Safety of vaginal breech delivery following an unsuccessful external cephalic version: a comparative study.

IF 2.1 3区 医学 Q2 OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY
Danit Aviv, Amir Weintraub, Gal Issakov, Yael Pasternak, Rachel Griffin, Tzipora Shochat, Miriam Lopian, Yael Yekel, Sharon Perlman
{"title":"Safety of vaginal breech delivery following an unsuccessful external cephalic version: a comparative study.","authors":"Danit Aviv, Amir Weintraub, Gal Issakov, Yael Pasternak, Rachel Griffin, Tzipora Shochat, Miriam Lopian, Yael Yekel, Sharon Perlman","doi":"10.1007/s00404-024-07873-9","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To determine whether patients undergoing a trial of labor with a breech presentation following a failed attempt of external cephalic version (ECV) are at increased risk of adverse maternal and neonatal outcomes.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This retrospective cohort study was conducted at a single university-affiliated medical center. The study group comprised women with singleton pregnancies at term, categorized into three groups: those who underwent a failed external cephalic version (ECV) and subsequently attempted a trial of breech delivery (Breech-failed-ECV group), those who attempted an assisted vaginal breech delivery without a prior ECV attempt (Breech-no-ECV group), and those with vertex presentation following a successful ECV (Vertex-ECV). The primary outcome measured was the mode of delivery. Secondary outcomes included adverse maternal and neonatal outcomes.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The study group consisted of 229 patients who attempted a vaginal delivery during the study period following a diagnosis of non-cephalic presentation at term. There were 42 women in the Breech failed-ECV group, 102 in the Breech-no-ECV group, and 85 in the Vertex-ECV group. Among patients undergoing a trial of labor with a breech presentation, there were no significant differences in successful vaginal delivery rates between those who had an attempted ECV and those who did not (80.39% vs. 80.95%, p > 0.05), nor in the rate of adverse maternal or neonatal outcomes between the groups. However, the Vertex-ECV were more likely to have a vaginal delivery (91.78 vs 80.56%, p = 0.03) and less likely to experience adverse neonatal outcomes, including meconium-stained amniotic fluid, non-reassuring fetal heart rate (NRFHR), compared to those who underwent labor with a breech presentation (p < 0.05).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>A failed external cephalic version does not adversely affect maternal or neonatal outcomes in patients undergoing a trial of labor with a breech presentation and meet the criteria of our study.</p>","PeriodicalId":8330,"journal":{"name":"Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-024-07873-9","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: To determine whether patients undergoing a trial of labor with a breech presentation following a failed attempt of external cephalic version (ECV) are at increased risk of adverse maternal and neonatal outcomes.

Methods: This retrospective cohort study was conducted at a single university-affiliated medical center. The study group comprised women with singleton pregnancies at term, categorized into three groups: those who underwent a failed external cephalic version (ECV) and subsequently attempted a trial of breech delivery (Breech-failed-ECV group), those who attempted an assisted vaginal breech delivery without a prior ECV attempt (Breech-no-ECV group), and those with vertex presentation following a successful ECV (Vertex-ECV). The primary outcome measured was the mode of delivery. Secondary outcomes included adverse maternal and neonatal outcomes.

Results: The study group consisted of 229 patients who attempted a vaginal delivery during the study period following a diagnosis of non-cephalic presentation at term. There were 42 women in the Breech failed-ECV group, 102 in the Breech-no-ECV group, and 85 in the Vertex-ECV group. Among patients undergoing a trial of labor with a breech presentation, there were no significant differences in successful vaginal delivery rates between those who had an attempted ECV and those who did not (80.39% vs. 80.95%, p > 0.05), nor in the rate of adverse maternal or neonatal outcomes between the groups. However, the Vertex-ECV were more likely to have a vaginal delivery (91.78 vs 80.56%, p = 0.03) and less likely to experience adverse neonatal outcomes, including meconium-stained amniotic fluid, non-reassuring fetal heart rate (NRFHR), compared to those who underwent labor with a breech presentation (p < 0.05).

Conclusions: A failed external cephalic version does not adversely affect maternal or neonatal outcomes in patients undergoing a trial of labor with a breech presentation and meet the criteria of our study.

求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.70
自引率
15.40%
发文量
493
审稿时长
1 months
期刊介绍: Founded in 1870 as "Archiv für Gynaekologie", Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics has a long and outstanding tradition. Since 1922 the journal has been the Organ of the Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gynäkologie und Geburtshilfe. "The Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics" is circulated in over 40 countries world wide and is indexed in "PubMed/Medline" and "Science Citation Index Expanded/Journal Citation Report". The journal publishes invited and submitted reviews; peer-reviewed original articles about clinical topics and basic research as well as news and views and guidelines and position statements from all sub-specialties in gynecology and obstetrics.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信