Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Original Article
  • Published:

Management of breech presentation at term: a retrospective cohort study of 10 years of experience

Abstract

Objective:

To evaluate the impact of management of childbirth (external cephalic version (ECV) plus planned vaginal delivery (PVD)) of breech presentation at term (37 weeks of gestation).

Study Design:

This retrospective cohort study was based on data collected of singleton breech presentations at term in the Obstetrics and Gynaecology Service, Cruces University Hospital (Biscay, Spain), from January 2003 to December 2012.

Result:

We attended 2377 singleton breech pregnancies at term. We attended 1684 singleton breech term deliveries, attempting vaginal delivery after selection in 52.9% of cases and were successful in 57.5% of attempts. A total of 1360 ECV were attempted, with a success rate of 50.3% of those attempted. The use of ECV has decreased the rate of breech presentation at delivery by 39.0%, the rate of breech presentation as a caesarean section (CS) indication by 47.1% (CS due to breech presentation/total of CS) and the rate of CS for breech presentation out of the total of deliveries by 39.1% (CS due to breech presentation/total of deliveries). Early postnatal parameters (5-min Apgar score, umbilical cord arterial pH and acid-base analysis) were significantly lower following PVD compared with planned CS for breech presentation. However, we did not find any differences in the rates of admissions to the neonatal unit or neonatal mortality.

Conclusion:

Management of breech presentation with a protocol that includes ECV, careful selection criteria and active management of vaginal delivery achieve a great decrease in the rate of CS for breech presentation.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Rent or buy this article

Prices vary by article type

from$1.95

to$39.95

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Hannah ME, Hannah WJ, Hewson SA, Hodnett ED, Saigal S, Willan AR . Planned caesarean section versus planned vaginal birth for breech presentation at term: a randomised multicentre trial. Term Breech Trial Collaborative Group. Lancet 2000; 356: 1375–1383.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Rietberg CC, Elferink-Stinkens PM, Visser GH . The effect of the Term Breech Trial on medical intervention behaviour and neonatal outcome in The Netherlands: an analysis of 35,453 term breech infants. BJOG 2005; 112: 205–209.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Sullivan EA, Moran K, Chapman M . Term breech singletons and caesarean section: a population study, Australia 1991-2005. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol 2009; 49: 456–460.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Hartnack Tharin JE, Rasmussen S, Krebs L . Consequences of the Term Breech Trial in Denmark. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2011; 90: 767–771.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Daviss BA, Johnson KC, Lalonde AB . Evolving evidence since the term breech trial: Canadian response, European dissent, and potential solutions. J Obstet Gynaecol Can 2010; 32: 217–224.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Rietberg CC, Elferink-Stinkens PM, Brand R, van Loon AJ, Van Hemel OJ, Visser GH . Term breech presentation in The Netherlands from 1995 to 1999: mortality and morbidity in relation to the mode of delivery of 33824 infants. BJOG 2003; 110: 604–609.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Hauth JC, Cunningham FG . Vaginal breech delivery is still justified. Obstet Gynecol 2002; 99: 1115–1116.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Whyte H, Hannah ME, Saigal S, Hannah WJ, Hewson S, Amankwah K et al. Outcomes of children at 2 years after planned cesarean birth versus planned vaginal birth for breech presentation at term: the International Randomized Term Breech Trial. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2004; 191: 864–871.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Glezerman M . Five years to the term breech trial: the rise and fall of a randomized controlled trial. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2006; 194: 20–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Goffinet F, Carayol M, Foidart JM, Alexander S, Uzan S, Subtil D et al. Is planned vaginal delivery for breech presentation at term still an option? Results of an observational prospective survey in France and Belgium. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2006; 194: 1002–1011.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. The Management of Breech Presentation. RCOG Guidelines, 2006. Available from http://www.rcog.org.uk (accessed 1 August 2014).

  12. ACOG Committee on Obstetric Practice. ACOG Committee Opinion No. 340. Mode of term singleton breech delivery. Obstet Gynecol 2006; 108: 235–237.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Kotaska A, Menticoglou S, Gagnon R, Farine D, Basso M, Bos H et al. Vaginal delivery of breech presentation. J Obstet Gynaecol Can 2009; 31: 557–566.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Breech Delivery at Term. Protocolos SEGO, 2011. Available from http://www.sego.es/ (accessed 1 August 2014).

  15. Management of Breech Presentation at Term. RANZCOG College Statement, 2013. Available from http://www.ranzcog.edu.au (accessed 1 August 2014).

  16. Breech Delivery and External Cephalic Version. Information for Patients. Hospital Universitario Cruces, 2003. Available from http://www.hospitalcruces.com/pdfs/maternidad/FOLLETO%20PARTO%20castellano_peque.pdf (accessed 1 August 2014).

  17. Burgos J, Melchor JC, Pijoán JI, Cobos P, Fernández-Llebrez L, Martínez-Astorquiza T . A prospective study of the factors associated with the success rate of external cephalic version for breech presentation at term. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2011; 112: 48–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Rosman AN, Vlemmix F, Beuckens A, Rijnders ME, Opmeer BC, Mol BW et al. Facilitators and barriers to external cephalic version for breech presentation at term among health care providers in the Netherlands: a quantitative analysis. Midwifery 2014; 30: e145–e150.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Collins S, Ellaway P, Harrington D, Pandit M, Impey L . The complications of external cephalic version: results from 805 consecutive attempts. BJOG 2007; 114: 636–638.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Hofmeyr GJ, Kulier R . External cephalic version for breech presentation at term. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2012; 10: CD000083.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Vlemmix F, Bergenhenegouwen L, Schaaf JM, Ensing S, Rosman AN, Ravelli AC et al. Term breech deliveries in the Netherlands: did the increased cesarean rate affect neonatal outcome? A population-based cohort study. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2014; 93: 888–896.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Glavind J, Kindberg SF, Uldbjerg N, Khalil M, Møller AM, Mortensen BB et al. Elective caesarean section at 38 weeks versus 39 weeks: neonatal and maternal outcomes in a randomised controlled trial. BJOG 2013; 120: 1123–1132.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Schutte JM, Steegers EA, Santema JG, Schuitemaker NW, van Roosmalen J . Maternal Mortality Committee Of The Netherlands Society Of Obstetrics. Maternal deaths after elective cesarean section for breech presentation in the Netherlands. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2007; 86: 240–243.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Verhoeven AT, de Leeuw JP, Bruinse HW . Breech presentation at term: elective caesarean section is the wrong choice as a standard treatment because of too high risks for the mother and her future children. Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd 2005; 149: 2207–2210.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Visser GHA, Rietberg CC, Oepkes D, Vandenbussche F . Stuitligging: kind versus moeder. Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd 2005; 149: 2211–2214.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Cunningham FG, Bangdiwala SI, Brown SS, Dean TM, Frederiksen M, Rowland Hogue CJ et al. NIH consensus development conference draft statement on vaginal birth after cesarean: new insights. NIH Consens State Sci Statements 2010; 27: 1–42.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Al-Zirqi I, Stray-Pedersen B, Forsén L, Vangen S . Uterine rupture after previous caesarean section. BJOG 2010; 117: 809–820.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Guise JM, Denman MA, Emeis C, Marshall N, Walker M, Fu R et al. Vaginal birth after cesarean: new insights on maternal and neonatal outcomes. Obstet Gynecol 2010; 115: 1267–1278.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Smith GC, Fleming KM, White IR . Birth order of twins and risk of perinatal death related to delivery in England, Northern Ireland, and Wales, 1994-2003: retrospective cohort study. BMJ 2007; 334: 576.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Wen SW, Fung Kee Fung K, Oppenheimer L, Demissie K, Yang Q, Walker M . Neonatal mortality in second twin according to cause of death, gestational age, and mode of delivery. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2004; 191: 778–783.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Quintana E, Burgos J, Eguiguren N, Melchor JC, Fernández-Llebrez L, Martínez-Astorquiza T . Influence of chorionicity in intra-partum management of twin deliveries. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 2013; 26: 407–411.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This study was based on data from the Perinatal Register of Cruces University Hospital. We acknowledge all midwives, obstetricians, paediatricians, nurses and residents who routinely collect perinatal data for this register.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to J Burgos.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Burgos, J., Rodríguez, L., Cobos, P. et al. Management of breech presentation at term: a retrospective cohort study of 10 years of experience. J Perinatol 35, 803–808 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1038/jp.2015.75

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/jp.2015.75

This article is cited by

Search

Quick links