Dialated and membrane sweep

Carlymoon · September 2014

So I had my 38 wk check up today- baby was super low and I'm Dialated to 3. Dr did the membrane sweep around 4:30pm but other than some soreness and pressure I'm not feeling any contractions. He said he felt pretty confident he's see me around 3:30am. He gave me 70/30 odds. I'm feeling skeptical at this point.... Shouldn't something be happening yet?

trisharenee0316 · September 2014

Not necessarily, but it also could mean that your body just isn't ready to give birth yet, despite being 3 cm dilated.

Emerald27 · September 2014

trisharenee0316 said:
Not necessarily, but it also could mean that your body just isn't ready to give birth yet, despite being 3 cm dilated.

This! You're only 38 weeks. Why did he do a membrane sweep? Do you need to be induced early?

BeanNut · September 2014

I've heard it can take 24 hours or even more? My dr has already offered to do it for me at my next appt- close to 39 weeks- and she said it's about 50/50 for people who are pretty well progressed.

lrobi13 · September 2014

I had a sweep done on Thursday and no baby yet so it doesn't always work (I have GD so we are trying to improve my chances for a successful induction)

lolabeans1 · September 2014

My last pregnancy I had a membrane sweep done at 38 weeks when I was 4 cm dilated. Dr said same thing, that he would see me within 24 hours. When I went back a week later for my 39 week apt I was actually 8 cm dilated and not in labor. They then induced me by breaking water because they were concerned I wouldn't make it to hospital when I actually went into labor. Your body does what your body does. Not the same for everyone. Good luck!!

JessAnnJ · September 2014

Not that this helps OP, but I had my membranes swept at my 40 week appointment with my daughter and it caused my water to leak. My body was not ready and I ended up on pitocin when the contractions never kicked it. Unless you have a medical reason not to I really believe it's best to wait until your body is ready.

trisharenee0316 · September 2014

Any Judge Judy gifs will get immediate love tits from me and I don't even care if they're not relevant.

MorganWP · September 2014

With her second, my auntie had a sweep at 37 weeks because she didnt want to do pitocin. (She had GD and was going to be induced anyway) She had another at 39 weeks because nothing happened the first time.

Emerald27 · September 2014

theresat858 said:
Why would you consent to a membrane sweep at 38 weeks?? Why would a doctor do one?? Is there a medical reason for kicking baby out before full term?

Ok, so I've seen this referenced a lot around these parts. What is considered "full term" nowadays, and when did it change? I was told that 37 weeks was considered full term when I had DS, but that of course was nearly 3 years ago...

BreandMikewedding · September 2014

Emerald27 said:

theresat858 said:
Why would you consent to a membrane sweep at 38 weeks?? Why would a doctor do one?? Is there a medical reason for kicking baby out before full term?
Ok, so I've seen this referenced a lot around these parts. What is considered "full term" nowadays, and when did it change? I was told that 37 weeks was considered full term when I had DS, but that of course was nearly 3 years ago...

I was told 37-42 weeks. Everyone is different and so therefore there is a range.

andrieya · September 2014

I hear it's considered 39 weeks now

Unknown · September 2014

This content has been removed.

BreandMikewedding · September 2014

andrieya said:
I hear it's considered 39 weeks now

I know most hospitals won't do inductions or scheduled c-section before 39 weeks unless medically necessary.

trisharenee0316 · September 2014

ACOG changed their recommendations/terminology as to full term. Full term is now 39 weeks through 40w6d. Probably to stop so many early inductions and c-sections, but also because I believe further research showed important developments for the baby that happen in the last couple of weeks. 37w-38w6d is considered early term.

https://www.acog.org/About-ACOG/News-Room/News-Releases/2013/Ob-Gyns-Redefine-Meaning-of-Term-Pregnancy

stephweldon21 · September 2014

I really feel like within the last month this board has turned into nothing but a judgmental fest. We all come from different backgrounds, regions of the world, have different beliefs, and dr's who for the most part we trust with our lives. More import antly we trust them with our LO'S. We are all here for support and advice. And shouldn't have to be scared to post a question. I personally would not chose to be swept and if my dr asked I would decline. But that doesn't mean I think her and her dr are completely in the wrong for maybe not even having a medical reason. This isn't one dr doing this. Its dr's all over the world. Flame me, I dont even care. I'm in the process of laboring at home. I'm pissed off, hormonal, and I hate the world.

Carlymoon · September 2014

I appreciate the info ladies. I agree everyone's dr are different. Thanks to those who responded

Unknown · September 2014

This content has been removed.

trisharenee0316 · September 2014

stephweldon21 said:

I really feel like within the last month this board has turned into nothing but a judgmental fest. We all come from different backgrounds, regions of the world, have different beliefs, and dr's who for the most part we trust with our lives. More import antly we trust them with our LO'S. We are all here for support and advice. And shouldn't have to be scared to post a question. I personally would not chose to be swept and if my dr asked I would decline. But that doesn't mean I think her and her dr are completely in the wrong for maybe not even having a medical reason. This isn't one dr doing this. Its dr's all over the world. Flame me, I dont even care. I'm in the process of laboring at home. I'm pissed off, hormonal, and I hate the world.

I mean, that's your opinion.

But again, the ACOG disagrees with your reasoning. They specifically state that babies born between 39-41 weeks have the best outcomes, and that attempting delivery prior to that date absent water breaking or being in labor anyway should only occur when there are significant health reasons (likely pre-eclampsia and things of that nature). Meaning, stripping membranes at 38 weeks absent the aforementioned is not the professional standard of care. And since many people don't know the recommendations have changed in the past 2 years, it's not unwise for people to mention that fact.

stephweldon21 · September 2014

MonstoMommy said:
I think that sweeping generalizations about the board suck. Even in a thread with snark, there is still generally a lot of good info and responses. The five responses before yours @stephweldon21‌ are about ACOG guidelines and how they have changed. Not sure how that qualifies as judgment fest. Incidentally, I do think your post is pretty judgmental. I'm not flaming you, just pointing out that not everything is negative. Good luck with your laboring!

I'm also referring to all the negative responses to the "walking the baby out" post. And yes my response may have been a little judgemental. Which was not my intention at all.

Emerald27 · September 2014

stephweldon21 said:
I really feel like within the last month this board has turned into nothing but a judgmental fest. We all come from different backgrounds, regions of the world, have different beliefs, and dr's who for the most part we trust with our lives. More import antly we trust them with our LO'S. We are all here for support and advice. And shouldn't have to be scared to post a question. I personally would not chose to be swept and if my dr asked I would decline. But that doesn't mean I think her and her dr are completely in the wrong for maybe not even having a medical reason. This isn't one dr doing this. Its dr's all over the world. Flame me, I dont even care. I'm in the process of laboring at home. I'm pissed off, hormonal, and I hate the world.

Bless your heart.

Emerald27 · September 2014

trisharenee0316 said:
ACOG changed their recommendations/terminology as to full term. Full term is now 39 weeks through 40w6d. Probably to stop so many early inductions and c-sections, but also because I believe further research showed important developments for the baby that happen in the last couple of weeks. 37w-38w6d is considered early term.

https://www.acog.org/About-ACOG/News-Room/News-Releases/2013/Ob-Gyns-Redefine-Meaning-of-Term-Pregnancy

This change intrigues me, because I was induced with DS at exactly 37 weeks (full term back in 2011) because of his IUGR. The concern was that the closer to my due date, the higher the risk for still birth in unexplained IUGR babies. So I wonder if the textbook answer for unexplained IUGR is still to deliver at 37 weeks, or if they've moved it up to 38-39 weeks based on the change in definition of "full term"...I might think not, since the risk at 38-39 weeks would still be high. Just interesting...

MrsSarahRenee · September 2014

Emerald27 said:

trisharenee0316 said:
ACOG changed their recommendations/terminology as to full term. Full term is now 39 weeks through 40w6d. Probably to stop so many early inductions and c-sections, but also because I believe further research showed important developments for the baby that happen in the last couple of weeks. 37w-38w6d is considered early term.

https://www.acog.org/About-ACOG/News-Room/News-Releases/2013/Ob-Gyns-Redefine-Meaning-of-Term-Pregnancy
This change intrigues me, because I was induced with DS at exactly 37 weeks (full term back in 2011) because of his IUGR. The concern was that the closer to my due date, the higher the risk for still birth in unexplained IUGR babies. So I wonder if the textbook answer for unexplained IUGR is still to deliver at 37 weeks, or if they've moved it up to 38-39 weeks based on the change in definition of "full term"...I might think not, since the risk at 38-39 weeks would still be high. Just interesting...

In childbirth class, they said that 37 weeks is "term" (not full but just "term") and therefore if mom or baby has a health concern it is considered safe to deliver the baby. She covered reasons that they may choose to deliver baby that early and IUGR was one of them. FWIW

angeltennis3 · September 2014

I am curious why your doctor would do a membrane sweep at 38 weeks. Not in a judgey way, but legitimately curious.

Obviously there is research out there about the health benefits to baby to stay in longer. A lot of the time we don't get the entire story with a post like this so there may be a reason to do a membrane sweep a little early.

I do think TB gets "group think" pretty easily, though. However 9 times out of 10 we are responding based on the limited facts given in the post and the data available to us. It isn't women trying to be judgmental but rather we don't have the full story in a 3 sentence post.

cozybluebear · September 2014

With my first, I was 3cm / 90% at 39 weeks when my OB did the sweep. He told me that my water would probably break during the sweep... it didn't. Then he told me that he was sure I wouldn't make it through the night... I did. Then he said I definitely wouldn't make it through the weekend... I did of course. I was induced a week later.

SCMomma · September 2014

Just wanted to add...OP, you can decline anymore sweeps if you want. If your water breaks after a sweep and your body isn't ready, you'll be put on a clock. Maybe save the sweeps until you're late rather than early.

I don't know why everybody is all "Why would your Dr do this?!" It's no secret that MANY MANY providers and facilities do not follow up to date or evidence based care...

HappyCianci · September 2014

Sooo much talk (and shaming!) on the board lately about the ethics of induction attempts before 39 weeks.

I get being a stickler (I am one) but why are we so prickly about this topic in particular? Most of us make plenty of choices that are "less than optimal" about our pregnancies. We plop down on the couch and eat a pint of ice cream. We plan for epidurals. We get elective ultrasounds. We skip out on a good night's sleep.

None of these behaviors is absolutely optimal for our babies, but as a group we're much more accepting of them than we are of of someone trying to have their baby 4 days before that most-perfect gestational window. Why? It's a real question that's been rattling around in my head since these posts started popping up.

Eastie156 · September 2014

Nicb13 said:

What is up with these posts today?!

bwahhahaha. srsly.

golfingdarwinfish · September 2014

HappyCianci said:

Sooo much talk (and shaming!) on the board lately about the ethics of induction attempts before 39 weeks.

I get being a stickler (I am one) but why are we so prickly about this topic in particular? Most of us make plenty of choices that are "less than optimal" about our pregnancies. We plop down on the couch and eat a pint of ice cream. We plan for epidurals. We get elective ultrasounds. We skip out on a good night's sleep.

None of these behaviors is absolutely optimal for our babies, but as a group we're much more accepting of them than we are of of someone trying to have their baby 4 days before that most-perfect gestational window. Why? It's a real question that's been rattling around in my head since these posts started popping up.

I'm sorry, but let's not talk about the bolded as if they are in the same category as people being concerned that a fetus is being evicted early, or trying to understand why guidelines have changed to allow for earlier delivery or declaration of "full term". I'm actually infuriated that you have put them in the same group and that you are actually judge women who plan for an epidural or get sub optimal sleep.

Eastie156 · September 2014

golfingdarwinfish said:

HappyCianci said:

Sooo much talk (and shaming!) on the board lately about the ethics of induction attempts before 39 weeks.

I get being a stickler (I am one) but why are we so prickly about this topic in particular? Most of us make plenty of choices that are "less than optimal" about our pregnancies. We plop down on the couch and eat a pint of ice cream. We plan for epidurals. We get elective ultrasounds. We skip out on a good night's sleep.

None of these behaviors is absolutely optimal for our babies, but as a group we're much more accepting of them than we are of of someone trying to have their baby 4 days before that most-perfect gestational window. Why? It's a real question that's been rattling around in my head since these posts started popping up.

I'm sorry, but let's not talk about the bolded as if they are in the same category as people being concerned that a fetus is being evicted early, or trying to understand why guidelines have changed to allow for earlier delivery or declaration of "full term".

How about comparing early eviction to eating a bowl of ice cream? Totally not the same at all....

golfingdarwinfish · September 2014

Eastie156 said:

golfingdarwinfish said:

HappyCianci said:

Sooo much talk (and shaming!) on the board lately about the ethics of induction attempts before 39 weeks.

I get being a stickler (I am one) but why are we so prickly about this topic in particular? Most of us make plenty of choices that are "less than optimal" about our pregnancies. We plop down on the couch and eat a pint of ice cream. We plan for epidurals. We get elective ultrasounds. We skip out on a good night's sleep.

None of these behaviors is absolutely optimal for our babies, but as a group we're much more accepting of them than we are of of someone trying to have their baby 4 days before that most-perfect gestational window. Why? It's a real question that's been rattling around in my head since these posts started popping up.

I'm sorry, but let's not talk about the bolded as if they are in the same category as people being concerned that a fetus is being evicted early, or trying to understand why guidelines have changed to allow for earlier delivery or declaration of "full term".

How about comparing early eviction to eating a bowl of ice cream? Totally not the same at all....

I was shaking with anger and did a really shitty job highlighting. Some people live on a real fucking high horse that doesn't stand on medical or scientific substantiation.

Eastie156 · September 2014

golfingdarwinfish said:

Eastie156 said:

golfingdarwinfish said:

HappyCianci said:

Sooo much talk (and shaming!) on the board lately about the ethics of induction attempts before 39 weeks.

I get being a stickler (I am one) but why are we so prickly about this topic in particular? Most of us make plenty of choices that are "less than optimal" about our pregnancies. We plop down on the couch and eat a pint of ice cream. We plan for epidurals. We get elective ultrasounds. We skip out on a good night's sleep.

None of these behaviors is absolutely optimal for our babies, but as a group we're much more accepting of them than we are of of someone trying to have their baby 4 days before that most-perfect gestational window. Why? It's a real question that's been rattling around in my head since these posts started popping up.

I'm sorry, but let's not talk about the bolded as if they are in the same category as people being concerned that a fetus is being evicted early, or trying to understand why guidelines have changed to allow for earlier delivery or declaration of "full term".

How about comparing early eviction to eating a bowl of ice cream? Totally not the same at all....

I was shaking with anger and did a really shitty job highlighting. Some people live on a real fucking high horse that doesn't stand on medical or scientific substantiation.

I just don't understand the eviction early process unless absolutely necessary. I get "wanting the baby out" as we are all tired and ready to meet these babies. I don't know. Maybe part of it is being induced myself with LO #1 at the Dr's advice and then having a really tough, terrible labor that makes me stick firmly to this mentality.

pnwlover12 · September 2014

WAIT! Eating a pint of ice cream is less than optimal for our babies?!

krysngreg · September 2014

Every pregnancie is different. And some baby's do not have to be in the nicu at 36 weeks. I think only your personal doctor Should be the judges and what if the due date was off from the beginning. By a couple weeks. I think it's more we are all ready. And the fact it's still supposed to be far off is aggravating.

krysngreg · September 2014

pnwlover12 said:
WAIT! Eating a pint of ice cream is less than optimal for our babies?!

I can not eat ice cream unless it's by the pint. It's a rule. Even when I'm not with child. What are you supposed to do eat two scoops ? Who does that

trisharenee0316 · September 2014

HappyCianci said:

Sooo much talk (and shaming!) on the board lately about the ethics of induction attempts before 39 weeks.

I get being a stickler (I am one) but why are we so prickly about this topic in particular? Most of us make plenty of choices that are "less than optimal" about our pregnancies. We plop down on the couch and eat a pint of ice cream. We plan for epidurals. We get elective ultrasounds. We skip out on a good night's sleep.

None of these behaviors is absolutely optimal for our babies, but as a group we're much more accepting of them than we are of of someone trying to have their baby 4 days before that most-perfect gestational window. Why? It's a real question that's been rattling around in my head since these posts started popping up.

Huh, I didn't see anyone shaming in this thread, just advising. As someone who was essentially bullied by my first OP into an induction when I was 3 days past my delivery date which led to a c-section when my kid was obviously not ready to be born, and now has to fight to find a provider who will "allow" me to VBAC, I take this shit seriously. Early inductions mean less likelihood of having a vaginal delivery/increased c-section rate, decreased fetal health outcomes, possible issues with breastfeeding, etc. I don't know of a single mom who wouldn't want to know these things. And membrane sweeps can lead to a rupture of membranes which, in most hospitals, puts you on a clock to deliver within 24 hours or, you guessed it, c-section! With a c-section, you can almost rely on the majority of future OBs classifying you as a repeat c-section and not permitting a trial of labor. There are increased health risks for the mom for each successive pregnancy resulting in a c-section, and that can limit someone's family planning options (as in, don't plan on having a large family if you have multiple c-sections). So yes, it might be as innocuous as a membrane sweep and hell, before my last pregnancy I might have wondered what the BFD was too, but after my experience I think it's important for moms to be more informed on this.

Bottom line is, if you post here asking a question, be prepared for a myriad of responses. If you just wanted someone to blow smoke up your ass or give you the answer you wanted, then put that in the OP and I'll gladly skip over the post and not waste my time trying to help. It'll be a win/win.

trisharenee0316 · September 2014

She already had her membranes swept and I answered her original question of "why isn't anything happening?" Then there was subsequent questioning that evolved from there with respect to term (early, full, late, etc.) and that's where the rest of the comments stem from. I don't think anyone was really trying to shame the OP at all.

Want a personalized experience?

Dialated and membrane sweep

Re: Dialated and membrane sweep

Choose Another Board

Search Boards