Online first
Research paper
Published online: 2024-11-18

open access

Page views 236
Article views/downloads 179
Get Citation

Connect on Social Media

Connect on Social Media

Strategies to reduce cesarean deliveries: surveying polish obstetricians on external cephalic version practices

Maisa Manasar-Dyrbus1, Agnieszka Drosdzol-Cop1, Szymon Stojko1, Rafal Stojko1, Jakub Staniczek1

Abstract

Objectives: The cross-sectional survey was conducted aiming to evaluate the knowledge and experiences of the Polish obstetricians and gynecologists regarding the External Cephalic Version (ECV) and investigate their practices concerning this procedure. Material and methods: An online survey constituting author-created questionnaire with 22 questions, was distributed among gynecologists and obstetricians. The questionnaire evaluated participants' knowledge about ECV, work experiences, and workplace practices. Results: Out of 461 respondents, 56.20% were specialists in gynecology and obstetrics. Elective cesarean section (CS) was preferred by 78.70% for primiparas and 73.50% for multiparas with non-cephalic presentation, while ECV would be chosen by 21.3% and 23.6%, respectively. While 73.80% knew centers performing ECV, only 16.70% had actively participated in the procedure. Major differences in the experiences and knowledge regarding ECV were observed based on work experience, and workplace reference level. Experienced physicians showed higher concerns about ECV complications and emergency CS risks. The most common concerns regarding the procedure referred to periprocedural pain, perceived low efficacy, and complications, and were more prevalent among respondents with longer experience and from lower-reference centers. Conclusions: The study demonstrated that among Polish obstetricians for term pregnancies with non-cephalic presentation, elective cesarean section is preferred over ECV, especially among experienced practitioners. Knowledge about ECV was relatively low, indicating a need for improved educational efforts. Addressing concerns about ECV's safety and efficacy, particularly through enhanced training and anesthesia options, could promote its adoption and reduce CS rates.  

Article available in PDF format

View PDF Download PDF file

References

  1. World Health Organization Human Reproduction Programme, 10 April 2015. WHO Statement on caesarean section rates. Reprod Health Matters. 2015; 23(45): 149–150.
  2. Polish Central Statistical Office data summarizing 2022 year. https://stat.gov.pl/obszary-tematyczne/zdrowie/zdrowie/zdrowie-i-ochrona-zdrowia-w-2022-roku,1,13.html (15.08.2024).
  3. Lim S, Lucero J. Obstetric and Anesthetic Approaches to External Cephalic Version. Anesthesiol Clin. 2017; 35(1): 81–94.
  4. Kwiatek M, Geca T, Stupak A, et al. External cephalic version - single-center experience. Ginekol Pol. 2024; 95(10): 779–784.
  5. External Cephalic Version and Reducing the Incidence of Term Breech Presentation: Green-top Guideline No. 20a. BJOG. 2017; 124(7): e178–e192.
  6. Grootscholten K, Kok M, Oei SG, et al. External cephalic version-related risks: a meta-analysis. Obstet Gynecol. 2008; 112(5): 1143–1151.
  7. ACOG Committee Opinion No. 745 Summary: Mode of Term Singleton Breech Delivery. Obstet Gynecol. 2018; 132(2): 60–63.
  8. Wielgos M, Bomba-Opoń D, Breborowicz GH, et al. Recommendations of the Polish Society of Gynecologists and Obstetricians regarding caesarean sections. Ginekol Pol. 2018; 89(11): 644–657.
  9. ACOG Committee Opinion No. 745 Summary: Mode of Term Singleton Breech Delivery. Obstet Gynecol. 2018; 132(2): 60–63.
  10. Kohls F, Gebauer F, Flentje M, et al. Current Approach for External Cephalic Version in Germany. Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd. 2020; 80(10): 1041–1047.
  11. Harendarczyk L, Riche VP, Arthuis C, et al. Management of external cephalic version in France: A national practice survey. J Gynecol Obstet Hum Reprod. 2022; 51(1): 102239.
  12. Pay AS, Hetlebakke A, Glomsrød MP, et al. Use of external cephalic version for breech presentation at term: A national survey of Norwegian birth units. Sex Reprod Healthc. 2022; 33: 100751.
  13. Vlemmix F, Rosman AN, Fleuren MAH, et al. Implementation of the external cephalic version in breech delivery. Dutch national implementation study of external cephalic version. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2010; 10: 20.
  14. Hakem E, Lindow SW, O'Connell MP, et al. External cephalic version - A 10-year review of practice. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2021; 258: 414–417.
  15. Yaacoub EE, Groves RM, Dawy Z, et al. Survey Methodology, vol. 337. John Wiley & Sons. : 2004.
  16. Strengthening the reporting of observational studies in epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. J Clin Epidemiol. 2008; 61(4): 344–349.
  17. Eysenbach G. Improving the quality of Web surveys: the Checklist for Reporting Results of Internet E-Surveys (CHERRIES). J Med Internet Res. 2004; 6(3): e34.
  18. Polish Supreme Medical Council – data from the obligatory national registry of Physicians. https://nil.org.pl/rejestry/centralny-rejestr-lekarzy/informacje-statystyczne (15.08.2024).
  19. Say R, Thomson R, Robson S, et al. A qualitative interview study exploring pregnant women's and health professionals' attitudes to external cephalic version. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2013; 13: 4.
  20. Romero J, Araico-Rodríguez F, Herrera-Giménez J, et al. How experience influences in External Cephalic Version Success: Longitudinal study. .
  21. Naert MN, Kishkovich TP, Warsame F, et al. Role of individual physicians in success of external cephalic version. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2023; 229(3): 347–349.e1.
  22. Hutton EK, Hannah ME, Barrett J. Use of external cephalic version for breech pregnancy and mode of delivery for breech and twin pregnancy: a survey of Canadian practitioners. J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2002; 24(10): 804–810.
  23. Rosman AN, Vlemmix F, Fleuren MAH, et al. Patients' and professionals' barriers and facilitators to external cephalic version for breech presentation at term, a qualitative analysis in the Netherlands. Midwifery. 2014; 30(3): 324–330.
  24. Onah H, Nkwo P. External Cephalic Version: A Survey of Current Practice Among Nigerian Obstetricians. Tropical Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology. 2005; 21(1).
  25. Kok M, Van Der Steeg JW, Mol BWJ, et al. Which factors play a role in clinical decision-making in external cephalic version? Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2008; 87(1): 31–35.
  26. Betrán AP, Temmerman M, Kingdon C, et al. Interventions to reduce unnecessary caesarean sections in healthy women and babies. Lancet. 2018; 392(10155): 1358–1368.
  27. Coltart T, Edmonds DK, al-Mufti R. External cephalic version at term: a survey of consultant obstetric practice in the United Kingdom and Republic of Ireland. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1997; 104(5): 544–547.
  28. Baumgart H, Wieczorek M, Modzelewski J, et al. 399 Effectiveness and safety of external cephalic version as a method of reducing cesarean sections rates. European Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology and Reproductive Biology. 2022; 270: e105.
  29. Velzel J, de Hundt M, Mulder FM, et al. Prediction models for successful external cephalic version: a systematic review. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2015; 195: 160–167.