English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

my husband heard that an induced labor is a shorter labor. Is this true or is it just as unpredictable as a regular labor?

2006-08-21 02:49:21 · 15 answers · asked by Hannah M 1 in Pregnancy & Parenting Pregnancy

15 answers

I imagine that it depends to some extent on how well prepared your body is for labor.
An induced labor is almost certainly more intense. Many moms who are induced find that the contrax are very much back to back with little time to recover between them.

2006-08-21 02:58:32 · answer #1 · answered by momma2mingbu 7 · 0 0

There's no way to tell.

If anything, I'd say an induced labor would most likely be LONGER than a regular labor, but it all just depends on the circumstances.

Also, with an induced labor there is a greater chance of having to get a c-section because the labor does not progress as quickly as a natural labor.

2006-08-21 14:30:59 · answer #2 · answered by braks_gurl 3 · 0 0

It's unpredictable, as most of the ladies said.

Maybe I will be a better example of the shorter period, after being induced, it took me 3 hours only to have the baby.

My water broke at 12 a.m. and I was in labor for 6 hours, Then the doctors decided that I should be induced at 6 a.m.
I had contractions almost every 1 minute for 3 hours before I deliver my baby.

I thought I suffered alot, but after reading the previous answers I discovered that I was lucky.

2006-08-21 10:24:01 · answer #3 · answered by Nadine 2 · 0 0

It is just as unpredictable as natural labor, and many times, takes longer as you must first be ripened. Some women even when induced fail to go into labor! It is always best to let the body go into labor on its own, for mother and baby, unless there is a true medical indication for intervention. No women has never gone into labor on her own! You will eventually go into labor, and studies show it is the fetus that initiates labor in a natural one. They are still unsure of how this occurs. Good luck! Hope you can avoid a painful induction!

2006-08-21 10:16:31 · answer #4 · answered by alone1with3 4 · 0 0

No, it doesn't mean a shorter labor. I always have to be induced because i just don't go into labor on my own. I do believe that it makes the contractions stronger and more painful but that's what epidurals are for right :) ?

2006-08-21 10:07:16 · answer #5 · answered by latterdaylady 3 · 0 0

No induced labor isn't always shorter.It is just as unpredictable as normal labor. I have been induced and had the baby 36 hours later but I had complications as well , I know some one though who went really fast after bieng induced though. Good luck!

2006-08-21 10:01:18 · answer #6 · answered by S 2 · 0 0

When a pregnancy continues past the due date, or if the mother and fetus are at risk, doctors may opt to induce labor. However, in some women the process is less than successful, prompting never-ending labor -- sometimes 36 hours or more -- and eventually leads to cesarean section.

Now, a new study suggests that a simple swab of vaginal fluid can determine if a pregnant woman can safely have labor induced. The test looks for fetal fibronectin, a connective tissue protein that is released naturally about two weeks prior to labor.

"In addition to substantial shortening of induction-to-delivery times, cesarean section rates and the need for two-day induction were substantially lower in patients with a positive fetal fibronectin result," according to researcher Dr. Thomas Garite, of the University of California, Irvine.

Not only is a shorter labor time safer, it also saves money. "Potential cost implications of such a test are striking," Garite reported in the December issue of the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology.

In the new study, Garite and colleagues looked at 160 women having labor induced in a large hospital in Mexico City, Mexico.

They found that 108 women did have detectable levels of fetal fibronectin -- and those women had shorter labor -- 21 hours versus 36 hours -- and only 15% needed a cesarean section.

About 27% of women negative for the protein had to give birth surgically, rather than the safer and less complication-prone vaginal delivery.

Currently, doctors use a point scale, called the Bishop's score, to determine "cervical ripeness," or the likelihood that the cervix will dilate sufficiently during labor induction to give birth. However, the new study suggests that a fibronectin test is a better predictor of problems than the Bishop's score.

Women giving birth to their first child and who had a Bishop's score of less than five -- traditionally thought to be most at risk for complications -- had a 20-hour labor if the fibronectin test was positive, but a 41-hour labor if the test was negative.

"Thus it appears that fetal fibronectin testing of the lower genital tract in a patient undergoing induction of labor may allow the clinician to distinguish the patient who may have shorter induction to delivery times, shorter labors, less need for two-day inductions, lower cesarean section rates, and a lower requirement for (uterine-contraction inducing hormones)," Garite concluded.

SOURCE: American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology (1997;175:1516-1521)

2006-08-21 10:06:10 · answer #7 · answered by prettyinanything 2 · 0 0

it's MORE PAINFUL to induce causes way stronger contractions a lot of induced women end up C SECTION 4 failure to progress meaning they don't dilate right in fact it can be longer then a natural birth with more complications. MY DOC WILL only INDUCE if there is a REAL problem the baby is in stress or water is to low or you are 2 weeks past a due date most doctors won't induce just because you want them to.

2006-08-21 10:02:04 · answer #8 · answered by ally'smom 5 · 0 0

induced labor is not ness shorter. it is more painful because you are forcing your body to do something it's not ready to do. many women do not progress and end up w/ c-sections anyhow after hours and hours of extreme pain. or they atleast get an epidural which can lengthen labor.

i was induced w/ my first. it was hideous. w/ my second, i wasn't progressing as fast and the hurry-up doctor wanted me to and was gung-ho to start induction. i absolutely refused. told her to get out of my way, let me up, and i'd walk that baby out!! i walked for six longs hours before my labor started up. (my water had broke, no turning back) i would never get an induction again.

btw, tell your husband thanks for the support, but he's not the one having the baby! lol. his job is to rub your feet and fetch you ice chips and stand there while you beat his head in for putting you in so much pain!!!

2006-08-21 11:04:02 · answer #9 · answered by () 2 · 0 0

I was induced at about 8am and had my son at 10:51pm. I think labor depends on how your body works more than the induction.

2006-08-21 09:59:48 · answer #10 · answered by Cassie H 2 · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers