Download PDF
Am J Perinatol 2020; 37(11): 1102-1109
DOI: 10.1055/s-0039-1692391
Review Article

Management of Breech Presentation: A Comparison of Four National Evidence-Based Guidelines

Ioannis Tsakiridis 
1   Third Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Faculty of Medicine, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Greece
,
Apostolos Mamopoulos
1   Third Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Faculty of Medicine, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Greece
,
Apostolos Athanasiadis
1   Third Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Faculty of Medicine, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Greece
,
Themistoklis Dagklis
1   Third Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Faculty of Medicine, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Greece
› Author Affiliations
› Further Information
Also available at
    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Objective The management of breech presentation may improve perinatal outcomes. The aim of this study was to synthesize and compare published evidence of four national guidelines on breech presentation.

Study Design A descriptive review of four recently published national guidelines on breech presentation and external cephalic version (ECV) was conducted: Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists guideline on “External Cephalic Version and Reducing the Incidence of Term Breech Presentation” and “Management of Breech Presentation”, American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists guideline on “External Cephalic Version” and “Mode of Term Singleton Breech Delivery,” Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada guideline on “Vaginal Delivery of Breech Presentation” and the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists guideline on “Management of breech presentation at term.”

Results Regarding ECV, there is no recommendation by the SOGC, whereas all other national guidelines recommend this technique. Regarding breech vaginal delivery, there are limited recommendations by the ACOG, whereas all other guidelines provide similar recommendations. The RANZCOG makes no special recommendations on the intrapartum period.

Conclusion The differences among national guidelines point out the need for the adoption of an international consensus on the management of breech presentation.

Keywords

breech delivery - external cephalic version - management - comparison - guidelines


Publication History

Received: 31 March 2019

Accepted: 02 May 2019

Article published online:
05 June 2019

© 2020. Thieme. All rights reserved.

Thieme Medical Publishers
333 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10001, USA.

 

  • References

  • 1 Hofmeyr GJ, Kulier R, West HM. External cephalic version for breech presentation at term. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2015; (04) CD000083
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Hemelaar J, Lim LN, Impey LW. The impact of an ECV service is limited by antenatal breech detection: a retrospective cohort study. Birth 2015; 42 (02) 165-172
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Ford JB, Roberts CL, Nassar N, Giles W, Morris JM. Recurrence of breech presentation in consecutive pregnancies. BJOG 2010; 117 (07) 830-836
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Plentl AA, Stone RE. The Bracht maneuver. Obstet Gynecol Surv 1953; 8 (03) 313-325
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Hannah ME, Hannah WJ, Hewson SA, Hodnett ED, Saigal S, Willan AR. Term Breech Trial Collaborative Group. Planned caesarean section versus planned vaginal birth for breech presentation at term: a randomised multicentre trial. Lancet 2000; 356 (9239): 1375-1383
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Hartnack Tharin JE, Rasmussen S, Krebs L. Consequences of the Term Breech Trial in Denmark. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2011; 90 (07) 767-771
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Phipps H, Roberts CL, Nassar N, Raynes-Greenow CH, Peat B, Hutton EK. The management of breech pregnancies in Australia and New Zealand. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol 2003; 43 (04) 294-297
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Hogle KL, Kilburn L, Hewson S, Gafni A, Wall R, Hannah ME. Impact of the international Term Breech Trial on clinical practice and concerns: a survey of centre collaborators. J Obstet Gynaecol Can 2003; 25 (01) 14-16
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Ferreira JC, Borowski D, Czuba B. , et al. The evolution of fetal presentation during pregnancy: a retrospective, descriptive cross-sectional study. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2015; 94 (06) 660-663
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Westgren M, Edvall H, Nordström L, Svalenius E, Ranstam J. Spontaneous cephalic version of breech presentation in the last trimester. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1985; 92 (01) 19-22
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists' Committee on Practice Bulletins--Obstetrics. Practice Bulletin No. 161: external cephalic version. Obstet Gynecol 2016; 127 (02) e54-e61
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Grootscholten K, Kok M, Oei SG, Mol BW, van der Post JA. External cephalic version-related risks: a meta-analysis. Obstet Gynecol 2008; 112 (05) 1143-1151
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Gifford DS, Keeler E, Kahn KL. Reductions in cost and cesarean rate by routine use of external cephalic version: a decision analysis. Obstet Gynecol 1995; 85 (06) 930-936
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Tan JM, Macario A, Carvalho B, Druzin ML, El-Sayed YY. Cost-effectiveness of external cephalic version for term breech presentation. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 2010; 10: 3
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 External Cephalic version and reducing the incidence of term breech presentation: Green-top Guideline No. 20a. BJOG 2017; 124 (07) e178-e192
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. Management of Breech Presentation: Green-top Guideline No. 20b. BJOG 2017; 124 (07) e151-e177
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 ACOG Committee Opinion No. ACOG Committee Opinion No. 745: mode of term singleton breech delivery. Obstet Gynecol 2018; 132 (02) e60-e63
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Kotaska A, Menticoglou S, Gagnon R. , et al; Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada. SOGC clinical practice guideline: vaginal delivery of breech presentation: no. 226, June 2009. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2009; 107 (02) 169-176
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 The Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. Management of breech presentation at term. Available at: https://www.ranzcog.edu.au/RANZCOG_SITE/media/RANZCOG-MEDIA/Women%27s%20Health/Statement%20and%20guidelines/Clinical-Obstetrics/Management-of-breech-presentation-at-term-(C-Obs-11)-Review-July-2016.pdf?ext=.pdf . Accessed May 28, 2019
    Google Scholar
  • 20 Kok M, Cnossen J, Gravendeel L, van der Post J, Opmeer B, Mol BW. Clinical factors to predict the outcome of external cephalic version: a metaanalysis. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2008; 199 (06) 630.e1-630.e7
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Kok M, Cnossen J, Gravendeel L, Van Der Post JA, Mol BW. Ultrasound factors to predict the outcome of external cephalic version: a meta-analysis. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2009; 33 (01) 76-84
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Rosman AN, Guijt A, Vlemmix F, Rijnders M, Mol BW, Kok M. Contraindications for external cephalic version in breech position at term: a systematic review. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2013; 92 (02) 137-142
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Tsakiridis I, Mamopoulos A, Athanasiadis A, Dagklis T. Vaginal birth after previous cesarean birth: a comparison of 3 national guidelines. Obstet Gynecol Surv 2018; 73 (09) 537-543
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Beuckens A, Rijnders M, Verburgt-Doeleman GH, Rijninks-van Driel GC, Thorpe J, Hutton EK. An observational study of the success and complications of 2546 external cephalic versions in low-risk pregnant women performed by trained midwives. BJOG 2016; 123 (03) 415-423
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Collins S, Ellaway P, Harrington D, Pandit M, Impey LW. The complications of external cephalic version: results from 805 consecutive attempts. BJOG 2007; 114 (05) 636-638
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Hickok DE, Gordon DC, Milberg JA, Williams MA, Daling JR. The frequency of breech presentation by gestational age at birth: a large population-based study. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1992; 166 (03) 851-852
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Goh JT, Johnson CM, Gregora MG. External cephalic version at term. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol 1993; 33 (04) 364-366
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Kaneti H, Rosen D, Markov S, Beyth Y, Fejgin MD. Intrapartum external cephalic version of footling-breech presentation. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2000; 79 (12) 1083-1085
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Cluver C, Gyte GM, Sinclair M, Dowswell T, Hofmeyr GJ. Interventions for helping to turn term breech babies to head first presentation when using external cephalic version. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2015; (02) CD000184
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Qureshi H, Massey E, Kirwan D. , et al; British Society for Haematology. BCSH guideline for the use of anti-D immunoglobulin for the prevention of haemolytic disease of the fetus and newborn. Transfus Med 2014; 24 (01) 8-20
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Vlemmix F, Bergenhenegouwen L, Schaaf JM. , 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 (09) 888-896
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Chadha YC, Mahmood TA, Dick MJ, Smith NC, Campbell DM, Templeton A. Breech delivery and epidural analgesia. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1992; 99 (02) 96-100
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Tsakiridis I, Mamopoulos A, Athanasiadis A, Dagklis T. Obstetric anal sphincter injuries at vaginal delivery: a review of recently published national guidelines. Obstet Gynecol Surv 2018; 73 (12) 695-702
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Michel S, Drain A, Closset E, Deruelle P, Ego A, Subtil D. Lille Breech Study Group. Evaluation of a decision protocol for type of delivery of infants in breech presentation at term. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2011; 158 (02) 194-198
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 de Hundt M, Velzel J, de Groot CJ, Mol BW, Kok M. Mode of delivery after successful external cephalic version: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Obstet Gynecol 2014; 123 (06) 1327-1334
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Hutton EK, Hofmeyr GJ, Dowswell T. External cephalic version for breech presentation before term. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2015; (07) CD000084
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 Goetzinger KR, Harper LM, Tuuli MG, Macones GA, Colditz GA. Effect of regional anesthesia on the success rate of external cephalic version: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Obstet Gynecol 2011; 118 (05) 1137-1144
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 38 Coyle ME, Smith CA, Peat B. Cephalic version by moxibustion for breech presentation. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2012; (05) CD003928
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 39 Berhan Y, Haileamlak A. The risks of planned vaginal breech delivery versus planned caesarean section for term breech birth: a meta-analysis including observational studies. BJOG 2016; 123 (01) 49-57
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 40 Hofmeyr GJ, Hannah M, Lawrie TA. Planned caesarean section for term breech delivery. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2015; (07) CD000166
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 41 Whyte H, Hannah ME, Saigal S. , et al; Term Breech Trial Collaborative Group. 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 (03) 864-871
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 42 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 (02) 205-209
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 43 Goffinet F, Carayol M, Foidart JM. , et al; PREMODA Study Group. 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 (04) 1002-1011
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 44 Azria E, Le Meaux JP, Khoshnood B, Alexander S, Subtil D, Goffinet F. PREMODA Study Group. Factors associated with adverse perinatal outcomes for term breech fetuses with planned vaginal delivery. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2012; 207 (04) 285.e1-285.e9
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 45 van Loon AJ, Mantingh A, Serlier EK, Kroon G, Mooyaart EL, Huisjes HJ. Randomised controlled trial of magnetic-resonance pelvimetry in breech presentation at term. Lancet 1997; 350 (9094): 1799-1804
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 46 Bohren MA, Hofmeyr GJ, Sakala C, Fukuzawa RK, Cuthbert A. Continuous support for women during childbirth. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2017; 7: CD003766
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 47 Hofmeyr GJ, Kulier R, West HM. Expedited versus conservative approaches for vaginal delivery in breech presentation. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2015; (07) CD000082
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 48 Bogner G, Strobl M, Schausberger C, Fischer T, Reisenberger K, Jacobs VR. Breech delivery in the all fours position: a prospective observational comparative study with classic assistance. J Perinat Med 2015; 43 (06) 707-713
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 49 Alfirevic Z, Milan SJ, Livio S. Caesarean section versus vaginal delivery for preterm birth in singletons. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2013; (09) CD000078
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 50 Bergenhenegouwen LA, Meertens LJ, Schaaf J. , et al. Vaginal delivery versus caesarean section in preterm breech delivery: a systematic review. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2014; 172: 1-6
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 51 Hogle KL, Hutton EK, McBrien KA, Barrett JF, Hannah ME. Cesarean delivery for twins: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2003; 188 (01) 220-227
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 52 Barrett JF, Hannah ME, Hutton EK. , et al; Twin Birth Study Collaborative Group. A randomized trial of planned cesarean or vaginal delivery for twin pregnancy. N Engl J Med 2013; 369 (14) 1295-1305
    Google Scholar