cervical gel instead of pitocin for induction

bonnin507

My dr have offered to let me induce next week if things are looking good because my husband will be leaving for manditory work training 2 days after my due date.  I initially said NO because I didn't want to have pitocin & possibly make things harder since I want to go med-free.  However, I just ran into a girl I know that said her 1st induction was just some sort of gel & then they broke her water & she had a really quick labor.  Has anyone had experience w/ this rather than pitocin?

JulzRulz

I believe the cervical gel is the first step.  They usually put it in the night before the induction to soften the cervix and that's sometimes enough to get labor started.  If it doesn't, they break the water the next morning.  If that STILL doesn't start labor, then they do the pitocin. 

nln883

I haven't had the experience yet, but next week I'm getting induced.  I'll go in to L&D on Tues around noon and get the gel to help my cervix soften/dialate, and then late that night/early in the AM on Weds I'll go back to start the pitocin.  I've heard that sometimes the gel is enough to get things moving.

BNBB08

Any sort of medical induction technique = bad

ETA: For reasons that are not medically necessary..

potluckbride

My doctor is going to start with cervadil on Saturday night which she said could start contractions on its own, if you are ready.  It really just depends on how ready your body is for labor. 

BelhurstBride

In most cases if your cervix isn't favorable it isn't going to work.

Ruthgers

JulzRulz:

I believe the cervical gel is the first step.  They usually put it in the night before the induction to soften the cervix and that's sometimes enough to get labor started.  If it doesn't, they break the water the next morning.  If that STILL doesn't start labor, then they do the pitocin. 

This.

potluckbride

BNBB08:

Any sort of medical induction technique = bad

Why do you say that?  There are many times where it is necessary for the health of the mother and child. I would much rather be induced at 42 + weeks than have a stillborn.

BNBB08

potluckbride:

BNBB08:

Any sort of medical induction technique = bad

Why do you say that?  There are many times where it is necessary for the health of the mother and child. I would much rather be induced at 42 + weeks than have a stillborn.

I did try to edit my post.  I meant to include "for non medical reasons.."

squishles10

Ehh, I think mother's mental health is a good enough reason sometimes.  I'd be very upset if DH missed the birth of our LO.

jilicious

BNBB08:

Any sort of medical induction technique = bad

ETA: For reasons that are not medically necessary..

I agree, and to introduce any intervention can lead you down a path that strays very far from med-free if that's what you're looking for.

bonnin507

I guess that's answers my ? about the gel.  Probably not going to do an induction unless it really is necessary but I wanted to understand my options.  Usually it's best to let baby decide when it's time, I just hope it's time before my husband leaves!  My EDD should be right on 40wks since I charted we know the date of ovulation for sure.  I guess we're just going to keep our fingers crossed & see how it goes.

Ciconrad

If you want to go med-free, being induced is not a good option.  I've had two inductions - one for medical reasons at 40w 3d, one for convenience purposes at 39 weeks.  Both times I was considered to be a good candidate for induction because I was 4+ cm dilated and 50% effaced.  I had very easy labor & deliveries (labored for 6 hours and 4 hours and pushed for 10 min and 30min, respectively, with DS #1 and DS #2).  I definitely needed an epi though because the contrax are intense with pitocin. 

I have to roll my eyes at the "all inductions are BAD" stuff.  If your body is already progressing and you don't have a problem getting an epi, it's a perfectly fine option.  If you are 0 cm dilated and not effaced - it's a different story.  There is something doctor's use called the "Bishops score" that they use to assess how successful an induction will be.  My doctor is fine inducing after 39 weeks if you have a high Bishop's score, which I did.

BriAndSean

Just wanted to add that the gel alone is said to be enough to start labor for about 40% of full-term patients. I had the gel treatment twice in preparation for my induction. Both times, I had contractions but did not go into labor on my own. I ended up being induced with pitocin but they did not break my water. I was able to labor "naturally" without any pain medication and delivered vaginally about 5 hours after I had an established labor pattern.

Anyway, just thought I would share a positive induction story. My induction was for medical reasons since I was showing signs of pre-e and we had a failed NST. But either way, I hope that your L&D goes well and that your DH is able to be there!

BelhurstBride

bonnin507:

I guess that's answers my ? about the gel.  Probably not going to do an induction unless it really is necessary but I wanted to understand my options.  Usually it's best to let baby decide when it's time, I just hope it's time before my husband leaves!  My EDD should be right on 40wks since I charted we know the date of ovulation for sure.  I guess we're just going to keep our fingers crossed & see how it goes.

That doesn't mean that your baby is going to be ready to be born at 40 weeks. The 40 week estimation of gestation was determined by a doctor in the 1800's and has been misinterpreted to fit our modern day calendar.

WildcatPrincess

At our childbirth class they actually recommended pitocin over the gels because some women are super sensitive to the gels and if you happen to be one you can end up with constant contractions that they can't stop as easily as with pitocin, which they can turn down.