Perinatal Outcomes After Undergoing External Cephalic Version
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.31907/2309-4400.2021.09.02Keywords:
External Cephalic Version, Breech Presentation, Caesarean Rate, Perinatal Outcomes, Apgar Score, Postpartum Ph.Abstract
The external cephalic version (ECV) represents the standard for pregnancies at term with a non-cephalic presentation as it avoids planned caesareans. The aim of this study was to assess the caesarean rate and prognostic factors at birth after undergoing ECV, which was compared with scheduled caesareans for a non-cephalic presentation (SCG) and spontaneous cephalic presentations at birth (GG). No difference was observed between the caesarean rate of the ECV (n=65) and the GG (n=3711) groups (9.84% and 14.47%, respectively, p-value=0.30), and neither was found between the ECV group and both the GG and SCG (n=76) groups in the Apgar scores and postpartum pH, but for the five-minute Apgar score (9.98 and 9.84 in the ECV and SCG groups, respectively, p-value=0.04). This study provides further evidence for clinical practice regarding good perinatal outcomes after undergoing ECV. Further research is required to consistently prove the increase in the intrapartum caesarean rate after ECV that has been previously described in the literature, which has not been found in the present study.
References
ACOG. (2020) ‘External Cephalic Version’, Obstetrics and Gynaecology, 135(5), pp. e203– e212. https://doi.org/10.1097/aog.000000000000383 7
Beuckens A, et al. (2016) ‘An observational study of the success and complications of 2546 external cephalic versions in low-risk pregnant women performed by trained midwives’, BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology, 123(3), pp. 415–423. https://doi.org/10.1111/1471-0528.13234
Chan LY, et al. (2004) ‘Intrapartum caesarean delivery after successful external cephalic version: a meta-analysis.’, Obstet Gynecol, 104(1), pp. 155–160. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.aog.0000129240.54 949.d2
Chevreau J, et al. (2020) ‘Obstetrical and neonatal outcomes after successful external cephalic version relative to those after spontaneous cephalic presentations’, Journal of Gynaecology Obstetrics and Human Reproduction, 49(4), p. 101693. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jogoh.2020.101693
Correia Costa S, et al. (2021) ‘External cephalic version: Predictors of success and influence on caesarean rates’, European Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology and Reproductive Biology, 256, pp. 211–214. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejogrb.2020.11.037
Coyle ME, Smith CA and Peat B. (2012) ‘Cephalic version by moxibustion for breech presentation’, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, (5). https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.cd003928.pu b3
Grootscholten K, Kok M, Oei SG, Mol BW, et al. (2008) ‘External cephalic version-related risks: a meta-analysis.’, Obstet Gynecol., 112(5), pp. 1143–1151. https://doi.org/10.1097/aog.0b013e31818b4ad e
Hannah ME, et al. (2000) ‘Planned caesarean section versus planned vaginal birth for breech presentation at term: A randomised multicentre trial’, Lancet, 356(9239), pp. 1375–1383. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(00)02840- 3
Hofmeyr GJ, Kulier R and West HM. (2015) ‘External cephalic version for breech presentation at term’, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. John Wiley and Sons Ltd. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.cd000083.pu b2
De Hundt M, et al. (2014) ‘Mode of Delivery After Successful External Cephalic Version’, Obstetrics & Gynaecology, 123(6), pp. 1327– 1334. https://doi.org/10.1097/aog.000000000000029 5
Impey LWM, Murphy DJ, Griffiths M, Penna LK on behalf of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. (2017). ‘External Cephalic Version and Reducing the Incidence of Term Breech Presentation: Green-top Guideline No. 20a’ BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, 124(7), pp. e178– e192. https://doi.org/10.1111/1471-0528.14466
Impey LWM, Murphy DJ, Griffiths M, Penna LK on behalf of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. (2017). ‘Management of Breech Presentation.’, BJOG, 124(151–177).
Jain S, et al. (2010) ‘Labour outcome of women with successful external cephalic version: A prospective study’, Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, 30(1), pp. 13–16. https://doi.org/10.3109/01443610903383341
Son M, et al. (2018) ‘Association between Attempted External Cephalic Version and Perinatal Morbidity and Mortality’, Obstetrics and Gynaecology, 132(2), pp. 365–370. https://doi.org/10.1097/aog.000000000000269 9
Stark AR, et al. (2006) ‘The Apgar score’, Pediatrics. American Academy of Pediatrics, pp. 1444–1447. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2006-0325
Tempest N, et al. (2020) ‘Babies in occiput posterior position are significantly more likely to require an emergency caesarean birth compared with babies in occiput transverse position in the second stage of labor: A prospective observational study’, Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica, 99(4), pp. 537–545. https://doi.org/10.1097/ogx.000000000000084 4
WHO, 2015. Statement on Caesarean Section Rates [online]. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rhm.2015.07.007
