Background: Achieving a cephalic position after a successful external cephalic version (ECV) is desired to result in delivery and fetal outcomes that are similar to those of deliveries following spontaneous cephalic presentation. Methods: We performed a retrospective cohort study including patients with successful ECV following fetal breech position (ECV cohort, n = 47) or with a singleton spontaneous cephalic pregnancy at ≥37 weeks of gestational age (control group, n = 7,456) attempting a vaginal delivery between 2010 and 2013 at the University Hospital Ulm. The mode of delivery and fetal outcome parameters were compared between these 2 groups using nonparametric statistics. Results: ECV cohort and control group did not differ with respect to maternal age, parity, gestational age at birth, and fetal gender. There were no significant differences between the 2 groups with regard to all parameters indicating fetal outcome. However, the rate of cesarean sections was higher after successful ECV compared to spontaneous cephalic presentation (27.7 vs. 12.8%, OR 2.615). Conclusion: While vaginal delivery is less likely to happen after a successful ECV compared to spontaneous cephalic singleton pregnancies, fetal outcome parameters showed no difference between the 2 groups. Physicians should be counseling and encouraging women to attempt ECV, as it is a safe and effective procedure.

Keywords:
External cephalic version, Breech position, Caesarean section, Vaginal delivery, Fetal outcome
1.
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;166:851-852.
2.
Hofmeyr GJ, Hannah M, Lawrie TA: Planned caesarean section for term breech delivery. Cochrane database Syst Rev 2015;21:CD000166.
3.
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.
4.
Hannah ME, Hannah WJ, Hodnett ED, Chalmers B, Kung R, Willan A, et al.: Outcomes at 3 months after planned cesarean vs planned vaginal delivery for breech presentation at term: the international randomized Term Breech Trial. JAMA 2002;287:1822-1831.
5.
van Roosmalen J, Meguid T: The dilemma of vaginal breech delivery worldwide. Lancet 2014;383:1863-1864.
6.
American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists' Committee on Practice Bulletins - Obstetrics: Practice Bulletin No. 161: External Cephalic Version. Obstet Gynecol 2016;127:e54-e61.
7.
Hofmeyr GJ, Kulier R, West HM: External cephalic version for breech presentation at term. Cochrane database Syst Rev 2015;4:CD000083.
8.
Ebner F, Friedl TW, Leinert E, Schramm A, Reister F, Lato K, et al: Predictors for a successful external cephalic version: a single centre experience. Arch Gynecol Obstet 2016;293:749-755.
9.
Voigt M, Hermanussen M, Wittwer-Backofen U, Fusch C, Hesse V: Sex-specific differences in birth weight due to maternal smoking during pregnancy. Eur J Pediatr 2006;165:757-761.
10.
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;123:1327-1334.
11.
Chan LY, Tang JL, Tsoi KF, Fok WY, Chan LW, Lau TK: Intrapartum cesarean delivery after successful external cephalic version: a meta-analysis. Obstet Gynecol 2004;104:155-160.
12.
Clock C, Kurtzman J, White J, Chung JH: Cesarean risk after successful external cephalic version: a matched, retrospective analysis. J Perinatol 2009;29:96-100.
13.
Vézina Y, Bujold E, Varin J, Marquette GP, Boucher M: Cesarean delivery after successful external cephalic version of breech presentation at term: a comparative study. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2004;190:763-768.
14.
Kuppens SMI, Hutton EK, Hasaart THM, Aichi N, Wijnen HA, Pop VJ: Mode of delivery following successful external cephalic version: comparison with spontaneous cephalic presentations at delivery. J Obstet Gynaecol Can 2013;35:883-888.
15.
Lim PS, Ng BK, Ali A, Shafiee MN, Kampan NC, Mohamed Ismail NA, et al: Successful external cephalic version: factors predicting vaginal birth. ScientificWorldJournal 2014;2014:860107.
16.
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;85:930-936.
© 2017 S. Karger AG, Basel
2017
Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer
Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.
You do not currently have access to this content.