Retroflexed uterus question

Submitted by clavicula on June 5, 2009 - 2:44pm
Body: 

Hey, Ladies,

I have another question. I read my ObGyn/mw papers and it seems that I always had this retroflexed uterus even during pregnancies. With my third on my 34 week checkup my mw reported that my cervix was closed and faced anterior! Wow, I didn't remember that, or I just didn't care.

Christine wrote this 3 years ago:

The retroflexed uterus is thought to be an acquired problem in women as well where “The uterine corpus (body), swinging on a more or less fixed transverse axis at about the level of the internal cervical os, falls backward, and the intraabdominal pressure falls on the anterior surface of the corpus, thus aggravating and maintaining the uterine retrodisplacement. Once retroflexion and retroversion of the uterus have begun, they can be completed easily by intraabdominal pressure on the anterior surface.” (TeLinde’s Operative Gynecology 1996). Medical science cites weak uterosacral ligaments as the cause. I see it as a total musculoskeletal problem where women have lost, or perhaps never fully developed, their natural, highly prolapse-resistant design.

OMG, was I freaked out when I read this! I was so optimistic about this work but now I am scared. Can I improve my damaged design somewhat? My cervix was all over the place for years but since I started the WW postural work (2 months into it, so beginner level for sure), it is in normal position, sometimes high, sometimes lower but pointing backwards all the time, standing strong.

Christine, will my uterosacral ligaments "reshape" themselves or at least gain some strength in years to come?

Thanks IA
Liv

Christine

June 6, 2009 - 9:26pm

Hi Liv,

The issue of retroversion/retroflexion is interesting and it is a great blessing that we are finally gaining anecdotal evidence for what I have expressed in the past and in the quote you provided. That you carried your baby out front proves that at least for that time period your uterus was not retroflexed. Retroverted maybe, but I would question the diagnosis of a totally anterior cervix.

I believe this postural work replaces a retroverted uterus. Louise has observed this in her own body and reported to us her findings. Many long-term members here have a very high cervix and anterior fundus. If you think about it, wouldn’t pregnancy be the best fix for a retroflexed uterus? (that is, if the fetus didn’t get “incarcerated” under the sacrum, which sometimes happens - but resolves one way or the other pretty early on). You can be certain that after carrying a baby to full-term, your uterus is WAY anterior - lol. Keeping it there is what this work is all about.

Don’t worry about the uterosacral ligaments - I doubt they have much supportive value at all.

:) Christine

clavicula

June 6, 2009 - 11:54pm

Thanks, Christine! :)
Liv

clavicula

June 7, 2009 - 11:25pm

I was thinking about this uterus position thing lately.

I know it is bugging you, Christine when we beginners complain about 'the uterus pressing on the bladder' feeling, b/c it is basically wrong. But hey, this is what I have been told: when you are 6-7-8 weeks pregnant, the growing uterus presses on the bladder, causes urgency and frequency and congestion and finally when it grows over the pubic bone this pressure is gone. This is where all the misconception is coming from.
And I really felt the same thing when I 've found my cystocele. Pressure, urgency, frequency.

Anyway, I think that my uterus is on the right place (I guess my cervix is a bit low) now first time in 29 years. It is amazing. But I know from you that now this properly placed uterus is going to reshape my whole body. Even my feet, my knees, my whole spine, everything.

Amazing journey! :) And I am really looking forward to it!

Thanks again
Liv