Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Show Summary Details
More options …

Journal of Perinatal Medicine

Official Journal of the World Association of Perinatal Medicine

Editor-in-Chief: Dudenhausen, MD, FRCOG, Joachim W.

Ed. by Bancalari, Eduardo / Chappelle, Joseph / Chervenak, Frank A. / D'Addario , Vincenzo / Genc, Mehmet R. / Greenough, Anne / Grunebaum, Amos / Konje, Justin C. / Kurjak M.D., Asim / Romero, Roberto / Zalud, MD PhD, Ivica


IMPACT FACTOR 2018: 1.361
5-year IMPACT FACTOR: 1.578

CiteScore 2018: 1.29

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2018: 0.522
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2018: 0.602

Online
ISSN
1619-3997
See all formats and pricing
More options …
Volume 47, Issue 7

Issues

Maternal and perinatal outcomes in external cephalic version: prognostic factors for the success of the technique

Duna Trobo
  • Maternal Fetal Medicine Unit, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Hospital General Universitario Gregorio Marañón, Universidad Complutense, 48 O’ Donnell Street, 28009 Madrid, Spain
  • Other articles by this author:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
/ Pilar Pintado
  • Maternal Fetal Medicine Unit, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Hospital General Universitario Gregorio Marañón, Universidad Complutense, 48 O’ Donnell Street, 28009 Madrid, Spain
  • Other articles by this author:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
/ Virginia Ortega
  • Maternal Fetal Medicine Unit, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Hospital General Universitario Gregorio Marañón, Universidad Complutense, 48 O’ Donnell Street, 28009 Madrid, Spain
  • Other articles by this author:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
/ Fátima Yllana
  • Maternal Fetal Medicine Unit, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Hospital General Universitario Gregorio Marañón, Universidad Complutense, 48 O’ Donnell Street, 28009 Madrid, Spain
  • Other articles by this author:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
/ Concepción Hernández
  • Maternal Fetal Medicine Unit, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Hospital General Universitario Gregorio Marañón, Universidad Complutense, 48 O’ Donnell Street, 28009 Madrid, Spain
  • Other articles by this author:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
/ Rafael Mendizábal
  • Maternal Fetal Medicine Unit, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Hospital General Universitario Gregorio Marañón, Universidad Complutense, 48 O’ Donnell Street, 28009 Madrid, Spain
  • Other articles by this author:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
/ Juan De León-Luis
  • Corresponding author
  • Maternal Fetal Medicine Unit, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Hospital General Universitario Gregorio Marañón, Universidad Complutense, 48 O’ Donnell Street, 28009 Madrid, Spain
  • Email
  • Other articles by this author:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
Published Online: 2019-08-01 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/jpm-2019-0143

Abstract

Background

We aimed to analyze the success rate of external cephalic version (ECV) for breech presentations performed in our center between March 2011 and March 2016. We evaluated factors related to a successful ECV, delivery mode, complications and newborn status after ECV.

Methods

Analysis of assembled data of 327 consecutive ECVs in the third trimester was done.

Results

The total success rate was 56.6%. After a successful ECV, 85.9% of the fetuses were delivered vaginally. Logistic regression analysis of background factors leading to a successful ECV showed that tocolysis with ritodrine and anterior placenta were each significantly correlated with the rate of successful version. No severe complications were registered during the ECVs, and all babies had normal Apgar scores at delivery.

Conclusion

These findings suggest that attempting an ECV in breech presentations, once or even twice, seems to be an appropriate management given that a successful ECV decreases the rate of cesarean section in this group of patients and by doing so, it might also decrease the risk of cesarean sections in future pregnancies.

Keywords: breech presentation; external cephalic version; successful ECV; vaginal delivery

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;356:1375–83.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 2.

    Impey LWM, Murphy DJ, Griffiths M, Penna LK, on behalf of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. Management of Breech Presentation. Br J Obstet Gynecol 2017;124:e151–77.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 3.

    American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists’ Committee on Practice Bulletins – Obstetrics. Practice Bulletin No. 161: External Cephalic Version. Obstet Gynecol 2016;127:e54–61.PubMedGoogle Scholar

  • 4.

    American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine. Obstetric care consensus no. 1: safe prevention of the primary cesarean delivery. Obstet Gynecol 2014;123:693–711.PubMedGoogle Scholar

  • 5.

    Sociedad Española de Ginecología y Obstetricia. Versión cefálica externa (update march 2014). Prog Obstet Ginecol 2015;58:337–40.Google Scholar

  • 6.

    Rosman AN, Guijt A, Vlemmix F, Rijnders M, Mol BWJ, Kok M. Contraindications for external cephalic version in breech position at term: a systematic review. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2013;92:137–42.CrossrefWeb of SciencePubMedGoogle Scholar

  • 7.

    Boucher M, Marquette GP, Varin J, Champagne J, Bujold E.Fetomaternal hemorrhage during external cephalic version. Obstet Gynecol 2008;112:79–84.CrossrefWeb of SciencePubMedGoogle Scholar

  • 8.

    Hutton EK, Hofmeyr GJ, Dowswell T. External cephalic version for breech presentation before term. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2015;CD000084.Web of SciencePubMedGoogle Scholar

  • 9.

    Cluver C, Hofmeyr GJ, Gyte GM, Sinclair M. Interventions for helping to turn term breech babies to head first presentation when using external cephalic version. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2012;1:CD000184.PubMedGoogle Scholar

  • 10.

    Stergiotou I, Talbot F, Yoong W. The use of atosiban and ritodrine in external cephalic version. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2007;86:927–9.CrossrefPubMedWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • 11.

    Burgos J, Eguiguren N, Quintana E, Cobos P, Centeno M del M, Larrieta R, et al. Atosiban vs. ritodrine as a tocolytic in external cephalic version at term: a prospective cohort study. J Perinat Med 2010;38:23–8.PubMedWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • 12.

    Burgos J, Cobos P, Osuna C, de Mar Centeno M, Fernández-Llebrez L, Astorquiza TM, et al. Nitrous oxide for analgesia in external cephalic version at term: prospective comparative study. J Perinat Med 2013;41:719–23.PubMedWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • 13.

    Muñoz H, Guerra S, Perez-Vaquero P, Valero Martinez C, Aizpuru F, Lopez-Picado A. Remifentanil versus placebo for analgesia during external cephalic version: a randomised clinical trial. Int J Obstet Anesth 2014;23:52–7.PubMedWeb of ScienceCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 14.

    Saling E, Müller-Holve W. External cephalic version under tocolysis. J Perinat Med 1975;3:115–22.CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar

  • 15.

    Ben-Meir A, Elram T, Tsafrir A, Elchalal U, Ezra Y. The incidence of spontaneous version after failed external cephalic version. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2007;196:157.e1–3.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 16.

    Lau TK, Lo KW, Wan D, Rogers MS. Predictors of successful external cephalic version at term: a prospective study. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1997;104:798–802.CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar

  • 17.

    Grootscholten K, Kok M, Oei SG, Mol BWJ, van der Post JA. External cephalic version-related risks: a meta-analysis. Obstet Gynecol 2008;112:1143–51.PubMedCrossrefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • 18.

    Ye J, Betrán AP, Guerrero Vela M, Souza JP, Zhang J. Searching for the optimal rate of medically necessary cesarean delivery. Birth 2014;41:237–44.PubMedWeb of ScienceCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 19.

    Mittal S, Pardeshi S, Mayadeo N, Mane J. Trends in cesarean delivery: rate and indications. J Obstet Gynaecol India 2014;64:251–4.CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar

About the article

Corresponding author: Dr. Juan De León-Luis, Maternal Fetal Medicine Unit, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Hospital General Universitario Gregorio Marañón, Universidad Complutense, 48 O’Donnell Street, 28009 Madrid, Spain, Tel.: +34 91 5290218


Received: 2019-04-21

Accepted: 2019-06-03

Published Online: 2019-08-01

Published in Print: 2019-09-25


Author contributions: All the authors have accepted responsibility for the entire content of this submitted manuscript and approved submission.

Research funding: None declared.

Employment or leadership: None declared.

Honorarium: None declared.

Competing interests: The funding organization(s) played no role in the study design; in the collection, analysis, and interpretation of data; in the writing of the report; or in the decision to submit the report for publication.

Conflict of interest: The authors report no conflicts of interest.


Citation Information: Journal of Perinatal Medicine, Volume 47, Issue 7, Pages 717–723, ISSN (Online) 1619-3997, ISSN (Print) 0300-5577, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/jpm-2019-0143.

Export Citation

©2019 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston.Get Permission

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in