title: Improving external cephalic version for foetal breech presentation.
abstract: OBJECTIVE
  If success rate of external cephalic version (ECV) increases, the rate of primary caesarean sections -declines. The aims of this retrospective cohort study were to evaluate the ECV and to identify factors associated with the success rate of ECV for breech presentation at term. The second aim of this study was to analyse the outcome of labour of all patients with a foetus in breech near term.
  
  
  METHODS
  All women with a foetus in breech near or at term were included. Logistic regression analyses were -performed to identify the association between patient characteristics and success rate of ECV.
  
  
  RESULTS
  The overall rate of successful ECV's was 19%. Foetal and maternal complications after ECV were negligible. BMI, type of breech and amount of amniotic fluid were significantly correlated with a successful ECV. The rate of primary caesarean sections for the group of patients who underwent an ECV was lower than the rate in the group who did not (52.9% vs. 79.6%). The rate of spontaneous deliveries was increased after ECV (36% versus 12%). After successful ECV the rate of spontaneous deliveries was 75%; after unsuccessful ECV 26.8%.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  The overall rate of successful ECV was low (19%). BMI, type of breech and amount of amniotic fluid were significantly correlated with a successful ECV. The rate of primary caesarean sections was significantly lower in patients with ECV (52.9% versus 79.6%). The rate of spontaneous deliveries was significantly higher (36% -versus 12%).
authors.affiliation: Junior resident.
authors.forename: H
authors.initials: H
authors.lastname: Zandstra
authors.affiliation: Gynaecologist, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Orbis Medical Center, Dr. H. Van der Hoffplein 1, 6162 BG Sittard-Geleen.
authors.forename: H J M M
authors.initials: HJ
authors.lastname: Mertens
keywords: BMI; breech presentation; caesarean section; external cephalic version; pregnancy
references.citation: Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2011 Jan;112(1):48-51
references.pmid: 20870233
references.citation: Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2009 Jan;33(1):76-84
references.pmid: 19115237
references.citation: Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1992 Mar;166(3):851-2
references.pmid: 1550152
references.citation: J Perinat Med. 2010;38(1):23-8
references.pmid: 20047524
references.citation: Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012 Jan 18;1:CD000184
references.pmid: 22258940
references.citation: Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2004 Jun;83(6):511-8
references.pmid: 15144330
references.citation: J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2008 Jan;30(1):23-28
references.pmid: 18198064
references.citation: Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd. 2010;154:A63
references.pmid: 20132565
references.citation: Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1973 May 15;116(2):239-51
references.pmid: 4704004
references.citation: Am J Perinatol. 2011 Feb;28(2):103-10
references.pmid: 20661845
references.citation: Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2000;(2):CD000083
references.pmid: 10796122
references.citation: Gynecol Obstet Invest. 2003;56(2):83-8
references.pmid: 12920344
references.citation: BJOG. 2003 Oct;110(10):948-51
references.pmid: 14550366
references.citation: BJOG. 2005 May;112(5):627-31
references.pmid: 15842288
references.citation: BJOG. 2011 Apr;118(5):564-77
references.pmid: 21291506
references.citation: Lancet. 2000 Oct 21;356(9239):1375-83
references.pmid: 11052579
references.citation: Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2005 Jan;88(1):5-8
references.pmid: 15617697
references.citation: Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2003 Jul;189(1):245-54
references.pmid: 12861170