low lying placenta (29weeks)

OB is an over cautious bloke at the best of times, I think. to be honest in
this case. I'd rather err on the side of caution than risk a heavy bleed
during labour.

though c-section for low placenta also carries a high risk of bleeding,
blood loss in a c-section is higher anyway, but they sometimes have to cut
through the placenta when it's low lying to actually get to the baby, which
is fine when it's unavoidable, but less good when it isn't. A high
proportion of women who have c-sections for this reason have blood
transfusions. The lower segment of the uterus doesn't contract down as well
after c-section and as that's the placental site, there is also increased
risk of post partum hemorage, again, increases need for blood transfusion.
There is also a higher risk of needing a hysterectomy. I haven't dug around
for research, but I suspect that if vaginal delivery is possible, with the
right monitoring, it's likely to have better outcomes, less PPHs, less
transfusions, less hysterectomies, etc.

Anne

Okay:That makes sense.
Debbie

"Karen Humble" wrote in message
...
They are rescanning in 3 weeks due to the GD but said they will check the
placenta at the same time, see how it is doing.

After the 32 week scan I'll be scanned 2 weekly till due date.

"Welches" wrote in message
...
I had a friend whose placenta moved between 28 and 36 weeks scan. I'm not
quite sure why you need to have it seen in 3 weeks, unless you're risky
for
early birth. I mean it doesn't really matter (except if you bleed, which I
believe is quite common with a low placenta) until you're risky for
delivery
so you might as well leave it until 36ish weeks as it gives it more time
to
move and it doesn't (to my knowledge) make any other difference to what
you'd do now.
Debbie

"Karen Humble" wrote in message
...
I was told at my 22 week scan my placenta was low and partially over my
cervix but not to worry as it should move up as the PG progresses.

Today, my 29 weeks scan shows it still in the same position and my OB
wants
to see me in 3 weeks to check it again. I've been advised that if I see
any
bleeding to ring them ASAP (common sense would have told me to do this
anyway!).

Anyone experienced this condition before? Has you placenta moved so you
can
have a VB or did you need a c-section?

TIA

--
Karen
DS 25th Sept 1984 - VB 8lb 12oz (Adopted)
DS 10th Aug 1986 - VB - 9lb 13oz
DD 13th Aug 1988 - VB - 10lb 9oz
DD 28th Apr 2005 - VB - 9lb 4oz
No 5 Due June 11 2007 - it's a boy !!

In article ,
says...

OB is an over cautious bloke at the best of times, I think. to be honest in
this case. I'd rather err on the side of caution than risk a heavy bleed
during labour.

though c-section for low placenta also carries a high risk of bleeding,
blood loss in a c-section is higher anyway, but they sometimes have to cut
through the placenta when it's low lying to actually get to the baby, which
is fine when it's unavoidable, but less good when it isn't. A high
proportion of women who have c-sections for this reason have blood
transfusions. The lower segment of the uterus doesn't contract down as well
after c-section and as that's the placental site, there is also increased
risk of post partum hemorage, again, increases need for blood transfusion.
There is also a higher risk of needing a hysterectomy. I haven't dug around
for research, but I suspect that if vaginal delivery is possible, with the
right monitoring, it's likely to have better outcomes, less PPHs, less
transfusions, less hysterectomies, etc.

Anne

Outstanding post, Anne. You have really done some in depth research on
this one.

Larry

On Mar 28, 2:20 pm, Larry Mcmahan wrote:
In article ,
says...





OB is an over cautious bloke at the best of times, I think. to be honest in
this case. I'd rather err on the side of caution than risk a heavy bleed
during labour.

though c-section for low placenta also carries a high risk of bleeding,
blood loss in a c-section is higher anyway, but they sometimes have to cut
through the placenta when it's low lying to actually get to the baby, which
is fine when it's unavoidable, but less good when it isn't. A high
proportion of women who have c-sections for this reason have blood
transfusions. The lower segment of the uterus doesn't contract down as well
after c-section and as that's the placental site, there is also increased
risk of post partum hemorage, again, increases need for blood transfusion.
There is also a higher risk of needing a hysterectomy. I haven't dug around
for research, but I suspect that if vaginal delivery is possible, with the
right monitoring, it's likely to have better outcomes, less PPHs, less
transfusions, less hysterectomies, etc.

Anne

Outstanding post, Anne. You have really done some in depth research on
this one.

Larry- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

First of all, everything will be alright. Just fine. It always is at
the end. But I thought of a really fun way to cheer you up and keep
you busy.. I don't know about you, but during my entire pregnancy,
I had sites in which I would right down every detail of my feelings,
thoughts, health etc etc for all to read and be part of.. I also made
sure to have memories of just about everything.. so there's this site,
www.imagineyourphotos.com which kept me busy during hard times in my
pregnancy and after all was over with, looking back, I have so many
memories to enjoy nowdays So anyways, bakc then I put in TEST 5 and
was able to get an additional 30% off. Not sure if it still works but
it's defenitly worth a try. Let me knwo how it goes, if it was able to
take your mind off things for a bit..

wrote in message
oups.com...
On Mar 28, 2:20 pm, Larry Mcmahan wrote:
In article ,
says...





OB is an over cautious bloke at the best of times, I think. to be
honest in
this case. I'd rather err on the side of caution than risk a heavy
bleed
during labour.

though c-section for low placenta also carries a high risk of bleeding,
blood loss in a c-section is higher anyway, but they sometimes have to
cut
through the placenta when it's low lying to actually get to the baby,
which
is fine when it's unavoidable, but less good when it isn't. A high
proportion of women who have c-sections for this reason have blood
transfusions. The lower segment of the uterus doesn't contract down as
well
after c-section and as that's the placental site, there is also
increased
risk of post partum hemorage, again, increases need for blood
transfusion.
There is also a higher risk of needing a hysterectomy. I haven't dug
around
for research, but I suspect that if vaginal delivery is possible, with
the
right monitoring, it's likely to have better outcomes, less PPHs, less
transfusions, less hysterectomies, etc.

Anne

Outstanding post, Anne. You have really done some in depth research on
this one.

Larry- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

First of all, everything will be alright. Just fine. It always is at
the end. But I thought of a really fun way to cheer you up and keep
you busy.. I don't know about you, but during my entire pregnancy,
I had sites in which I would right down every detail of my feelings,
thoughts, health etc etc for all to read and be part of.. I also made
sure to have memories of just about everything.. so there's this site,
www.imagineyourphotos.com which kept me busy during hard times in my
pregnancy and after all was over with, looking back, I have so many
memories to enjoy nowdays So anyways, bakc then I put in TEST 5 and
was able to get an additional 30% off. Not sure if it still works but
it's defenitly worth a try. Let me knwo how it goes, if it was able to
take your mind off things for a bit..


First of all, everything is not always okay. Lots and lots of pregnancies
don't end well. My guess is that the OP will be fine, but I'm sick of your
spamming, you freak.

Go away and stop posting your crap spam here pretending to care. F off.
--

Jamie

OMG.............The lesser of 2 evils is to risk bleeding during labour?

Fingers crossed it ''moves'' as the uterus expands and all this worry will have been for nothing,

"Anne Rogers" wrote in message ...

OB is an over cautious bloke at the best of times, I think. to be honest in
this case. I'd rather err on the side of caution than risk a heavy bleed
during labour.

though c-section for low placenta also carries a high risk of bleeding,
blood loss in a c-section is higher anyway, but they sometimes have to cut
through the placenta when it's low lying to actually get to the baby, which
is fine when it's unavoidable, but less good when it isn't. A high
proportion of women who have c-sections for this reason have blood
transfusions. The lower segment of the uterus doesn't contract down as well
after c-section and as that's the placental site, there is also increased
risk of post partum hemorage, again, increases need for blood transfusion.
There is also a higher risk of needing a hysterectomy. I haven't dug around
for research, but I suspect that if vaginal delivery is possible, with the
right monitoring, it's likely to have better outcomes, less PPHs, less
transfusions, less hysterectomies, etc.

Anne

On Mar 27, 10:41 pm, "Karen Humble" wrote:
cheers will have a look.

"Anne Rogers" wrote in ...
just found this very brief article

http://www.fetalmedicine.ac.uk/lib/f...us/previa.html

it's 3 and 4 that absolutely need c-section and 1 and 2 that vaginal
delivery is possible, but would need close monitoring as bleeding is likely.
The thing that particularly interested me was that abdominal ultrasound had
about a 7% false positive rate, and that vaginal ultrasound is more
accurate, though it doesn't say how accurate, I would definitely ask for
this if it hadn't already been done.

Anne

I just had a two (vaginal) ultrasounds to make sure the placenta
previa had moved (I'm almost 24 weeks). Actually, my regular
gynecologist already determined that it had moved, but I went to the
emergency room for another reason (really bad asthma attack. never had
that before), and the doctor had me go to a hospital where they work
with gynecologists for these kinds of emergencies. After the
undangerous amount of cortisone and the inhalator, I was fine, but I
was still checked to make sure the baby was ok, too. I had the TG to
make sure there were no contractions, and the said ultrasounds. The
reason for the second one was that the first one wasn't clear enough,
so she looked on a higher resolution one (with 3-D capabilities, which
are irrelevant here). I told her that I had had the previa, but maybe
I wasn't clear that it had passed. I was pretty tired after the whole
ordeal.
At least my husband got to see the baby for the first time, because
she also did the belly ultrasound.
N

OMG.............The lesser of 2 evils is to risk bleeding during labour?

Fingers crossed it ''moves'' as the uterus expands and all this worry will
have been for nothing,

sorry, I know that wasn't what you wanted to hear, the truth is, placenta
previa, of any grade is not a great thing, it can be risky during pregnancy,
and when the grade means it has to be delivered by c-section, it's not a
straight forward c-section. There is a higher risk of hysterectomy than in a
regular c-section, requiring a blood transfusion is pretty much a given. You
also have to be prepared to go under a general, it depends on the surgeon +
anaethetist, but in the expectation of complications they may put you
straight under, some might see how it goes, let you see the baby, then put
you under.

Definitely crossing my fingers that it moves, or at least decreases in
severity, a grade 1 is definitely better and lower risk of bleeding in
labour than a grade 2.

Anne