Abstract
Objective:
To assess risk factors for adverse perinatal and neonatal outcomes in “well-selected” singleton vaginal breech deliveries at term.
Methods:
During the time span from January 2008 up to April 2015 a total of 786 singleton term breech deliveries with a planned vaginal delivery were identified in a retrospective observational study at Helsinki University Central Hospital, Finland. The study’s end point was a composite of adverse perinatal and neonatal outcomes. Infants with an adverse outcome were compared to all spontaneous singleton vaginal breech deliveries with normal perinatal and neonatal outcomes. A multivariate logistic regression model was used to analyze associations between adverse neonatal outcomes and several variables. The secondary outcome was the severe morbidity rate according to the criteria of the term breech trial.
Results:
An adverse neonatal outcome was recorded for 38 (4.8%) infants. According to the study the second delivery stage lasting <40 min [adjusted odds ratio (aOR): 0.34, 95% confidence interval (95% CI): 0.15–0.79] was associated with lower odds and had a protective effect against adverse outcomes. Epidural anesthesia (aOR: 2.88, 95% CI: 1.08–7.70) was associated with higher adverse outcomes. The incidence rate of severe morbidity was 1.3% (10/787).
Conclusion:
Adverse neonatal outcomes in well-selected breech deliveries are associated with a prolonged second delivery stage lasting >40 min and with epidural anesthesia.
Conflict of interest statement: The authors state that they have full control of all primary data and they agree to allow the Journal to review their data if requested.
References
[1] Vlemmix F, Bergenhenegouwen L, Schaaf JM, Ensing S, Rosman AN, Ravelli AC, et al. Term breech deliveries in the netherlands: did the increased cesarean rate affect neonatal outcome? A population-based cohort study. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2014;93:888–96.10.1111/aogs.12449Search in Google Scholar
[2] 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;356:1375–83.10.1016/S0140-6736(00)02840-3Search in Google Scholar
[3] Louwen F, Leuchter LM, Reitter A. Breech presentation – more than just caesarean vs. spontaneous birth. Z Geburtshilfe Neonatol. 2012;216:191–4.Search in Google Scholar
[4] American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (the College) and the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine, Caughey AB, Cahill AG, Guise JM, Rouse DJ. Safe prevention of the primary cesarean delivery. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2014;210:179–93.10.1016/j.ajog.2014.01.026Search in Google Scholar
[5] Macharey G, Ulander VM, Kostev K, Vaisanen-Tommiska M, Ziller V. Emergency peripartum hysterectomy and risk factors by mode of delivery and obstetric history: a 10-year review from helsinki university central hospital. J Perinat Med. 2015;43:721–8.10.1515/jpm-2013-0348Search in Google Scholar
[6] Knight M, Kurinczuk JJ, Spark P, Brocklehurst P, United Kingdom Obstetric Surveillance System Steering Committee. Cesarean delivery and peripartum hysterectomy. Obstet Gynecol. 2008;111:97–105.10.1097/01.AOG.0000296658.83240.6dSearch in Google Scholar
[7] Flood KM, Said S, Geary M, Robson M, Fitzpatrick C, Malone FD. Changing trends in peripartum hysterectomy over the last 4 decades. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2009;200:632.e1–6.10.1016/j.ajog.2009.02.001Search in Google Scholar
[8] Bogner G, Strobl M, Schausberger C, Fischer T, Reisenberger K, Jacobs VR. Breech delivery in the all fours position: a prospective observational comparative study with classic assistance. J Perinat Med. 2015;43:707–13.10.1515/jpm-2014-0048Search in Google Scholar
[9] Hellsten C, Lindqvist PG, Olofsson P. Vaginal breech delivery: is it still an option? Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2003;111:122–8.10.1016/S0301-2115(03)00189-1Search in Google Scholar
[10] Goffinet F, Carayol M, Foidart JM, Alexander S, Uzan S, Subtil D, et al. Is planned vaginal delivery for breech presentation at term still an option? results of an observational prospective survey in france and belgium. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2006;194:1002–11.10.1016/j.ajog.2005.10.817Search in Google Scholar PubMed
[11] Maier B, Georgoulopoulos A, Zajc M, Jaeger T, Zuchna C, Hasenoehrl G. Fetal outcome for infants in breech by method of delivery: experiences with a stand-by service system of senior obstetricians and women’s choices of mode of delivery. J Perinat Med. 2011;39:385–90.10.1515/jpm.2011.044Search in Google Scholar PubMed
[12] The management of breech presentation [Internet]; 2006. Available from: https://www.rcog.org.uk/globalassets/documents/guidelines/gtg-no-20b-breech-presentation.pdf. Accessed July 10, 2015.Search in Google Scholar
[13] Geburt bei beckenendlage [Internet]; 2006. Available from: http://www.agmfm-ev.de/_download/unprotected/g_04_04_03_geburt_bei_beckenendlage.pdf. Accessed July 10, 2015.Search in Google Scholar
[14] Voie d’accouchement en cas de présentation du siège [Internet]; 2001. Available from: http://www.cngof.asso.fr/D_PAGES/PURPC_08.HTM. Accessed July 10, 2015.Search in Google Scholar
[15] Kotaska A, Menticoglou S, Gagnon R, Farine D, Basso M, Bos H, et al. SOGC clinical practice guideline: vaginal delivery of breech presentation: No. 226, June 2009. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2009;107:169–76.10.1016/j.ijgo.2009.07.002Search in Google Scholar PubMed
[16] Azria E, Le Meaux JP, Khoshnood B, Alexander S, Subtil D, Goffinet F, et al. Factors associated with adverse perinatal outcomes for term breech fetuses with planned vaginal delivery. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2012;207:285.e1–9.10.1016/j.ajog.2012.08.027Search in Google Scholar PubMed
[17] Motheral B, Brooks J, Clark MA, Crown WH, Davey P, Hutchins D, et al. A checklist for retrospective database studies – report of the ISPOR task force on retrospective databases. Value Health. 2003;6:90–7.10.1046/j.1524-4733.2003.00242.xSearch in Google Scholar PubMed
[18] Toivonen E, Palomaki O, Huhtala H, Uotila J. Selective vaginal breech delivery at term – still an option. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2012;91:1177–83.10.1111/j.1600-0412.2012.01488.xSearch in Google Scholar PubMed
[19] Chadha YC, Mahmood TA, Dick MJ, Smith NC, Campbell DM, Templeton A. Breech delivery and epidural analgesia. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1992;99:96–100.10.1111/j.1471-0528.1992.tb14462.xSearch in Google Scholar PubMed
[20] Bracht E. Zur Behandlung der Steisslage. Zbl Gynäkol. 1938;62:1735.Search in Google Scholar
[21] Krebs L, Langhoff-Roos J. Breech delivery at term in denmark, 1982–92: a population-based case-control study. Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol. 1999;13:431–41.10.1046/j.1365-3016.1999.00202.xSearch in Google Scholar PubMed
[22] Krebs L. Breech at term. Early and late consequences of mode of delivery. Dan Med Bull. 2005;52:234–52.Search in Google Scholar
[23] Luterkort M, Persson PH, Weldner BM. Maternal and fetal factors in breech presentation. Obstet Gynecol. 1984;64:55–9.Search in Google Scholar
[24] Milsom I, Ladfors L, Thiringer K, Niklasson A, Odeback A, Thornberg E. Influence of maternal, obstetric and fetal risk factors on the prevalence of birth asphyxia at term in a swedish urban population. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2002;81:909–17.10.1097/01.OGX.0000058696.18516.E8Search in Google Scholar
[25] Bingham P, Lilford R. Outcome of breech delivery at term. Br Med J. 1992;305:1500.10.1136/bmj.305.6867.1500Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
[26] Han HC, Tan KH, Chew SY. Management of breech presentation at term. Singapore Med J. 1993;34:247–52.Search in Google Scholar
[27] Krebs L, Langhoff-Roos J, Bodker B. Are intrapartum and neonatal deaths in breech delivery at term potentially avoidable? – a blinded controlled audit. J Perinat Med. 2002;30:220–4.10.1515/JPM.2002.030Search in Google Scholar PubMed
[28] Macharey G, Ulander VM, Heinonen S, Kostev K, Nuutila M, Vaisanen-Tommiska M. Induction of labor in breech presentations at term: a retrospective observational study. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2016;293:549–55.10.1007/s00404-015-3853-4Search in Google Scholar PubMed
The authors stated that there are no conflicts of interest regarding the publication of this article.
©2017 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
