C-secs may harm lung growth

[AM]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7137945.stm

QUOTE:

Babies born by elective Caesarean section are much more likely to develop breathing problems, a Danish study examining 34,000 deliveries suggests.

Researchers found they were up to four times more likely to have respiratory problems than those born naturally, or by emergency Caesarean section.

The babies may miss out on hormonal and physiological changes during labour which help mature the lungs, they say.

[lukaelmo]

Lol, stop giving my poor child more problems!

Oh I am just teasing, but Luka was an emergency c/s bubba and has had all sorts of problems... I do believe though that he went into fetal distress because he had the problems, and not he has the problems because he was a c/s baby... does that make sense?

I had a VBAC with Chuckie and was monitored all the way through my labour with him... and he had no distress at all... and whereas Luka is way behind on all his milestones, Chuckie is about as spot on a baby as you get...

Interestingly though, Chuckie wheezes and Luka doesn't...

[delirium]

I think there are other reasons for respiratory issues in c/s babies that they didn't touch on too 1) the act of slowly passing down the birth canal during a vaginal birth squeezes out the mucus, c/s babies don't get that 2) some elective c/s are done several weeks early to make it more 'comfortable' for the mother - look at Britany Spears who had both her kids several weeks early so so didn't get too big and get too many stretch marks in the last few weeks :rolleyes:

[AM]

O sorry...:p I'm an information junkie...;)

[Fuchsia!]

Lol, stop giving my poor child more problems!


:laughing::laughing::laughing: Yeah leave our poor babies alone!!

Its very interesting! I would have to say i am lucky and cooper hasn't been affected (yet)

I actually heard something a few months ago that when a baby is born VB it collects a mucus that helps clear their lungs or something, and babies born C/S misses out. Not sure if thats correst but i remember hearing something like that

And the fact that they schedule c/s earlier may contribute too

[naiwen]

Yep I agree with this, this is another reason why I get annoyed when my freinds say it's a nicer option. My bub had RDS and was delivered by emergency CS, he probably would have had it anyway but if you do not need a CS then why risk putting your baby through that.

[~Bec~]

I am definately not an expert but as I believe elective c-sects are usually done before full term and the baby's lungs are one of the last things to develop I would have thought this would have been more of a given? :)

[metalhead713]

there is a certian hormone or somthing that the baby gives off when they are 'ready to go'; thats generally what starts labour (I think this is the case anyway)
But if it was a cesear during labour i dont think it would harm the lungs (if the labour started naturally)

[youngones]

There was another study that came out of northern Europe a year or two ago - sorry, but I don't have the details - that suggested there is an enzyme/hormone that the baby secretes to signal that its lungs are mature enough to breathe on its own. The study was looking at exactly what it is that causes women to go into labour.

Obviously there has to be more than just this one thing, so as to explain really premature labour, or labour as a result of trauma, but maybe there is a signal even for those that the baby is in trouble and knows it needs to get out as soon as possible?

I was distressed enough to be induced at 13 days overdue, despite having been in 'pre labour' for a couple of days (and no, my placenta and everything else was fine, it was hospital protocol that I shouldn't go over by more than 14 days). I know my baby was also distressed because she needed resuscitation after being born, but I can't even bring myself to think about how distressed she might have been had I elected to have a CS - she could have been born up to 4 or 5 weeks earlier than she wanted to be and that can't be good.

[Fuchsia!]

i was lucky and had my c/s booked for the day before my due date. So im pretty sure his lungs were developed. I think its silly that they get booked in early. I had a friend who was booked in 3 weeks before her due date. Mind you the due date was all over the place so the ub coud have actually been born 5 weeks before it was due. And she was very tiny when she was born.

[kas3]

Probably a silly question... but why do ob book c-sections two/three weeks before the baby's due date? Is it because they are concerned that the mother will go into labour early? Why is this such a big deal? (I realise going into labour may be dangerous for mums with certain medical conditions, but for others surely it wouldn't matter... )

regards
kas

[naiwen]

Not sure why OB's do it in response to PP.
Just wanted to clarify though that the babys lungs do prepare for birth to a certain extent under stress ie labour, foetal distress etc but this is not always enough for them to function properly. They also give the mother injections of steroids if there is time before going into premature labour to help the baby's lungs but again this does not guarantee the bub will not need to be ventilated. Fluid in the baby's lungs which are squeezed out by the trip down the birth canal can lead to pneumonia in newborns. They do suction them at delivery however this is not always effective in preventing respiritory problems.
They is also a substance called surfacant which coats the bub's lung in the last few weeks before birth and helps them stay open and prevent collapse. Babies that are delivered 2 or 3 weeks early may miss out on some of this which I believe may contribute to the problem as well.
Will stop rambling on now!

[delirium]

Probably a silly question... but why do ob book c-sections two/three weeks before the baby's due date? Is it because they are concerned that the mother will go into labour early? Why is this such a big deal? (I realise going into labour may be dangerous for mums with certain medical conditions, but for others surely it wouldn't matter... )


I think there are a few reasons electives are taken early. Like in both my babies, they were breech. It's extremely rare in Aust (unless a hb) to be allowed to have a natural birth with a breech presentation :rolleyes: Considering it's so dangerous [insert sarcasm] to have a vaginal breech birth, they take you a week or two early to ensure you don't go into labour. I get irritated when breech is put into the elective c/s category, as it's not elective, they give you no choice!

Another reason I feel so many electives are delivered early is at the woman's request. As I said in my other post, some women can't stand the pregnancy any longer. They want the baby out, and since the insurance company/medicare is paying the ob, he just does what the woman wants.

[MissSookyLaLa]

I get irritated when breech is put into the elective c/s category, as it's not elective, they give you no choice!


:laughing::laughing: gold!