Overdue, baby not engaged
Printed From: OHbaby!
Category: Pregnant
Forum Name: Pregnancy
Forum Description: Pregnant! Wanting to chat to other mums-to-be (or dads-to-be)? Share your thoughts, experiences, and ideas... This is that place!
URL: https://www.ohbaby.co.nz/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=41349
Printed Date: 02 August 2025 at 3:50pm
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 12.05 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Overdue, baby not engaged
Posted By: Keleho
Subject: Overdue, baby not engaged
Date Posted: 16 January 2012 at 3:46pm
|
I'm 3 days overdue and all things considered, don't feel to bad. My midwife did an internal exam at my appointment last week (39+4) and although my cervix was softening and forward, nothing else was happening. She did suggest she could have done a s&s wasn't too keen to as baby was not at all engaged (although head down) and she didn't want to 'force' things before either my body or baby was ready.
I was happy with that as DD was induced at 40 weeks, didn't engage until labour and ended up stuck due to the way she engaged - something I don't want happening this time and I feel a lot of the problems were caused by my body and DD not being ready to go. Had another appointment today and baby is still not engaged (still head down though) so we didn't bother with an internal so as not to disrupt anything before baby had the chance to engage itself. Same reasoning as last time - we want baby to engage correctly so leaving it to do it itself should *hopefully* mean it engages correctly and therefore makes for a better birth. The 'plan' from here is to be monitored for a little bit on Sunday if still pregnant, followed by a s&s if things are more favourable. A scan last week showed baby is happy as, growing well, plenty of fluid etc I did feel a little deflated after this mornings appointment though as she commented that she thinks it will be at least another week and wouldn't be surprised if I need inducing at 42 weeks. I'm totally on board with what she has/hasn't done so far, I trust her opinion 100% and am happy to wait until 42 weeks to think about induction (not that long in the scheme of things), but am also curious as to other peoples experience with stubborn non-engaging babies and their subsequent births? Id be gutted to get to 42 weeks and have baby STILL not engaged in the slightest - would feel a bit like a repeat of last time! Any other thoughts and experiences to ease my mind a bit would be awesome too  ------------- http://lilypie.com" rel="nofollow"> 
|
Replies:
Posted By: MamaT
Date Posted: 16 January 2012 at 5:24pm
|
I'm sure I'd read somewhere that second babies quite often don't engage until labour? -------------  
|
Posted By: High9
Date Posted: 16 January 2012 at 6:40pm
|
I read/heard that too MamaT ------------- http://lilypie.com"> 
|
Posted By: Keleho
Date Posted: 16 January 2012 at 7:09pm
|
Yea, I had heard that too. If it wasnt for the fact that I had issues with how DD engaged, I wouldnt even be giving it a second thought.
Ill just have to stop worrying and hope for the best 
Thanks ------------- http://lilypie.com" rel="nofollow">
|
Posted By: pumpkino
Date Posted: 16 January 2012 at 7:47pm
|
DS was born 16 days overdue and wasn't engaged or any other signs of labour until I eventually went into labour naturally. We were in London where the policy is to induce no later than 41+6 but it was over Christmas/New Year and they had a bed shortage so "let" me go much further than I should have. I was pretty cross at the time because I was really uncomfortable and generally anxious but looking back I wouldn't change anything. I think trying to force things before nature is ready is generally to be avoided if possible. In the end my labour was fairly uneventful but very long :( I think if I had been induced it would have been worse though, and likely needed some sort of intervention because he probably wouldn't have been in the right position. As it was he wasn't in the right position even when I was 7cm dilated and they told me to prepare for a c-section - next time they checked he had turned around the right way and was halfway down!
So don't worry, I think mother nature gets things right 99% of the time if left to her own devices and if she doesn't you will be in a hospital (I assume - they usually don't recommend birthing at home if you're way overdue) where they can intervene if necessary. Good luck!! |
Posted By: notenufchaos
Date Posted: 16 January 2012 at 8:16pm
|
my second didnt engage until in was in labour she was also posterior i still remember the contraction where she turned and dropped lol she was 11 days overdue ------------- http://lilypie.com" rel="nofollow">  DD 1-25/05/2008 DD 2-2/2/2010 |
Posted By: Muma21more
Date Posted: 17 January 2012 at 5:42pm
|
Hi
I heard that too about 2nd babies not engaging until labour though some do. That being said i have a friend who was preggo with her first and head did not engage until she was in labour on the night of her due date!! was so jelous as i went two weeks over with DD ( baby hadnt engaged either until i was induced in labour) So from what i know.. babys head being engaged or not might not be significant ------------- mother of Talia 19 months http://lilypie.com"> 
|
Posted By: T_Rex
Date Posted: 17 January 2012 at 7:08pm
My number 2 engaged around 35 (I think?) weeks, and very slowly became more engaged to reach about 2/5 by 40 weeks. Then at 41 weeks she'd popped right out again 
On the night I was 41+4, she turned posterior (I'm sure that's when it happened, lol), and then was born a few hours later at 41+5. So she must have re-engaged eventually. It just made for a slightly longer, more ouchy labour than perhaps might have been if she'd not had to turn around first. For what it's worth, the MW at 40 weeks said she didn't think I'd make it to 41 weeks, and I went well past that. So the MW's don't always get it right anyway! ------------- http://lilypie.com">  http://lilypie.com">
|
Posted By: Chickoin
Date Posted: 17 January 2012 at 9:04pm
|
Both of mine didn't engage until they were on their way out.
#1 was induced 11 days over, pretty fast labour with no issues. Her cord was quite short which the MW said *may* be the reason she didn't engage. #2 I was determined to go naturally. At 12 days over I had a bloody show that morning. Dr said baby was not engaged at all, cervix was still posterior and he gave me an S & S. 3 hours later I went into labour. 4 hours after that baby was born. The only issue we had was her shoulders got stuck due to her size (10lb 7), but that was fixed fast. -------------   
|