open access

Ahead of Print
Research paper
Published online: 2021-08-27
Get Citation

Mode of vaginal delivery in breech presentation and perinatal outcome

Analena Gregorić1, Ana Benčić1, Dubravko Habek23
DOI: 10.5603/GP.a2021.0183
·
Pubmed: 34541651
Affiliations
  1. School of Medicine Zagreb, Zagreb, Croatia
  2. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Clinical Hospital Sveti Duh, Zagreb, Croatia
  3. Catholic University of Croatia, Zagreb, Croatia

open access

Ahead of Print
ORIGINAL PAPERS Obstetrics
Published online: 2021-08-27

Abstract

Objectives: To compare a perinatal outcome in breech presentation depending on different modes of vaginal breech delivery (VBD).

Material and methods: Over the course of 13 years (2005–2018), perinatal outcome of newborns was compared among 98 singleton pregnancies (64 term pregnancies and 34 preterm pregnancies) completed with VBD divided into six groups depending on the mode of delivery used (Bracht, Müller, Thiessen, classical arm release, Mauriceau-Levret-Veit-Smellie (MLVS), and Vermelin´s spontaneous vaginal delivery). Also, maternal demographic parameters were observed.

Results: Of 98 singleton pregnancies, the most frequently used mode was Thiessen (35.71%), followed by MLVS technique (25.51%), Bracht (22.45%), Vermelin (13.27%), classical arm release (2.04%) and Müller (1.02%). Newborns with Apgar score ≤ 7 at 5 min. were transferred to the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU), which included 15.31% of newborns (total 15 newborns: 1 term and 14 preterm newborns). The incidence of episiotomy was 63.27%. Seventy-point five percent of women included in the study were ≤ 35 years of age, and 37.76% were multiparas. Delivery was induced in 7.14% cases.

Conclusions: Less- traumatizing actions during VBD have less harmful consequences and better perinatal outcome. Lower Apgar score was noted with the aggressiveness of the mode of VBD.

Abstract

Objectives: To compare a perinatal outcome in breech presentation depending on different modes of vaginal breech delivery (VBD).

Material and methods: Over the course of 13 years (2005–2018), perinatal outcome of newborns was compared among 98 singleton pregnancies (64 term pregnancies and 34 preterm pregnancies) completed with VBD divided into six groups depending on the mode of delivery used (Bracht, Müller, Thiessen, classical arm release, Mauriceau-Levret-Veit-Smellie (MLVS), and Vermelin´s spontaneous vaginal delivery). Also, maternal demographic parameters were observed.

Results: Of 98 singleton pregnancies, the most frequently used mode was Thiessen (35.71%), followed by MLVS technique (25.51%), Bracht (22.45%), Vermelin (13.27%), classical arm release (2.04%) and Müller (1.02%). Newborns with Apgar score ≤ 7 at 5 min. were transferred to the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU), which included 15.31% of newborns (total 15 newborns: 1 term and 14 preterm newborns). The incidence of episiotomy was 63.27%. Seventy-point five percent of women included in the study were ≤ 35 years of age, and 37.76% were multiparas. Delivery was induced in 7.14% cases.

Conclusions: Less- traumatizing actions during VBD have less harmful consequences and better perinatal outcome. Lower Apgar score was noted with the aggressiveness of the mode of VBD.

Get Citation

Keywords

vaginal delivery; breech presentation; delivery mode; perinatal outcome

About this article
Title

Mode of vaginal delivery in breech presentation and perinatal outcome

Journal

Ginekologia Polska

Issue

Ahead of Print

Article type

Research paper

Published online

2021-08-27

DOI

10.5603/GP.a2021.0183

Pubmed

34541651

Keywords

vaginal delivery
breech presentation
delivery mode
perinatal outcome

Authors

Analena Gregorić
Ana Benčić
Dubravko Habek

References (33)
  1. Plentl AA, Stone RE. The Bracht maneuver. Obstet Gynecol Surv. 1953; 8(3): 313–325.
  2. Thiessen P. Die eigene Geburtsleitung bei Beckenendlage und ihr Gegensatz zur Schul-und Lehrauffassung. Geburtshift Frauenheik. 1964; 24: 661–667.
  3. Dudenhausen JW, Pschyrembel W. Praktische Geburtshilfe. Walter de Gruyter, Berlin 2001.
  4. Büscher U, Dudenhausen JW. Lageanomalien des Fetus in der Schwangerschaft: Beckenendlage. Der Gynäkologe. 2002; 35(1): 69–80.
  5. Hannah ME, Hannah WJ, Hewson SA, et al. Planned caesarean section versus planned vaginal birth for breech presentation at term: a randomised multicentre trial. Term Breech Trial Collaborative Group. Lancet. 2000; 356(9239): 1375–1383.
  6. Whyte H, Hannah ME, Saigal S, et al. Term Breech Trial Collaborative Group.. Outcomes of children at 2 years after planned cesarean birth versus planned vaginal birth for breech presentation at term: the International Randomized Term Breech Trial. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2004; 191(3): 864–871.
  7. Sevelsted A, Stokholm J, Bønnelykke K, et al. Cesarean section and chronic immune disorders. Pediatrics. 2015; 135(1): e92–e98.
  8. Cho CE, Norman M. Cesarean section and development of the immune system in the offspring. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2013; 208(4): 249–254.
  9. Jennewein L, Kielland-Kaisen U, Paul B, et al. Maternal and neonatal outcome after vaginal breech delivery at term of children weighing more or less than 3.8 kg: A FRABAT prospective cohort study. PLoS One. 2018; 13(8): e0202760.
  10. Martin JA, Hamilton BE, Sutton PD, et al. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Births: preliminary data for 2002. Natl Vital Stat Rep. 2003; 51(11): 1–20.
  11. ACOG Committee opinion No. 745 summary: Mode of term singleton breech delivery. Obstet Gynecol. 2018; 132(2): 531–532.
  12. Goffinet F, Carayol M, Foidart JM, et al. PREMODA Study Group. 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(4): 1002–1011.
  13. Alarab M, Regan C, O'Connell MP, et al. Singleton vaginal breech delivery at term: still a safe option. Obstet Gynecol. 2004; 103(3): 407–412.
  14. Giuliani A, Schöll WMJ, Basver A, et al. Mode of delivery and outcome of 699 term singleton breech deliveries at a single center. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2002; 187(6): 1694–1698.
  15. Ghosh MK. Breech presentation: evolution of management. J Reprod Med. 2005; 50(2): 108–116.
  16. Gifford DS, Morton SC, Fiske M, et al. A meta-analysis of infant outcomes after breech delivery. Obstet Gynecol. 1995; 85(6): 1047–1054.
  17. St Saunders NJ. Controversies: the mature breech should be delivered by elective cesarean section. J Perinat Med. 1996; 24(6): 545–551.
  18. Kallianidis AF, Schutte JM, van Roosmalen J, et al. Maternal Mortality and Severe Morbidity Audit Committee of the Netherlands Society of Obstetrics and Gynecology. Maternal mortality after cesarean section in the Netherlands. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2018; 229: 148–152.
  19. Keag O, Norman J, Stock S. Long-term risks and benefits associated with cesarean delivery for mother, baby, and subsequent pregnancies: Systematic review and meta-analysis. PLOS Medicine. 2018; 15(1): e1002494.
  20. Kotaska A, Menticoglou S. No. 384-Management of breech presentation at term. J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2019; 41(8): 1193–1205.
  21. Cunningham FG, Leveno KJ, Bloom SL. Williams Obstetrics 22nd ed. MCGraw- Hill, New York 2005.
  22. Feige A, Krause M. Beckenendlage [Breech]. Urban & Schwarzenberg, Munich 1998.
  23. Toivonen E, Palomäki O, Korhonen P, et al. Impact of the mode of delivery on maternal and neonatal outcome in spontaneous-onset breech labor at 32-36 weeks of gestation: A retrospective cohort study. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2018; 225: 13–18.
  24. Hinnenberg P, Toijonen A, Gissler M, et al. Outcome of small for gestational age-fetuses in breech presentation at term according to mode of delivery: a nationwide, population-based record linkage study. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2019; 299(4): 969–974.
  25. Habek D. Minimally assisted breech delivery. Gynecol Perinatol. 2009; 18(1): 17–22.
  26. Vranjes M, Habek D. Perinatal outcome in breech presentation depending on the mode of vaginal delivery. Fetal Diagn Ther. 2008; 23(1): 54–59.
  27. Louwen F, Daviss BA, Johnson KC, et al. Does breech delivery in an upright position instead of on the back improve outcomes and avoid cesareans? Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2017; 136(2): 151–161.
  28. Bogner G, Strobl M, Schausberger C, et al. Breech delivery in the all fours position: a prospective observational comparative study with classic assistance. J Perinat Med. 2015; 43(6): 707–713.
  29. Gaillard T, Girault A, Alexander S, et al. Is induction of labor a reasonable option for breech presentation? Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2019; 98(7): 885–893.
  30. Macharey G, Ulander VM, Heinonen S, et al. Induction of labor in breech presentations at term: a retrospective observational study. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2016; 293(3): 549–555.
  31. Rojansky N, Tsafrir A, Ophir E, et al. Induction of labor in breech presentation. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2001; 74(2): 151–156.
  32. Yeoh SGJ, Rolnik DL, Regan JA, et al. Experience and confidence in vaginal breech and twin deliveries among obstetric trainees and new specialists in Australia and New Zealand. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 2019; 59(4): 545–549.
  33. Ribeiro K, Sichitiu J, Meuwly JY, et al. [The breech comeback : implementation of a vaginal delivery protocol in the CHUV]. Rev Med Suisse. 2018; 14(624): 1888–1892.

Important: This website uses cookies. More >>

The cookies allow us to identify your computer and find out details about your last visit. They remembering whether you've visited the site before, so that you remain logged in - or to help us work out how many new website visitors we get each month. Most internet browsers accept cookies automatically, but you can change the settings of your browser to erase cookies or prevent automatic acceptance if you prefer.

By "Via Medica sp. z o.o." sp.k., ul. Świętokrzyska 73, 80–180 Gdańsk
tel.:+48 58 320 94 94, faks:+48 58 320 94 60, e-mail:  viamedica@viamedica.pl