breech presentation steps

Warning: The NCBI web site requires JavaScript to function. more...

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it's official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you're on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings
• Browse Titles

NCBI Bookshelf. A service of the National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health.

• Management of breech presentation

Evidence review M

NICE Guideline, No. 201

National Guideline Alliance (UK) .

• Copyright and Permissions

Review question

What is the most effective way of managing a longitudinal lie fetal malpresentation (breech presentation) in late pregnancy?

Introduction

Breech presentation of the fetus in late pregnancy may result in prolonged or obstructed labour with resulting risks to both woman and fetus. Interventions to correct breech presentation (to cephalic) before labour and birth are important for the woman’s and the baby’s health. The aim of this review is to determine the most effective way of managing a breech presentation in late pregnancy.

Summary of the protocol

Please see Table 1 for a summary of the Population, Intervention, Comparison and Outcome (PICO) characteristics of this review.

Summary of the protocol (PICO table).

For further details see the review protocol in appendix A .

Methods and process

This evidence review was developed using the methods and process described in Developing NICE guidelines: the manual 2014 . Methods specific to this review question are described in the review protocol in appendix A .

Declarations of interest were recorded according to NICE’s conflicts of interest policy .

Clinical evidence

Included studies.

Thirty-six randomised controlled trials (RCTs) were identified for this review.

The included studies are summarised in Table 2 .

Three studies reported on external cephalic version (ECV) versus no intervention ( Dafallah 2004 , Hofmeyr 1983 , Rita 2011 ). One study reported on a 4-arm trial comparing acupuncture, sweeping of fetal membranes, acupuncture plus sweeping, and no intervention ( Andersen 2013 ). Two studies reported on postural management versus no intervention ( Chenia 1987 , Smith 1999 ).

Seven studies reported on ECV plus anaesthesia ( Chalifoux 2017 , Dugoff 1999 , Khaw 2015 , Mancuso 2000 , Schorr 1997 , Sullivan 2009 , Weiniger 2010 ). Of these studies, 1 study compared ECV plus anaesthesia to ECV plus other dosages of the same anaesthetic ( Chalifoux 2017 ); 4 studies compared ECV plus anaesthesia to ECV only ( Dugoff 1999 , Mancuso 2000 , Schorr 1997 , Weiniger 2010 ); and 2 studies compared ECV plus anaesthesia to ECV plus a different anaesthetic ( Khaw 2015 , Sullivan 2009 ).

Ten studies reported ECV plus a β2 receptor agonist ( Brocks 1984 , Fernandez 1997 , Hindawi 2005 , Impey 2005 , Mahomed 1991 , Marquette 1996 , Nor Azlin 2005 , Robertson 1987 , Van Dorsten 1981 , Vani 2009 ). Of these studies, 5 studies compared ECV plus a β2 receptor agonist to ECV plus placebo ( Fernandez 1997 , Impey 2005 , Marquette 1996 , Nor Azlin 2005 , Vani 2009 ); 1 study compared ECV plus a β2 receptor agonist to ECV alone ( Robertson 1987 ); and 4 studies compared ECV plus a β2 receptor agonist to no intervention ( Brocks 1984 , Hindawi 2005 , Mahomed 1991 , Van Dorsten 1981 ).

One study reported on ECV plus Ca 2+ channel blocker versus ECV plus placebo ( Kok 2008 ). Two studies reported on ECV plus β2 receptor agonist versus ECV plus Ca 2+ channel blocker ( Collaris 2009 , Mohamed Ismail 2008 ). Four studies reported on ECV plus a µ-receptor agonist ( Burgos 2016 , Liu 2016 , Munoz 2014 , Wang 2017 ), of which 3 compared against ECV plus placebo ( Liu 2016 , Munoz 2014 , Wang 2017 ) and 1 compared to ECV plus nitrous oxide ( Burgos 2016 ).

Four studies reported on ECV plus nitroglycerin ( Bujold 2003a , Bujold 2003b , El-Sayed 2004 , Hilton 2009 ), of which 2 compared it to ECV plus β2 receptor agonist ( Bujold 2003b , El-Sayed 2004 ) and compared it to ECV plus placebo ( Bujold 2003a , Hilton 2009 ). One study compared ECV plus amnioinfusion versus ECV alone ( Diguisto 2018 ) and 1 study compared ECV plus talcum powder to ECV plus gel ( Vallikkannu 2014 ).

One study was conducted in Australia ( Smith 1999 ); 4 studies in Canada ( Bujold 2003a , Bujold 2003b , Hilton 2009 , Marquette 1996 ); 2 studies in China ( Liu 2016 , Wang 2017 ); 2 studies in Denmark ( Andersen 2013 , Brocks 1984 ); 1 study in France ( Diguisto 2018 ); 1 study in Hong Kong ( Khaw 2015 ); 1 study in India ( Rita 2011 ); 1 study in Israel ( Weiniger 2010 ); 1 study in Jordan ( Hindawi 2005 ); 5 studies in Malaysia ( Collaris 2009 , Mohamed Ismail 2008 , Nor Azlin 2005 , Vallikkannu 2014 , Vani 2009 ); 1 study in South Africa ( Hofmeyr 1983 ); 2 studies in Spain ( Burgos 2016 , Munoz 2014 ); 1 study in Sudan ( Dafallah 2004 ); 1 study in The Netherlands ( Kok 2008 ); 2 studies in the UK ( Impey 2005 , Chenia 1987 ); 9 studies in US ( Chalifoux 2017 , Dugoff 1999 , El-Sayed 2004 , Fernandez 1997 , Mancuso 2000 , Robertson 1987 , Schorr 1997 , Sullivan 2009 , Van Dorsten 1981 ); and 1 study in Zimbabwe ( Mahomed 1991 ).

The majority of studies were 2-arm trials, but there was one 3-arm trial ( Khaw 2015 ) and two 4-arm trials ( Andersen 2013 , Chalifoux 2017 ). All studies were conducted in a hospital or an outpatient ward connected to a hospital.

See the literature search strategy in appendix B and study selection flow chart in appendix C .

Excluded studies

Studies not included in this review with reasons for their exclusions are provided in appendix K .

Summary of clinical studies included in the evidence review

Summaries of the studies that were included in this review are presented in Table 2 .

Summary of included studies.

See the full evidence tables in appendix D and the forest plots in appendix E .

Quality assessment of clinical outcomes included in the evidence review

See the evidence profiles in appendix F .

Economic evidence

A systematic review of the economic literature was conducted but no economic studies were identified which were applicable to this review question.

A single economic search was undertaken for all topics included in the scope of this guideline. See supplementary material 2 for details.

Economic studies not included in this review are listed, and reasons for their exclusion are provided in appendix K .

Summary of studies included in the economic evidence review

No economic studies were identified which were applicable to this review question.

Economic model

No economic modelling was undertaken for this review because the committee agreed that other topics were higher priorities for economic evaluation.

Evidence statements

Clinical evidence statements, comparison 1. complementary therapy versus control (no intervention), critical outcomes, cephalic presentation in labour.

No evidence was identified to inform this outcome.

Method of birth

Caesarean section.

• Very low quality evidence from 1 RCT (N=204) showed that there is no clinically important difference between acupuncture and control (no intervention) on the number of caesarean sections in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 0.74 (95% CI 0.38 to 1.43).
• Very low quality evidence from 1 RCT (N=200) showed that there is no clinically important difference between acupuncture plus membrane sweeping and control (no intervention) on the number of caesarean sections in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 1.29 (95% CI 0.73 to 2.29).

Admission to SCBU/NICU

• Very low quality evidence from 1 RCT (N=204) showed that there is no clinically important difference between acupuncture and control (no intervention) on admission to SCBU/NICU in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 0.19 (95% CI 0.02 to 1.62).
• Very low quality evidence from 1 RCT (N=200) showed that there is no clinically important difference between acupuncture plus membrane sweeping and control (no intervention) on admission to SCBU/NICU in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 0.40 (0.08 to 2.01).

Fetal death after 36 +0 weeks gestation

Infant death up to 4 weeks chronological age, important outcomes, apgar score <7 at 5 minutes.

• Very low quality evidence from 1 RCT (N=204) showed that there is no clinically important difference between acupuncture and control (no intervention) on Apgar score <7 at 5 minutes in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 0.32 (95% CI 0.01 to 7.78).
• Very low quality evidence from 1 RCT (N=200) showed that there is no clinically important difference between acupuncture plus membrane sweeping and control (no intervention) on Apgar score <7 at 5 minutes in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 0.33 (0.01 to 8.09).

Birth before 39 +0 weeks of gestation

Comparison 2. complementary therapy versus other treatment.

• Low quality evidence from 1 RCT (N=207) showed that there is no clinically important difference between acupuncture and membrane sweeping on the number of caesarean sections in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 0.64 (95% CI 0.34 to 1.22).
• Low quality evidence from 1 RCT (N=204) showed that there is no clinically important difference between acupuncture and acupuncture plus membrane sweeping on the number of caesarean sections in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 0.57 (95% CI 0.30 to 1.07).
• Very low quality evidence from 1 RCT (N=203) showed that there is no clinically important difference between acupuncture plus membrane sweeping and membrane sweeping on the number of caesarean sections in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 1.13 (95% CI 0.66 to 1.94).
• Very low quality evidence from 1 RCT (N=207) showed that there is no clinically important difference between acupuncture and membrane sweeping on admission to SCBU/NICU in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 0.33 (95% CI 0.03 to 3.12).
• Very low quality evidence from 1 RCT (N=204) showed that there is no clinically important difference between acupuncture and acupuncture plus membrane sweeping on admission to SCBU/NICU in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 0.48 (95% CI 0.04 to 5.22).
• Very low quality evidence from 1 RCT (N=203) showed that there is no clinically important difference between acupuncture plus membrane sweeping and membrane sweeping on admission to SCBU/NICU in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 0.69 (95% CI 0.12 to 4.02).
• Low quality evidence from 1 RCT (N=207) showed that there is no clinically important difference between acupuncture and membrane sweeping on Apgar score <7 at 5 minutes in pregnant women with breech presentation: RD 0.00 (95% CI −0.02 to 0.02).
• Low quality evidence from 1 RCT (N=204) showed that there is no clinically important difference between acupuncture and acupuncture plus membrane sweeping on Apgar score <7 at 5 minutes in pregnant women with breech presentation: RD 0.00 (95% CI −0.02 to 0.02).
• Low quality evidence from 1 RCT (N=203) showed that there is no clinically important difference between acupuncture plus membrane sweeping and membrane sweeping on Apgar score <7 at 5 minutes in pregnant women with breech presentation: RD 0.00 (95% CI −0.02 to 0.02).

Comparison 3. ECV versus no ECV

• Moderate quality evidence from 2 RCTs (N=680) showed that there is clinically important difference favouring ECV over no ECV on cephalic presentation in labour in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 1.83 (95% CI 1.53 to 2.18).

Cephalic vaginal birth

• Very low quality evidence from 3 RCTs (N=740) showed that there is a clinically important difference favouring ECV over no ECV on cephalic vaginal birth in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 1.67 (95% CI 1.20 to 2.31).

Breech vaginal birth

• Very low quality evidence from 2 RCTs (N=680) showed that there is no clinically important difference between ECV and no ECV on breech vaginal birth in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 0.29 (95% CI 0.03 to 2.84).
• Very low quality evidence from 3 RCTs (N=740) showed that there is no clinically important difference between ECV and no ECV on the number of caesarean sections in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 0.52 (95% CI 0.23 to 1.20).
• Very low quality evidence from 1 RCT (N=60) showed that there is no clinically important difference between ECV and no ECV on admission to SCBU//NICU in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 0.50 (95% CI 0.14 to 1.82).
• Very low evidence from 3 RCTs (N=740) showed that there is no statistically significant difference between ECV and no ECV on fetal death after 36 +0 weeks gestation in pregnant women with breech presentation: Peto OR 0.29 (95% CI 0.05 to 1.73) p=0.18.
• Very low quality evidence from 2 RCTs (N=120) showed that there is no clinically important difference between ECV and no ECV on Apgar score <7 at 5 minutes in pregnant women with breech presentation: Peto OR 0.28 (95% CI 0.04 to 1.70).

Comparison 4. ECV + Amnioinfusion versus ECV only

• Very low quality evidence from 1 RCT (N=109) showed that there is no clinically important difference between ECV plus amnioinfusion and ECV alone on cephalic presentation in labour in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 1.74 (95% CI 0.74 to 4.12).
• Low quality evidence from 1 RCT (N=109) showed that there is no clinically important difference between ECV plus amnioinfusion and ECV alone on the number of caesarean sections in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 0.95 (95% CI 0.75 to 1.19).

Comparison 5. ECV + Anaesthesia versus ECV only

• Very low quality evidence from 2 RCTs (N=210) showed that there is no clinically important difference between ECV plus anaesthesia and ECV alone on cephalic presentation in labour in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 1.16 (95% CI 0.56 to 2.41).
• Very low quality evidence from 5 RCTs (N=435) showed that there is no clinically important difference between ECV plus anaesthesia and ECV alone on cephalic vaginal birth in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 1.16 (95% CI 0.77 to 1.74).
• Very low quality evidence from 1 RCT (N=108) showed that there is no clinically important difference between ECV plus anaesthesia and ECV alone on breech vaginal birth in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 0.33 (95% CI 0.04 to 3.10).
• Very low quality evidence from 3 RCTs (N=263) showed that there is no clinically important difference between ECV plus anaesthesia and ECV alone on the number of caesarean sections in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 0.76 (95% CI 0.42 to 1.38).
• Moderate quality evidence from 1 RCT (N=69) showed that there is a clinically important difference favouring ECV plus anaesthesia over ECV alone on admission to SCBU/NICU in pregnant women with breech presentation: MD −1.80 (95% CI −2.53 to −1.07).
• Low quality evidence from 1 RCT (N=126) showed that there is no clinically important difference between ECV plus anaesthesia and ECV alone on Apgar score <7 at 5 minutes in pregnant women with breech presentation: RD 0.00 (95% CI −0.03 to 0.03).

Comparison 6. ECV + Anaesthesia versus ECV + Anaesthesia

• Very low quality evidence from 1 RCT (N=120) showed that there is no clinically important difference between ECV plus 2.5mg Bupivacaine plus 0.015mg Fentanyl and ECV plus 5mg Bupivacaine plus 0.015mg Fentanyl on cephalic vaginal birth in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 1.13 (95% CI 0.73 to 1.74).
• Low quality evidence from 1 RCT (N=119) showed that there is no clinically important difference between ECV plus 2.5mg Bupivacaine plus 0.015mg Fentanyl and ECV plus 7.5mg Bupivacaine plus 0.015mg Fentanyl on cephalic vaginal birth in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 0.81 (95% CI 0.53 to 1.23).
• Very low quality evidence from 1 RCT (N=120) showed that there is no clinically important difference between ECV plus 2.5mg Bupivacaine plus 0.015mg Fentanyl and ECV plus 10mg Bupivacaine plus 0.015mg Fentanyl on cephalic vaginal birth in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 0.96 (95% CI 0.61 to 1.50).
• Very low quality evidence from 1 RCT (N=95) showed that there is no clinically important difference between ECV plus 2.5mg Bupivacaine plus 0.015mg Fentanyl and ECV plus 0.05mg Fentanyl on cephalic vaginal birth in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 0.69 (95% CI 0.37 to 1.28).
• Low quality evidence from 1 RCT (N=119) showed that there is no clinically important difference between ECV plus 5mg Bupivacaine plus 0.015mg Fentanyl and ECV plus 7.5mg Bupivacaine plus 0.015mg Fentanyl on cephalic vaginal birth in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 0.81 (95% CI 0.53 to 1.23).
• Very low quality evidence from 1 RCT (N=120) showed that there is no clinically important difference between ECV plus 5mg Bupivacaine plus 0.015mg Fentanyl and ECV plus 10mg Bupivacaine plus 0.015mg Fentanyl on cephalic vaginal birth in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 0.96 (95% CI 0.61 to 1.50).
• Very low evidence from 1 RCT (N=119) showed that there is no clinically important difference between ECV plus 7.5mg Bupivacaine plus 0.015mg Fentanyl and ECV plus 10mg Bupivacaine plus 0.015mg Fentanyl on cephalic vaginal birth in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 1.19 (95% CI 0.79 to 1.79).
• Low quality evidence from 1 RCT (N=120) showed that there is no clinically important difference between ECV plus 2.5mg Bupivacaine plus 0.015mg Fentanyl and ECV plus 5mg Bupivacaine plus 0.015mg Fentanyl on the number of caesarean sections in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 0.92 (95% CI 0.68 to 1.24).
• Very low evidence from 1 RCT (N=119) showed that there is no clinically important difference between ECV plus 2.5mg Bupivacaine plus 0.015mg Fentanyl and ECV plus 7.5mg Bupivacaine plus 0.015mg Fentanyl on the number of caesarean sections in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 1.08 (95% CI 0.78 to 1.50).
• Very low evidence from 1 RCT (N=120) showed that there is no clinically important difference between ECV plus 2.5mg Bupivacaine plus 0.015mg Fentanyl and ECV plus 10mg Bupivacaine plus 0.015mg Fentanyl on the number of caesarean sections in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 0.94 (95% CI 0.70 to 1.28).
• Low quality evidence from 1 RCT (N=119) showed that there is no clinically important difference between ECV plus 5mg Bupivacaine plus 0.015mg Fentanyl and ECV plus 7.5mg Bupivacaine plus 0.015mg Fentanyl on the number of caesarean sections in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 1.17 (95% CI 0.86 to 1.61).
• Very low quality evidence from 1 RCT (N=120) showed that there is no clinically important difference between ECV plus 5mg Bupivacaine plus 0.015mg Fentanyl and ECV plus 10mg Bupivacaine plus 0.015mg Fentanyl on the number of caesarean sections in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 1.03 (95% CI 0.77 to 1.37).
• Low quality evidence from 1 RCT (N=119) showed that there is no clinically important difference between ECV plus 7.5mg Bupivacaine plus 0.015mg Fentanyl and ECV plus 10mg Bupivacaine plus 0.015mg Fentanyl on the number of caesarean sections in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 0.88 (95% CI 0.64 to 1.20).

Comparison 7. ECV + β2 agonist versus Control (no intervention)

• Moderate quality evidence from 2 RCTs (N=256) showed that there is a clinically important difference favouring ECV plus β2 agonist over control (no intervention) on cephalic presentation in labour in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 4.83 (95% CI 3.27 to 7.11).
• Very low quality evidence from 3 RCTs (N=265) showed that there no clinically important difference between ECV plus β2 agonist and control (no intervention) on cephalic vaginal birth in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 2.03 (95% CI 0.22 to 19.01).
• Very low quality evidence from 4 RCTs (N=513) showed that there is a clinically important difference favouring ECV plus β2 agonist over control (no intervention) on breech vaginal birth in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 0.38 (95% CI 0.20 to 0.69).
• Low quality evidence from 4 RCTs (N=513) showed that there is a clinically important difference favouring ECV plus β2 agonist over control (no intervention) on the number of caesarean sections in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 0.53 (95% CI 0.41 to 0.67).
• Very low quality evidence from 1 RCT (N=48) showed that there is no clinically important difference between ECV plus β2 agonist and control (no intervention) on admission to SCBU/NICU in pregnant women with breech presentation: RD 0.00 (95% CI −0.08 to 0.08).
• Very low quality evidence from 3 RCTs (N=208) showed that there is no statistically significant difference between ECV plus β2 agonist and control (no intervention) on fetal death after 36 +0 weeks gestation in pregnant women with breech presentation: RD −0.01 (95% CI −0.03 to 0.01) p=0.66.
• Very low quality evidence from 2 RCTs (N=208) showed that there is no clinically important difference between ECV plus β2 agonist and control (no intervention) on Apgar score <7 at 5 minutes in pregnant women with breech presentation: Peto OR 0.80 (95% CI 0.31 to 2.10).

Comparison 8. ECV + β2 agonist versus ECV only

• Very low quality evidence from 2 RCTs (N=172) showed that there is no clinically important difference between ECV plus β2 agonist and ECV only on cephalic vaginal birth in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 1.32 (95% CI 0.67 to 2.62).
• Very low quality evidence from 1 RCT (N=58) showed that there is no clinically important difference between ECV plus β2 agonist and ECV only on breech vaginal birth in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 0.75 (95% CI 0.22 to 2.50).
• Very low quality evidence from 2 RCTs (N=172) showed that there is no clinically important difference between ECV plus β2 agonist and ECV only on the number of caesarean sections in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 0.79 (95% CI 0.27 to 2.28).
• Very low quality evidence from 1 RCT (N=114) showed that there is no clinically important difference between ECV plus β2 agonist and ECV only on admission to SCBU/NICU in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 1.00 (95% CI 0.21 to 4.75).

Comparison 9. ECV + β2 agonist versus ECV + Placebo

• Very low quality evidence from 2 RCTs (N=146) showed that there is no clinically important difference between ECV plus β2 agonist and ECV plus placebo on cephalic presentation in labour in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 1.54 (95% CI 0.24 to 9.76).
• Very low quality evidence from 2 RCTs (N=125) showed that there is no clinically important difference between ECV plus β2 agonist and ECV plus placebo on cephalic vaginal birth in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 1.27 (95% CI 0.41 to 3.89).
• Very low quality evidence from 2 RCTs (N=227) showed that there is no clinically important difference between ECV plus β2 agonist and ECV plus placebo on breech vaginal birth in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 1.00 (95% CI 0.33 to 2.97).
• Low quality evidence from 4 RCTs (N=532) showed that there is no clinically important difference between ECV plus β2 agonist and ECV plus placebo on the number of caesarean sections in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 0.81 (95% CI 0.72 to 0.92)
• Very low quality evidence from 2 RCTs (N=146) showed that there is no clinically important difference between ECV plus β2 agonist and ECV plus placebo on admission to SCBU/NICU in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 0.78 (95% CI 0.17 to 3.63).
• Very low quality evidence from 1 RCT (N=124) showed that there is no clinically important difference between ECV plus β2 agonist and ECV plus placebo on Apgar score <7 at 5 minutes in pregnant women with breech presentation: RD 0.00 (95% CI −0.03 to 0.03).

Comparison 10. ECV + Ca 2+ channel blocker versus ECV + Placebo

• Moderate quality evidence from 1 RCT (N=310) showed that there is no clinically important difference between ECV plus Ca 2+ channel blocker and ECV plus placebo on cephalic presentation in labour in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 1.13 (95% CI 0.87 to 1.48).
• Moderate quality evidence from 1 RCT (N=310) showed that there is no clinically important difference between ECV plus Ca 2+ channel blocker and ECV plus placebo on cephalic vaginal birth in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 0.90 (95% CI 0.73 to 1.12).
• Moderate quality evidence from 1 RCT (N=310) showed that there is no clinically important difference between ECV plus Ca 2+ channel blocker and ECV plus placebo on the number of caesarean sections in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 1.11 (95% CI 0.88 to 1.40).
• High quality evidence from 1 RCT (N=310) showed that there is no clinically important difference between ECV plus Ca 2+ channel blocker and ECV plus placebo on admission to SCBU/NICU in pregnant women with breech presentation: MD −0.20 (95% CI −0.70 to 0.30).
• Moderate quality evidence from 1 RCT (N=310) showed that there is no statistically significant difference between ECV plus Ca 2+ channel blocker and ECV plus placebo on fetal death after 36 +0 weeks gestation in pregnant women with breech presentation: RD 0.00 (95% CI −0.01 to 0.01) p=1.00.
• Low quality evidence from 1 RCT (N=310) showed that there is no clinically important difference between ECV plus Ca 2+ channel blocker and ECV plus placebo on Apgar score <7 at 5 minutes in pregnant women with breech presentation: Peto OR 0.52 (95% 0.05 to 5.02).

Comparison 11. ECV + Ca2+ channel blocker versus ECV + β2 agonist

• Low quality evidence from 1 RCT (N=90) showed that there is a clinically important difference favouring ECV plus β2 agonist over ECV plus Ca 2+ channel blocker on cephalic presentation in labour in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 0.62 (95% CI 0.39 to 0.98).
• Very low quality evidence from 2 RCTs (N=126) showed that there is no clinically important difference between ECV plus Ca 2+ channel blocker and ECV plus β2 agonist on cephalic vaginal birth in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 1.26 (95% CI 0.55 to 2.89).
• Very low quality evidence from 2 RCTs (N=132) showed that there is a clinically important difference favouring ECV plus β2 agonist over ECV plus Ca 2+ channel blocker on the number of caesarean sections in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 1.42 (95% CI 1.06 to 1.91).
• Very low quality evidence from 2 RCTs (N=176) showed that there is no clinically important difference between ECV plus Ca 2+ channel blocker and ECV plus β2 agonist on admission to SCBU/NICU in pregnant women with breech presentation: Peto OR 0.53 (95% CI 0.05 to 5.22).
• Very low quality evidence from 2 RCTs (N=176) showed that there is no clinically important difference between ECV plus Ca 2+ channel blocker and ECV plus β2 agonist on Apgar score <7 at 5 minutes in pregnant women with breech presentation: RD 0.00 (95% CI −0.03 to 0.03).

Comparison 12. ECV + µ-receptor agonist versus ECV only

• High quality evidence from 1 RCT (N=80) showed that there is no clinically important difference between ECV plus µ-receptor agonist and ECV alone on cephalic vaginal birth in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 1.00 (95% CI 0.80 to 1.24).
• Low quality evidence from 1 RCT (N=80) showed that there is no clinically important difference between ECV plus µ-receptor agonist and ECV alone on the number of caesarean sections in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 1.00 (95% CI 0.42 to 2.40).
• Low quality evidence from 1 RCT (N=126) showed that there is no clinically important difference between ECV plus µ-receptor agonist and ECV alone on Apgar score <7 at 5 minutes in pregnant women with breech presentation: RD 0.00 (95% CI −0.03 to 0.03).

Comparison 13. ECV + µ-receptor agonist versus ECV + Placebo

Cephalic vaginal birth after successful ecv.

• High quality evidence from 2 RCTs (N=98) showed that there is no clinically important difference between ECV plus µ-receptor agonist and ECV plus placebo on cephalic vaginal birth after successful ECV in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 1.00 (95% CI 0.86 to 1.17).

Caesarean section after successful ECV

• Low quality evidence from 2 RCTs (N=98) showed that there is no clinically important difference between ECV plus µ-receptor agonist and ECV plus placebo on caesarean section after successful ECV in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 0.97 (95% CI 0.33 to 2.84).

Breech vaginal birth after unsuccessful ECV

• High quality evidence from 3 RCTs (N=186) showed that there is a clinically important difference favouring ECV plus µ-receptor agonist over ECV plus placebo on breech vaginal birth after unsuccessful ECV in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 0.10 (95% CI 0.02 to 0.53).

Caesarean section after unsuccessful ECV

• Moderate quality evidence from 3 RCTs (N=186) showed that there is no clinically important difference between ECV plus µ-receptor agonist and ECV plus placebo on caesarean section after unsuccessful ECV in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 1.19 (95% CI 1.09 to 1.31).
• Low quality evidence from 1 RCT (N=137) showed that there is no statistically significant difference between ECV plus µ-receptor agonist and ECV plus placebo on fetal death after 36 +0 weeks gestation in pregnant women with breech presentation: RD 0.00 (95% CI −0.03 to 0.03) p=1.00.

Comparison 14. ECV + µ-receptor agonist versus ECV + Anaesthesia

• Moderate quality evidence from 1 RCT (N=92) showed that there is no clinically important difference between ECV plus µ-receptor agonist and ECV plus anaesthesia on cephalic vaginal birth in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 1.04 (95% CI 0.84 to 1.29).
• Very low quality evidence from 2 RCTs (N=212) showed that there is no clinically important difference between ECV plus µ-receptor agonist and ECV plus anaesthesia on the number of caesarean sections in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 0.90 (95% CI 0.61 to 1.34).
• Very low quality evidence from 1 RCT (N=129) showed that there is no clinically important difference between ECV plus µ-receptor agonist and ECV plus anaesthesia on admission to SCBU/NICU in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 2.30 (95% CI 0.21 to 24.74).
• Low quality evidence from 2 RCTs (N=255) showed that there is no clinically important difference between ECV plus µ-receptor agonist and ECV plus anaesthesia on Apgar score <7 at 5 minutes in pregnant women with breech presentation: RD 0.00 (95% CI −0.02 to 0.02).

Comparison 15. ECV + Nitric oxide donor versus ECV + Placebo

• Very low quality evidence from 3 RCTs (N=224) showed that there is no clinically important difference between ECV plus nitric oxide donor and ECV plus placebo on cephalic presentation in labour in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 1.13 (95% CI 0.59 to 2.16).
• Low quality evidence from 1 RCT (N=99) showed that there is no clinically important difference between ECV plus nitric oxide donor and ECV plus placebo on cephalic vaginal birth in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 0.78 (95% CI 0.49 to 1.22).
• Low quality evidence from 2 RCTs (N=125) showed that there is no clinically important difference between ECV plus nitric oxide donor and ECV plus placebo on the number of caesarean sections in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 0.83 (95% CI 0.68 to 1.01).

Comparison 16. ECV + Nitric oxide donor versus ECV + β2 agonist

• Low quality evidence from 1 RCT (N=74) showed that there is no clinically important difference between ECV plus β2 agonist and ECV plus nitric oxide donor on cephalic presentation in labour in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 0.56 (95% CI 0.29 to 1.09).
• Very low quality evidence from 2 RCTs (N=97) showed that there is no clinically important difference between ECV plus nitric oxide donor and ECV plus β2 agonist on cephalic vaginal birth in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 0.98 (95% CI 0.47 to 2.05).
• Very low quality evidence from 1 RCT (N=59) showed that there is no clinically important difference between ECV plus nitric oxide donor and ECV plus β2 agonist on the number of caesarean sections in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 1.07 (95% CI 0.73 to 1.57).

Comparison 17. ECV + Talcum powder versus ECV + Gel

• Low quality evidence from 1 RCT (N=95) showed that there is no clinically important difference between ECV plus talcum powder and ECV plus gel on cephalic presentation in labour in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 1.02 (95% CI 0.68 to 1.53).
• Low quality evidence from 1 RCT (N=95) showed that there is no clinically important difference between ECV plus talcum powder and ECV plus gel on cephalic vaginal birth in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 1.08 (95% CI 0.67 to 1.74).
• Low quality evidence from 1 RCT (N=95) showed that there is no clinically important difference between ECV plus talcum powder and ECV plus gel on the number of caesarean sections in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 0.94 (95% CI 0.67 to 1.33).
• Low quality evidence from 1 RCT (N=95) showed that there is no clinically important difference between ECV plus talcum powder and ECV plus gel on admission to SCBU/NICU in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 1.96 (95% CI 0.38 to 10.19).

Comparison 18. Postural management versus No postural management

• Low quality evidence from 1 RCT (N=76) showed that there is no clinically important difference between postural management and no postural management on cephalic presentation in labour in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 1.26 (95% CI 0.70 to 2.30).
• Low quality evidence from 1 RCT (N=76) showed that there is no clinically important difference between postural management and no postural management on cephalic vaginal birth in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 1.11 (95% CI 0.59 to 2.07).

Breech vaginal delivery

• Low quality evidence from 1 RCT (N=76) showed that there is no clinically important difference between postural management and no postural management on breech vaginal delivery in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 1.15 (95% CI 0.67 to 1.99).
• Low quality evidence from 1 RCT (N=76) showed that there is no clinically important difference between postural management and no postural management on the number of caesarean sections in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 0.69 (95% CI 0.31 to 1.52).
• Low quality evidence from 1 RCT (N=76) showed that there is no clinically important difference between postural management and no postural management on Apgar score <7 at 5 minutes in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 0.24 (95% CI 0.03 to 2.03).

Comparison 19. Postural management + ECV versus ECV only

• Moderate quality evidence from 1 RCT (N=100) showed that there is no clinically important difference between postural management plus ECV and ECV only on the number of caesarean sections in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 1.05 (95% CI 0.80 to 1.38).
• Low quality evidence from 1 RCT (N=100) showed that there is no clinically important difference between postural management plus ECV and ECV only on Apgar score <7 at 5 minutes in pregnant women with breech presentation: Peto OR 0.13 (95% CI 0.00 to 6.55).

Economic evidence statements

No economic evidence was identified which was applicable to this review question.

The committee’s discussion of the evidence

Interpreting the evidence, the outcomes that matter most.

Provision of antenatal care is important for the health and wellbeing of both mother and baby with the aim of avoiding adverse pregnancy outcomes and enhancing maternal satisfaction and wellbeing. Breech presentation in labour may be associated with adverse outcomes for the fetus, which has contributed to an increased likelihood of caesarean birth. The committee therefore agreed that cephalic presentation in labour and method of birth were critical outcomes for the woman, and admission to SCBU/NICU, fetal death after 36 +0 weeks gestation, and infant death up to 4 weeks chronological age were critical outcomes for the baby. Apgar score <7 at 5 minutes and birth before 39 +0 weeks of gestation were important outcomes for the baby.

The quality of the evidence

The quality of the evidence for interventions for managing a longitudinal lie fetal malpresentation (that is breech presentation) in late pregnancy ranged from very low to high, with most of the evidence being of a very low or low quality.

This was predominately due to serious overall risk of bias in some outcomes; imprecision around the effect estimate in some outcomes; indirect population in some outcomes; and the presence of serious heterogeneity in some outcomes, which was unresolved by subgroup analysis. The majority of included studies had a small sample size, which contributed to imprecision around the effect estimate.

No evidence was identified to inform the outcomes of infant death up to 4 weeks chronological age and birth before 39 +0 weeks of gestation.

There was no publication bias identified in the evidence. However, the committee noted the influence pharmacological developers may have in these trials as funders, and took this into account in their decision making.

Benefits and harms

The committee discussed that in the case of breech presentation, a discussion with the woman about the different options and their potential benefits, harms and implications is needed to ensure an informed decision. The committee discussed that some women may prefer a breech vaginal birth or choose an elective caesarean birth, and that her preferences should be supported, in line with shared decision making.

The committee discussed that external cephalic version is standard practice for managing breech presentation in uncomplicated singleton pregnancies at or after 36+0 weeks. The committee discussed that there could be variation in the success rates of ECV based on the experience of the healthcare professional providing the ECV. There was some evidence supporting the use of ECV for managing a breech presentation in late pregnancy. The evidence showed ECV had a clinically important benefit in terms of cephalic presentations in labour and cephalic vaginal deliveries, when compared to no intervention. The committee noted that the evidence suggested that ECV was not harmful to the baby, although the effect estimate was imprecise relating to the relative rarity of the fetal death as an outcome.

Cephalic (head-down) vaginal birth is preferred by many women and the evidence suggests that external cephalic version is an effective way to achieve this. The evidence suggested ECV increased the chance for a cephalic vaginal birth and the committee agreed that it was important to explain this to the woman during her consultation.

The committee discussed the optimum timing for ECV. Timing of ECV must take into account the likelihood of the baby turning naturally before a woman commences labour and the possibility of the baby turning back to a breech presentation after ECV if it is done too early. The committee noted that in their experience, current practice was to perform ECV at 37 gestational weeks. The majority of the evidence demonstrating a benefit of ECV in this review involved ECV performed around 37 gestational weeks, although the review did not look for studies directly comparing different timings of ECV and their relative success rates.

The evidence in this review excluded women with previous complicated pregnancies, such as those with previous caesarean section or uterine surgery. The committee discussed that a previous caesarean section indicates a complicated pregnancy and that this population of women are not the focus of this guideline, which concentrates on women with uncomplicated pregnancies.

The committee’s recommendations align with other NICE guidance and cross references to the NICE guideline on caesarean birth and the section on breech presenting in labour in the NICE guideline on intrapartum care for women with existing medical conditions or obstetric complications and their babies were made.

ECV combined with pharmacological agents

There were some small studies comparing a variety of pharmacological agents (including β2 agonists, Ca 2+ channel blockers, µ-receptor agonists and nitric oxide donors) given alongside ECV. Overall the evidence typically showed no clinically important benefit of adding any pharmacological agent to ECV except in comparisons with a control arm with no ECV where it was not possible to isolate the effect of the ECV versus the pharmacological agent. The evidence tended toward benefit most for β2 agonists and µ-receptor agonists however there was no consistent or high quality evidence of benefit even for these agents. The committee agreed that although these pharmacological agents are used in practice, there was insufficient evidence to make a recommendation supporting or refuting their use or on which pharmacological agent should be used.

The committee discussed that the evidence suggesting µ-receptor agonist, remifentanil, had a clinically important benefit in terms reducing breech vaginal births after unsuccessful ECV was biologically implausible. The committee noted that this pharmacological agent has strong sedative effects, depending on the dosage, and therefore studies comparing it to a placebo had possible design flaws as it would be obvious to all parties whether placebo or active drug had been received. The committee discussed that the risks associated with using remifentanil such as respiratory depression, likely outweigh any potential added benefit it may have on managing breech presentation.

There was some evidence comparing different anaesthetics together with ECV. Although there was little consistent evidence of benefit overall, one small study of low quality showed a combination of 2% lidocaine and epinephrine via epidural catheter (anaesthesia) with ECV showed a clinically important benefit in terms of cephalic presentations in labour and the method of birth. The committee discussed the evidence and agreed the use of anaesthesia via epidural catheter during ECV was uncommon practice in the UK and could be expensive, overall they agreed the strength of the evidence available was insufficient to support a change in practice.

Postural management

There was limited evidence on postural management as an intervention for managing breech presentation in late pregnancy, which showed no difference in effectiveness. Postural management was defined as ‘knee-chest position for 15 minutes, 3 times a day’. The committee agreed that in their experience women valued trying interventions at home first which might make postural management an attractive option for some women, however, there was no evidence that postural management was beneficial. The committee also noted that in their experience postural management can cause notable discomfort so it is not an intervention without disadvantages.

Cost effectiveness and resource use

A systematic review of the economic literature was conducted but no relevant studies were identified which were applicable to this review question.

The committee’s recommendations to offer external cephalic version reinforces current practice. The committee noted that, compared to no intervention, external cephalic version results in clinically important benefits and that there would also be overall downstream cost savings from lower adverse events. It was therefore the committee’s view that offering external cephalic version is cost effective and would not entail any resource impact.

Andersen 2013

Brocks 1984

Bujold 2003

Burgos 2016

Chalifoux 2017

Chenia 1987

Collaris 2009

Dafallah 2004

Diguisto 2018

Dugoff 1999

El-Sayed 2004

Fernandez 1997

Hindawi 2005

Hilton 2009

Hofmeyr 1983

Mahomed 1991

Mancuso 2000

Marquette 1996

Mohamed Ismail 2008

NorAzlin 2005

Robertson 1987

Schorr 1997

Sullivan 2009

VanDorsten 1981

Vallikkannu 2014

Weiniger 2010

Appendix A. Review protocols

Review protocol for review question: What is the most effective way of managing a longitudinal lie fetal malpresentation (breech presentation) in late pregnancy? (PDF, 260K)

Appendix B. Literature search strategies

Literature search strategies for review question: What is the most effective way of managing a longitudinal lie fetal malpresentation (breech presentation) in late pregnancy? (PDF, 281K)

Appendix C. Clinical evidence study selection

Clinical study selection for: What is the most effective way of managing a longitudinal lie fetal malpresentation (breech presentation) in late pregnancy? (PDF, 113K)

Appendix D. Clinical evidence tables

Clinical evidence tables for review question: What is the most effective way of managing a longitudinal lie fetal malpresentation (breech presentation) in late pregnancy? (PDF, 1.2M)

Appendix E. Forest plots

Forest plots for review question: What is the most effective way of managing a longitudinal lie fetal malpresentation (breech presentation) in late pregnancy? (PDF, 678K)

Appendix F. GRADE tables

GRADE tables for review question: What is the most effective way of managing a longitudinal lie fetal malpresentation (breech presentation) in late pregnancy? (PDF, 1.0M)

Appendix G. Economic evidence study selection

Economic evidence study selection for review question: what is the most effective way of managing a longitudinal lie fetal malpresentation (breech presentation) in late pregnancy, appendix h. economic evidence tables, economic evidence tables for review question: what is the most effective way of managing a longitudinal lie fetal malpresentation (breech presentation) in late pregnancy, appendix i. economic evidence profiles, economic evidence profiles for review question: what is the most effective way of managing a longitudinal lie fetal malpresentation (breech presentation) in late pregnancy, appendix j. economic analysis, economic evidence analysis for review question: what is the most effective way of managing a longitudinal lie fetal malpresentation (breech presentation) in late pregnancy.

No economic analysis was conducted for this review question.

Appendix K. Excluded studies

Excluded clinical and economic studies for review question: what is the most effective way of managing a longitudinal lie fetal malpresentation (breech presentation) in late pregnancy, clinical studies, table 24 excluded studies.

View in own window

Economic studies

No economic evidence was identified for this review.

Appendix L. Research recommendations

Research recommendations for review question: what is the most effective way of managing a longitudinal lie fetal malpresentation (breech presentation) in late pregnancy.

No research recommendations were made for this review question.

Evidence reviews underpinning recommendation 1.2.38

These evidence reviews were developed by the National Guideline Alliance, which is a part of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists

Disclaimer : The recommendations in this guideline represent the view of NICE, arrived at after careful consideration of the evidence available. When exercising their judgement, professionals are expected to take this guideline fully into account, alongside the individual needs, preferences and values of their patients or service users. The recommendations in this guideline are not mandatory and the guideline does not override the responsibility of healthcare professionals to make decisions appropriate to the circumstances of the individual patient, in consultation with the patient and/or their carer or guardian.

Local commissioners and/or providers have a responsibility to enable the guideline to be applied when individual health professionals and their patients or service users wish to use it. They should do so in the context of local and national priorities for funding and developing services, and in light of their duties to have due regard to the need to eliminate unlawful discrimination, to advance equality of opportunity and to reduce health inequalities. Nothing in this guideline should be interpreted in a way that would be inconsistent with compliance with those duties.

NICE guidelines cover health and care in England. Decisions on how they apply in other UK countries are made by ministers in the Welsh Government , Scottish Government , and Northern Ireland Executive . All NICE guidance is subject to regular review and may be updated or withdrawn.

• Cite this Page National Guideline Alliance (UK). Management of breech presentation: Antenatal care: Evidence review M. London: National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE); 2021 Aug. (NICE Guideline, No. 201.)
• PDF version of this title (2.2M)

In this Page

Other titles in this collection.

• NICE Evidence Reviews Collection

Related NICE guidance and evidence

• NICE Guideline 201: Antenatal care

Supplemental NICE documents

• Supplement 1: Methods (PDF)
• Supplement 2: Health economics (PDF)

Related information

• PMC PubMed Central citations
• PubMed Links to PubMed

Similar articles in PubMed

• Review Identification of breech presentation: Antenatal care: Evidence review L [ 2021] Review Identification of breech presentation: Antenatal care: Evidence review L National Guideline Alliance (UK). 2021 Aug
• Vaginal delivery of breech presentation. [J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2009] Vaginal delivery of breech presentation. Kotaska A, Menticoglou S, Gagnon R, MATERNAL FETAL MEDICINE COMMITTEE. J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2009 Jun; 31(6):557-566.
• Review Cephalic version by moxibustion for breech presentation. [Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2005] Review Cephalic version by moxibustion for breech presentation. Coyle ME, Smith CA, Peat B. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2005 Apr 18; (2):CD003928. Epub 2005 Apr 18.
• [Fetal expulsion: Which interventions for perineal prevention? CNGOF Perineal Prevention and Protection in Obstetrics Guidelines]. [Gynecol Obstet Fertil Senol. 2...] [Fetal expulsion: Which interventions for perineal prevention? CNGOF Perineal Prevention and Protection in Obstetrics Guidelines]. Riethmuller D, Ramanah R, Mottet N. Gynecol Obstet Fertil Senol. 2018 Dec; 46(12):937-947. Epub 2018 Oct 28.
• Foetal weight, presentaion and the progress of labour. II. Breech and occipito-posterior presentation related to the baby's weight and the length of the first stage of labour. [J Obstet Gynaecol Br Emp. 1961] Foetal weight, presentaion and the progress of labour. II. Breech and occipito-posterior presentation related to the baby's weight and the length of the first stage of labour. BAINBRIDGE MN, NIXON WC, SMYTH CN. J Obstet Gynaecol Br Emp. 1961 Oct; 68:748-54.

Recent Activity

• Management of breech presentation Management of breech presentation

Your browsing activity is empty.

Activity recording is turned off.

Turn recording back on

Connect with NLM

National Library of Medicine 8600 Rockville Pike Bethesda, MD 20894

Web Policies FOIA HHS Vulnerability Disclosure

Help Accessibility Careers

Management of Breech Presentation (Green-top Guideline No. 20b)

Summary: The aim of this guideline is to aid decision making regarding the route of delivery and choice of various techniques used during delivery. It does not include antenatal or postnatal care. Information regarding external cephalic version is the topic of the separate Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists Green-top Guideline No. 20a,  External Cephalic Version and Reducing the Incidence of Term Breech Presentation .

Breech presentation occurs in 3–4% of term deliveries and is more common in preterm deliveries and nulliparous women. Breech presentation is associated with uterine and congenital abnormalities, and has a significant recurrence risk. Term babies presenting by the breech have worse outcomes than cephalic presenting babies, irrespective of the mode of delivery.

A large reduction in the incidence of planned vaginal breech birth followed publication of the Term Breech Trial. Nevertheless, due to various circumstances vaginal breech births will continue. Lack of experience has led to a loss of skills essential for these deliveries. Conversely, caesarean section can has serious long-term consequences.

COVID disclaimer: This guideline was developed as part of the regular updates to programme of Green-top Guidelines, as outlined in our document  Developing a Green-top Guideline: Guidance for developers , and prior to the emergence of COVID-19.

Version history: This is the fourth edition of this guideline.

Please note that the RCOG Guidelines Committee regularly assesses the need to update the information provided in this publication. Further information on this review is available on request.

Developer declaration of interests:

Mr M Griffiths  is a member of Doctors for a Woman's right to Choose on Abortion. He is an unpaid member of a Quality Standards Advisory Committee at NICE, for which he does receive expenses for related travel, accommodation and meals.

Mr LWM Impey  is Director of Oxford Fetal Medicine Ltd. and a member of the International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology. He also holds patents related to ultrasound processing, which are of no relevance to the Breech guidelines.

Professor DJ Murphy  provides medicolegal expert opinions in Scotland and Ireland for which she is remunerated.

Dr LK Penna:  None declared.

• Access the PDF version of this guideline on Wiley
• Access the web version of this guideline on Wiley

This page was last reviewed 16 March 2017.

6.1 Breech presentation

Presentation of the feet or buttocks of the foetus.

6.1.1 The different breech presentations

• In a complete breech presentation, the legs are tucked, and the foetus is in a crouching position (Figure 6.1a).
• In a frank breech presentation, the legs are extended, raised in front of the torso, with the feet near the head (Figure 6.1b).
• In a footling breech presentation (rare), one or both feet present first, with the buttocks higher up and the lower limbs extended or half-bent (Figure 6.1c).

6.1.2 Diagnosis

• The cephalic pole is palpable in the uterine fundus; round, hard, and mobile; the indentation of the neck can be felt.
• The inferior pole is voluminous, irregular, less hard, and less mobile than the head.
• During labour, vaginal examination reveals a “soft mass” divided by the cleft between the buttocks, with a hard projection at end of the cleft (the coccyx and sacrum).
• After rupture of the membranes: the anus can be felt in the middle of the cleft; a foot may also be felt.
• The clinical diagnosis may be difficult: a hand may be mistaken for a foot, a face for a breech.

6.1.3 Management

Route of delivery.

Before labour, external version (Chapter 7, Section 7.7 ) may be attempted to avoid breech delivery.

If external version is contra-indicated or unsuccessful, the breech position alone – in the absence of any other anomaly – is not, strictly speaking, a dystocic presentation, and does not automatically require a caesarean section. Deliver vaginally, if possible – even if the woman is primiparous.

Breech deliveries must be done in a CEmONC facility, especially for primiparous women.

Favourable factors for vaginal delivery are:

• Frank breech presentation;
• A history of vaginal delivery (whatever the presentation);
• Normally progressing dilation during labour.

The footling breech presentation is a very unfavourable position for vaginal delivery (risk of foot or cord prolapse). In this situation, the route of delivery depends on the number of previous births, the state of the membranes and how far advanced the labour is.

During labour

• Monitor dilation every 2 to 4 hours. 
• If contractions are of good quality, dilation is progressing, and the foetal heart rate is regular, an expectant approach is best. Do not rupture the membranes unless dilation stops.
• If the uterine contractions are inadequate, labour can be actively managed with oxytocin.

Note : if the dilation stales, transfer the mother to a CEmONC facility unless already done, to ensure access to surgical facility for potential caesarean section.

At delivery

• Insert an IV line before expulsion starts.
• Consider episiotomy at expulsion. Episiotomy is performed when the perineum is sufficiently distended by the foetus's buttocks.
• Presence of meconium or meconium-stained amniotic fluid is common during breech delivery and is not necessarily a sign of foetal distress.
• The infant delivers unaided , as a result of the mother's pushing, simply supported by the birth attendant who gently holds the infant by the bony parts (hips and sacrum), with no traction. Do not pull on the legs.

Once the umbilicus is out, the rest of the delivery must be completed within 3 minutes, otherwise compression of the cord will deprive the infant of oxygen. Do not touch the infant until the shoulder blades appear to avoid triggering the respiratory reflex before the head is delivered.

• Monitor the position of the infant's back; impede rotation into posterior position.

Figures 6.2 - Breech delivery

6.1.4 Breech delivery problems

Posterior orientation.

If the infant’s back is posterior during expulsion, take hold of the hips and turn into an anterior position (this is a rare occurrence).

Obstructed shoulders

The shoulders can become stuck and hold back the infant's upper chest and head. This can occur when the arms are raised as the shoulders pass through the mother's pelvis. There are 2 methods for lowering the arms so that the shoulders can descend:

1 - Lovset's manoeuvre

• With thumbs on the infant's sacrum, take hold of the hips and pelvis with the other fingers.
• Turn the infant 90° (back to the left or to the right), to bring the anterior shoulder underneath the symphysis and engage the arm. Deliver the anterior arm.
• Then do a 180° counter-rotation (back to the right or to the left); this engages the posterior arm, which is then delivered.

Figures 6.3 - Lovset's manoeuvre

6.3c  - Delivering the anterior arm and shoulder

2 - Suzor’s manoeuvre

In case the previous method fails:

• Turn the infant 90° (its back to the right or to the left).
• Pull the infant downward: insert one hand along the back to look for the anterior arm. With the operator thumb in the infant armpit and middle finger along the arm, bring down the arm (Figure 6.4a).
• Lift infant upward by the feet in order to deliver the posterior shoulder (Figure 6.4b).

Figures 6.4 - Suzor's manoeuvre

6.4b  - Delivering the posterior shoulder

Head entrapment

The infant's head is bulkier than the body, and can get trapped in the mother's pelvis or soft tissue.

There are various manoeuvres for delivering the head by flexing it, so that it descends properly, and then pivoting it up and around the mother's symphysis. These manoeuvres must be done without delay, since the infant must be allowed to breathe as soon as possible. All these manoeuvres must be performed smoothly, without traction on the infant.

1 - Bracht's manoeuvre

• After the arms are delivered, the infant is grasped by the hips and lifted with two hands toward the mother's stomach, without any traction, the neck pivoting around the symphysis.
• Having an assistant apply suprapubic pressure facilitates delivery of the aftercoming head.

2 - Modified Mauriceau manoeuvre

• Infant's head occiput anterior.
• Kneel to get a good traction angle: 45° downward.
• Support the infant on the hand and forearm, then insert the index and middle fingers, placing them on the infant’s maxilla. Placing the index and middle fingers into the infant’s mouth is not recommended, as this can fracture the mandible.
• Place the index and middle fingers of the other hand on either side of the infant's neck and lower the infant's head to bring the sub-occiput under the symphysis (Figure 6.6a).
• Tip the infant’s head and with a sweeping motion bring the back up toward the mother's abdomen, pivoting the occiput around her symphysis pubis (Figure 6.6b).
• Suprapubic pressure on the infant's head along the pelvic axis helps delivery of the head.
• As a last resort, symphysiotomy (Chapter 5, Section 5.7 ) can be combined with this manoeuvre.

Figures 6.6 - Modified Mauriceau manoeuvre

6.6a - Step 1 Infant straddles the birth attendant's forearm; the head, occiput anterior, is lowered to bring the occiput in contact with the symphysis.

6.6b  - Step 2 The infant's back is tipped up toward the mother's abdomen.

3 - Forceps on aftercoming head 

This procedure can only be performed by an operator experienced in using forceps.

Breech Presentation

• Author: Richard Fischer, MD; Chief Editor: Ronald M Ramus, MD  more...
• Sections Breech Presentation
• Vaginal Breech Delivery
• Cesarean Delivery
• Comparative Studies
• External Cephalic Version
• Conclusions
• Media Gallery

Breech presentation is defined as a fetus in a longitudinal lie with the buttocks or feet closest to the cervix. This occurs in 3-4% of all deliveries. The percentage of breech deliveries decreases with advancing gestational age from 22-25% of births prior to 28 weeks' gestation to 7-15% of births at 32 weeks' gestation to 3-4% of births at term. [ 1 ]

Predisposing factors for breech presentation include prematurity , uterine malformations or fibroids, polyhydramnios , placenta previa , fetal abnormalities (eg, CNS malformations, neck masses, aneuploidy), and multiple gestations . Fetal abnormalities are observed in 17% of preterm breech deliveries and in 9% of term breech deliveries.

Perinatal mortality is increased 2- to 4-fold with breech presentation, regardless of the mode of delivery. Deaths are most often associated with malformations, prematurity, and intrauterine fetal demise .

Types of breeches

The types of breeches are as follows:

Frank breech (50-70%) - Hips flexed, knees extended (pike position)

Complete breech (5-10%) - Hips flexed, knees flexed (cannonball position)

Footling or incomplete (10-30%) - One or both hips extended, foot presenting

Historical considerations

Vaginal breech deliveries were previously the norm until 1959 when it was proposed that all breech presentations should be delivered abdominally to reduce perinatal morbidity and mortality. [ 2 ]

Vaginal breech delivery

Three types of vaginal breech deliveries are described, as follows:

Spontaneous breech delivery: No traction or manipulation of the infant is used. This occurs predominantly in very preterm, often previable, deliveries.

Assisted breech delivery: This is the most common type of vaginal breech delivery. The infant is allowed to spontaneously deliver up to the umbilicus, and then maneuvers are initiated to assist in the delivery of the remainder of the body, arms, and head.

Total breech extraction: The fetal feet are grasped, and the entire fetus is extracted. Total breech extraction should be used only for a noncephalic second twin; it should not be used for a singleton fetus because the cervix may not be adequately dilated to allow passage of the fetal head. Total breech extraction for the singleton breech is associated with a birth injury rate of 25% and a mortality rate of approximately 10%. Total breech extractions are sometimes performed by less experienced accoucheurs when a foot unexpectedly prolapses through the vagina. As long as the fetal heart rate is stable in this situation, it is permissible to manage expectantly to allow the cervix to completely dilate around the breech (see the image below).

Technique and tips for assisted vaginal breech delivery

The fetal membranes should be left intact as long as possible to act as a dilating wedge and to prevent overt cord prolapse .

Oxytocin induction and augmentation are controversial. In many previous studies, oxytocin was used for induction and augmentation, especially for hypotonic uterine dysfunction. However, others are concerned that nonphysiologic forceful contractions could result in an incompletely dilated cervix and an entrapped head.

An anesthesiologist and a pediatrician should be immediately available for all vaginal breech deliveries. A pediatrician is needed because of the higher prevalence of neonatal depression and the increased risk for unrecognized fetal anomalies. An anesthesiologist may be needed if intrapartum complications develop and the patient requires general anesthesia .

Some clinicians perform an episiotomy when the breech delivery is imminent, even in multiparas, as it may help prevent soft tissue dystocia for the aftercoming head (see the images below).

The Pinard maneuver may be needed with a frank breech to facilitate delivery of the legs but only after the fetal umbilicus has been reached. Pressure is exerted in the popliteal space of the knee. Flexion of the knee follows, and the lower leg is swept medially and out of the vagina.

No traction should be exerted on the infant until the fetal umbilicus is past the perineum, after which time maternal expulsive efforts should be used along with gentle downward and outward traction of the infant until the scapula and axilla are visible (see the image below).

Use a dry towel to wrap around the hips (not the abdomen) to help with gentle traction of the infant (see the image below).

An assistant should exert transfundal pressure from above to keep the fetal head flexed.

Once the scapula is visible, rotate the infant 90° and gently sweep the anterior arm out of the vagina by pressing on the inner aspect of the arm or elbow (see the image below).

Rotate the infant 180° in the reverse direction, and sweep the other arm out of the vagina. Once the arms are delivered, rotate the infant back 90° so that the back is anterior (see the image below).

The fetal head should be maintained in a flexed position during delivery to allow passage of the smallest diameter of the head. The flexed position can be accomplished by using the Mauriceau Smellie Veit maneuver, in which the operator's index and middle fingers lift up on the fetal maxillary prominences, while the assistant applies suprapubic pressure (see the image below).

Alternatively, Piper forceps can be used to maintain the head in a flexed position (see the image below).

In many early studies, routine use of Piper forceps was recommended to protect the head and to minimize traction on the fetal neck. Piper forceps are specialized forceps that are placed from below the infant and, unlike conventional forceps, are not tailored to the position of the fetal head (ie, it is a pelvic, not cephalic, application). The forceps are applied while the assistant supports the fetal body in a horizontal plane.

During delivery of the head, avoid extreme elevation of the body, which may result in hyperextension of the cervical spine and potential neurologic injury (see the images below).

Lower Apgar scores, especially at 1 minute, are more common with vaginal breech deliveries. Many advocate obtaining an umbilical cord artery and venous pH for all vaginal breech deliveries to document that neonatal depression is not due to perinatal acidosis.

Fetal head entrapment may result from an incompletely dilated cervix and a head that lacks time to mold to the maternal pelvis. This occurs in 0-8.5% of vaginal breech deliveries. [ 3 ] This percentage is higher with preterm fetuses (< 32 wk), when the head is larger than the body. Dührssen incisions (ie, 1-3 cervical incisions made to facilitate delivery of the head) may be necessary to relieve cervical entrapment. However, extension of the incision can occur into the lower segment of the uterus, and the operator must be equipped to deal with this complication. The Zavanelli maneuver has been described, which involves replacement of the fetus into the abdominal cavity followed by cesarean delivery. While success has been reported with this maneuver, fetal injury and even fetal death have occurred.

Nuchal arms, in which one or both arms are wrapped around the back of the neck, are present in 0-5% of vaginal breech deliveries and in 9% of breech extractions. [ 3 ] Nuchal arms may result in neonatal trauma (including brachial plexus injuries) in 25% of cases. Risks may be reduced by avoiding rapid extraction of the infant during delivery of the body. To relieve nuchal arms when it is encountered, rotate the infant so that the fetal face turns toward the maternal symphysis pubis (in the direction of the impacted arm); this reduces the tension holding the arm around the back of the fetal head, allowing for delivery of the arm.

Cervical spine injury is predominantly observed when the fetus has a hyperextended head prior to delivery. Ballas and Toaff (1976) reported 20 cases of hyperextended necks, defined as an angle of extension greater than 90° ("star-gazing"), discovered on antepartum radiographs. [ 4 ] Of the 11 fetuses delivered vaginally, 8 (73%) sustained complete cervical spinal cord lesions, defined as either transection or nonfunction.

Cord prolapse may occur in 7.4% of all breech labors. This incidence varies with the type of breech: 0-2% with frank breech, 5-10% with complete breech, and 10-25% with footling breech. [ 3 ] Cord prolapse occurs twice as often in multiparas (6%) than in primigravidas (3%). Cord prolapse may not always result in severe fetal heart rate decelerations because of the lack of presenting parts to compress the umbilical cord (ie, that which predisposes also protects).

Prior to the 2001 recommendations by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), approximately 50% of breech presentations were considered candidates for vaginal delivery. Of these candidates, 60-82% were successfully delivered vaginally.

Candidates can be classified based on gestational age. For pregnancies prior to 26 weeks' gestation, prematurity, not mode of delivery, is the greatest risk factor. Unfortunately, no randomized clinical trials to help guide clinical management have been reported. Vaginal delivery can be considered, but a detailed discussion of the risks from prematurity and the lack of data regarding the ideal mode of delivery should take place with the parent(s). For example, intraventricular hemorrhage, which can occur in an infant of extremely low birth weight, should not be misinterpreted as proof of a traumatic vaginal breech delivery.

For pregnancies between 26 and 32 weeks, retrospective studies suggest an improved outcome with cesarean delivery, although these reports are subject to selection bias. In contrast, between 32 and 36 weeks' gestation, vaginal breech delivery may be considered after a discussion of risks and benefits with the parent(s).

After 37 weeks' gestation, parents should be informed of the results of a multicenter randomized clinical trial that demonstrated significantly increased perinatal mortality and short-term neonatal morbidity associated with vaginal breech delivery (see Comparative Studies). For those attempting vaginal delivery, if estimated fetal weight (EFW) is more than 4000 g, some recommend cesarean delivery because of concern for entrapment of the unmolded head in the maternal pelvis, although data to support this practice are limited.

A frank breech presentation is preferred when vaginal delivery is attempted. Complete breeches and footling breeches are still candidates, as long as the presenting part is well applied to the cervix and both obstetrical and anesthesia services are readily available in the event of a cord prolapse.

The fetus should show no neck hyperextension on antepartum ultrasound imaging (see the image below). Flexed or military position is acceptable.

Regarding prior cesarean delivery, a retrospective study by Ophir et al of 71 women with one prior low transverse cesarean delivery who subsequently delivered a breech fetus found that 24 women had an elective repeat cesarean and 47 women had a trial of labor. [ 5 ] In the 47 women with a trial of labor, 37 (78.7%) resulted in a vaginal delivery. Two infants in the trial of labor group had nuchal arms (1 with a transient brachial plexus injury) and 1 woman required a hysterectomy for hemorrhage due to a uterine dehiscence discovered after vaginal delivery. Vaginal breech delivery after one prior cesarean delivery is not contraindicated, though larger studies are needed.

Primigravida versus multiparous

It had been commonly believed that primigravidas with a breech presentation should have a cesarean delivery, although no data (prospective or retrospective) support this view. The only documented risk related to parity is cord prolapse, which is 2-fold higher in parous women than in primigravid women.

Radiographic and CT pelvimetry

Historically, radiograph pelvimetry was believed to be useful to quantitatively assess the inlet and mid pelvis. Recommended pelvimetry criteria included a transverse inlet diameter larger than 11.5 cm, anteroposterior inlet diameter larger than 10.5 cm, transverse midpelvic diameter (between the ischial spines) larger than 10 cm, and anteroposterior midpelvic diameter larger than 11.5 cm. However, radiographic pelvimetry is rarely, if ever, used in the United States.

CT pelvimetry , which is associated with less fetal radiation exposure than conventional radiographic pelvimetry, was more recently advocated by some investigators. It, too, is rarely used today.

Ultimately, if the obstetrical operator is not experienced or comfortable with vaginal breech deliveries, cesarean delivery may be the best choice. Unfortunately, with the dwindling number of experienced obstetricians who still perform vaginal breech deliveries and who can teach future generations of obstetricians, this technique may soon be lost due to attrition.

In 1970, approximately 14% of breeches were delivered by cesarean delivery. By 1986, that rate had increased to 86%. In 2003, based on data from the National Center for Health Statistics, the rate of cesarean delivery for all breech presentations was 87.2%. Most of the remaining breeches delivered vaginally were likely second twins, fetal demises, and precipitous deliveries. However, the rise in cesarean deliveries for breeches has not necessarily equated with an improvement in perinatal outcome. Green et al compared the outcome for term breeches prior to 1975 (595 infants, 22% cesarean delivery rate for breeches) with those from 1978-1979 (164 infants, 94% cesarean delivery rate for breeches). [ 6 ] Despite the increase in rates of cesarean delivery, the differences in rates of asphyxia, birth injury, and perinatal deaths were not significant.

Maneuvers for cesarean delivery are similar to those for vaginal breech delivery, including the Pinard maneuver, wrapping the hips with a towel for traction, head flexion during traction, rotation and sweeping out of the fetal arms, and the Mauriceau Smellie Veit maneuver.

An entrapped head can still occur during cesarean delivery as the uterus contracts after delivery of the body, even with a lower uterine segment that misleadingly appears adequate prior to uterine incision. Entrapped heads occur more commonly with preterm breeches, especially with a low transverse uterine incision. As a result, some practitioners opt to perform low vertical uterine incisions for preterm breeches prior to 32 weeks' gestation to avoid head entrapment and the kind of difficult delivery that cesarean delivery was meant to avoid. Low vertical incisions usually require extension into the corpus, resulting in cesarean delivery for all future deliveries.

If a low transverse incision is performed, the physician should move quickly once the breech is extracted in order to deliver the head before the uterus begins to contract. If any difficulty is encountered with delivery of the fetal head, the transverse incision can be extended vertically upward (T incision). Alternatively, the transverse incision can be extended laterally and upward, taking great care to avoid trauma to the uterine arteries. A third option is the use of a short-acting uterine relaxant (eg, nitroglycerin) in an attempt to facilitate delivery.

Only 3 randomized studies have evaluated the mode of delivery of the term breech. All other studies were nonrandomized or retrospective, which may be subject to selection bias.

In 1980, Collea et al randomized 208 women in labor with term frank breech presentations to either elective cesarean delivery or attempted vaginal delivery after radiographic pelvimetry. [ 7 ] Oxytocin was allowed for dysfunctional labor. Of the 60 women with adequate pelves, 49 delivered vaginally. Two neonates had transient brachial plexus injuries. Women randomized to elective cesarean delivery had higher postpartum morbidity rates (49.3% vs 6.7%).

In 1983, Gimovsky et al randomized 105 women in labor with term nonfrank breech presentations to a trial of labor versus elective cesarean delivery. [ 8 ] In this group of women, 47 had complete breech presentations, 16 had incomplete breech presentations (hips flexed, 1 knee extended/1 knee flexed), 32 had double-footling presentations, and 10 had single-footling presentations. Oxytocin was allowed for dysfunctional labor. Of the labor group, 44% had successful vaginal delivery. Most cesarean deliveries were performed for inadequate pelvic dimensions on radiographic pelvimetry. The rate of neonatal morbidity did not differ between neonates delivered vaginally and those delivered by cesarean delivery, although a higher maternal morbidity rate was noted in the cesarean delivery group.

In 2000, Hannah and colleagues completed a large, multicenter, randomized clinical trial involving 2088 term singleton fetuses in frank or complete breech presentations at 121 institutions in 26 countries. [ 9 ] In this study, popularly known as the Term Breech Trial, subjects were randomized into a planned cesarean delivery group or a planned vaginal birth group. Exclusion criteria were estimated fetal weight (EFW) more than 4000 g, hyperextension of the fetal head, lethal fetal anomaly or anomaly that might result in difficulty with delivery, or contraindication to labor or vaginal delivery (eg, placenta previa ).

Subjects randomized to cesarean delivery were scheduled to deliver after 38 weeks' gestation unless conversion to cephalic presentation had occurred. Subjects randomized to vaginal delivery were treated expectantly until labor ensued. Electronic fetal monitoring was either continuous or intermittent. Inductions were allowed for standard obstetrical indications, such as postterm gestations. Augmentation with oxytocin was allowed in the absence of apparent fetopelvic disproportion, and epidural analgesia was permitted.

Adequate labor was defined as a cervical dilation rate of 0.5 cm/h in the active phase of labor and the descent of the breech fetus to the pelvic floor within 2 hours of achieving full dilation. Vaginal delivery was spontaneous or assisted and was attended by an experienced obstetrician. Cesarean deliveries were performed for inadequate progress of labor, nonreassuring fetal heart rate, or conversion to footling breech. Results were analyzed by intent-to-treat (ie, subjects were analyzed by randomization group, not by ultimate mode of delivery).

Of 1041 subjects in the planned cesarean delivery group, 941 (90.4%) had cesarean deliveries. Of 1042 subjects in the planned vaginal delivery group, 591 (56.7%) had vaginal deliveries. Indications for cesarean delivery included: fetopelvic disproportion or failure to progress in labor (226), nonreassuring fetal heart rate tracing (129), footling breech (69), request for cesarean delivery (61), obstetrical or medical indications (45), or cord prolapse (12).

The composite measurement of either perinatal mortality or serious neonatal morbidity by 6 weeks of life was significantly lower in the planned cesarean group than in the planned vaginal group (5% vs 1.6%, P < .0001). Six of 16 neonatal deaths were associated with difficult vaginal deliveries, and 4 deaths were associated with fetal heart rate abnormalities. The reduction in risk in the cesarean group was even greater in participating countries with overall low perinatal mortality rates as reported by the World Health Organization. The difference in perinatal outcome held after controlling for the experience level of the obstetrician. No significant difference was noted in maternal mortality or serious maternal morbidity between the 2 groups within the first 6 weeks of delivery (3.9% vs 3.2%, P = .35).

A separate analysis showed no difference in breastfeeding, sexual relations, or depression at 3 months postpartum, though the reported rate of urinary incontinence was higher in the planned vaginal group (7.3% vs 4.5%).

Based on the multicenter trial, the ACOG published a Committee Opinion in 2001 that stated "planned vaginal delivery of a singleton term breech may no longer be appropriate." This did not apply to those gravidas presenting in advanced labor with a term breech and imminent delivery or to a nonvertex second twin.

A follow-up study by Whyte et al was conducted in 2004 on 923 children who were part of the initial multicenter study. [ 10 ] The authors found no differences between the planned cesarean delivery and planned vaginal breech delivery groups with regards to infant death rates or neurodevelopmental delay by age 2 years. Similarly, among 917 participating mothers from the original trial, no substantive differences were apparent in maternal outcome between the 2 groups. [ 11 ] No longer-term maternal effects, such as the impact of a uterine scar on future pregnancies, have yet been reported.

A meta-analysis of the 3 above mentioned randomized trials was published in 2015. The findings included a reduction in perinatal/neonatal death, reduced composite short-term outcome of perinatal/neonatal death or serious neonatal morbidity with planned cesarean delivery versus planned vaginal delivery. [ 12 ] However, at 2 years of age, there was no significant difference in death or neurodevelopmental delay between the two groups.  Maternal outcomes assessed at 2 years after delivery were not significantly different.

With regard to preterm breech deliveries, only one prospective randomized study has been performed, which included only 38 subjects (28-36 wk) with preterm labor and breech presentation. [ 13 ] Of these subjects, 20 were randomized to attempted vaginal delivery and 18 were randomized to immediate cesarean delivery. Of the attempted vaginal delivery group, 25% underwent cesarean delivery for nonreassuring fetal heart rate tracings. Five neonatal deaths occurred in the vaginal delivery group, and 1 neonatal death occurred in the cesarean delivery group. Two neonates died from fetal anomalies, 3 from respiratory distress, and 1 from sepsis.

Nonanomalous infants who died were not acidotic at delivery and did not have birth trauma. Differences in Apgar scores were not significant, although the vaginal delivery group had lower scores. The small number of enrolled subjects precluded any definitive conclusions regarding the safety of vaginal breech delivery for a preterm breech.

Retrospective analyses showed a higher mortality rate in vaginal breech neonates weighing 750-1500 g (26-32 wk), but less certain benefit was shown with cesarean delivery if the fetal weight was more than 1500 g (approximately 32 wk). Therefore, this subgroup of very preterm infants (26-32 wk) may benefit from cesarean delivery, although this recommendation is based on potentially biased retrospective data.

A large cohort study was published in 2015 from the Netherlands Perinatal Registry, which included 8356 women with a preterm (26-36 6/7 weeks) breech from 2000 to 2011, over three quarters of whom intended to deliver vaginally. In this overall cohort, there was no significant difference in perinatal mortality between the planned vaginal delivery and planned cesarean delivery groups (adjusted odds ratio 0.97, 95% confidence interval 0.60 – 1.57).  However, the subgroup delivering at 28 to 32 weeks had a lower perinatal mortality with planned cesarean section (aOR 0.27, 95% CI 0.10 – 0.77).  After adding a composite of perinatal morbidity, planned cesarean delivery was associated with a better outcome than a planned vaginal delivery (aOR 0.77, 95% CI 0.63 – 0.93. [ 14 ]

A Danish study found that nulliparous women with a singleton breech presentation who had a planned vaginal delivery were at significantly higher risk for postoperative complications, such as infection, compared with women who had a planned cesarean delivery. This increased risk was due to the likelihood of conversion to an emergency cesarean section, which occurred in over 69% of the planned vaginal deliveries in the study. [ 15 ]

The Maternal-Fetal Medicine Units Network of the US National Institute of Child Health and Human Development considered a multicenter randomized clinical trial of attempted vaginal delivery versus elective cesarean delivery for 24- to 28-week breech fetuses. [ 16 ] However, it was not initiated because of anticipated difficulty with recruitment, inadequate numbers to show statistically significant differences, and medicolegal concerns. Therefore, this study is not likely to be performed.

External cephalic version (ECV) is the transabdominal manual rotation of the fetus into a cephalic presentation.

Initially popular in the 1960s and 1970s, ECV virtually disappeared after reports of fetal deaths following the procedure. Reintroduced to the United States in the 1980s, it became increasingly popular in the 1990s.

Improved outcome may be related to the use of nonstress tests both before and after ECV, improved selection of low-risk fetuses, and Rh immune globulin to prevent isoimmunization.

Prepare for the possibility of cesarean delivery. Obtain a type and screen as well as an anesthesia consult. The patient should have nothing by mouth for at least 8 hours prior to the procedure. Recent ultrasonography should have been performed for fetal position, to check growth and amniotic fluid volume, to rule out a placenta previa, and to rule out anomalies associated with breech. Another sonogram should be performed on the day of the procedure to confirm that the fetus is still breech.

A nonstress test (biophysical profile as backup) should be performed prior to ECV to confirm fetal well-being.

Perform ECV in or near a delivery suite in the unlikely event of fetal compromise during or following the procedure, which may require emergent delivery.

ECV can be performed with 1 or 2 operators. Some prefer to have an assistant to help turn the fetus, elevate the breech out of the pelvis, or to monitor the position of the baby with ultrasonography. Others prefer a single operator approach, as there may be better coordination between the forces that are raising the breech and moving the head.

ECV is accomplished by judicious manipulation of the fetal head toward the pelvis while the breech is brought up toward the fundus. Attempt a forward roll first and then a backward roll if the initial attempts are unsuccessful. No consensus has been reached regarding how many ECV attempts are appropriate at one time. Excessive force should not be used at any time, as this may increase the risk of fetal trauma.

Following an ECV attempt, whether successful or not, repeat the nonstress test (biophysical profile if needed) prior to discharge. Also, administer Rh immune globulin to women who are Rh negative. Some physicians traditionally induce labor following successful ECV. However, as virtually all of these recently converted fetuses are unengaged, many practitioners will discharge the patient and wait for spontaneous labor to ensue, thereby avoiding the risk of a failed induction of labor. Additionally, as most ECV’s are attempted prior to 39 weeks, as long as there are no obstetrical or medical indications for induction, discharging the patient to await spontaneous labor would seem most prudent.

In those with an unsuccessful ECV, the practitioner has the option of sending the patient home or proceeding with a cesarean delivery. Expectant management allows for the possibility of spontaneous version. Alternatively, cesarean delivery may be performed at the time of the failed ECV, especially if regional anesthesia is used and the patient is already in the delivery room (see Regional anesthesia). This would minimize the risk of a second regional analgesia.

In those with an unsuccessful ECV, the practitioner may send the patient home, if less than 39 weeks, with plans for either a vaginal breech delivery or scheduled cesarean after 39 weeks. Expectant management allows for the possibility of a spontaneous version. Alternatively, if ECV is attempted after 39 weeks, cesarean delivery may be performed at the time of the failed ECV, especially if regional anesthesia is used and the patient is already in the delivery room (see Regional anesthesia). This would minimize the risk of a second regional analgesia.

Success rate

Success rates vary widely but range from 35% to 86% (average success rate in the 2004 National Vital Statistics was 58%). Improved success rates occur with multiparity, earlier gestational age, frank (versus complete or footling) breech presentation, transverse lie, and in African American patients.

Opinions differ regarding the influence of maternal weight, placental position, and amniotic fluid volume. Some practitioners find that thinner patients, posterior placentas, and adequate fluid volumes facilitate successful ECV. However, both patients and physicians need to be prepared for an unsuccessful ECV; version failure is not necessarily a reflection of the skill of the practitioner.

Zhang et al reviewed 25 studies of ECV in the United States, Europe, Africa, and Israel. [ 17 ] The average success rate in the United States was 65%. Of successful ECVs, 2.5% reverted back to breech presentation (other estimates range from 3% to 5%), while 2% of unsuccessful ECVs had spontaneous version to cephalic presentation prior to labor (other estimates range from 12% to 26%). Spontaneous version rates depend on the gestational age when the breech is discovered, with earlier breeches more likely to undergo spontaneous version.

A prospective study conducted in Germany by Zielbauer et al demonstrated an overall success rate of 22.4% for ECV among 353 patients with a singleton fetus in breech presentation. ECV was performed at 38 weeks of gestation. Factors found to increase the likelihood of success were a later week of gestation, abundant amniotic fluid, fundal and anterior placental location, and an oblique lie. [ 18 ]

A systematic review in 2015 looked at the effectiveness of ECV with eight randomized trials of ECV at term. Compared to women with no attempt at ECV, ECV reduced non-cephalic presentation at birth by 60% and reduced cesarean sections by 40% in the same group. [ 19 ] Although the rate of cesarean section is lower when ECV is performed than if not, the overall rate of cesarean section remains nearly twice as high after successful ECV due to both dystocia and non-reassuring fetal heart rate patterns. [ 20 ]  Nulliparity was the only factor shown in follow-up to increase the risk of instrumental delivery following successful ECV. [ 21 ]

While most studies of ECV have been performed in university hospitals, Cook showed that ECV has also been effective in the private practice setting. [ 22 ] Of 65 patients with term breeches, 60 were offered ECV. ECV was successful in 32 (53%) of the 60 patients, with vaginal delivery in 23 (72%) of the 32 patients. Of the remaining breech fetuses believed to be candidates for vaginal delivery, 8 (80%) had successful vaginal delivery. The overall vaginal delivery rate was 48% (31 of 65 patients), with no significant morbidity.

Cost analysis

In 1995, Gifford et al performed a cost analysis of 4 options for breech presentations at term: (1) ECV attempt on all breeches, with attempted vaginal breech delivery for selected persistent breeches; (2) ECV on all breeches, with cesarean delivery for persistent breeches; (3) trial of labor for selected breeches, with scheduled cesarean delivery for all others; and (4) scheduled cesarean delivery for all breeches prior to labor. [ 23 ]

ECV attempt on all breeches with attempted vaginal breech delivery on selected persistent breeches was associated with the lowest cesarean delivery rate and was the most cost-effective approach. The second most cost-effective approach was ECV attempt on all breeches, with cesarean delivery for persistent breeches.

Uncommon risks of ECV include fractured fetal bones, precipitation of labor or premature rupture of membranes , abruptio placentae , fetomaternal hemorrhage (0-5%), and cord entanglement (< 1.5%). A more common risk of ECV is transient slowing of the fetal heart rate (in as many as 40% of cases). This risk is believed to be a vagal response to head compression with ECV. It usually resolves within a few minutes after cessation of the ECV attempt and is not usually associated with adverse sequelae for the fetus.

Trials have not been large enough to determine whether the overall risk of perinatal mortality is increased with ECV. The Cochrane review from 2015 reported perinatal death in 2 of 644 in ECV and 6 of 661 in the group that did not attempt ECV. [ 19 ]

A 2016 Practice Bulletin by ACOG recommended that all women who are near term with breech presentations should be offered an ECV attempt if there are no contraindications (see Contraindications below). [ 24 ]  ACOG guidelines issued in 2020 recommend that ECV should be performed starting at 37+0 weeks, in order to reduce the likelihood of reversion and to increase the rate of spontaneous version. [ 25 ]

ACOG recommends that ECV be offered as an alternative to a planned cesarean section for a patient who has a term singleton breech fetus, wishes to have a planned vaginal delivery of a vertex-presenting fetus, and has no contraindications. ACOG also advises that ECV be attempted only in settings where cesarean delivery services are available. [ 26 ]

ECV is usually not performed on preterm breeches because they are more likely to undergo spontaneous version to cephalic presentation and are more likely to revert to breech after successful ECV (approximately 50%). Earlier studies of preterm ECV did not show a difference in the rates of breech presentations at term or overall rates of cesarean delivery. Additionally, if complications of ECV were to arise that warranted emergent delivery, it would result in a preterm neonate with its inherent risks. The Early External Cephalic Version (ECV) 2 trial was an international, multicentered, randomized clinical trial that compared ECV performed at 34-35 weeks’ gestation compared with 37 weeks’ gestation or more. [ 27 ] Early ECV increased the chance of cephalic presentation at birth; however, no difference in cesarean delivery rates was noted, along with a nonstatistical increase in preterm births.

A systematic review looked at 5 studies of ECV completed prior to 37 weeks and concluded that compared with no ECV attempt, ECV commenced before term reduces the non-cephalic presentation at birth, however early ECV may increase the risk of late preterm birth. [ 28 ]

Given the increasing awareness of the risks of late preterm birth and early term deliveries, the higher success of earlier ECV should be weighed against the risks of iatrogenic prematurity should a complication arise necessitating delivery.

Contraindications

Absolute contraindications for ECV include multiple gestations with a breech presenting fetus, contraindications to vaginal delivery (eg, herpes simplex virus infection, placenta previa), and nonreassuring fetal heart rate tracing.

Relative contraindications include polyhydramnios or oligohydramnios , fetal growth restriction , uterine malformation , and major fetal anomaly.

Controversial candidates

Women with prior uterine incisions may be candidates for ECV, but data are scant. In 1991, Flamm et al attempted ECV on 56 women with one or more prior low transverse cesarean deliveries. [ 29 ] The success rate of ECV was 82%, with successful vaginal births in 65% of patients with successful ECVs. No uterine ruptures occurred during attempted ECV or subsequent labor, and no significant fetal complications occurred.

In 2010 ACOG acknowledged that although there is limited data in both the above study and one more recently, [ 30 ] no serious adverse events occurred in these series. A larger prospective cohort study that was published in 2014 reported similar success rates of ECV among women with and without prior cesarean section, although lower vaginal birth rates. There were, however, no cases of uterine rupture or other adverse outcomes. [ 31 ]

Another controversial area is performing ECV on a woman in active labor. In 1985, Ferguson and Dyson reported on 15 women in labor with term breeches and intact membranes. [ 32 ] Four patients were dilated greater than 5 cm (2 women were dilated 8 cm). Tocolysis was administered, and intrapartum ECV was attempted. ECV was successful in 11 of 15 patients, with successful vaginal births in 10 patients. No adverse effects were noted. Further studies are needed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of intrapartum ECV.

Data regarding the benefit of intravenous or subcutaneous beta-mimetics in improving ECV rates are conflicting.

In 1996, Marquette et al performed a prospective, randomized, double-blinded study on 283 subjects with breech presentations between 36 and 41 weeks' gestation. [ 33 ] Subjects received either intravenous ritodrine or placebo. The success rate of ECV was 52% in the ritodrine group versus 42% in the placebo group ( P = .35). When only nulliparous subjects were analyzed, significant differences were observed in the success of ECV (43% vs 25%, P < .03). ECV success rates were significantly higher in parous versus nulliparous subjects (61% vs 34%, P < .0001), with no additional improvement with ritodrine.

A systematic review published in 2015 of six randomized controlled trials of ECV that compared the use of parenteral beta-mimetic tocolysis during ECV concluded that tocolysis was effective in increasing the rate of cephalic presentation in labor and reducing the cesarean delivery rate by almost 25% in both nulliparous and multiparous women. [ 34 ] Data on adverse effects and other tocolytics was insufficient. A review published in 2011 on Nifedipine did not show an improvement in ECV success. [ 35 ]

Regional anesthesia

Regional analgesia, either epidural or spinal, may be used to facilitate external cephalic version (ECV) success. When analgesia levels similar to that for cesarean delivery are given, it allows relaxation of the anterior abdominal wall, making palpation and manipulation of the fetal head easier. Epidural or spinal analgesia also eliminates maternal pain that may cause bearing down and tensing of the abdominal muscles. If ECV is successful, the epidural can be removed and the patient sent home to await spontaneous labor. If ECV is unsuccessful, a patient can proceed to cesarean delivery under her current anesthesia, if the gestational age is more than 39 weeks.

The main disadvantage is the inherent risk of regional analgesia, which is considered small. Additionally, lack of maternal pain could potentially result in excessive force being applied to the fetus without the knowledge of the operator.

In 1994, Carlan et al retrospectively analyzed 61 women who were at more than 36 weeks' gestation and had ECV with or without epidural. [ 36 ] The success rate of ECV was 59% in the epidural group and 24% in the nonepidural group ( P < .05). In 7 of 8 women with unsuccessful ECV without epidural, a repeat ECV attempt after epidural was successful. No adverse effects on maternal or perinatal morbidity or mortality occurred.

In 1997, Schorr et al randomized 69 subjects who were at least 37 weeks' gestation to either epidural or control groups prior to attempted ECV. [ 37 ] Those in whom ECV failed underwent cesarean delivery. The success rate of ECV was 69% in the epidural group and 32% in the control group (RR, 2.12; 95% CI, 1.24-3.62). The cesarean delivery rate was 79% in the control group and 34% in the epidural group ( P = .001). No complications of epidural anesthesia and no adverse fetal effects occurred.

In 1999, Dugoff et al randomized 102 subjects who were at more than 36 weeks' gestation with breech presentations to either spinal anesthesia or a control group. [ 38 ] All subjects received 0.25 mg terbutaline subcutaneously. The success rate of ECV was 44% in the spinal group and 42% in the nonspinal group, which was not statistically significant.

In contrast, a 2007 randomized clinical trial of spinal analgesia versus no analgesia in 74 women showed a significant improvement in ECV success (66.7% vs 32.4%, p = .004), with a significantly lower pain score by the patient. [ 39 ]

The 2015 systematic review asserted that regional analgesia in combination with a tocolytic was more effective than the tocolytic alone for increasing ECV success; however there was no difference in cephalic presentation in labor. Data from the same review was insufficient to assess regional analgesia without tocolysis [ 34 ]

Acoustic stimulation

Johnson and Elliott performed a randomized, blinded trial on 23 subjects to compare acoustic stimulation prior to ECV with a control group when the fetal spine was in the midline (directly back up or back down). [ 40 ] Of those who received acoustic stimulation, 12 of 12 fetuses shifted to a spine-lateral position after acoustic stimulation, and 11 (91%) underwent successful ECV. In the control group, 0 of 11 shifts and 1 (9%) successful ECV ( P < .0001) occurred. Additional studies are needed.

Amnioinfusion

Although an earlier study reported on the utility of amnioinfusion to successfully turn 6 fetuses who initially failed ECV, [ 41 ] a subsequent study was published of 7 women with failed ECV who underwent amniocentesis and amnioinfusion of up to 1 liter of crystalloid. [ 42 ] Repeat attempts of ECV were unsuccessful in all 7 cases. Amnioinfusion to facilitate ECV cannot be recommended at this time.

Vaginal delivery rates after successful version

The rate of cesarean delivery ranges from 0-31% after successful external cephalic version (ECV). Controversy has existed on whether there is a higher rate of cesarean delivery for labor dystocia following ECV. In 1994, a retrospective study by Egge et al of 76 successful ECVs matched with cephalic controls by delivery date, parity, and gestational age failed to note any significant difference in the cesarean delivery rate (8% in ECV group, 6% in control group). [ 43 ]

However, in 1997, Lau et al compared 154 successful ECVs to 308 spontaneously occurring cephalic controls (matched for age, parity, and type of labor onset) with regard to the cesarean delivery rate. [ 44 ] Cesarean delivery rates were higher after ECV (16.9% vs 7.5%, P < .005) because of higher rates of cephalopelvic disproportion and nonreassuring fetal heart rate tracings. This may be related to an increased frequency of compound presentations after ECV. Immediate induction of labor after successful ECV may also contribute to an increase in the cesarean delivery rate due to failed induction in women with unripe cervices and unengaged fetal heads.

Further, in another cohort study from 2015, factors were described which decreased the vaginal delivery rate after successful ECV including labor induction, less than 2 weeks between ECV and delivery, high body mass index, and previous cesarean. [ 45 ] The overall caesarean delivery rate in this cohort was 15%.

Vaginal breech delivery requires an experienced obstetrician and careful counseling of the parents. Although studies on the delivery of the preterm breech are limited, the multicenter Term Breech Trial found an increased rate of perinatal mortality and serious immediate perinatal morbidity, though no differences were seen in infant outcome at 2 years of age.

Parents must be informed about potential risks and benefits to the mother and neonate for both vaginal breech delivery and cesarean delivery. Discussion of risks should not be limited only to the current pregnancy. The risks of a cesarean on subsequent pregnancies, including uterine rupture and placental attachment abnormalities ( placenta previa , abruption , accreta), as well as maternal and perinatal sequelae from these complications, should be reviewed as well.

It remains concerning that the dearth of experienced physicians to teach younger practitioners will lead to the abandonment of vaginal breeches altogether. For those wishing to learn the art of vaginal breech deliveries, simulation training with pelvic models has been advocated to familiarize trainees with the procedure in a nonthreatening environment. [ 46 ] Once comfortable with the appropriate maneuvers, vaginal delivery of the second, noncephalic twin, may be attempted under close supervision by an experienced physician. The cervix will already be fully dilated, and, assuming the second twin is not significantly larger, the successful vaginal delivery rate has been quoted to be as high as 96%.

External cephalic version (ECV) is a safe alternative to vaginal breech delivery or cesarean delivery, reducing the cesarean delivery rate for breech by 50%. ACOG recommends offering ECV to all women with a breech fetus near term. [ 24 ] Adjuncts such as tocolysis, regional anesthesia, and acoustic stimulation when appropriate may improve ECV success rates.

Hickok DE, Gordon DC, Milberg JA, Williams MA, Daling JR. The frequency of breech presentation by gestational age at birth: a large population-based study. Am J Obstet Gynecol . 1992 Mar. 166(3):851-2. [QxMD MEDLINE Link] .

Wright RC. Reduction of perinatal mortality and morbidity in breech delivery through routine use of cesarean section. Obstet Gynecol . 1959. 14:758-63.

Cheng M, Hannah M. Breech delivery at term: a critical review of the literature. Obstet Gynecol . 1993 Oct. 82(4 Pt 1):605-18. [QxMD MEDLINE Link] .

Ballas S, Toaff R. Hyperextension of the fetal head in breech presentation: radiological evaluation and significance. Br J Obstet Gynaecol . 1976 Mar. 83(3):201-4. [QxMD MEDLINE Link] .

Ophir E, Oettinger M, Yagoda A, Markovits Y, Rojansky N, Shapiro H. Breech presentation after cesarean section: always a section?. Am J Obstet Gynecol . 1989 Jul. 161(1):25-8. [QxMD MEDLINE Link] .

Green JE, McLean F, Smith LP, Usher R. Has an increased cesarean section rate for term breech delivery reduced in incidence of birth asphyxia, trauma, and death?. Am J Obstet Gynecol . 1982 Mar 15. 142(6 Pt 1):643-8. [QxMD MEDLINE Link] .

Collea JV, Chein C, Quilligan EJ. The randomized management of term frank breech presentation: a study of 208 cases. Am J Obstet Gynecol . 1980 May 15. 137(2):235-44. [QxMD MEDLINE Link] .

Gimovsky ML, Wallace RL, Schifrin BS, Paul RH. Randomized management of the nonfrank breech presentation at term: a preliminary report. Am J Obstet Gynecol . 1983 May 1. 146(1):34-40. [QxMD MEDLINE Link] .

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 Oct 21. 356(9239):1375-83. [QxMD MEDLINE Link] .

Whyte H, Hannah ME, Saigal S, et al. 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 Sep. 191(3):864-71. [QxMD MEDLINE Link] .

Hannah ME, Whyte H, Hannah WJ, Hewson S, Amankwah K, Cheng M. Maternal outcomes at 2 years after planned cesarean section versus planned vaginal birth for breech presentation at term: the international randomized Term Breech Trial. Am J Obstet Gynecol . 2004 Sep. 191(3):917-27. [QxMD MEDLINE Link] .

Hofmeyr GJ, Hannah M, Lawrie TA. Planned caesarean section for term breech delivery. Cochrane Database Syst Rev . 2015 Jul 21. 7:CD000166. [QxMD MEDLINE Link] .

Zlatnik FJ. The Iowa premature breech trial. Am J Perinatol . 1993 Jan. 10(1):60-3. [QxMD MEDLINE Link] .

Bergenhenegouwen L, Vlemmix F, Ensing S, Schaaf J, van der Post J, Abu-Hanna A, et al. Preterm Breech Presentation: A Comparison of Intended Vaginal and Intended Cesarean Delivery. Obstet Gynecol . 2015 Dec. 126 (6):1223-30. [QxMD MEDLINE Link] .

Caning MM, Rasmussen SC, Krebs L. Maternal outcomes of planned mode of delivery for term breech in nulliparous women. PLoS One . 2024. 19 (4):e0297971. [QxMD MEDLINE Link] . [Full Text] .

Eller DP, VanDorsten JP. Route of delivery for the breech presentation: a conundrum. Am J Obstet Gynecol . 1995 Aug. 173(2):393-6; discussion 396-8. [QxMD MEDLINE Link] .

Zhang J, Bowes WA Jr, Fortney JA. Efficacy of external cephalic version: a review. Obstet Gynecol . 1993 Aug. 82(2):306-12. [QxMD MEDLINE Link] .

Zielbauer AS, Louwen F, Jennewein L. External cephalic version at 38 weeks' gestation at a specialized German single center. PLoS One . 2021. 16 (8):e0252702. [QxMD MEDLINE Link] . [Full Text] .

Hofmeyr GJ, Kulier R, West HM. External cephalic version for breech presentation at term. Cochrane Database Syst Rev . 2015 Apr 1. 4:CD000083. [QxMD MEDLINE Link] .

de Hundt M, Velzel J, de Groot CJ, Mol BW, Kok M. Mode of delivery after successful external cephalic version: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Obstet Gynecol . 2014 Jun. 123 (6):1327-34. [QxMD MEDLINE Link] .

de Hundt M, Vlemmix F, Bais JM, de Groot CJ, Mol BW, Kok M. Risk factors for cesarean section and instrumental vaginal delivery after successful external cephalic version. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med . 2016 Jun. 29 (12):2005-7. [QxMD MEDLINE Link] .

Cook HA. Experience with external cephalic version and selective vaginal breech delivery in private practice. Am J Obstet Gynecol . 1993 Jun. 168(6 Pt 1):1886-9; discussion 1889-90. [QxMD MEDLINE Link] .

Gifford DS, Keeler E, Kahn KL. Reductions in cost and cesarean rate by routine use of external cephalic version: a decision analysis. Obstet Gynecol . 1995 Jun. 85(6):930-6. [QxMD MEDLINE Link] .

Practice Bulletin No. 161 Summary: External Cephalic Version. Obstet Gynecol . 2016 Feb. 127 (2):412-3. [QxMD MEDLINE Link] .

[Guideline] External Cephalic Version: ACOG Practice Bulletin, Number 221. Obstet Gynecol . 2020 May. 135 (5):e203-e212. [QxMD MEDLINE Link] .

[Guideline] ACOG Committee Opinion No. 745: Mode of Term Singleton Breech Delivery. Obstet Gynecol . 2018 Aug; reaffirmed 2023. 132 (2):e60-e63. [QxMD MEDLINE Link] . [Full Text] .

Hutton E, Hannah M, Ross S, Delisle MF, Carson G, Windrim R, et al. The Early External Cephalic Version (ECV) 2 Trial: an international multicentre randomised controlled trial of timing of ECV for breech pregnancies. BJOG . 2011 Apr. 118(5):564-577. [QxMD MEDLINE Link] .

Hutton EK, Hofmeyr GJ, Dowswell T. External cephalic version for breech presentation before term. Cochrane Database Syst Rev . 2015 Jul 29. 7:CD000084. [QxMD MEDLINE Link] .

Flamm BL, Fried MW, Lonky NM, Giles WS. External cephalic version after previous cesarean section. Am J Obstet Gynecol . 1991 Aug. 165(2):370-2. [QxMD MEDLINE Link] .

de Meeus JB, Ellia F, Magnin G. External cephalic version after previous cesarean section: a series of 38 cases. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol . 1998 Oct. 81 (1):65-8. [QxMD MEDLINE Link] .

Burgos J, Cobos P, Rodríguez L, Osuna C, Centeno MM, Martínez-Astorquiza T, et al. Is external cephalic version at term contraindicated in previous caesarean section? A prospective comparative cohort study. BJOG . 2014 Jan. 121 (2):230-5; discussion 235. [QxMD MEDLINE Link] .

Ferguson JE 2nd, Dyson DC. Intrapartum external cephalic version. Am J Obstet Gynecol . 1985 Jun 1. 152(3):297-8. [QxMD MEDLINE Link] .

Marquette GP, Boucher M, Theriault D, Rinfret D. Does the use of a tocolytic agent affect the success rate of external cephalic version?. Am J Obstet Gynecol . 1996 Oct. 175(4 Pt 1):859-61. [QxMD MEDLINE Link] .

Cluver C, Gyte GM, Sinclair M, Dowswell T, Hofmeyr GJ. Interventions for helping to turn term breech babies to head first presentation when using external cephalic version. Cochrane Database Syst Rev . 2015 Feb 9. 2:CD000184. [QxMD MEDLINE Link] .

Wilcox CB, Nassar N, Roberts CL. Effectiveness of nifedipine tocolysis to facilitate external cephalic version: a systematic review. BJOG . 2011 Mar. 118 (4):423-8. [QxMD MEDLINE Link] .

Carlan SJ, Dent JM, Huckaby T, Whittington EC, Shaefer D. The effect of epidural anesthesia on safety and success of external cephalic version at term. Anesth Analg . 1994 Sep. 79(3):525-8. [QxMD MEDLINE Link] .

Schorr SJ, Speights SE, Ross EL, et al. A randomized trial of epidural anesthesia to improve external cephalic version success. Am J Obstet Gynecol . 1997 Nov. 177(5):1133-7. [QxMD MEDLINE Link] .

Dugoff L, Stamm CA, Jones OW 3rd, Mohling SI, Hawkins JL. The effect of spinal anesthesia on the success rate of external cephalic version: a randomized trial. Obstet Gynecol . 1999 Mar. 93(3):345-9. [QxMD MEDLINE Link] .

Weiniger CF, Ginosar Y, Elchalal U, Sharon E, Nokrian M, Ezra Y. External cephalic version for breech presentation with or without spinal analgesia in nulliparous women at term: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol . 2007 Dec. 110(6):1343-50. [QxMD MEDLINE Link] .

Johnson RL, Elliott JP. Fetal acoustic stimulation, an adjunct to external cephalic version: a blinded, randomized crossover study. Am J Obstet Gynecol . 1995 Nov. 173(5):1369-72. [QxMD MEDLINE Link] .

Benifla JL, Goffinet F, Darai E, Madelenat P. Antepartum transabdominal amnioinfusion to facilitate external cephalic version after initial failure. Obstet Gynecol . 1994 Dec. 84(6):1041-2. [QxMD MEDLINE Link] .

Adama van Scheltema PN, Feitsma AH, Middeldorp JM, Vandenbussche FP, Oepkes D. Amnioinfusion to facilitate external cephalic version after initial failure. Obstet Gynecol . 2006 Sep. 108(3 Pt 1):591-2. [QxMD MEDLINE Link] .

Egge T, Schauberger C, Schaper A. Dysfunctional labor after external cephalic version. Obstet Gynecol . 1994 May. 83(5 Pt 1):771-3. [QxMD MEDLINE Link] .

Lau TK, Lo KW, Rogers M. Pregnancy outcome after successful external cephalic version for breech presentation at term. Am J Obstet Gynecol . 1997 Jan. 176(1 Pt 1):218-23. [QxMD MEDLINE Link] .

Burgos J, Iglesias M, Pijoan JI, Rodriguez L, Fernández-Llebrez L, Martínez-Astorquiza T. Probability of cesarean delivery after successful external cephalic version. Int J Gynaecol Obstet . 2015 Nov. 131 (2):192-5. [QxMD MEDLINE Link] .

Deering S, Brown J, Hodor J, Satin AJ. Simulation training and resident performance of singleton vaginal breech delivery. Obstet Gynecol . 2006 Jan. 107(1):86-9. [QxMD MEDLINE Link] .

• Footling breech presentation. Once the feet have delivered, one may be tempted to pull on the feet. However, a singleton gestation should not be pulled by the feet because this action may precipitate head entrapment in an incompletely dilated cervix or may precipitate nuchal arms. As long as the fetal heart rate is stable and no physical evidence of a prolapsed cord is evident, management may be expectant while awaiting full cervical dilation.
• Assisted vaginal breech delivery. Thick meconium passage is common as the breech is squeezed through the birth canal. This is usually not associated with meconium aspiration because the meconium passes out of the vagina and does not mix with the amniotic fluid.
• Assisted vaginal breech delivery. The Ritgen maneuver is applied to take pressure off the perineum during vaginal delivery. Episiotomies are often performed for assisted vaginal breech deliveries, even in multiparous women, to prevent soft tissue dystocia.
• Assisted vaginal breech delivery. No downward or outward traction is applied to the fetus until the umbilicus has been reached.
• Assisted vaginal breech delivery. With a towel wrapped around the fetal hips, gentle downward and outward traction is applied in conjunction with maternal expulsive efforts until the scapula is reached. An assistant should be applying gentle fundal pressure to keep the fetal head flexed.
• Assisted vaginal breech delivery. After the scapula is reached, the fetus should be rotated 90° in order to deliver the anterior arm.
• Assisted vaginal breech delivery. The anterior arm is followed to the elbow, and the arm is swept out of the vagina.
• Assisted vaginal breech delivery. The fetus is rotated 180°, and the contralateral arm is delivered in a similar manner as the first. The infant is then rotated 90° to the backup position in preparation for delivery of the head.
• Assisted vaginal breech delivery. The fetal head is maintained in a flexed position by using the Mauriceau maneuver, which is performed by placing the index and middle fingers over the maxillary prominence on either side of the nose. The fetal body is supported in a neutral position, with care to not overextend the neck.
• Piper forceps application. Piper forceps are specialized forceps used only for the after-coming head of a breech presentation. They are used to keep the fetal head flexed during extraction of the head. An assistant is needed to hold the infant while the operator gets on one knee to apply the forceps from below.
• Assisted vaginal breech delivery. Low 1-minute Apgar scores are not uncommon after a vaginal breech delivery. A pediatrician should be present for the delivery in the event that neonatal resuscitation is needed.
• Assisted vaginal breech delivery. The neonate after birth.
• Ultrasound demonstrating a fetus in breech presentation with a hyperextended head (ie, "star gazing").

Contributor Information and Disclosures

Richard Fischer, MD Professor, Division Head, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Division of Maternal-Fetal Medicine, Cooper University Hospital Richard Fischer, MD is a member of the following medical societies: American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists , American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine , Association of Professors of Gynecology and Obstetrics , Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine Disclosure: Stock ownership for: Pfizer Pharmaceuticals (< 5% of portfolio); Johnson & Johnson (< 5% of portfolio).

Alisa B Modena, MD, FACOG Assistant Professor, Cooper Medical School of Rowan University; Attending Physician, Division of Maternal-Fetal Medicine, Cooper University Hospital Alisa B Modena, MD, FACOG is a member of the following medical societies: American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists , American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine , Philadelphia Perinatal Society, Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine Disclosure: Nothing to disclose.

Francisco Talavera, PharmD, PhD Adjunct Assistant Professor, University of Nebraska Medical Center College of Pharmacy; Editor-in-Chief, Medscape Drug Reference Disclosure: Received salary from Medscape for employment. for: Medscape.

Richard S Legro, MD Professor, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Division of Reproductive Endocrinology, Pennsylvania State University College of Medicine; Consulting Staff, Milton S Hershey Medical Center Richard S Legro, MD is a member of the following medical societies: American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists , Society of Reproductive Surgeons , American Society for Reproductive Medicine , Endocrine Society , Phi Beta Kappa Disclosure: Received honoraria from Korea National Institute of Health and National Institute of Health (Bethesda, MD) for speaking and teaching; Received honoraria from Greater Toronto Area Reproductive Medicine Society (Toronto, ON, CA) for speaking and teaching; Received honoraria from American College of Obstetrics and Gynecologists (Washington, DC) for speaking and teaching; Received honoraria from National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Pediatric and Adolescent Gynecology Research Thi.

Ronald M Ramus, MD Professor of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Director, Division of Maternal-Fetal Medicine, Virginia Commonwealth University School of Medicine Ronald M Ramus, MD is a member of the following medical societies: American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists , American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine , Medical Society of Virginia , Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine Disclosure: Nothing to disclose.

What would you like to print?

• Print this section
• Print the entire contents of
• Print the entire contents of article

• HIV in Pregnancy
• Cardiovascular Disease and Pregnancy
• Pulmonary Disease and Pregnancy
• Kidney Disease and Pregnancy
• Multifetal Pregnancy
• Vaccinations/Immunizations During Pregnancy
• Anemia and Thrombocytopenia in Pregnancy
• Is immunotherapy for cancer safe in pregnancy?
• Olympic Moms Are Redefining Exercise in Pregnancy
• Labetalol, Nifedipine: Outcome on Pregnancy Hypertension

• Drug Interaction Checker
• Pill Identifier
• Calculators

• 2020/viewarticle/immunotherapy-cancer-safe-pregnancy-2024a100083dnews news Is immunotherapy for cancer safe in pregnancy?

• 2002261369-overviewDiseases & Conditions Diseases & Conditions Postterm Pregnancy

Select a Community

• MB 1 Preclinical Medical Students
• MB 2/3 Clinical Medical Students
• ORTHO Orthopaedic Surgery

Are you sure you want to trigger topic in your Anconeus AI algorithm?

You are done for today with this topic.

Would you like to start learning session with this topic items scheduled for future?

Breech Presentation

• A 28-year-old G1P0 woman at 37 weeks of gestation presents to her obstetrician for a prenatal care appointment. She describes feeling some soreness under her ribs in the past few weeks and feels her baby kicking in her lower abdomen. An ultrasound is performed and is seen in the image. The obstetrician describes management approaches, including an external cephalic version before labor.
• flexion of the hips and knees
• some deflexion of one hip and knee
• flexion of both hips with extension of both knees
• 3-4% of all deliveries
• 22-25% of births before 28 weeks of gestation
• 7-15% of births at 32 weeks of gestation
• 3-4% of births at term
• prematurity
• uterine malformations
• uterine fibroids
• polyhydramnios
• placenta previa
• multiple gestations
• subcostal discomfort (due to fetal head in the uterine fundus)
• feeling of kicking in the lower abdomen
• presence of soft mass (buttocks) and absence of hard fetal skull on transabdominal examination of the lower uterine segment
• when cervix is dilated
• detection of breech presentation prior to 37 weeks does not warrant intervention
• fetal head in the uterine fundus
• buttocks in the lower uterine segment
• extension angle > 90 degrees
• at 37 weeks gestation or later
• perform trial of vaginal delivery if the version is successful
• may be planned for breech presentation, without a trial of external cephalic version
• may be performed if trial of vaginal delivery is unsuccessful after external cephalic labor
• ↑ up to 4-fold with breech presetnation
• associated with malformations, prematurity, and intrauterine fetal demise
• 17% of preterm breech deliveries
• 9% of term breech deliveries
• abnormalities include CNS malformations, neck masses, and aneuploidy

• - Breech Presentation

Please Login to add comment

• Pregnancy Classes

Breech Births

In the last weeks of pregnancy, a baby usually moves so his or her head is positioned to come out of the vagina first during birth. This is called a vertex presentation. A breech presentation occurs when the baby’s buttocks, feet, or both are positioned to come out first during birth. This happens in 3–4% of full-term births.

What are the different types of breech birth presentations?

• Complete breech: Here, the buttocks are pointing downward with the legs folded at the knees and feet near the buttocks.
• Frank breech: In this position, the baby’s buttocks are aimed at the birth canal with its legs sticking straight up in front of his or her body and the feet near the head.
• Footling breech: In this position, one or both of the baby’s feet point downward and will deliver before the rest of the body.

What causes a breech presentation?

The causes of breech presentations are not fully understood. However, the data show that breech birth is more common when:

• You have been pregnant before
• In pregnancies of multiples
• When there is a history of premature delivery
• When the uterus has too much or too little amniotic fluid
• When there is an abnormally shaped uterus or a uterus with abnormal growths, such as fibroids
• The placenta covers all or part of the opening of the uterus placenta previa

How is a breech presentation diagnosed?

A few weeks prior to the due date, the health care provider will place her hands on the mother’s lower abdomen to locate the baby’s head, back, and buttocks. If it appears that the baby might be in a breech position, they can use ultrasound or pelvic exam to confirm the position. Special x-rays can also be used to determine the baby’s position and the size of the pelvis to determine if a vaginal delivery of a breech baby can be safely attempted.

Can a breech presentation mean something is wrong?

Even though most breech babies are born healthy, there is a slightly elevated risk for certain problems. Birth defects are slightly more common in breech babies and the defect might be the reason that the baby failed to move into the right position prior to delivery.

Can a breech presentation be changed?

It is preferable to try to turn a breech baby between the 32nd and 37th weeks of pregnancy . The methods of turning a baby will vary and the success rate for each method can also vary. It is best to discuss the options with the health care provider to see which method she recommends.

Medical Techniques

External Cephalic Version (EVC)  is a non-surgical technique to move the baby in the uterus. In this procedure, a medication is given to help relax the uterus. There might also be the use of an ultrasound to determine the position of the baby, the location of the placenta and the amount of amniotic fluid in the uterus.

Gentle pushing on the lower abdomen can turn the baby into the head-down position. Throughout the external version the baby’s heartbeat will be closely monitored so that if a problem develops, the health care provider will immediately stop the procedure. ECV usually is done near a delivery room so if a problem occurs, a cesarean delivery can be performed quickly. The external version has a high success rate and can be considered if you have had a previous cesarean delivery.

ECV will not be tried if:

• You are carrying more than one fetus
• There are concerns about the health of the fetus
• You have certain abnormalities of the reproductive system
• The placenta is in the wrong place
• The placenta has come away from the wall of the uterus ( placental abruption )

Complications of EVC include:

• Prelabor rupture of membranes
• Changes in the fetus’s heart rate
• Placental abruption
• Preterm labor

Vaginal delivery versus cesarean for breech birth?

Most health care providers do not believe in attempting a vaginal delivery for a breech position. However, some will delay making a final decision until the woman is in labor. The following conditions are considered necessary in order to attempt a vaginal birth:

• The baby is full-term and in the frank breech presentation
• The baby does not show signs of distress while its heart rate is closely monitored.
• The process of labor is smooth and steady with the cervix widening as the baby descends.
• The health care provider estimates that the baby is not too big or the mother’s pelvis too narrow for the baby to pass safely through the birth canal.
• Anesthesia is available and a cesarean delivery possible on short notice

What are the risks and complications of a vaginal delivery?

In a breech birth, the baby’s head is the last part of its body to emerge making it more difficult to ease it through the birth canal. Sometimes forceps are used to guide the baby’s head out of the birth canal. Another potential problem is cord prolapse . In this situation the umbilical cord is squeezed as the baby moves toward the birth canal, thus slowing the baby’s supply of oxygen and blood. In a vaginal breech delivery, electronic fetal monitoring will be used to monitor the baby’s heartbeat throughout the course of labor. Cesarean delivery may be an option if signs develop that the baby may be in distress.

When is a cesarean delivery used with a breech presentation?

Most health care providers recommend a cesarean delivery for all babies in a breech position, especially babies that are premature. Since premature babies are small and more fragile, and because the head of a premature baby is relatively larger in proportion to its body, the baby is unlikely to stretch the cervix as much as a full-term baby. This means that there might be less room for the head to emerge.

Want to Know More?

• Creating Your Birth Plan
• Labor & Birth Terms to Know
• Cesarean Birth After Care

Compiled using information from the following sources:

• ACOG: If Your Baby is Breech
• William’s Obstetrics Twenty-Second Ed. Cunningham, F. Gary, et al, Ch. 24.
• Danforth’s Obstetrics and Gynecology Ninth Ed. Scott, James R., et al, Ch. 21.

BLOG CATEGORIES

• Pregnancy Symptoms 5
• Can I get pregnant if… ? 3
• Paternity Tests 2
• The Bumpy Truth Blog 7
• Multiple Births 10
• Pregnancy Complications 68
• Pregnancy Concerns 62
• Cord Blood 4
• Pregnancy Supplements & Medications 14
• Pregnancy Products & Tests 8
• Changes In Your Body 5
• Health & Nutrition 2
• Labor and Birth 65
• Planning and Preparing 24
• Breastfeeding 29
• Week by Week Newsletter 40
• Is it Safe While Pregnant 55
• The First Year 41
• Genetic Disorders & Birth Defects 17
• Pregnancy Health and Wellness 149
• Your Developing Baby 16
• Options for Unplanned Pregnancy 18
• Child Adoption 19
• Fertility 54
• Pregnancy Loss 11
• Uncategorized 4
• Women's Health 34
• Prenatal Testing 16
• Abstinence 3
• Birth Control Pills, Patches & Devices 21
• Thank You for Your Donation
• Unplanned Pregnancy
• Getting Pregnant
• Healthy Pregnancy
• Privacy Policy
• Pregnancy Questions Center

Share this post:

Similar post.

Episiotomy: Advantages & Complications

Retained Placenta

What is Dilation in Pregnancy?

Track your baby’s development, subscribe to our week-by-week pregnancy newsletter.

• The Bumpy Truth Blog
• Fertility Products Resource Guide

Pregnancy Tools

• Ovulation Calendar
• Baby Names Directory
• Pregnancy Due Date Calculator
• Pregnancy Quiz

Pregnancy Journeys

• Partner With Us
• Corporate Sponsors