When to schedule repeat c-section?

[Anonymous]

My doctor scheduled my repeat (second) c-section for 39 weeks + 0 days. Is there any benefit to trying to get it pushed back a few days? I assume that letting the baby “bake” longer would be a net positive even after 39 weeks, but I haven’t found any studies to that effect. There are no unusual medical concerns at play, and dating is certain as this is an IVF pregnancy.

[Anonymous]

TOtally fine, but I’d focus more on days of the week. I had mine on a Wednesday at 39+5 which was great because I could be discharged over the weekend when more family was around to help.

[Anonymous]

I have researched this because my Dr wants to induce me at 39+1. So kind of different than your situation. The most recent studies have shown no increase in fetal problems (NICU stay) for those induced at 39 weeks vs later spontaenous labor fwiw but decrease in maternal problems (hypertension in particular).

[Anonymous]

This was a seminal study assessing early elective delivery, which found that multiparas with a prior c-section had 35–55% increased odds of neonatal morbidities compared with continuing the pregnancy to 39–40 weeks of gestation.

https://journals.lww.com/greenjournal/FullText/2016/04000/Infant_Outcomes_After_Elective_Early_Term_Delivery.6.aspx

Given the probability that not all babies (or humans) are at precisely equivalent development at X age, and those final days do count a lot for brain development, and as long as no medical issues crop up, I think you are reasonable to ask to schedule it closer to the end of 39 weeks rather than the beginning.

[Anonymous]

Mine was at 40 +1 due to scheduling issues with my doctor. My first never descended properly, so we figured it was worth going s little longer. No problems at all (and no contractions)!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This was a seminal study assessing early elective delivery, which found that multiparas with a prior c-section had 35–55% increased odds of neonatal morbidities compared with continuing the pregnancy to 39–40 weeks of gestation.

https://journals.lww.com/greenjournal/FullText/2016/04000/Infant_Outcomes_After_Elective_Early_Term_Delivery.6.aspx

Given the probability that not all babies (or humans) are at precisely equivalent development at X age, and those final days do count a lot for brain development, and as long as no medical issues crop up, I think you are reasonable to ask to schedule it closer to the end of 39 weeks rather than the beginning.

oops, I meant to say that the above pertains to those having an elective repeat C. Those babies born by early induction did not have significantly increased odds of morbidities in the study. It's in the link but thought I would clarify.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This was a seminal study assessing early elective delivery, which found that multiparas with a prior c-section had 35–55% increased odds of neonatal morbidities compared with continuing the pregnancy to 39–40 weeks of gestation.

https://journals.lww.com/greenjournal/FullText/2016/04000/Infant_Outcomes_After_Elective_Early_Term_Delivery.6.aspx

Given the probability that not all babies (or humans) are at precisely equivalent development at X age, and those final days do count a lot for brain development, and as long as no medical issues crop up, I think you are reasonable to ask to schedule it closer to the end of 39 weeks rather than the beginning.

Are you the same poster always posting about brain development? Can you please provide some evidence about this to back it up. You bring this up constantly on other threads.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This was a seminal study assessing early elective delivery, which found that multiparas with a prior c-section had 35–55% increased odds of neonatal morbidities compared with continuing the pregnancy to 39–40 weeks of gestation.

https://journals.lww.com/greenjournal/FullText/2016/04000/Infant_Outcomes_After_Elective_Early_Term_Delivery.6.aspx

Given the probability that not all babies (or humans) are at precisely equivalent development at X age, and those final days do count a lot for brain development, and as long as no medical issues crop up, I think you are reasonable to ask to schedule it closer to the end of 39 weeks rather than the beginning.

Are you the same poster always posting about brain development? Can you please provide some evidence about this to back it up. You bring this up constantly on other threads.

Longer Gestation among Children Born Full Term Influences Cognitive and Motor Development
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4244187/

Children's Brain Development Benefits from Longer Gestation
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3111445/

[Anonymous]

My practice scheduled them for 39 weeks. I had mine at 39+1 and had a totally healthy baby. As others have said, focus on the day of the week, etc. I had mine on a Saturday and I actually advise against that if you have older kids. I should have had it when my kid was in daycare.

[Anonymous]

Thank you for the study links and advice, much appreciated - OP

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This was a seminal study assessing early elective delivery, which found that multiparas with a prior c-section had 35–55% increased odds of neonatal morbidities compared with continuing the pregnancy to 39–40 weeks of gestation.

https://journals.lww.com/greenjournal/FullText/2016/04000/Infant_Outcomes_After_Elective_Early_Term_Delivery.6.aspx

Given the probability that not all babies (or humans) are at precisely equivalent development at X age, and those final days do count a lot for brain development, and as long as no medical issues crop up, I think you are reasonable to ask to schedule it closer to the end of 39 weeks rather than the beginning.

Are you the same poster always posting about brain development? Can you please provide some evidence about this to back it up. You bring this up constantly on other threads.

Longer Gestation among Children Born Full Term Influences Cognitive and Motor Development
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4244187/

Children's Brain Development Benefits from Longer Gestation
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3111445/

NP here. Looks to me like the most significant findings relate to babies born at “early term” (37 weeks) vs “term (39-41 weeks). I am not a scientist- can you point out where it suggests huge differences in week 39? Also, as someone who had a C section following a spontaneous failed labor, you can’t disregard those risks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This was a seminal study assessing early elective delivery, which found that multiparas with a prior c-section had 35–55% increased odds of neonatal morbidities compared with continuing the pregnancy to 39–40 weeks of gestation.

https://journals.lww.com/greenjournal/FullText/2016/04000/Infant_Outcomes_After_Elective_Early_Term_Delivery.6.aspx

Given the probability that not all babies (or humans) are at precisely equivalent development at X age, and those final days do count a lot for brain development, and as long as no medical issues crop up, I think you are reasonable to ask to schedule it closer to the end of 39 weeks rather than the beginning.

Are you the same poster always posting about brain development? Can you please provide some evidence about this to back it up. You bring this up constantly on other threads.

Longer Gestation among Children Born Full Term Influences Cognitive and Motor Development
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4244187/

Children's Brain Development Benefits from Longer Gestation
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3111445/

NP here. Looks to me like the most significant findings relate to babies born at “early term” (37 weeks) vs “term (39-41 weeks). I am not a scientist- can you point out where it suggests huge differences in week 39? Also, as someone who had a C section following a spontaneous failed labor, you can’t disregard those risks.

It says previous research only looked at pre-term/prior to 37 weeks, but these findings show there are still neurological benefits after that point some of which last into childhood. So delivering right at 39+0 without a medical reason is probably depriving some infants of those benefits.

It's not the different between a healthy baby and an unhealthy one - the baby will likely be healthy as can be. It plays out in their cognitive and motor development later on.

[Anonymous]

I would rather deprive my baby of some potential brain development than give birth to a stillborn baby or get preeclampsia by continuing a pregnancy for longer than is healthy. There are risks to mom and baby to gestation past 40 weeks and that has to factor into decision making. This article is not taking into account all those health risks, it’s only looking at one potential benefit and the science seems fuzzy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I would rather deprive my baby of some potential brain development than give birth to a stillborn baby or get preeclampsia by continuing a pregnancy for longer than is healthy. There are risks to mom and baby to gestation past 40 weeks and that has to factor into decision making. This article is not taking into account all those health risks, it’s only looking at one potential benefit and the science seems fuzzy.

Well, no one anywhere in this thread is advocating going past 40 weeks.

And yes, these "articles" aka research papers, are only looking at one outcome (not a "potential" benefit, but a benefit confirmed through data analysis). That is generally how scientific studies work.

With her second child she's pretty unlikely to get pre-eclampsia. Or suffer a stillbirth. Going to such lengths to avoid those outcomes is like people who avoid public gatherings after a mass shooting, even though the actual risk of that happening to you is miniscule. So, that might be your risk calculus, but it's not universal.