Anonymous wrote:This is anecdotal but I developed internal scarring from my uneventful c section which led to an ectopic pregnancy and 5 years of infertility. I’ve seen numerous RE’s and the opinions will vary. My initial RE who was also close to my OB said they had nothing to do with each other but my second RE said it is definitely related and that there is a study (sorry I don’t have the name) that cites that 80% of post c section tubal ectopics have to do with residual scarring from the c section.

There are a slew of other conditions that are increased from c sections. If you look at medical textbooks they will cite that for example, a condition such as andenomyosis can result from surgery on the uterus but they don’t use the word c section which obviously accounts for most surgeries to the uterus. I’m not saying all c sections are bad. Many woman have good experiences and the ability to have have c sections is a gift, but they are often unnecessary and pushed because the birthing experience in a lot of America, at least DC, mostly just sucks.

I had the same experience with internal scaring.

I had a c-section…didn’t have a choice. This was 8 years ago and that whole area has permanent nerve damage- still numb all over.. It’s very upsetting- given the permanency of it.

Also, it’s major surgery and yet everyone expects so much out of the mother right away. I was in shock at the pain. My situation may be more rare…each woman is a different situation, but for me- it’s been horrible.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Curious why C-Sections are seen as such a bad thing. I delivered vaginally for my first and it was awful. My care team was great, I just hated everything about the entire process. Seemed like a whole lot of waiting around and being in pain. And I ended up needing an episiotomy and extraction anyway, which then resulted in a bunch of scar tissue that caused problems.

Now that I'm pregnant with my second, a C section sounds pretty darn good. No labor, just go in and get the whole thing done and over with in 15 minutes. I know there's recovery, but recovery from vaginal birth sucked, too. And I know it's surgery, so there are risks associated with that, but from talking with my OB it sounds like it's a very, very small increase of risk.

So why exactly are c-sections seen as so horrible?

Three words: Placenta Accreta Spectrum. Most c-sections are unnecessary and increase your risk for complications and PAS in your next pregnancy, along with other uterine procedures.

This site has some good info : www.accretafoundation.org

Are you just searching old threads to bump and mention your foundation

Definitely. What a nutter.

My friend is a plastic surgeon and told me that it’s the bottom of the barrel medical school students that end up as obgyns. She told me that this is a generalization and generally true. She also said in her industry everyone has their plastic surgeon buddy come in to do the c section sew up and never the obgyn because they suck at it and butcher women. This is basically the language she used.

This is anecdotal but I developed internal scarring from my uneventful c section which led to an ectopic pregnancy and 5 years of infertility. I’ve seen numerous RE’s and the opinions will vary. My initial RE who was also close to my OB said they had nothing to do with each other but my second RE said it is definitely related and that there is a study (sorry I don’t have the name) that cites that 80% of post c section tubal ectopics have to do with residual scarring from the c section.

There are a slew of other conditions that are increased from c sections. If you look at medical textbooks they will cite that for example, a condition such as andenomyosis can result from surgery on the uterus but they don’t use the word c section which obviously accounts for most surgeries to the uterus. I’m not saying all c sections are bad. Many woman have good experiences and the ability to have have c sections is a gift, but they are often unnecessary and pushed because the birthing experience in a lot of America, at least DC, mostly just sucks.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Curious why C-Sections are seen as such a bad thing. I delivered vaginally for my first and it was awful. My care team was great, I just hated everything about the entire process. Seemed like a whole lot of waiting around and being in pain. And I ended up needing an episiotomy and extraction anyway, which then resulted in a bunch of scar tissue that caused problems.

Now that I'm pregnant with my second, a C section sounds pretty darn good. No labor, just go in and get the whole thing done and over with in 15 minutes. I know there's recovery, but recovery from vaginal birth sucked, too. And I know it's surgery, so there are risks associated with that, but from talking with my OB it sounds like it's a very, very small increase of risk.

So why exactly are c-sections seen as so horrible?

Three words: Placenta Accreta Spectrum. Most c-sections are unnecessary and increase your risk for complications and PAS in your next pregnancy, along with other uterine procedures.

This site has some good info : www.accretafoundation.org

There are two things that are really sick about this:
1) Pelvic ultrasounds are not routine follow up to check how the uterus healed. They check the skin healing which is basically cosmetic.
2) There is a surgery that revises the scar and probably lowers the risk of placenta accreta and there are no prospective clinical trials on the topic.

I had to fight to have my residual myometrium scanned after my jack0ff reproductive endocrinologust casually threw out that he saw an isthmocele and that I needed a C section while injecting my embryo. The cost for the scan is $54 CAN. A year later I get covid and chest pain and I automatically get an ECG and heart echo ($600 CAN) first time I mention it to my family doctor.

Only women are asked to slice and dice up an organ and re-use it without the healing being checked properly. 4 out of 5 women nope the F out of VBAC because of the fear of uterine rupture. Almost all ruptures happen in women who have residual myometriums under 3.5mm. Virtually all ruptures are preventable, either via surgery to revise the scar before attempting pregnancy or risk stratification with the scan.

I think the establishment does not want the surgery to become routine. I assume because the surgeries would cluster among incompetent OBs who are doing hack jobs to their patients. Doctors have fragile egos.

Women get treated like s**t because we put up with it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Curious why C-Sections are seen as such a bad thing. I delivered vaginally for my first and it was awful. My care team was great, I just hated everything about the entire process. Seemed like a whole lot of waiting around and being in pain. And I ended up needing an episiotomy and extraction anyway, which then resulted in a bunch of scar tissue that caused problems.

Now that I'm pregnant with my second, a C section sounds pretty darn good. No labor, just go in and get the whole thing done and over with in 15 minutes. I know there's recovery, but recovery from vaginal birth sucked, too. And I know it's surgery, so there are risks associated with that, but from talking with my OB it sounds like it's a very, very small increase of risk.

So why exactly are c-sections seen as so horrible?

Three words: Placenta Accreta Spectrum. Most c-sections are unnecessary and increase your risk for complications and PAS in your next pregnancy, along with other uterine procedures.

This site has some good info : www.accretafoundation.org

Are you just searching old threads to bump and mention your foundation

+1

I had a midwife for my delivery (CNM at a well regarded hospital). They were definitely skilled, had great bedside manner, spent more time with me than an OB would have, and got the job done successfully (I had a vaginal birth).

However, as PP mentioned, maintaining pelvic floor health is a huge benefit of C-sections. I wish, frankly, that I'd chosen one -- they did ask me if I preferred to carry on pushing or go with a cesarean and I somewhat regret carrying on. I only want one child so I wouldn't need to worry about risks in future pregnancies associated with C-sections, and I had family around to help so I could physically recover. I ended up not having lasting pelvic floor trauma after physical therapy (and I got lucky with an early, small baby and just first degree tearing) but I pushed for 4+ hours and the vaginal trauma made me feel psychologically disgusted with myself rather than a badass warrior woman.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Vaginal breech delivery is considered risky and extreme because of the higher rate of infant death. I guess if getting the baby out vaginally matters more to you than minimizing the risks you baby will be born dead, you’re free to make that choice but there’s a reason precious few providers do this when we have a safe alternative.

https://www.skepticalob.com/2011/06/no-breech-is-not-variation-of-normal.html

Cool. One very pro c-section blog says it’s not normal (fine, that’s a reasonable assessment in a 5% situation) I notice she doesn’t say that well respected OBs in the DC area—albeit few— are giving a subpar standard of care or are “extreme”. That’s just anonymous internet poster vs. ACOG again.

There are a handful in the DMV doing it and they are all at GW. Madkoir got his training on them in counties where C sections aren’t readily available. Most practicing OBs consider it risky and my JHU OB told me GW has a reputation for being too extreme with regards to vaginal birth. So there’s that.

I'm "educated" about this and I wouldn't consider this kind of birth at all unless I were in a field hospital in Sierra Leone or similar and a c-section was going to be basically a drug free horror show with potential death (more than potential, potentially imminent) death for me or kid. Personally, I cannot imagine almost assuredly wrecking my pelvic floor and risking dead baby to claim a vaginal birth, but that's just me. It seems totally mental.

+1. My MIL did it with her third and still brags about it, but it seems impossibly stupid to me.

Anonymous wrote:I had two vaginal births and all my friends and both my SILs had c-sections.

Cons: 1) it's real, serious surgery and it hurts like h*ll after and the recovery is a PITA. I went for a 2 miles walk probably 3 days after I had my second and they couldn't even move. If you have a ton of help and someone talking care of the baby 24/7 while you recover, it's not bad. If you don't, it's hard. 2) All of them ended up with funky looking stomachs, even my brother's wife, who is rail thin. 3) scars 4) babies are more prone to autoimmune issues 5) one SIL ended up with some uterine scarring. Statistically, this could be why some have a harder time conceiving after.

"Previous peer-reviewed research, by multiple authors, has identified links between C-section and negative health outcomes in children, including obesity, asthma and autism. For example, studies have shown that delivery by C-section increases a child's risk for obesity by age 5 by an astounding 55%." IMO, his could be that the moms are already sicker and obese and therefore requiring a c-section, so the offspring are not that healthy, so it might not be the surgery itself, but who knows.

Pros (HUGE): pelvic floor health and stress urinary incontinence



https://www.webmd.com/baby/news/20130211/c-section-formula-may-disrupt-good-gut-bacteria-in-babies#1

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/07/200709141545.htm

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/11/201104131520.htm

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/12/181219093903.htm

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/02/160223074738.htm

I’ve heard that babies that have difficulty getting out of the birth canal are more likely to have underlying issues and many women who require c-sections have complications that could lead to deleterious outcomes (pre e, gestational diabetes, bleeding, etc.). I don’t know if it’s fair to link c-sections to autism. It may be more accurate that SN babies are more likely to require delivery via c-section.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Curious why C-Sections are seen as such a bad thing. I delivered vaginally for my first and it was awful. My care team was great, I just hated everything about the entire process. Seemed like a whole lot of waiting around and being in pain. And I ended up needing an episiotomy and extraction anyway, which then resulted in a bunch of scar tissue that caused problems.

Now that I'm pregnant with my second, a C section sounds pretty darn good. No labor, just go in and get the whole thing done and over with in 15 minutes. I know there's recovery, but recovery from vaginal birth sucked, too. And I know it's surgery, so there are risks associated with that, but from talking with my OB it sounds like it's a very, very small increase of risk.

So why exactly are c-sections seen as so horrible?

Three words: Placenta Accreta Spectrum. Most c-sections are unnecessary and increase your risk for complications and PAS in your next pregnancy, along with other uterine procedures.

This site has some good info : www.accretafoundation.org

Are you just searching old threads to bump and mention your foundation

Anonymous wrote:Curious why C-Sections are seen as such a bad thing. I delivered vaginally for my first and it was awful. My care team was great, I just hated everything about the entire process. Seemed like a whole lot of waiting around and being in pain. And I ended up needing an episiotomy and extraction anyway, which then resulted in a bunch of scar tissue that caused problems.

Now that I'm pregnant with my second, a C section sounds pretty darn good. No labor, just go in and get the whole thing done and over with in 15 minutes. I know there's recovery, but recovery from vaginal birth sucked, too. And I know it's surgery, so there are risks associated with that, but from talking with my OB it sounds like it's a very, very small increase of risk.

So why exactly are c-sections seen as so horrible?

Three words: Placenta Accreta Spectrum. Most c-sections are unnecessary and increase your risk for complications and PAS in your next pregnancy, along with other uterine procedures.

This site has some good info : www.accretafoundation.org

Anonymous wrote:OBs need to train with midwives, not the other way around. If I had used an OB for any of my 3 deliveries (I used midwives) and they did not at least suggest getting into a warm birthing tub to ease and encourage the labor, I would have run from the practice.

OBs are surgeons. Midwives deliver babies.

I delivered with midwives and the hospital definitely did not have a birthing tub.

Anonymous wrote:OBs need to train with midwives, not the other way around. If I had used an OB for any of my 3 deliveries (I used midwives) and they did not at least suggest getting into a warm birthing tub to ease and encourage the labor, I would have run from the practice.

OBs are surgeons. Midwives deliver babies.

Haha if you're friends with any surgeons ask them what they really think about OB surgical skills. The EBL on OB cases is a punchline.

Anonymous wrote:OBs need to train with midwives, not the other way around. If I had used an OB for any of my 3 deliveries (I used midwives) and they did not at least suggest getting into a warm birthing tub to ease and encourage the labor, I would have run from the practice.

OBs are surgeons. Midwives deliver babies.

Eh. I had a midwife for my first and wasn't impressed. Birthing tub did nothing for me, I was pressured into trying to go unmedicated even though I was exhausted and wanted an epidural, then she stitched me up weird and I had a ton of scar tissue that hurt for years. I later found out a family friend had delivered with that same midwife practice a month earlier, they didn't catch that the baby was in distress, and baby ended up with cerebral palsy as a result.

Giving birth is the most dangerous day of a woman's life, you're damn right I want an actual doctor there.