Skip Navigation LinksHome > March 2004 - Volume 103 - Issue 3 > Singleton Vaginal Breech Delivery at Term: Still a Safe Opti...
Obstetrics & Gynecology:
doi: 10.1097/01.AOG.0000113625.29073.4c
Original Research: Lead Article

Singleton Vaginal Breech Delivery at Term: Still a Safe Option

Alarab, May MD; Regan, Carmen MD; O'Connell, Michael P. MD; Keane, Declan P. MD; O'Herlihy, Colm MD; Foley, Michael E. MD

Free Access
Article Outline
Collapse Box

Author Information

From the Departments of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, National Maternity Hospital and University College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland.

Received June 16, 2003. Received in revised form September 8, 2003. Accepted September 26, 2003.

Address reprint requests to: Dr. Michael E. Foley, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University College Dublin, National Maternity Hospital, Holles Street, Dublin 2, Ireland; e-mail: mfoley@nmh.ie.

Collapse Box

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To examine the obstetric and perinatal outcome of pregnancies with singleton breech presentation at term when selection for vaginal delivery was based on clear prelabor and intrapartum criteria.

METHODS: The outcomes of all pregnancies with a breech presentation after 37 weeks of gestation were retrospectively reviewed from January 1997 to June 2000. Criteria for prelabor cesarean or trial of vaginal breech delivery included type of breech, estimated fetal weight (more than 3,800 g), maternal preference, and gestation more than 41 weeks. An intrapartum protocol excluded induction and oxytocin augmentation of labor, combined with a low threshold for cesarean delivery for dystocic labor; an experienced obstetrician was in attendance during labor and delivery.

RESULTS: Of 641 women, 343 (54%) underwent prelabor cesarean, and 298 (46%) had a trial of vaginal delivery, of whom 146 (49%) delivered vaginally. Significantly fewer nulliparas (58 of 158, 37%) than multiparas (88 of 140, 63%; P < .001) achieved vaginal delivery after trial of labor. Significantly more infants weighing more than 3,800 g were selected for prelabor (87 of 343, 25%) and intrapartum (31 of 152, 20%) cesarean than delivered vaginally (15 of 146, 10%). Two neonates (0.7%) had Apgar scores of less than 7 at 5 minutes; both were neurologically normal at 6 weeks. There were no nonanomalous perinatal deaths and no cases of significant trauma or neurological dysfunction; 3 infants delivered vaginally died due to lethal anomalies.

CONCLUSION: Safe vaginal breech delivery at term can be achieved with strict selection criteria, adherence to a careful intrapartum protocol, and with an experienced obstetrician in attendance. Our protocol effectively selects larger infants for cesarean delivery.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: II-2

The management of breech presentation in term pregnancy is highly controversial. Management practice varies among different institutions, and even among different clinicians in the same institution. The decision to perform cesarean delivery is often based on personal experience or fear of litigation. A recent randomized multicenter trial recruited in 26 countries comparing planned cesarean versus planned vaginal birth concluded with a strong recommendation for cesarean delivery for term breech pregnancies in both developed and developing countries, based on perinatal outcome.1 The study indicated that planned cesarean delivery reduced perinatal mortality, late neonatal death, and serious neonatal morbidity by one third. Nevertheless, the interpretation of the results has been challenged with respect to the trial's clinical design, specifically because a minority of perinatal deaths were related to the mode of delivery, because it recruited from countries with widely varying underlying perinatal outcome, because the definitions of serious neonatal morbidity were loosely defined, and because some of the clinical practices employed were questionable.2,3

Cesarean delivery for breech presentation has been shown to increase both short- and long-term maternal morbidity and maternal mortality in both observational4–7 and randomized controlled studies, not least because it predisposes to further cesareans in subsequent pregnancies.8 Neonatal respiratory morbidity is also increased up to five-fold following elective cesarean delivery.9 A change to cesarean delivery for all breech presentations in institutions currently offering a trial of vaginal delivery (with a 50% vaginal delivery rate) would double the cesarean rate attributable to breech from 2% to 4% of all term deliveries, with an inevitable incremental effect on the repeat cesarean rate. Even when a policy of routine prelabor cesarean delivery is adopted for all term infants presenting by the breech, a significant number of women will still present at a stage of labor too advanced for cesarean, while others will request a trial of vaginal delivery.10 Although external cephalic version reduces noncephalic birth by 60%11 and is strongly recommended as a safe alternative to breech delivery, term pregnancies after successful external version remain at higher risk of intrapartum cesarean.12

At the National Maternity Hospital, a standardized approach to the management of a breech presentation has been adopted for the past decade. Strict selection criteria are applied before a trial of vaginal breech delivery is undertaken and a fixed management practice, including avoidance of induction and oxytocin augmentation and avoidance of prolonged active second stage, is observed during breech labor, with a low threshold for intrapartum cesarean. We have analyzed the results of this protocol with respect to maternal and perinatal outcome for the period immediately preceding publication of the multicenter randomized trial. Our aim was to assess the safety of carefully selected and supervised vaginal breech delivery in a single institution with a low underlying perinatal mortality rate.

Back to Top | Article Outline

MATERIALS AND METHODS

At the National Maternity Hospital details of all deliveries, including elective and emergency cesarean deliveries are recorded on a computer database immediately after delivery, including data on parity, gestational age, birth weight, duration of first and second stages, Apgar scores, cord blood pH, admission to special care neonatal unit, and fetal/neonatal outcome. Later events, including neonatal death and neurological morbidity, are collated in the Hospital's annual clinical report. Until 2000, the ethnicity of the Hospital's obstetric population was stable and 98% Caucasian; patient management did not alter with respect to ethnicity. This computerized data set was used to examine the perinatal and obstetric outcomes of all women attending with a singleton breech presentation at 37 weeks of gestation or more during the 3.5-year period January 1997 to June 2000.

Patients found to have a breech presentation were referred to a dedicated breech clinic, generally at 37 weeks of gestation, where a structured ultrasound examination was performed, documenting placental site, estimated fetal weight, amniotic fluid quantitation, type of breech, fetal attitude, and fetal morphology. External cephalic version was offered, with informed consent, if the estimated fetal weight, amniotic fluid volume, placental site, and fetal morphology were normal. During the study period the success rate of external cephalic version was 50% in multiparas and 32% in nulliparous women.

If breech presentation persisted or recurred, patients were offered a trial of vaginal delivery if the following criteria were fulfilled: 1) estimated fetal weight of 2,500–3,800 g13; 2) deepest amniotic fluid pool 30 mm or more; 3) normal fetal morphology and normal placental location; 4) absence of hyperextension of the fetal head (an angle exceeding 90°); and 5) flexed (complete) or extended (frank) breech presentation. Management of fetal anomaly depended on the type of malformation identified. Elective prelabor cesarean was advised, based on the following fetal indications; estimated fetal weight more than 3,800 g, footling breech, hyperextension of the fetal head or when fetal compromise was suspected (oligohydramnios or intrauterine growth restriction). Maternal indications for elective cesarean included maternal preference, previous cesarean, significant preeclampsia and placenta previa. Antepartum pelvimetry was not used. Consent concerning mode of delivery was obtained according to the Hospital protocol and maternal preference.

Induction of labor was not practiced with breech presentation. Elective prelabor cesareans were scheduled after 39 weeks of gestation or, if otherwise assigned, if labor had not ensued after 41 weeks. Women allocated to prelabor cesarean who labored spontaneously were delivered by cesarean on admission. On admission in spontaneous labor, vaginal examination was performed to confirm the diagnosis of labor, the type of breech presentation and to exclude cord presentation. When the diagnosis of labor was confirmed, amniotomy was performed to augment labor, provided the presenting part was fixed in the pelvis and continuous electronic fetal heart rate monitoring was initiated. Subsequent progress was assessed vaginally every 2 hours. Cervical dilatation at a rate of 1 cm/h or more was deemed acceptable. In the second stage, 1 hour was allowed if required for adequate descent of the breech to the pelvic floor; delivery of the fetus was completed within 1 hour of active pushing for nulliparas and within 30 minutes for multiparas.

Oxytocin was not used to augment labor in either the first or second stage; failure to progress in labor was considered an indication for intrapartum cesarean. If fetal distress was suspected, cesarean delivery was effected without fetal blood sampling; meconium staining of amniotic fluid alone was not deemed an indication for cesarean delivery. Epidural administration was based on maternal request. An experienced obstetrician (senior resident with at least 4 years experience or consultant) conducted all vaginal breech deliveries, and a pediatrician was also in attendance. Breech delivery was spontaneous with active maternal pushing, but no intervention by the attending obstetrician, until the fetus was delivered to the level of the umbilicus. Lovset's maneuver was used to deliver the shoulders if required, and episiotomy was performed routinely. Delivery of the head was then controlled with Mauriceau-Smellie-Veit maneuver or with Neville-Barnes obstetric forceps, depending on the obstetrician's preference. Cord blood acid base analysis was performed at the discretion of the attending obstetrician or if the 1-minute Apgar score was less than 7.

Data were analyzed by using unpaired t test, Fisher exact test, and analysis of variance, as appropriate; P values less than 0.05 were considered significant.

Back to Top | Article Outline

RESULTS

During the 42-month study period, 641 patients presented with singleton breech presentation at term, of whom 374 (58%) were nulliparas and 267 (42%) were multiparas; 343 patients (54%) underwent elective prelabor cesarean delivery, according to our institutional selection criteria, and 298 (46%) progressed to a trial of vaginal delivery. Specific obstetric indications for elective cesarean delivery were present in 192 (56%) cases; birthweight more than 3,800 g in 98, gestation more than 41 weeks in 51, previous cesarean in 18, preeclampsia in 10, suspected fetal compromise in 12, hemolytic disease in 2, and placenta previa in 1 case. Nonspecific indications, such as maternal or obstetricians preference, pertained in 151 cases.

Of 298 patients who progressed to a trial of vaginal delivery, 146 (49% of the total) delivered vaginally and 152 (51%) were delivered by intrapartum cesarean (Figure 1); 13 (8.6%) intrapartum cesareans were performed in the second stage of labor. One hundred forty-three of the intrapartum cesareans (94%) were performed for failure to progress in labor and 7 (4.6%) for suspected fetal distress; all 7 babies had Apgar scores of 9 at 1 minute. Of a total of 158 nulliparas and 140 multiparas who labored, 58 (37%) and 88 (63%), respectively (P < .001), delivered vaginally (Figure 2). Epidural analgesia was used in 159 (53%) labors, 96(61%) nulliparas and 63 (45%) multiparas; 82 (56%) women with epidural analgesia delivered vaginally.

Figure 1
Figure 1
Image Tools
Figure 2
Figure 2
Image Tools

Group-specific analyses comparing the prelabor cesarean and planned vaginal delivery cohorts and frequency of birth weights exceeding 3,800 g are summarized in Tables 1 and 2. Significant preponderance of larger infants was allocated to prelabor cesarean and was selected for intrapartum cesarean delivery, particularly among nulliparas.

Table 1
Table 1
Image Tools
Table 2
Table 2
Image Tools

The mean durations of the first and second stages of labor for nulliparas who delivered vaginally were 4.4 hours (range 0.5–11), and 24 minutes (5–75), respectively, and for multiparas were 3 hours (0.2–11), and 13 minutes, (10–45), respectively. Nine (6%) women, 2 nulliparas and 7 multiparas, presented in labor at full dilatation, and all delivered vaginally. The durations of the first stage of labor in patients who were delivered by intrapartum cesarean was 3.8 hours (0.5–9) for nulliparas and 2.4 hours (0.5–8) for multiparas. Two intrapartum cesareans were performed because of cord prolapse, an incidence of 0.7%.

Venous cord blood pH was measured in 68 (46%) of 146 of infants who were delivered vaginally; no value was less than 7.1, and pH was between 7.1 and 7.2 in 11 (7.6%) samples. Two infants (0.7%) had Apgar scores of less than 7 at 5 minutes (cord pH 7.12 and 7.1, respectively), both in the vaginally delivered group and were admitted to the Special Care Baby Unit; both were discharged within 24 hours, and both were neurologically normal at 6 weeks of age. Seven infants developed transient respiratory difficulties, 3 after prelabor cesareans, 2 after intrapartum cesareans, and 2 after vaginal deliveries. There were no intrapartum or neonatal deaths in normally formed infants and no neonate exhibited abnormal neurological behavior in either the vaginally or cesarean delivered cohorts; the 95% confidence interval for risk of death associated with vaginal delivery was 0%, 2.53%. No cases of major soft tissue, neurological, or skeletal trauma were identified in either cesarean or vaginally delivered breech infants. Infants were followed up routinely until 6 weeks postpartum. Three perinatal deaths occurred, all due to lethal malformation, comprising a neonatal death due to renal agenesis and 2 stillbirths due to Trisomy 18 and neural tube defect, respectively; all three infants were delivered vaginally.

Back to Top | Article Outline

DISCUSSION

These results show that with appropriate prelabor and intrapartum selection combined with the mandatory attendance of an experienced obstetrician to conduct delivery, the outcome of vaginal breech delivery was uncomplicated and that one half of our patients who undertook a trial of labor delivered vaginally. Our findings confirm the satisfactory results reported in a similar, well selected series.3,14–18 Our criteria adopted to select larger fetuses for cesarean proved reasonably discriminant in that a significantly smaller proportion of infants weighing 3,800 g or more presented in labor, and in turn twice as many larger infants were delivered by intrapartum cesarean than delivered vaginally.

In contrast to the definite selection criteria for elective cesarean cited in other breech studies, protocols for the management of term breech in labor are generally less well defined. In this respect, we would commend the application of our guidelines relating to limitation of the duration of the first and second stages of labor, and avoiding induction and oxytocin augmentation of slow progress. Our limits on the duration of labor are based on the averages for nulliparas and multiparas with cephalic presentations in our institution, and overall our results for labor duration fell within these parameters. In a large series of unselected patients, we have previously reported a mean duration of nulliparous labor of 6 hours, with 37% delivery within 4 hours of admission in labor; among multiparas 78% delivered within 2 hours of admission.19 Malpresentations including breech have always been considered a contraindication to oxytocin augmentation in our unit.20

The prerequisite of an experienced obstetrician to ensure safe conduct of safe breech delivery (no less than of cesarean) has been emphasized in many reports. Indeed further analysis of the results of the Term Breech Trial have identified the importance of an experienced accoucheur in attendance.21 The overall vaginal delivery rate following trial of labor in our series, at 49%, may have been influenced by our high incidence of epidural analgesia22 but was comparable with the 56% reported by Hannah et al1 This was despite our much more stringent criteria for intrapartum management, specifically exclusion of induction, oxytocin augmentation, and active second stage exceeding 60 minutes. Not surprisingly, these factors have been shown to have significantly increased the risk of adverse fetal outcome in the term breech trial cohort.21 What is not discernible from those data is what the perinatal outcome would have been in those women randomized to vaginal delivery were these risk factors excluded.

Comparable with other breech series from countries with similarly low background mortality rates,23,24 there were no normally formed perinatal deaths in our consecutive study group and little neonatal morbidity. In fact, the incidence of low Apgar scores and low cord pH values was similar to that of the planned cesarean cohort in the Term Breech trial and almost identical to the rate among electronically monitored low-risk cephalic deliveries at our institution.25 It is noteworthy that perinatal mortality results in the Term Breech trial did not differ significantly in participating centers in countries with low baseline rates, despite the fact that randomization was not stratified according to underlying national mortality rates.

We present our findings not as an argument that breech presentation is without risk but to suggest that with active involvement of experienced obstetricians and applying appropriate management protocols, vaginal breech delivery can achieve comparable safety for the infant with spontaneous cephalic birth. It should be borne in mind that only 23% of our total breech patients and 49% of those who labored eventually delivered vaginally, with significantly more multiparas, compared with nulliparas, achieving vaginal delivery. Our data are of assistance in accurately counseling women with breech presentation at term and in advising a trial of labor and vaginal delivery if that is the maternal preference; they may help to balance the relative safety of selected breech delivery for the infant against the potential maternal risks of cesarean delivery. Nevertheless, institutions where vaginal breech delivery is conducted should continue to audit their outcomes, not least in an era when appropriately supervised experience for obstetricians in this mode of delivery is inevitably becoming more difficult to acquire.

Back to Top | Article Outline

REFERENCES

1.Hannah ME, Hannah WJ, Hewson SA, Hodnett ED, Saigai S, Willan AR. Planned caesarean section versus planned vaginal birth for breech presentation at term: a randomised multicentre trial. Lancet 2000;356:1375–83.

2.van Roosmalen J, Rosendaal F. There is still room for disagreement about vaginal delivery of breech infants at term. BJOG 2002;109:967–9.

3.Hauth J, Cunningham FG. Vaginal breech delivery is still justified. Obstet Gynecol 2002;99:1115–6.

4.Sanchez-Ramos L, Wells TL, Adair CD, Arcelin G, Kaunitz AM, Wells DS. Route of breech delivery and maternal and neonatal outcomes. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2001;73:7–14.

5.Schuitemaker N, van Roosmalen J, Dekker G, van Dongen P, van Geijn H, Gravenhorst JB. Maternal mortality after cesarean section in the Netherlands. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 1997;76:332–4.

6.Greene R, Gardeil F, Turner MJ. Long-term implications of cesarean section. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1997;176:254–5.

7.Hemminiki E, Merilainen J. Long-term effects of cesarean sections: ectopic pregnancies and placental problems. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1996;174:1569–74.

8.Shennan A, Bewley S. How to manage term breech deliveries. Avoid vaginal breech deliveries but offer external cephalic version. BMJ 2001;323:244–7.

9.Levine EM, Ghai V, Barton JJ, Strom CM. Mode of delivery and risk of respiratory diseases in newborns. Obstet Gynecol 2001;97:439–42.

10.Green P, Walkinshaw S. Management of breech deliveries. Obstetrician and Gynecologist 2002;4:87–91.

11.Hofmeyr GJ. External cephalic version facilitation for breech presentation at term. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2000;2:CD000184.

12.Lau TK, Kit KW, Rogers M. Pregnancy outcome after successful external cephalic external version for breech presentation at term. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1997;176:218–23.

13.Thorpe-Beeston JG. Management of breech presentation at term. In: Studd J, editor. Progress in obstetrics and gynaecology. New York (NY): Churchill Livingtone; 1998. p. 87–100.

14.Irion O, Hirsbrunner-Almagbaly P, Morabia A. Planned vaginal delivery versus elective cesarean section: a study of 705 singleton term breech presentations. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1998;105:710–17.

15.Roman J, Bakos O, Cnattingius S. Pregnancy outcomes by mode of delivery among term breech births: Swedish experience 1987–1993. Obstet Gynecol 1998;92:945–50.

16.Diro M, Puangsricharern A, Royer L, O′Sullivan MJ, Burkett G. Singleton term breech deliveries in nulliparous and multiparous women: a 5-year experience at the University of Miami/Jackson Memorial Hospital. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1999;181:247–52.

17.Giuliani A, Scholl W, Basver A, Tamussino K. Mode of delivery and outcome of 699 term singleton breech deliveries at a single center. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2002;187:1694–8.

18.De Leeuw JP, De Hann J, Derom R, Thiery M, Martens G, Van Maele G. Mortality and early neonatal morbidity in vaginal and abdominal deliveries in breech presentation. J Obstet Gynaecol 2002;22:127–39.

19.O′Driscoll K, Foley M, MacDonald D. Active management of labor as an alternative to cesarean section for dystocia. Obstet Gynecol 1984;63:485–90.

20.O'Driscoll K, Meagher D, Boylan P. Active management of labour. New York (NY): Mosby Year Book Limited; 1993. p. 29–36

21.Su M, McLoed L, Ross S, Willan A, Hannah W, Hutton E, Hannah M. Factors associated with adverse perinatal outcome in the Term Breech Trial. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2002;187:S69.

22.Chadha YC, Mahmood TA, Dick MJ, Smith NC, Campbell DM, Templeton A. Breech delivery and epidural analgesia. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1992;99:96–100.

23.Lindqvist A, Norden-Lindeberg S, Hanson U. Perinatal mortality and route of delivery in term breech presentations. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1997;104:1288–91.

24.Munstedt K, von Georgi R, Reucher S, Zygmunt M, Lang U. Term breech and long-term morbidity: cesarean section versus vaginal breech delivery. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2001;96:163–7.

25.MacDonald D, Grant A, Sheridan-Pereira M, Boylan P, Chalmers I. The Dublin randomised controlled trial of intrapartum fetal heart rate monitoring. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1985;152:524–39.

Cited By:

This article has been cited 32 time(s).

American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology
Is planned vaginal delivery for breech presentation at term still an option? Results of an observational prospective survey in France and Belgium
Goffinet, F; Carayol, M; Foidart, JM; Alexander, S; Uzan, S; Subtil, D; Breart, G
American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 194(4): 1002-1011.
10.1016/j.ajog.2005.10.817
CrossRef
Journal of Maternal-Fetal & Neonatal Medicine
Is there a place for selective vaginal breech delivery in Malaysian hospitals: experiences from the Ipoh hospital
Nalliah, S; Loh, KY; Japaraj, RP; Mukudan, K
Journal of Maternal-Fetal & Neonatal Medicine, 22(2): 129-136.
10.1080/14767050802509520
CrossRef
Australian & New Zealand Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology
Term breech singletons and caesarean section: A population study, Australia 1991-2005
Sullivan, EA; Moran, K; Chapman, M
Australian & New Zealand Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology, 49(5): 456-460.
10.1111/j.1479-828X.2009.01050.x
CrossRef
Annals of Family Medicine
Patient-choice vaginal delivery?
Leeman, LM; Plante, LA
Annals of Family Medicine, 4(3): 265-268.
10.1370/afm.537
CrossRef
Birth-Issues in Perinatal Care
Combating coercion: Breech birth, parturient choice, and the evolution of evidence-based maternity care
Kotaska, A
Birth-Issues in Perinatal Care, 34(2): 176-180.

Wiener Klinische Wochenschrift
Breech presentation: a retrospective analysis of 12-years' experience at a single center
Mailath-Pokorny, M; Preyer, O; Dadak, C; Lischka, A; Mittlbock, M; Wagenbichler, P; Laml, T
Wiener Klinische Wochenschrift, 121(): 209-215.
10.1007/s00508-009-1138-2
CrossRef
Developmental Medicine and Child Neurology
Is breech presentation a risk factor for cerebral palsy? A Norwegian birth cohort study
Andersen, GL; Irgens, LM; Skranes, J; Salvesen, KA; Meberg, A; Vik, T
Developmental Medicine and Child Neurology, 51(): 860-865.
10.1111/j.1469-8749.2009.03338.x
CrossRef
Journal De Gynecologie Obstetrique Et Biologie De La Reproduction
Term-breech presentation: Predictive factors of cesarean section for vaginal-birth failure
Broche, DE; Ramanah, R; Collin, A; Mangin, M; Vidal, C; Maillet, R; Riethmuller, D
Journal De Gynecologie Obstetrique Et Biologie De La Reproduction, 37(5): 483-492.
10.1016/j.jgyn.2008.03.011
CrossRef
Bjog-An International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology
Outcome of term breech births: 10-year experience at a district general hospital
Pradhan, P; Mohajer, M; Deshpande, S
Bjog-An International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, 112(2): 218-222.
10.1111/j.1471-0528.2004.00323.x
CrossRef
British Medical Journal
Inappropriate use of randomised trials to evaluate complex phenomena: case study of vaginal breech delivery
Kotaska, AR
British Medical Journal, 329(): 1039-1042.

Acta Obstetricia Et Gynecologica Scandinavica
Attempted vaginal versus planned cesarean delivery in 195 breech first twin pregnancies
Sentilhes, L; Goffinet, F; Talbot, A; Diguet, A; Verspyck, E; Cabrol, D; Marpeau, L
Acta Obstetricia Et Gynecologica Scandinavica, 86(1): 55-60.
10.1080/00016340601089594
CrossRef
Gynecologie Obstetrique & Fertilite
Breech presentation and vaginal delivery: evolution of acceptability by obstetricians and patients
Lagrange, E; Halden, MAD; Ughetto, S; Boda, C; Accoceberry, M; Neyrat, C; Houlle, C; Vendittelli, F; Laurichesse-Delmas, H; Jacquetin, B; Lemery, D; Gallot, D
Gynecologie Obstetrique & Fertilite, 35(9): 757-763.
10.1016/j.gyobfe.2007.07.003
CrossRef
Obstetrics and Gynecology Clinics of North America
Prenatal counseling regarding cesarean delivery
Leeman, LM
Obstetrics and Gynecology Clinics of North America, 35(3): 473-+.
10.1016/j.ogc.2008.07.003
CrossRef
Bjog-An International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology
The end of vaginal breech delivery
Burke, G
Bjog-An International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, 113(8): 969-972.
10.1111/j.1471-0528.2006.00997.x
CrossRef
Journal De Gynecologie Obstetrique Et Biologie De La Reproduction
Assisted vaginal delivery using the vacuum extractor in frank breech presentation
Broche, DE; Riethmuller, D; Maticot-Baptista, D; Ramanah, R; Cossa, S; Maillet, R
Journal De Gynecologie Obstetrique Et Biologie De La Reproduction, 37(2): 143-148.
10.1016/j.jgyn.2007.08.007
CrossRef
American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology
Trends in intrapartum fetal death, 1979-2003
Walsh, CA; McMenamin, MB; Foley, ME; Daly, SF; Robson, MS; Geary, MP
American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 198(1): -.
ARTN 47.e1
CrossRef
European Journal of Obstetrics Gynecology and Reproductive Biology
Planned vaginal delivery of fetuses in breech presentation at term: Prenatal determinants predictive of elevated risk of cesarean delivery during labor
Roman, H; Carayol, M; Watier, L; Le Ray, C; Breaft, G; Goffinet, F
European Journal of Obstetrics Gynecology and Reproductive Biology, 138(1): 14-22.
10.1016/j.ejogrb.2007.06.019
CrossRef
Journal De Gynecologie Obstetrique Et Biologie De La Reproduction
How to lower cesarian levels?
Sentilhes, L
Journal De Gynecologie Obstetrique Et Biologie De La Reproduction, 37(2): 10-12.

Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology
Obstetric trainees' experience in VBD and ECV in the UK
Dhingra, S; Raffi, F
Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, 30(1): 10-12.
10.3109/01443610903315629
CrossRef
American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology
Five years to the term breech trial: The rise and fall of a randomized controlled trial
Glezerman, M
American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 194(1): 20-25.
10.1016/j.ajog.2005.08.039
CrossRef
Journal of Perinatology
Delivery mode by race for breech presentation in the US
Lee, H; El-Sayed, YY; Gould, JB
Journal of Perinatology, 27(3): 147-153.
10.1038/sj.jp.7211668
CrossRef
Fetal Diagnosis and Therapy
Perinatal outcome in breech presentation depending on the mode of vaginal delivery
Vranjes, M; Habek, D
Fetal Diagnosis and Therapy, 23(1): 54-59.
10.1159/000109227
CrossRef
European Journal of Obstetrics Gynecology and Reproductive Biology
French trainees in obstetrics and gynaecology theoretical training and practice of vaginal breech delivery: A national survey
Xavier, C; Raha, S; Claude, D; Boubli, L
European Journal of Obstetrics Gynecology and Reproductive Biology, 135(1): 17-20.
10.1016/j.ejogrb.2006.10.023
CrossRef
International Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics
Vaginal delivery of breech presentation No. 226, June 2009
Kotaska, A; Menticoglou, S; Gagnon, R
International Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics, 107(2): 169-176.
10.1016/j.ijgo.2009.07.002
CrossRef
European Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology and Reproductive Biology
Safety and efficacy of external cephalic version for women with a previous cesarean delivery
Sela, HY; Fiegenberg, T; Ben-Meir, A; Elchalal, U; Ezra, Y
European Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology and Reproductive Biology, 142(2): 111-114.
10.1016/j.ejogrb.2008.08.012
CrossRef
Gynecologie Obstetrique & Fertilite
Delivery of twins
Sentilhes, L; Bouhours, AC; Biquard, F; Gillard, P; Descamps, P; Kayem, G
Gynecologie Obstetrique & Fertilite, 37(5): 432-441.
10.1016/j.gyobfe.2009.03.014
CrossRef
Clinical Obstetrics and Gynecology
Breech Delivery Before and After the Term Breech Trial
Vidaeff, AC
Clinical Obstetrics and Gynecology, 49(1): 198-210.

PDF (127)
Obstetrics & Gynecology
Teaching Infrequently Used Skills: Vaginal Breech Delivery
Queenan, JT
Obstetrics & Gynecology, 103(3): 405-406.
10.1097/01.AOG.0000116248.49611.55
PDF (97) | CrossRef
Obstetrics & Gynecology
Singleton Vaginal Breech Delivery at Term: Still a Safe Option
Kuczkowski, KM; Simpson, WH
Obstetrics & Gynecology, 104(1): 190.
10.1097/01.AOG.0000131627.26868.c8
PDF (284) | CrossRef
Obstetrics & Gynecology
Singleton Vaginal Breech Delivery at Term: Still a Safe Option
Alarab, M; Foley, M; O'Herlihy, C
Obstetrics & Gynecology, 104(1): 190.
10.1097/01.AOG.0000131742.65394.9f
PDF (284) | CrossRef
Obstetrics & Gynecology
Singleton Vaginal Breech Delivery at Term: Still a Safe Option
Gimovsky, ML
Obstetrics & Gynecology, 104(1): 191.
10.1097/01.AOG.0000131628.62183.34
PDF (284) | CrossRef
Obstetrics & Gynecology
Obstetric Trainees’ Experience in Vaginal Breech Delivery: Implications for Future Practice
Chinnock, M; Robson, S
Obstetrics & Gynecology, 110(4): 900-903.
10.1097/01.AOG.0000267199.32847.c4
PDF (145) | CrossRef
Back to Top | Article Outline

© 2004 The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists

Login

Article Tools

Images

Share