009, It is now November 12, 2009 and I'm three days past my due date.  The day before I had a  biophysical test and NST.  The NST results were find, but the ultrasound showed that my fluid was a little low in the uterus.  With this information it prompted my MIDWIFE to schedule a induction using cervidil.  I decided i was going to go through with the procedure, but decided not to at the last minute.  When i got home i read and did my own research on inductions and was not pleased with the results.  I never thought my MIDWIFE would even consider a induction at just three days past my due date, which is one of the reasons why i left my regular OB/GYN, because i thought midwives had different perspectives when it came to childbirth.  Another book i read besides your book is titled Your Best Birth by Ricki Lake and  Abby Epstein, which states having low fluid is not a good enough reason to induce and that this low fluid count can be countered by bed rest and intake of more fluids internally.  Now i realize you are not a medical professional, but that you do have child birthing experience.  I'm just trying to find confirmation in the information that i have read and researched.  

Thank You.

Henci Goer

RE: Too Early to Induce? Help!
(in response to Archived User)

To begin with, the unfortunate fact is that you cannot assume that by choosing a midwife, you have chosen someone who automatically practices a different model of care. She may have the same approach as the typical ob, or she may be constrained by practices and policies by the doctor she works for or who backs her up or the hospital where she has privileges. I cannot give you medical advice, but I can tell you this: amniotic fluid levels vary according to fluid intake, the estimates are not exact--how could they be when you are estimating a complex three-dimensional volume from a two-dimensional image?--and the research says that there are no benefits to inducing for low amniotic fluid in the absence of other signs of problems. Here are some other sources of info:

Manzanares S, Carrillo MP, Gonzalez-Peran E, et al. Isolated oligohydramnios in term pregnancy as an indication for induction of labor. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 2007;20(3):221-4.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the outcome of active induction of labor for isolated oligohydramnios [low amniotic fluid volume] in low-risk term gestation. METHODS: This retrospective study analyzed the obstetric and perinatal outcome of 412 singleton term pregnancies with cephalic presentation and no maternal risk factors or fetal abnormalities. Two groups were compared: 206 deliveries after induced labor for isolated oligohydramnios, and 206 deliveries matched for gestational age following spontaneous labor with normal amniotic fluid index. RESULTS: The overall rate of cesarean deliveries and cesarean deliveries for nonreassuring fetal status, and operative vaginal delivery rates and those for nonreassuring fetal status were higher in the oligohydramnios group than in the control group. There were no differences between groups in neonatal outcome or perinatal morbidity or mortality. CONCLUSION: Active induction of labor in term low risk gestations with isolated oligohydramnios translated into higher labor induction, operative vaginal delivery and cesarean section rates. This led to increased maternal risk and an increase in costs with no differences in neonatal outcome.
On the other hand, as a first-time mother, especially one not on the verge of going into labor on her own (the Cervidil is to "ripen" the cervix), inducing labor doubles your likelihood of a cesarean section. It isn't something you want to do without a clear indication that your baby is better off out than in.  
-- Henci

Forum Disclaimer

Please note that this Forum is intended to help women make informed decisions about their care. The content is not a substitute for medical advice.