is it normal to have cephalic presentation at 24 weeks

Appointments at Mayo Clinic

• Pregnancy week by week
• Fetal presentation before birth

The way a baby is positioned in the uterus just before birth can have a big effect on labor and delivery. This positioning is called fetal presentation.

Babies twist, stretch and tumble quite a bit during pregnancy. Before labor starts, however, they usually come to rest in a way that allows them to be delivered through the birth canal headfirst. This position is called cephalic presentation. But there are other ways a baby may settle just before labor begins.

Following are some of the possible ways a baby may be positioned at the end of pregnancy.

Head down, face down

When a baby is head down, face down, the medical term for it is the cephalic occiput anterior position. This the most common position for a baby to be born in. With the face down and turned slightly to the side, the smallest part of the baby's head leads the way through the birth canal. It is the easiest way for a baby to be born.

Head down, face up

When a baby is head down, face up, the medical term for it is the cephalic occiput posterior position. In this position, it might be harder for a baby's head to go under the pubic bone during delivery. That can make labor take longer.

Most babies who begin labor in this position eventually turn to be face down. If that doesn't happen, and the second stage of labor is taking a long time, a member of the health care team may reach through the vagina to help the baby turn. This is called manual rotation.

In some cases, a baby can be born in the head-down, face-up position. Use of forceps or a vacuum device to help with delivery is more common when a baby is in this position than in the head-down, face-down position. In some cases, a C-section delivery may be needed.

Frank breech

When a baby's feet or buttocks are in place to come out first during birth, it's called a breech presentation. This happens in about 3% to 4% of babies close to the time of birth. The baby shown below is in a frank breech presentation. That's when the knees aren't bent, and the feet are close to the baby's head. This is the most common type of breech presentation.

If you are more than 36 weeks into your pregnancy and your baby is in a frank breech presentation, your health care professional may try to move the baby into a head-down position. This is done using a procedure called external cephalic version. It involves one or two members of the health care team putting pressure on your belly with their hands to get the baby to roll into a head-down position.

If the procedure isn't successful, or if the baby moves back into a breech position, talk with a member of your health care team about the choices you have for delivery. Most babies in a frank breech position are born by planned C-section.

Complete and incomplete breech

A complete breech presentation, as shown below, is when the baby has both knees bent and both legs pulled close to the body. In an incomplete breech, one or both of the legs are not pulled close to the body, and one or both of the feet or knees are below the baby's buttocks. If a baby is in either of these positions, you might feel kicking in the lower part of your belly.

If you are more than 36 weeks into your pregnancy and your baby is in a complete or incomplete breech presentation, your health care professional may try to move the baby into a head-down position. This is done using a procedure called external cephalic version. It involves one or two members of the health care team putting pressure on your belly with their hands to get the baby to roll into a head-down position.

If the procedure isn't successful, or if the baby moves back into a breech position, talk with a member of your health care team about the choices you have for delivery. Many babies in a complete or incomplete breech position are born by planned C-section.

When a baby is sideways — lying horizontal across the uterus, rather than vertical — it's called a transverse lie. In this position, the baby's back might be:

• Down, with the back facing the birth canal.
• Sideways, with one shoulder pointing toward the birth canal.
• Up, with the hands and feet facing the birth canal.

Although many babies are sideways early in pregnancy, few stay this way when labor begins.

If your baby is in a transverse lie during week 37 of your pregnancy, your health care professional may try to move the baby into a head-down position. This is done using a procedure called external cephalic version. External cephalic version involves one or two members of your health care team putting pressure on your belly with their hands to get the baby to roll into a head-down position.

If the procedure isn't successful, or if the baby moves back into a transverse lie, talk with a member of your health care team about the choices you have for delivery. Many babies who are in a transverse lie are born by C-section.

If you're pregnant with twins and only the twin that's lower in the uterus is head down, as shown below, your health care provider may first deliver that baby vaginally.

Then, in some cases, your health care team may suggest delivering the second twin in the breech position. Or they may try to move the second twin into a head-down position. This is done using a procedure called external cephalic version. External cephalic version involves one or two members of the health care team putting pressure on your belly with their hands to get the baby to roll into a head-down position.

Your health care team may suggest delivery by C-section for the second twin if:

• An attempt to deliver the baby in the breech position is not successful.
• You do not want to try to have the baby delivered vaginally in the breech position.
• An attempt to move the baby into a head-down position is not successful.
• You do not want to try to move the baby to a head-down position.

In some cases, your health care team may advise that you have both twins delivered by C-section. That might happen if the lower twin is not head down, the second twin has low or high birth weight as compared to the first twin, or if preterm labor starts.

• Landon MB, et al., eds. Normal labor and delivery. In: Gabbe's Obstetrics: Normal and Problem Pregnancies. 8th ed. Elsevier; 2021. https://www.clinicalkey.com. Accessed May 19, 2023.
• Holcroft Argani C, et al. Occiput posterior position. https://www.updtodate.com/contents/search. Accessed May 19, 2023.
• Frequently asked questions: If your baby is breech. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists https://www.acog.org/womens-health/faqs/if-your-baby-is-breech. Accessed May 22, 2023.
• Hofmeyr GJ. Overview of breech presentation. https://www.updtodate.com/contents/search. Accessed May 22, 2023.
• Strauss RA, et al. Transverse fetal lie. https://www.updtodate.com/contents/search. Accessed May 22, 2023.
• Chasen ST, et al. Twin pregnancy: Labor and delivery. https://www.updtodate.com/contents/search. Accessed May 22, 2023.
• Cohen R, et al. Is vaginal delivery of a breech second twin safe? A comparison between delivery of vertex and non-vertex second twins. The Journal of Maternal-Fetal & Neonatal Medicine. 2021; doi:10.1080/14767058.2021.2005569.
• Marnach ML (expert opinion). Mayo Clinic. May 31, 2023.

Products and Services

• A Book: Mayo Clinic Guide to a Healthy Pregnancy
• 3rd trimester pregnancy
• Fetal development: The 3rd trimester
• Overdue pregnancy
• Pregnancy due date calculator
• Prenatal care: 3rd trimester

Mayo Clinic does not endorse companies or products. Advertising revenue supports our not-for-profit mission.

• Opportunities

Mayo Clinic Press

Check out these best-sellers and special offers on books and newsletters from Mayo Clinic Press .

• Mayo Clinic on Incontinence - Mayo Clinic Press Mayo Clinic on Incontinence
• The Essential Diabetes Book - Mayo Clinic Press The Essential Diabetes Book
• Mayo Clinic on Hearing and Balance - Mayo Clinic Press Mayo Clinic on Hearing and Balance
• FREE Mayo Clinic Diet Assessment - Mayo Clinic Press FREE Mayo Clinic Diet Assessment
• Mayo Clinic Health Letter - FREE book - Mayo Clinic Press Mayo Clinic Health Letter - FREE book
• Healthy Lifestyle

We’re transforming healthcare

Make a gift now and help create new and better solutions for more than 1.3 million patients who turn to Mayo Clinic each year.

• Type 2 Diabetes
• Heart Disease
• Digestive Health
• Multiple Sclerosis
• Diet & Nutrition
• Supplements
• Health Insurance
• Public Health
• Patient Rights
• Caregivers & Loved Ones
• End of Life Concerns
• Health News
• Thyroid Test Analyzer
• Doctor Discussion Guides
• Hemoglobin A1c Test Analyzer
• Lipid Test Analyzer
• Complete Blood Count (CBC) Analyzer
• What to Buy
• Editorial Process
• Meet Our Medical Expert Board

What Is Cephalic Position?

The ideal fetal position for labor and delivery

• Why It's Best

Risks of Other Positions

• Determining Position
• Turning a Fetus

The cephalic position is when a fetus is head down when it is ready to enter the birth canal. This is one of a few variations of how a fetus can rest in the womb and is considered the ideal one for labor and delivery.

About 96% of babies are born in the cephalic position. Most settle into it between the 32nd and 36th weeks of pregnancy . Your healthcare provider will monitor the fetus's position during the last weeks of gestation to ensure this has happened by week 36.

If the fetus is not in the cephalic position at that point, the provider may try to turn it. If this doesn't work, some—but not all—practitioners will attempt to deliver vaginally, while others will recommend a Cesarean (C-section).

Getty Images

Why Is the Cephalic Position Best?

During labor, contractions dilate the cervix so the fetus has adequate room to come through the birth canal. The cephalic position is the easiest and safest way for the baby to pass through the birth canal.

If the fetus is in a noncephalic position, delivery becomes more challenging. Different fetal positions have a range of difficulties and varying risks.

A small percentage of babies present in noncephalic positions. This can pose risks both to the fetus and the mother, and make labor and delivery more challenging. It can also influence the way in which someone can deliver.

A fetus may actually find itself in any of these positions throughout pregnancy, as the move about the uterus. But as they grow, there will be less room to tumble around and they will settle into a final position.

It is at this point that noncephalic positions can pose significant risks.

Cephalic Posterior

A fetus may also present in an occiput or cephalic posterior position. This means they are positioned head down, but they are facing the abdomen instead of the back.

This position is also nicknamed "sunny-side up."

Presenting this way increases the chance of a painful and prolonged delivery.

There are three different types of breech fetal positioning:

• Frank breech: The legs are up with the feet near the head.
• Footling breech: One or both legs is lowered over the cervix.
• Complete breech: The fetus is bottom-first with knees bent.

A vaginal delivery is most times a safe way to deliver. But with breech positions, a vaginal delivery can be complicated.

When a baby is born in the breech position, the largest part—its head—is delivered last. This can result in them getting stuck in the birth canal (entrapped). This can cause injury or death.

The umbilical cord may also be damaged or slide down into the mouth of the womb, which can reduce or cut off the baby's oxygen supply.

Some providers are still comfortable performing a vaginal birth as long as the fetus is doing well. But breech is always a riskier delivery position compared with the cephalic position, and most cases require a C-section.

Likelihood of a Breech Baby

You are more likely to have a breech baby if you:

• Go into early labor before you're full term
• Have an abnormally shaped uterus, fibroids , or too much amniotic fluid
• Are pregnant with multiples
• Have placenta previa (when the placenta covers the cervix)

Transverse Lie

In transverse lie position, the fetus is presenting sideways across the uterus rather than vertically. They may be:

• Down, with the back facing the birth canal
• With one shoulder pointing toward the birth canal
• Up, with the hands and feet facing the birth canal

If a transverse lie is not corrected before labor, a C-section will be required. This is typically the case.

Determining Fetal Position

Your healthcare provider can determine if your baby is in cephalic presentation by performing a physical exam and ultrasound.

In the final weeks of pregnancy, your healthcare provider will feel your lower abdomen with their hands to assess the positioning of the baby. This includes where the head, back, and buttocks lie

If your healthcare provider senses that the fetus is in a breech position, they can use ultrasound to confirm their suspicion.

Turning a Fetus So They Are in Cephalic Position

External cephalic version (ECV) is a common, noninvasive procedure to turn a breech baby into cephalic position while it's still in the uterus.

This is only considered if a healthcare provider monitors presentation progress in the last trimester and notices that a fetus is maintaining a noncephalic position as your delivery date approaches.

External Cephalic Version (ECV)

ECV involves the healthcare provider applying pressure to your stomach to turn the fetus from the outside. They will attempt to rotate the head forward or backward and lift the buttocks in an upward position. Sometimes, they use ultrasound to help guide the process.

The best time to perform ECV is about 37 weeks of pregnancy. Afterward, the fetal heart rate will be monitored to make sure it’s within normal levels. You should be able to go home after having ECV done.

ECV has a 50% to 60% success rate. However, even if it does work, there is still a chance the fetus will return to the breech position before birth.

Natural Methods For Turning a Fetus

There are also natural methods that can help turn a fetus into cephalic position. There is no medical research that confirms their efficacy, however.

• Changing your position: Sometimes a fetus will move when you get into certain positions. Two specific movements that your provider may recommend include: Getting on your hands and knees and gently rocking back and forth. Another you could try is pushing your hips up in the air while laying on your back with your knees bent and feet flat on the floor (bridge pose).
• Playing stimulating sounds: Fetuses gravitate to sound. You may be successful at luring a fetus out of breech position by playing music or a recording of your voice near your lower abdomen.
• Chiropractic care: A chiropractor can try the Webster technique. This is a specific chiropractic analysis and adjustment which enables chiropractors to establish balance in the pregnant person's pelvis and reduce undue stress to the uterus and supporting ligaments.
• Acupuncture: This is a considerably safe way someone can try to turn a fetus. Some practitioners incorporate moxibustion—the burning of dried mugwort on certain areas of the body—because they believe it will enhance the chances of success.

A Word From Verywell

While most babies are born in cephalic position at delivery, this is not always the case. And while some fetuses can be turned, others may be more stubborn.

This may affect your labor and delivery wishes. Try to remember that having a healthy baby, and staying well yourself, are your ultimate priorities. That may mean diverting from your best laid plans.

Speaking to your healthcare provider about turning options and the safest route of delivery may help you adjust to this twist and feel better about how you will move ahead.

Glezerman M. Planned vaginal breech delivery: current status and the need to reconsider . Expert Rev Obstet Gynecol. 2012;7(2):159-166. doi:10.1586/eog.12.2

Cleveland Clinic. Fetal positions for birth .

MedlinePlus. Breech birth .

UT Southwestern Medical Center. Can you turn a breech baby around?

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. If your baby is breech .

Roecker CB. Breech repositioning unresponsive to Webster technique: coexistence of oligohydramnios .  Journal of Chiropractic Medicine . 2013;12(2):74-78. doi:10.1016/j.jcm.2013.06.003

By Cherie Berkley, MS Berkley is a journalist with a certification in global health from Johns Hopkins University and a master's degree in journalism.

Fetal Presentation, Position, and Lie (Including Breech Presentation)

• Variations in Fetal Position and Presentation |

During pregnancy, the fetus can be positioned in many different ways inside the mother's uterus. The fetus may be head up or down or facing the mother's back or front. At first, the fetus can move around easily or shift position as the mother moves. Toward the end of the pregnancy the fetus is larger, has less room to move, and stays in one position. How the fetus is positioned has an important effect on delivery and, for certain positions, a cesarean delivery is necessary. There are medical terms that describe precisely how the fetus is positioned, and identifying the fetal position helps doctors to anticipate potential difficulties during labor and delivery.

Presentation refers to the part of the fetus’s body that leads the way out through the birth canal (called the presenting part). Usually, the head leads the way, but sometimes the buttocks (breech presentation), shoulder, or face leads the way.

Position refers to whether the fetus is facing backward (occiput anterior) or forward (occiput posterior). The occiput is a bone at the back of the baby's head. Therefore, facing backward is called occiput anterior (facing the mother’s back and facing down when the mother lies on her back). Facing forward is called occiput posterior (facing toward the mother's pubic bone and facing up when the mother lies on her back).

Lie refers to the angle of the fetus in relation to the mother and the uterus. Up-and-down (with the baby's spine parallel to mother's spine, called longitudinal) is normal, but sometimes the lie is sideways (transverse) or at an angle (oblique).

For these aspects of fetal positioning, the combination that is the most common, safest, and easiest for the mother to deliver is the following:

Head first (called vertex or cephalic presentation)

Facing backward (occiput anterior position)

Spine parallel to mother's spine (longitudinal lie)

Neck bent forward with chin tucked

Arms folded across the chest

If the fetus is in a different position, lie, or presentation, labor may be more difficult, and a normal vaginal delivery may not be possible.

Variations in fetal presentation, position, or lie may occur when

The fetus is too large for the mother's pelvis (fetopelvic disproportion).

The uterus is abnormally shaped or contains growths such as fibroids .

The fetus has a birth defect .

There is more than one fetus (multiple gestation).

Position and Presentation of the Fetus

Variations in Fetal Position and Presentation

Some variations in position and presentation that make delivery difficult occur frequently.

Occiput posterior position

In occiput posterior position (sometimes called sunny-side up), the fetus is head first (vertex presentation) but is facing forward (toward the mother's pubic bone—that is, facing up when the mother lies on her back). This is a very common position that is not abnormal, but it makes delivery more difficult than when the fetus is in the occiput anterior position (facing toward the mother's spine—that is facing down when the mother lies on her back).

When a fetus faces up, the neck is often straightened rather than bent,which requires more room for the head to pass through the birth canal. Delivery assisted by a vacuum device or forceps or cesarean delivery may be necessary.

Breech presentation

In breech presentation, the baby's buttocks or sometimes the feet are positioned to deliver first (before the head).

When delivered vaginally, babies that present buttocks first are more at risk of injury or even death than those that present head first.

The reason for the risks to babies in breech presentation is that the baby's hips and buttocks are not as wide as the head. Therefore, when the hips and buttocks pass through the cervix first, the passageway may not be wide enough for the head to pass through. In addition, when the head follows the buttocks, the neck may be bent slightly backwards. The neck being bent backward increases the width required for delivery as compared to when the head is angled forward with the chin tucked, which is the position that is easiest for delivery. Thus, the baby’s body may be delivered and then the head may get caught and not be able to pass through the birth canal. When the baby’s head is caught, this puts pressure on the umbilical cord in the birth canal, so that very little oxygen can reach the baby. Brain damage due to lack of oxygen is more common among breech babies than among those presenting head first.

In a first delivery, these problems may occur more frequently because a woman’s tissues have not been stretched by previous deliveries. Because of risk of injury or even death to the baby, cesarean delivery is preferred when the fetus is in breech presentation, unless the doctor is very experienced with and skilled at delivering breech babies or there is not an adequate facility or equipment to safely perform a cesarean delivery.

Breech presentation is more likely to occur in the following circumstances:

Labor starts too soon (preterm labor).

The uterus is abnormally shaped or contains abnormal growths such as fibroids .

Other presentations

In face presentation, the baby's neck arches back so that the face presents first rather than the top of the head.

In brow presentation, the neck is moderately arched so that the brow presents first.

Usually, fetuses do not stay in a face or brow presentation. These presentations often change to a vertex (top of the head) presentation before or during labor. If they do not, a cesarean delivery is usually recommended.

In transverse lie, the fetus lies horizontally across the birth canal and presents shoulder first. A cesarean delivery is done, unless the fetus is the second in a set of twins. In such a case, the fetus may be turned to be delivered through the vagina.

• Cookie Preferences

Copyright © 2024 Merck & Co., Inc., Rahway, NJ, USA and its affiliates. All rights reserved.

Fetal Presentation, Position, and Lie (Including Breech Presentation)

• Key Points |

Abnormal fetal lie or presentation may occur due to fetal size, fetal anomalies, uterine structural abnormalities, multiple gestation, or other factors. Diagnosis is by examination or ultrasonography. Management is with physical maneuvers to reposition the fetus, operative vaginal delivery , or cesarean delivery .

Terms that describe the fetus in relation to the uterus, cervix, and maternal pelvis are

Fetal presentation: Fetal part that overlies the maternal pelvic inlet; vertex (cephalic), face, brow, breech, shoulder, funic (umbilical cord), or compound (more than one part, eg, shoulder and hand)

Fetal position: Relation of the presenting part to an anatomic axis; for transverse presentation, occiput anterior, occiput posterior, occiput transverse

Fetal lie: Relation of the fetus to the long axis of the uterus; longitudinal, oblique, or transverse

Normal fetal lie is longitudinal, normal presentation is vertex, and occiput anterior is the most common position.

Abnormal fetal lie, presentation, or position may occur with

Fetopelvic disproportion (fetus too large for the pelvic inlet)

Fetal congenital anomalies

Uterine structural abnormalities (eg, fibroids, synechiae)

Multiple gestation

Several common types of abnormal lie or presentation are discussed here.

Transverse lie

Fetal position is transverse, with the fetal long axis oblique or perpendicular rather than parallel to the maternal long axis. Transverse lie is often accompanied by shoulder presentation, which requires cesarean delivery.

Breech presentation

There are several types of breech presentation.

Frank breech: The fetal hips are flexed, and the knees extended (pike position).

Complete breech: The fetus seems to be sitting with hips and knees flexed.

Single or double footling presentation: One or both legs are completely extended and present before the buttocks.

Types of breech presentations

Breech presentation makes delivery difficult ,primarily because the presenting part is a poor dilating wedge. Having a poor dilating wedge can lead to incomplete cervical dilation, because the presenting part is narrower than the head that follows. The head, which is the part with the largest diameter, can then be trapped during delivery.

Additionally, the trapped fetal head can compress the umbilical cord if the fetal umbilicus is visible at the introitus, particularly in primiparas whose pelvic tissues have not been dilated by previous deliveries. Umbilical cord compression may cause fetal hypoxemia.

Predisposing factors for breech presentation include

Preterm labor

Uterine abnormalities

Fetal anomalies

If delivery is vaginal, breech presentation may increase risk of

Umbilical cord prolapse

Birth trauma

Perinatal death

Face or brow presentation

In face presentation, the head is hyperextended, and position is designated by the position of the chin (mentum). When the chin is posterior, the head is less likely to rotate and less likely to deliver vaginally, necessitating cesarean delivery.

Brow presentation usually converts spontaneously to vertex or face presentation.

Occiput posterior position

The most common abnormal position is occiput posterior.

The fetal neck is usually somewhat deflexed; thus, a larger diameter of the head must pass through the pelvis.

Progress may arrest in the second phase of labor. Operative vaginal delivery or cesarean delivery is often required.

Position and Presentation of the Fetus

If a fetus is in the occiput posterior position, operative vaginal delivery or cesarean delivery is often required.

In breech presentation, the presenting part is a poor dilating wedge, which can cause the head to be trapped during delivery, often compressing the umbilical cord.

For breech presentation, usually do cesarean delivery at 39 weeks or during labor, but external cephalic version is sometimes successful before labor, usually at 37 or 38 weeks.

• Cookie Preferences

Copyright © 2024 Merck & Co., Inc., Rahway, NJ, USA and its affiliates. All rights reserved.

Need to talk? Call 1800 882 436. It's a free call with a maternal child health nurse. *call charges may apply from your mobile

Is it an emergency? Dial 000 If you need urgent medical help, call triple zero immediately.

Share via email

There is a total of 5 error s on this form, details are below.

• Please enter your name
• Please enter your email
• Your email is invalid. Please check and try again
• Please enter recipient's email
• Recipient's email is invalid. Please check and try again
• Agree to Terms required

Error: This is required

Error: Not a valid value

Presentation and position of baby through pregnancy and at birth

9-minute read

If you are concerned about your baby’s movements, contact your doctor or midwife for advice immediately.

• If you baby is in a breech presentation, your doctor may recommend trying a technique called an external cephalic version to try and move your baby while they are still in the uterus for an easier birth.

What does presentation and position mean?

Presentation refers to the part of your baby’s body that is facing downwards in the direction of the birth canal.

Position refers to where your baby’s occiput (the bottom part of the back of their head) is in relation to your body.

If your baby is in a breech presentation , then position refers to where your baby’s sacrum (lower back) is in relation to your body.

People — including medical professionals — sometimes use these terms incorrectly. Sometimes when speaking about babies in breech presentation, the word ‘position’ will be used to refer to their presentation. For example, you may read information or hear people say ‘breech position’ instead of ‘breech presentation’.

What are the different types of presentation my baby could be in during pregnancy and birth?

Most babies present headfirst, also known as cephalic presentation. Most babies that are headfirst will be vertex presentation. This means that the crown of their head sits at the opening of your birth canal.

In rare cases, your baby can be headfirst but in face or brow presentation, which may not be suitable for vaginal birth.

If your baby is in a breech presentation, their feet or bottom will be closest to your birth canal. The 3 most common types of breech presentation are:

• frank or extended breech — where your baby’s legs are straight up in front of their body, with their feet up near their face
• complete or flexed breech — where your baby is in a sitting position with their legs crossed in front of their body and their feet near their bottom
• footling breech — where one or both of your baby’s feet are hanging below their bottom, so the foot or feet are coming first

Read more on breech presentation .

What are the different positions my baby could be in during pregnancy and birth?

If your baby is headfirst, the 3 main types of presentation are:

• anterior – when the back of your baby’s head is at the front of your belly
• lateral – when the back of your baby’s head is facing your side
• posterior – when the back of your baby’s head is towards your back

How will I know what presentation and position my baby is in?

Your doctor or midwife can usually work out your baby’s presentation by feeling your abdomen. They may also double check it with a portable ultrasound. Your baby’s presentation is usually checked around 36 weeks .

Your doctor or midwife will also confirm your baby’s head position in labour by examining your belly and using an ultrasound , and they may also do a vaginal examination . During the vaginal examination they are feeling for certain ridges on your baby’s head called sutures and fontanelles that help them work out which way your baby is positioned.

What is the ideal presentation and position for baby to be in for a vaginal birth?

For a vaginal birth, your baby will ideally be headfirst with the back of their head at the front of your belly, also known as being in the anterior position. This position is best for labour and birth since it means that the smallest part of your baby’s head goes down the birth canal first.

When does a baby usually get in the ideal presentation and position for birth?

Your baby will usually be in a headfirst position by 37 weeks of pregnancy. Around 3 in every 100 babies will be in breech presentation after 37 weeks.

Your baby’s position can change with your contractions during labour as they move down the birth canal, so their exact position can change during labour.

What are my options if baby isn't in the ideal presentation or position for a vaginal birth?

If your baby is in a breech presentation, your doctor may recommend a technique called an external cephalic version (ECV) to try and move your baby while they are still in the uterus . An ECV involves your doctor using their hands to apply pressure on your belly and help turn your baby to a headfirst position. It has a 1 in 2 chance of success and is a safe option in most pregnancies.

There is no evidence to show that alternative therapies, such as exercises, acupuncture or chiropractic treatments, help your baby change from a breech presentation to headfirst.

If your baby remains breech, your doctor may discuss having a breech vaginal birth. Not all doctors and hospitals offer this option. They may also suggest you birth your baby with a planned caesarean section .

If your baby’s presentation is headfirst but the position of your baby’s head is not ideal for labour, it can lead to a longer labour, and potential complications . The position of your baby’s head will often change as your labour progresses. If it doesn’t, sometimes you can still give birth without assistance, or you may need your doctor to help turn your baby’s head or help your birth with a vacuum or forceps .

Any procedure or decision for a type of birth will only go ahead with your consent . You will be able to discuss all the options with your doctor, and based on your preferences for yourself and your baby’s safety, make a decision together .

Resources and support

The Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Obstetrics and Gynaecology has a factsheet about the options available to you if your baby is in a breech presentation at the end of your pregnancy .

Mercy Perinatal has information on external cephalic version (ECV) safety and benefits if your baby is in a breech presentation at the end of your pregnancy.

The Women’s Hospital has information about the different presentations and positions your baby could be in, and how it can affect your birthing experience.

Speak to a maternal child health nurse

Call Pregnancy, Birth and Baby to speak to a maternal child health nurse on 1800 882 436 or video call . Available 7am to midnight (AET), 7 days a week.

Learn more here about the development and quality assurance of healthdirect content .

Last reviewed: October 2023

Related pages

External cephalic version (ecv), malpresentation, breech pregnancy, search our site for.

• Foetal Version
• Breech Presentation

Need more information?

Top results

Breech presentation and turning the baby

In preparation for a safe birth, your health team will need to turn your baby if it is in a bottom first ‘breech’ position.

Read more on WA Health website

Breech Presentation at the End of your Pregnancy

Breech presentation occurs when your baby is lying bottom first or feet first in the uterus (womb) rather than the usual head first position. In early pregnancy, a breech position is very common.

Read more on RANZCOG - Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists website

External Cephalic Version for Breech Presentation - Pregnancy and the first five years

This information brochure provides information about an External Cephalic Version (ECV) for breech presentation

Read more on NSW Health website

When a baby is positioned bottom-down late in pregnancy, this is called the breech position. Find out about 3 main types and safe birthing options.

Read more on Pregnancy, Birth & Baby website

Malpresentation is when your baby is in an unusual position as the birth approaches. Sometimes it’s possible to move the baby, but a caesarean maybe safer.

Labour complications

Even if you’re healthy and well prepared for childbirth, there’s always a chance of unexpected problems. Learn more about labour complications.

ECV is a procedure to try to move your baby from a breech position to a head-down position. This is performed by a trained doctor.

Having a baby

The articles in this section relate to having a baby – what to consider before becoming pregnant, pregnancy and birth, and after your baby is born.

Anatomy of pregnancy and birth - pelvis

Your pelvis helps to carry your growing baby and is tailored for vaginal births. Learn more about the structure and function of the female pelvis.

Planned or elective caesarean

There are important things to consider if you are having a planned or elective caesarean such as what happens during and after the procedure.

Pregnancy, Birth and Baby is not responsible for the content and advertising on the external website you are now entering.

Call us and speak to a Maternal Child Health Nurse for personal advice and guidance.

Need further advice or guidance from our maternal child health nurses?

1800 882 436

Government Accredited with over 140 information partners

We are a government-funded service, providing quality, approved health information and advice

Healthdirect Australia acknowledges the Traditional Owners of Country throughout Australia and their continuing connection to land, sea and community. We pay our respects to the Traditional Owners and to Elders both past and present.

© 2024 Healthdirect Australia Limited

This information is for your general information and use only and is not intended to be used as medical advice and should not be used to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any medical condition, nor should it be used for therapeutic purposes.

The information is not a substitute for independent professional advice and should not be used as an alternative to professional health care. If you have a particular medical problem, please consult a healthcare professional.

Except as permitted under the Copyright Act 1968, this publication or any part of it may not be reproduced, altered, adapted, stored and/or distributed in any form or by any means without the prior written permission of Healthdirect Australia.

Support this browser is being discontinued for Pregnancy, Birth and Baby

Support for this browser is being discontinued for this site

• Internet Explorer 11 and lower

We currently support Microsoft Edge, Chrome, Firefox and Safari. For more information, please visit the links below:

• Chrome by Google
• Firefox by Mozilla
• Microsoft Edge
• Safari by Apple

You are welcome to continue browsing this site with this browser. Some features, tools or interaction may not work correctly.

• Learn   /  

Why Is Cephalic Presentation Ideal For Childbirth?

5   Dec   2017 | 8 min Read

During labour, contractions stretch your birth canal so that your baby has adequate room to come through during birth. The cephalic presentation is the safest and easiest way for your baby to pass through the birth canal.

If your baby is in a non-cephalic position, delivery can become more challenging. Different fetal positions pose a range of difficulties and varying risks and may not be considered ideal birthing positions.

Two Kinds of Cephalic Positions

There are two kinds of cephalic positions:

• Cephalic occiput anterior , where your baby’s head is down and is facing toward your back.
• Cephalic occiput posterior , where your baby is positioned head down, but they are facing your abdomen instead of your back. This position is also nicknamed ‘sunny-side-up’ and can increase the chances of prolonged and painful delivery. 

How to Know if Your Baby is In a Cephalic Position?

You can feel your baby’s position by rubbing your hand on your belly. If you feel your little one’s stomach in the upper stomach, then your baby is in a cephalic position. But if you feel their kicks in the lower stomach, then it could mean that your baby is in a breech position.

You can also determine whether your baby is in the anterior or posterior cephalic position. If your baby is in the anterior position, you may feel their movement underneath your ribs and your belly button could also pop out. If your baby is in the posterior position, then you may feel their kicks in their abdomen, and your stomach may appear rounded up instead of flat. 

You can also determine your baby’s position through an ultrasound scan or a physical examination at your healthcare provider’s office. 

Benefits of Cephalic Presentation in Pregnancy

Cephalic presentation is one of the most ideal birth positions, and has the following benefits:

• It is the safest way to give birth as your baby’s position is head-down and prevents the risk of any injuries.
• It can help your baby move through the delivery canal as safely and easily as possible.
• It increases the chances of smooth labour and delivery.

Are There Any Risks Involved in Cephalic Position?

Conditions like a cephalic posterior position in addition to a narrow pelvis of the mother can increase the risk of pregnancy complications during delivery. Some babies in the head-first cephalic presentation might have their heads tilted backward. This may, in some rare cases, cause preterm delivery.

What are the Risks Associated with Other Birth Positions?

A small percentage of babies may settle into a non-cephalic position before their birth. This can pose risks to both your and your baby’s health, and also influence the way in which you deliver. 

In the next section, we have discussed a few positions that your baby can settle in throughout pregnancy, as they move around the uterus. But as they grow old, there will be less space for them to tumble around, and they will settle into their final position. This is when non-cephalic positions can pose a risk.  

Breech Position

There are three types of breech fetal positioning:

• Frank breech : Your baby’s legs stick straight up along with their feet near their head.
• Footling breech: One or both of your baby’s legs are lowered over your cervix.
• Complete breech: Your baby is positioned bottom-first with their knees bent.

If your baby is in a breech position , vaginal delivery is considered complicated. When a baby is born in breech position, the largest part of their body, that is, their head is delivered last. This can lead to injury or even fetal distress. Moreover, the umbilical cord may also get damaged or get wrapped around your baby’s neck, cutting off their oxygen supply.  

If your baby is in a breech position, your healthcare provider may recommend a c-section, or they may try ways to flip your baby’s position in a cephalic presentation.

Transverse Lie

In this position, your baby settles in sideways across the uterus rather than being in a vertical position. They may be:

• Head-down, with their back facing the birth canal
• One shoulder pointing toward the birth canal
• Up with their hands and feet facing the birth canal

If your baby settles in this position, then your healthcare provider may suggest a c-section to reduce the risk of distress in your baby and other pregnancy complications.

Turning Your Baby Into A Cephalic Position

External cephalic version (ECV) is a common, and non-invasive procedure that helps turn your baby into a cephalic position while they are in the womb. However, your healthcare provider may only consider this procedure if they consider you have a stable health condition in the last trimester, and if your baby hasn’t changed their position by the 36th week.

You can also try some natural remedies to change your baby’s position, such as:

• Lying in a bridge position: Movements like bridge position can sometimes help move your baby into a more suitable position. Lie on your back with your feet flat on the ground and your legs bent. Raise your pelvis and hips into a bridge position and hold for 5-10 minutes. Repeat several times daily.
• Chiropractic care: A chiropractor can help with the adjustment of your baby’s position and also reduce stress in them.
• Acupuncture: After your doctor’s go-ahead, you can also consider acupuncture to get your baby to settle into an ideal birthing position.

While most babies settle in a cephalic presentation by the 36th week of pregnancy, some may lie in a breech or transverse position before birth. Since the cephalic position is considered the safest, your doctor may recommend certain procedures to flip your baby’s position to make your labour and delivery smooth. You may also try the natural methods that we discussed above to get your baby into a safe birthing position and prevent risks or other pregnancy complications. 

When Should A Baby Be In A Cephalic Position?

Your baby would likely naturally drop into a cephalic position between weeks 37 to 40 of your pregnancy .

Is Cephalic Position Safe?

Research shows that 95% of babies take the cephalic position a few weeks or days before their due date. It is considered to be the safest position. It ensures a smooth birthing process.

While most of the babies are in cephalic position at delivery, this is not always the case. If you have a breech baby, you can discuss the available options for delivery with your doctor.

Does cephalic presentation mean labour is near?

Head-down is the ideal position for your baby within your uterus during birth. This is known as the cephalic position. This posture allows your baby to pass through the delivery canal more easily and safely.

Can babies change from cephalic to breech?

The external cephalic version (ECV) is the most frequent procedure used for turning a breech infant.

How can I keep my baby in a cephalic position?

While your baby naturally gets into this position, you can try some exercises to ensure that they settle in cephalic presentation. Exercises such as breech tilt, forward-leaning position (spinning babies program), cat and camel pose can help.

Stitches after a normal delivery : How many stitches do you need after a vaginal delivery? Tap this post to know.

Vaginal birth after caesarean delivery : Learn all about the precautions to consider before having a vaginal delivery after a c-section procedure. 

How many c-sections can you have : Tap this post to know the total number of c-sections that you can safely have.

Cover Image Credit: Freepik.com

Related Topics for you

babychakraenglish

cephalicposition

cephalicpresentation

fetaldevelopment

fetalmovement

preganancycare

Suggestions offered by doctors on BabyChakra are of advisory nature i.e., for educational and informational purposes only. Content posted on, created for, or compiled by BabyChakra is not intended or designed to replace your doctor's independent judgment about any symptom, condition, or the appropriateness or risks of a procedure or treatment for a given person.

We have a new app!

Take the Access library with you wherever you go—easy access to books, videos, images, podcasts, personalized features, and more.

Download the Access App here: iOS and Android . Learn more here!

• Remote Access
• Save figures into PowerPoint
• Download tables as PDFs

Chapter 15:  Abnormal Cephalic Presentations

Jessica Dy; Darine El-Chaar

• Download Chapter PDF

Disclaimer: These citations have been automatically generated based on the information we have and it may not be 100% accurate. Please consult the latest official manual style if you have any questions regarding the format accuracy.

Download citation file:

• Search Book

Jump to a Section

Malpresentations.

• TRANSVERSE POSITIONS OF THE OCCIPUT
• POSTERIOR POSITIONS OF THE OCCIPUT
• BROW PRESENTATIONS
• MEDIAN VERTEX PRESENTATIONS: MILITARY ATTITUDE
• FACE PRESENTATION
• SELECTED READING
• Full Chapter
• Supplementary Content

The fetus enters the pelvis in a cephalic presentation approximately 95 percent to 96 percent of the time. In these cephalic presentations, the occiput may be in the persistent transverse or posterior positions. In about 3 percent to 4 percent of pregnancies, there is a breech-presenting fetus (see Chapter 25 ). In the remaining 1 percent, the fetus may be either in a transverse or oblique lie (see Chapter 26 ), or the head may be extended with the face or brow presenting.

Predisposing Factors

Maternal and uterine factors.

Contracted pelvis: This is the most common and important factor

Pendulous maternal abdomen: If the uterus and fetus are allowed to fall forward, there may be difficulty in engagement

Neoplasms: Uterine fibromyomas or ovarian cysts can block the entry to the pelvis

Uterine anomalies: In a bicornuate uterus, the nonpregnant horn may obstruct labor in the pregnant one

Abnormalities of placental size or location: Conditions such as placenta previa are associated with unfavorable positions of the fetus

High parity

Fetal Factors

Errors in fetal polarity, such as breech presentation and transverse lie

Abnormal internal rotation: The occiput rotates posteriorly or fails to rotate at all

Fetal attitude: Extension in place of normal flexion

Multiple pregnancy

Fetal anomalies, including hydrocephaly and anencephaly

Polyhydramnios: An excessive amount of amniotic fluid allows the baby freedom of activity, and he or she may assume abnormal positions

Prematurity

Placenta and Membranes

Placenta previa

Cornual implantation

Premature rupture of membranes

Effects of Malpresentations

Effects on labor.

The less symmetrical adaptation of the presenting part to the cervix and to the pelvis plays a part in reducing the efficiency of labor.

The incidence of fetopelvic disproportion is higher

Inefficient uterine action is common. The contractions tend to be weak and irregular

Prolonged labor is seen frequently

Pathologic retraction rings can develop, and rupture of the lower uterine segment may be the end result

The cervix often dilates slowly and incompletely

The presenting part stays high

Premature rupture of the membranes occurs often

The need for operative delivery is increased

Effects on the Mother

Because greater uterine and intraabdominal muscular effort is required and because labor is often prolonged, maternal exhaustion is common

There is more stretching of the perineum and soft parts, and there are more lacerations

Tears of the uterus, cervix, and vagina

Uterine atony from prolonged labor

Early rupture of the membranes

Excessive blood loss

Tissue damage

Frequent rectal and vaginal examinations

Prolonged labor

Get Free Access Through Your Institution

Pop-up div successfully displayed.

This div only appears when the trigger link is hovered over. Otherwise it is hidden from view.

Please Wait

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

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Cochrane Database Syst Rev

Pelvimetry for fetal cephalic presentations at or near term for deciding on mode of delivery

Pelvimetry assesses the size of a woman's pelvis aiming to predict whether she will be able to give birth vaginally or not. This can be done by clinical examination, or by conventional X‐rays, computerised tomography (CT) scanning, or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI).

To assess the effects of pelvimetry (performed antenatally or intrapartum) on the method of birth, on perinatal mortality and morbidity, and on maternal morbidity. This review concentrates exclusively on women whose fetuses have a cephalic presentation.

Search methods

We searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (31 January 2017) and reference lists of retrieved studies.

Selection criteria

Randomised controlled trials (including quasi‐randomised) assessing the use of pelvimetry versus no pelvimetry or assessing different types of pelvimetry in women with a cephalic presentation at or near term were included. Cluster trials were eligible for inclusion, but none were identified.

Data collection and analysis

Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and risk of bias, extracted data and checked them for accuracy. We assessed the quality of the evidence using the GRADE approach.

Main results

Five trials with a total of 1159 women were included. All used X‐ray pelvimetry to assess the pelvis. X‐ray pelvimetry versus no pelvimetry or clinical pelvimetry is the only comparison included in this review due to the lack of trials identified that examined other types of radiological pelvimetry or that compared clinical pelvimetry versus no pelvimetry.

The included trials were generally at high risk of bias. There is an overall high risk of performance bias due to lack of blinding of women and staff. Two studies were also at high risk of selection bias. We used GRADEpro software to grade evidence for our selected outcomes; for caesarean section we rated the evidence low quality and all the other outcomes (perinatal mortality, wound sepsis, blood transfusion, scar dehiscence and admission to special care baby unit) as very low quality. Downgrading was due to risk of bias relating to lack of allocation concealment and blinding, and imprecision of effect estimates.

Women undergoing X‐ray pelvimetry were more likely to have a caesarean section (risk ratio (RR) 1.34, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.19 to 1.52; 1159 women; 5 studies; low‐quality evidence ). There were no clear differences between groups for perinatal outcomes: perinatal mortality (RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.19 to 1.45; 1159 infants; 5 studies; very low‐quality evidence ), perinatal asphyxia (RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.39 to 1.10; 305 infants; 1 study), and admission to special care baby unit (RR 0.20, 95% CI 0.01 to 4.13; 288 infants; 1 study; very low‐quality evidence ). Other outcomes assessed were wound sepsis (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.26 to 2.67; 288 women; 1 study; very low‐quality evidence ), blood transfusion (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.39 to 2.59; 288 women; 1 study; very low‐quality evidence ), and scar dehiscence (RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.14 to 2.46; 390 women; 2 studies; very low‐quality evidence ). Again, no clear differences were found for these outcomes between the women who received X‐ray pelvimetry and those who did not. Apgar score less than seven at five minutes was not reported in any study.

Authors' conclusions

X‐ray pelvimetry versus no pelvimetry or clinical pelvimetry is the only comparison included in this review due to the lack of trials identified that used other types or pelvimetry (other radiological examination or clinical pelvimetry versus no pelvimetry). There is not enough evidence to support the use of X‐ray pelvimetry for deciding on mode of delivery in women whose fetuses have a cephalic presentation. Women who undergo an X‐ray pelvimetry may be more likely to have a caesarean section.

Further research should be directed towards defining whether there are specific clinical situations in which pelvimetry can be shown to be of value. Newer methods of pelvimetry (CT, MRI) should be subjected to randomised trials to assess their value. Further trials of X‐ray pelvimetry in cephalic presentations would be of value if large enough to assess the effect on perinatal mortality.

Plain language summary

What is the issue?

Does the use of pelvimetry to assess the size of the woman's pelvis improve outcomes for baby and mother? Pelvimetry might identify babies whose heads are too big for their mother's pelvis. In this case, an elective caesarean section might improve the outcome. Forms of pelvimetry include radiological pelvimetry (X‐ray, computerised tomography (CT) scan or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)) and clinical examination of the woman. We planned to include all studies comparing the use of clinical or radiological (X‐ray, CT or MRI) pelvimetry versus no pelvimetry, or different types of pelvimetry.

Why is this important?

Sometimes, normal labour does not progress because the baby's head is too big, or the pelvis of the mother is too small, for the baby to pass through. This is called "cephalo‐pelvic disproportion" or "obstructed labour" which may lead to an emergency caesarean section with possible risks for both mother and baby. A pregnant mother or her caregiver might be worried that disproportion could occur and for this reason, pelvimetry can be performed either before or during labour. It can be undertaken by clinical examination, X‐ray, CT‐scan or MRI. Pelvimetry measures the diameters of the pelvis and the baby's head. However, doing a pelvimetry also has implications: clinical examination might be very uncomfortable for the mother, X‐ray and CT‐scanning might be harmful for the baby and MRI is very expensive. All of these techniques have to be performed meticulously by experienced and skilled people to have any real value.

If we could diagnose the disproportion accurately before birth using pelvimetry, we might reduce the need for an emergency caesarean section and plan an elective procedure, with better outcomes for the baby and less complications for the mother.

What evidence did we find?

We searched for evidence on 30th November 2016 and identified five trials with a total of 1159 pregnant women. All five trials used X‐ray pelvimetry in comparison to no X‐ray pelvimetry.

The women who received X‐ray pelvimetry were more likely to have a caesarean section ( low‐quality evidence ). Whether a woman had pelvimetry or not, we found no difference in the numbers of babies that died ( very low‐quality evidence ), who did not have enough oxygen during labour, or were admitted to special care baby units ( very low‐quality evidence ). For the women, no differences were found between numbers of women with wound sepsis, those who received a blood transfusion, or those whose caesarean section scar began to break down ( all very low‐quality evidence ). Apgar score less than seven at five minutes was not reported in any study.

What does this mean?

There is too little evidence (the majority of which is low quality) to show whether measuring the size of the woman's pelvis (pelvimetry) is beneficial and safe when the baby is in a head‐down position. The number of women having a caesarean section increased if women had X‐ray pelvimetry but there was insufficient good‐quality evidence to show if pelvimetry improves outcomes for the baby. More research is needed.

Summary of findings

Description of the condition.

Cephalo‐pelvic disproportion (CPD) is one of the leading indications for an emergency caesarean section. CPD occurs when there is a mismatch between the fetal head and the maternal pelvis (when the fetal head is too big for the pelvis), resulting in obstructed labour.

Emergency caesarean sections have been shown to have an increased risk of maternal and neonatal morbidity and mortality ( van Ham 1997 ). Women undergoing an emergency caesarean section are at an increased risk for intra‐ and postoperative complications such as haemorrhage (tearing of the uterine incision into the parametrium or cervix, hysterotomy extension), infection (wound sepsis, endometritis), deep vein thrombosis and prolonged hospitalisation. Risks for the neonate include respiratory problems and trauma.

Women with a previous caesarean scar are known to be at risk for uterine rupture, stillbirth and placenta praevia in subsequent pregnancies. Performing a repeat caesarean section also increases the risk of bowel or bladder injury and haemorrhage and women who have had a previous caesarean section can be offered a trial of labour (vaginal birth after caesarean section (VBAC)) to reduce the intra‐ and postoperative complications of a caesarean section. However, the low but life‐threatening risk (for both mother and fetus) of a uterine rupture during labour has to be taken into consideration and explained to the woman ( Dodd 2013 ).

Description of the intervention

Assessment of the size of a woman's pelvis (pelvimetry) can be achieved by clinical examination (where the bony pelvis is digitally examined to identify prominent structures that may cause obstructed labour), or by conventional X‐rays (usually a lateral and anterior‐posterior view used to physically measure the sizes of the pelvic inlet, midpelvis and pelvic outlet, Morgan 1992 ), computerised tomography (CT) scanning (measuring the pelvis in the lateral, anterior‐posterior and axial views, Morris 1993 ), or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI, measuring of a midline sagittal, and oblique coronal views of the pelvis, Sporri 2002 ).

How the intervention might work

The aim of pelvimetry (whichever method is used) in women whose fetuses have a cephalic presentation, is to detect the presence of cephalo‐pelvic disproportion and therefore the need for caesarean section. Pelvimetry may influence clinical care since clinicians who feel that vaginal birth would be impossible, would offer the woman an elective caesarean section, thereby reducing the need of an emergency caesarean section. The criteria for determining an adequate or small pelvis have been from descriptive studies and senior opinions ( Mengert 1948 ).

Why it is important to do this review

These techniques are not without risks, the greatest of all being a false positive result and unnecessary caesarean section. Clinical pelvimetry is very uncomfortable for the woman, X‐rays and CT scanning expose the fetus to radiation (the latter slightly less so), and MRI is very expensive. All of these techniques have to be performed meticulously by experienced and skilled people in order to have any value at all.

To assess the effects of pelvimetry (performed antenatally, or intrapartum) on the method of birth, on perinatal mortality and morbidity, and on maternal morbidity. This review concentrates exclusively on women whose fetuses have a cephalic presentation.

Criteria for considering studies for this review

Types of studies

We included all randomised controlled trials (including quasi‐randomised) comparing pelvimetry in cephalic presentations versus no pelvimetry or comparing different types of pelvimetry. We would have included cluster trials if they had been identified during the search. Cross‐over studies were not eligible for this review.

If an abstract was of interest, we would have contacted the authors for further information about their trial.

Types of participants

Pregnant women with a singleton, cephalic presentation fetus who have or have not had a previous caesarean section. Studies that recruited women before, or during labour were included as well as women for spontaneous labour, induction of labour, or trial of scar after previous caesarean section (otherwise known as vaginal birth after caesarean or VBAC).

Types of interventions

The main intervention of interest is pelvimetry as a predictor of cephalo‐pelvic disproportion. Control groups could include women who did not have pelvimetry or who had different types of pelvimetry.

We planned to include studies comparing different methods of clinical or radiological pelvimetry such as X‐rays, computerised tomography (CT) scanning or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). We reported women who have had one previous caesarean section and women who have had no previous section, or are nulliparous, in separate clinical subgroups.

Types of outcome measures

Primary outcomes, caesarean section, perinatal mortality, secondary outcomes, maternal outcomes, puerperal pyrexia, wound sepsis, blood transfusion, scar dehiscence, perinatal outcomes, perinatal asphyxia.

• Admission to special care baby units

Apgar score less than seven at five minutes

Search methods for identification of studies.

The following methods section of this review is based on a standard template used by Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth.

Electronic searches

We searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth’s Trials Register by contacting their Information Specialist (31 January 2017).

The Register is a database containing over 22,000 reports of controlled trials in the field of pregnancy and childbirth. For full search methods used to populate Pregnancy and Childbirth’s Trials Register including the detailed search strategies for CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and CINAHL; the list of handsearched journals and conference proceedings, and the list of journals reviewed via the current awareness service, please follow this link to the editorial information about the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth in the Cochrane Library and select the ‘ Specialized Register ’ section from the options on the left side of the screen.

Briefly, Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth’s Trials Register is maintained by their Information Specialist and contains trials identified from:

• monthly searches of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL);
• weekly searches of MEDLINE (Ovid);
• weekly searches of Embase (Ovid);
• monthly searches of CINAHL (EBSCO);
• handsearches of 30 journals and the proceedings of major conferences;
• weekly current awareness alerts for a further 44 journals plus monthly BioMed Central email alerts.

Search results are screened by two people and the full text of all relevant trial reports identified through the searching activities described above is reviewed. Based on the intervention described, each trial report is assigned a number that corresponds to a specific Pregnancy and Childbirth review topic (or topics), and is then added to the Register. The Information Specialist searches the Register for each review using this topic number rather than keywords. This results in a more specific search set which has been fully accounted for in the relevant review sections ( Included studies ; Excluded studies ).

Searching other resources

We searched the reference lists of retrieved studies.

We did not apply any language or date restrictions.

For methods used in the previous version of this review, see Pattinson 1997 .

For this update, the following methods were used for assessing the two reports that were identified as a result of the updated search.

The following methods section of this review is based on a standard template used by Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group.

Selection of studies

Two review authors independently assessed for inclusion all the potential studies identified as a result of the search strategy. We resolved any disagreement through discussion or, if required, we consulted the third review author.

Data extraction and management

We designed a form to extract data. For eligible studies, two review authors extracted the data using the agreed form. We resolved discrepancies through discussion or, if required, we consulted the third review author. Data were entered into Review Manager software ( RevMan 2014 ) and checked for accuracy.

When information regarding any of the above was unclear, we planned to contact authors of the original reports to provide further details.

Assessment of risk of bias in included studies

Two review authors independently assessed risk of bias for each study using the criteria outlined in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions ( Higgins 2011 ). Any disagreement was resolved by discussion or by involving a third assessor.

(1) Random sequence generation (checking for possible selection bias)

We described for each included study the method used to generate the allocation sequence in sufficient detail to allow an assessment of whether it should produce comparable groups.

We assessed the method as:

• low risk of bias (any truly random process, e.g. random number table; computer random number generator);
• high risk of bias (any non‐random process, e.g. odd or even date of birth; hospital or clinic record number);
• unclear risk of bias.

(2) Allocation concealment (checking for possible selection bias)

We described for each included study the method used to conceal allocation to interventions prior to assignment and assessed whether intervention allocation could have been foreseen in advance of, or during recruitment, or changed after assignment.

We assessed the methods as:

• low risk of bias (e.g. telephone or central randomisation; consecutively numbered sealed opaque envelopes);
• high risk of bias (open random allocation; unsealed or non‐opaque envelopes, alternation; date of birth);

(3.1) Blinding of participants and personnel (checking for possible performance bias)

We described for each included study the methods used, if any, to blind study participants and personnel from knowledge of which intervention a participant received. We considered that studies were at low risk of bias if they were blinded, or if we judged that the lack of blinding unlikely to affect results. We assessed blinding separately for different outcomes or classes of outcomes.

• low, high or unclear risk of bias for participants;
• low, high or unclear risk of bias for personnel.

(3.2) Blinding of outcome assessment (checking for possible detection bias)

We described for each included study the methods used, if any, to blind outcome assessors from knowledge of which intervention a participant received. We assessed blinding separately for different outcomes or classes of outcomes.

We assessed methods used to blind outcome assessment as:

• low, high or unclear risk of bias.

(4) Incomplete outcome data (checking for possible attrition bias due to the amount, nature and handling of incomplete outcome data)

We described for each included study, and for each outcome or class of outcomes, the completeness of data including attrition and exclusions from the analysis. We stated whether attrition and exclusions were reported and the numbers included in the analysis at each stage (compared with the total randomised participants), reasons for attrition or exclusion where reported, and whether missing data were balanced across groups or were related to outcomes. Where sufficient information was reported, or could be supplied by the trial authors, we planned to re‐include missing data in the analyses which we undertook.

We assessed methods as:

• low risk of bias (e.g. no missing outcome data; missing outcome data balanced across groups);
• high risk of bias (e.g. numbers or reasons for missing data imbalanced across groups; ‘as treated’ analysis done with substantial departure of intervention received from that assigned at randomisation);

(5) Selective reporting (checking for reporting bias)

We described for each included study how we investigated the possibility of selective outcome reporting bias and what we found.

• low risk of bias (where it is clear that all of the study’s pre‐specified outcomes and all expected outcomes of interest to the review have been reported);
• high risk of bias (where not all the study’s pre‐specified outcomes have been reported; one or more reported primary outcomes were not pre‐specified; outcomes of interest are reported incompletely and so cannot be used; study fails to include results of a key outcome that would have been expected to have been reported);

(6) Other bias (checking for bias due to problems not covered by (1) to (5) above)

We described for each included study any important concerns we had about other possible sources of bias.

(7) Overall risk of bias

We made explicit judgements about whether studies were at high risk of bias, according to the criteria given in the Handbook ( Higgins 2011 ). With reference to (1) to (6) above, we planned to assess the likely magnitude and direction of the bias and whether we considered it is likely to impact on the findings. In future updates, we will explore the impact of the level of bias through undertaking sensitivity analyses ‐ see Sensitivity analysis .

Assessment of the quality of the evidence using the GRADE approach

For this update the quality of the evidence was assessed using the GRADE approach as outlined in the GRADE handbook in order to assess the quality of the body of evidence relating to the following outcomes for the main comparison ‐ X‐ray pelvimetry versus no pelvimetry or clinical pelvimetry in cephalic presentations.

We used the GRADEpro Guideline Development Tool to import data from Review Manager 5.3 ( RevMan 2014 ) in order to create a 'Summary of findings’ table. A summary of the intervention effect and a measure of quality for each of the above outcomes was produced using the GRADE approach. The GRADE approach uses five considerations (study limitations, consistency of effect, imprecision, indirectness and publication bias) to assess the quality of the body of evidence for each outcome. The evidence can be downgraded from 'high quality' by one level for serious (or by two levels for very serious) limitations, depending on assessments for risk of bias, indirectness of evidence, serious inconsistency, imprecision of effect estimates or potential publication bias.

Measures of treatment effect

Dichotomous data.

For dichotomous data, we presented results as summary risk ratio with 95% confidence intervals.

Continuous data

We did not include any continuous outcomes, however, if we do include them in future updates, we will use the mean difference if outcomes are measured in the same way between trials. We will use the standardised mean difference to combine trials that measure the same outcome, but use different methods.

Unit of analysis issues

Cluster‐randomised trials.

We did not identify any cluster‐randomised trials to include in the analyses. However, in future updates of the review, if we identify suitable cluster‐randomised trials, we will adjust their sample sizes or standard errors using the methods described in the Handbook Section 16.3.4 or 16.3.6 using an estimate of the intracluster correlation co‐efficient (ICC) derived from the trial (if possible), from a similar trial or from a study of a similar population. If we use ICCs from other sources, we will report this and conduct sensitivity analyses to investigate the effect of variation in the ICC. If we identify both cluster‐randomised trials and individually‐randomised trials, we plan to synthesise the relevant information. We will consider it reasonable to combine the results from both if there is little heterogeneity between the study designs and the interaction between the effect of intervention and the choice of randomisation unit is considered to be unlikely.

We will also acknowledge heterogeneity in the randomisation unit and perform a sensitivity or subgroup analysis to investigate the effects of the randomisation unit.

Cross‐over trials

Cross‐over trials were not eligible for this review.

Other unit of analysis issues

Multiple pregnancies.

Women with multiple pregnancies were not included in this review. If included in future updates, we will use cluster‐trial methods as described above to adjust the data. Babies from multiple pregnancies may be more likely to develop the same outcomes (non‐independence), so counting each as a separate data point may overestimate the sample size and make confidence intervals too narrow. We will regard each woman as a randomised cluster and use cluster‐trial methods to adjust outcomes for the baby.

Trials with more than two arms

If we had identified trials with more than two arms we would have pooled results using the methods set out in the Handbook (Higgins 2011) to avoid double‐counting.

Dealing with missing data

For included studies, levels of attrition were noted. In future updates, if more eligible studies are included, the impact of including studies with high levels of missing data in the overall assessment of treatment effect will be explored by using sensitivity analysis.

For all outcomes, analyses were carried out, as far as possible, on an intention‐to‐treat basis, i.e. we attempted to include all participants randomised to each group in the analyses. The denominator for each outcome in each trial was the number randomised minus any participants whose outcomes were known to be missing.

Assessment of heterogeneity

We assessed statistical heterogeneity in each meta‐analysis using the Tau², I² and Chi² statistics. We regarded heterogeneity as substantial if an I² was greater than 30% and either a Tau² was greater than zero, or there was a low P value (less than 0.10) in the Chi² test for heterogeneity. If we had identified substantial heterogeneity (above 30%), we would have explored it.

Assessment of reporting biases

In future updates, if there are 10 or more studies in the meta‐analysis, we will investigate reporting biases (such as publication bias) using funnel plots. We will assess funnel plot asymmetry visually. If asymmetry is suggested by a visual assessment, we will perform exploratory analyses to investigate it.

Data synthesis

We carried out statistical analysis using the Review Manager software ( RevMan 2014 ). We used fixed‐effect meta‐analysis for combining data where it was reasonable to assume that studies were estimating the same underlying treatment effect: i.e. where trials were examining the same intervention, and the trials’ populations and methods were judged sufficiently similar.

In future updates, if there is clinical heterogeneity sufficient to expect that the underlying treatment effects differed between trials, or if substantial statistical heterogeneity is detected, we will use random‐effects meta‐analysis to produce an overall summary, if an average treatment effect across trials is considered clinically meaningful. The random‐effects summary will be treated as the average range of possible treatment effects and we will discuss the clinical implications of treatment effects differing between trials. If the average treatment effect is not clinically meaningful, we will not combine trials. If we use random‐effects analyses, the results will be presented as the average treatment effect with 95% confidence intervals, and the estimates of Tau² and I².

Subgroup analysis and investigation of heterogeneity

We did not use subgroup analyses to investigate substantial heterogeneity. We carried out a clinical subgroup analyses on an issue of particular interest: women with no previous caesarean section versus women with previous caesarean section. This analysis was carried out for each review outcome. We assessed subgroup differences by interaction tests available within RevMan ( RevMan 2014 ). We reported the results of subgroup analyses quoting the Chi² statistic and P value, and the interaction test I² value.

Sensitivity analysis

We carried out sensitivity analyses to explore the effect of trial quality assessed by concealment of allocation with studies at high risk of allocation bias being excluded from the analyses in order to assess whether this makes any difference to the overall result. In future updates, if any trial is judged to be of poor quality due to being at high risk of bias for allocation concealment, high attrition rates, or both, we will also exclude these from the analysis.

Description of studies

Please see Characteristics of included studies and Characteristics of excluded studies for further details.

Results of the search

For this update, we assessed two reports of one trial ( Gaitan 2009 ) from a search of Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register (January 2017). In total, five trials are now included ( Crichton 1962 ; Gaitan 2009 ; Parsons 1985 ; Richards 1985 ; Thubisi 1993 ) and one is excluded ( Farrell 2002 ). See: Figure 1 .

Study flow diagram.

Included studies

Five trials with a total of 1159 women were included.

Study design

All included trials were two‐armed randomised controlled trials, using individual randomisation. Sample sizes were small and ranged from 102 ( Richards 1985 ) to 305 women ( Crichton 1962 ).

Trials were conducted in hospitals in South Africa ( Crichton 1962 ; Richards 1985 ; Thubisi 1993 ), USA ( Parsons 1985 ) and Spain ( Gaitan 2009 ).

Participants

Gaitan 2009 and Parsons 1985 only included nulliparous women in their trials, Crichton 1962 did not specify the parity of the women included, and Richards 1985 and Thubisi 1993 only included women with one previous lower segment caesarean section.

Gaitan 2009 and Parsons 1985 only randomised women who were being induced or augmented with oxytocin. Crichton 1962 randomised women when they were in labour and their doctor requested a pelvimetry. Both Richards 1985 and Thubisi 1993 performed pelvimetry at 36 weeks' gestation so women were randomised during pregnancy.

Interventions and comparisons

All of the trials included in the review examined X‐ray pelvimetry. We did not identify any trials comparing clinical pelvimetry with no pelvimetry, or examining other types of radiological pelvimetry.

Crichton 1962 included 305 women in labour whose attending doctors requested pelvimetry. Women were randomised to receive X‐ray pelvimetry or no pelvimetry during labour. No fetal heart rate monitoring was performed.

Parsons 1985 recruited 200 primigravid women who required induction of labour or augmentation of labour with oxytocin. All women received a clinical pelvimetry. Women were subsequently randomised by hospital number to either receive or not receive an X‐ray pelvimetry. Continuous fetal heart rate monitoring was done.

Richards 1985 included 102 women with one previous caesarean section (classical uterine incision being excluded). Women were randomised into two groups: the first group received an X‐ray pelvimetry at 36 weeks' gestation. If the pelvic inlet was less than 10.5 cm in the antero‐posterior diameter or less than 11.5 cm in the transverse diameter, an elective caesarean section was performed. The other women and the control group underwent a trial of scar, and had X‐ray pelvimetry postpartum as a comparison.

Thubisi 1993 randomised 288 women with one previous transverse lower segment caesarean section. The intervention group received an X‐ray pelvimetry at 36 weeks' gestation. A sagittal inlet of less than 11 cm, sagittal outlet of less than 10 cm, transverse inlet less than 11.5 cm, and transverse outlet (bispinous) less than 9 cm was an indication for caesarean section. The other women in the intervention group and the control group awaited a trial of scar.

Gaitan 2009 included 264 women. Women were randomised into two groups to either receive or not receive an X‐ray pelvimetry.

Crichton 1962 : outcomes were caesarean section/symphysiotomy, perinatal mortality, asphyxia and maternal survival.

Parsons 1985 : outcomes assessed were length of labour, length of rupture of membranes, length of oxytocin administration, type of birth, Apgar scores and birthweight.

Richards 1985 : outcomes measured were mode of birth, pelvimetry measurements, birthweight and average stay in hospital.

Thubisi 1993 : outcomes measured were caesarean section, perinatal mortality, birthweight, scar dehiscence, puerperal pyrexia, wound sepsis and blood transfusion.

Gaitan 2009 : outcomes measured were time from induction to birth of baby, method of birth, use of instruments during birth, any adverse effects and perinatal mortality.

Funding sources were not disclosed by any of the trialists.

Excluded studies

One trial was excluded: Farrell 2002 ; there were too few women recruited, study protocol was not adhered to, and the trial was stopped prior to completion due to inadequate randomisation.

Risk of bias in included studies

Please see Figure 2 and Figure 3 for a summary of 'Risk of bias' assessments.

'Risk of bias' summary: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item for each included study.

'Risk of bias' graph: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item presented as percentages across all included studies.

In all studies selection bias cannot be excluded, although Richards 1985 and Thubisi 1993 randomised a more homogeneous group of women as they were not in labour at the time of randomisation.

Both Crichton 1962 and Richards 1985 risk of selection bias was assessed as being 'unclear' due to not enough information being provided in the papers. Parsons 1985 and Thubisi 1993 were assessed as high risk as Parsons 1985 allocated women by hospital number, and Thubisi 1993 'randomly' assigned women at the first antenatal visit to one of two consultant teams, allocated by admitting clerks who had no medical training and knowledge of how they would be managed. Gaitan 2009 used a random number table to allocate women into groups but allocation concealment is not mentioned adequately.

Crichton 1962 relied on the attending clinician to request a pelvimetry and Parsons 1985 included a group of women requiring augmentation of labour, indicating that labour was already not progressing as expected.

None of the trials blinded participants, care givers or outcome assessors. For this type of outcome, blinded would be very difficult.

Incomplete outcome data

Thubisi 1993 randomised 306 women but only followed up 288. This loss to follow‐up is relatively low but loss of two women in the pelvimetry group related to outcomes of the study (women opted for caesarean section). For this reason, Thubisi 1993 was assessed as being at unclear risk of attrition bias. Richards 1985 was also assessed as unclear due to missing totals in the results tables of the study.

All remaining trials were assessed to be at low risk of attrition bias as data were reported for all women who were randomised.

Selective reporting

Protocols were not available for any of the included studies. Crichton 1962 , Parsons 1985 , Richards 1985 and Thubisi 1993 did not pre‐specify outcomes in the methods text. Gaitan 2009 does not report all outcomes, however in is unclear if this is due to translation issues. All trials were assessed to be at unclear risk of reporting bias.

Other potential sources of bias

All the trials were assessed to be at unclear risk of other bias except for Parsons 1985 and Thubisi 1993 who were assessed to be at low risk of bias as the baseline characteristics of both groups were similar and there was no other evidence of bias. Crichton 1962 and Richards 1985 did not report any baseline characteristics, and Gaitan 2009 had some unclear discrepancy between totals in tables and in text though it was unclear if this were due to translation issues.

Effects of interventions

See: Table 1

Summary of findings 1

1 Most studies contributing data had design limitations. Two studies had serious design limitations (high risk of bias for sequence generation and allocation concealment) one of which contributed 37.4% of weight (‐2).

2 Most studies contributing data had design limitations. (‐1)

3 Wide confidence interval crossing the line of no effect, small sample size, few events and lack of precision. (‐2)

4 One study contributing data with serious design limitations. (‐2)

5 Very wide confidence intervals crossing the line of no effect, small sample size and few events. (‐2)

6 Study contributing 79.7% total weight has serious design limitations. (‐2)

X‐ray pelvimetry versus no X‐ray pelvimetry

All five trials assessed the rate of caesarean section as an outcome, including a total of 1159 women. Crichton 1962 reported caesarean section and symphysiotomy results combined, therefore data for both caesarean section and symphysiotomy are included in this analysis. No other study reported symphysiotomy.

Women who had X‐ray pelvimetry had a higher rate of caesarean section than those women who had no X‐ray pelvimetry. The risk ratio (RR) for caesarean section is 1.34 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.19 to 1.52; 1159 women; 5 trials; low‐quality evidence ) Analysis 1.1 when compared to women who did not get an X‐ray pelvimetry. Quality of evidence as assessed using GRADE is low.

Comparison 1: X‐ray pelvimetry versus no X‐ray pelvimetry, Outcome 1: Caesarean section

Subgroup interaction tests suggest no clear differences in effects for women with previous versus women with no previous caesarean section (Test for subgroup differences: Chi² = 1.52, df = 1 (P = 0.22), I² = 34.1%). The two trials that only included women with a previous section ( Richards 1985 ; Thubisi 1993 ), performed elective caesarean sections on the women whose pelvic inlets did not satisfy pre‐specified requirements following antenatal X‐ray pelvimetry; all those who did satisfy requirements were left to go into spontaneous labour. A higher caesarean rate might therefore be expected. In future updates of this review it will be useful to analyse data for rates of elective and emergency caesarean sections separately.

All five trials assessed the perinatal mortality as an outcome, including a total of 1159 women. There is no clear difference in perinatal mortality between women who did and women who did not receive an X‐ray pelvimetry (RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.19 to 1.45; 1159 infants; 5 trials; very low‐quality evidence ) Analysis 1.2 . Quality of evidence as assessed using GRADE is very low.

Comparison 1: X‐ray pelvimetry versus no X‐ray pelvimetry, Outcome 2: Perinatal mortality

One trial including 288 women who all had a previous caesarean ( Thubisi 1993 ) assessed the incidence of puerperal pyrexia as an outcome after caesarean in both groups (women who did receive an X‐ray pelvimetry compared to women who did not). Little difference was found: RR 0.80 (95% CI 0.22 to 2.92; 288 women; 1 trial) Analysis 1.3 .

Comparison 1: X‐ray pelvimetry versus no X‐ray pelvimetry, Outcome 3: Puerperal pyrexia

One trial including 288 women ( Thubisi 1993 ) assessed the incidence of wound sepsis as an outcome after caesarean in both groups (women who did receive an X‐ray pelvimetry compared to women who did not). Little difference was found: RR 0.83 (95% CI 0.26 to 2.67; 288 women; 1 trial; very low‐quality evidence ) Analysis 1.4 . Quality of evidence as assessed using GRADE is very low.

Comparison 1: X‐ray pelvimetry versus no X‐ray pelvimetry, Outcome 4: Wound sepsis

One trial including 288 women ( Thubisi 1993 ) assessed the need for blood transfusion as an outcome in both groups (women who did receive an X‐ray pelvimetry compared to women who did not). No difference was found: RR 1.00 (95% CI 0.39 to 2.59; 288 women; 1 trial; very low‐quality evidence ) Analysis 1.5 . Quality of evidence as assessed using GRADE is very low.

Comparison 1: X‐ray pelvimetry versus no X‐ray pelvimetry, Outcome 5: Blood transfusion

Two trials including 390 women ( Richards 1985 ; Thubisi 1993 ) assessed the incidence of scar dehiscence as an outcome in women who had one previous transverse uterine segment caesarean section and underwent trial of scar. Little difference was found: RR 0.59 (95% CI 0.14 to 2.46; 390 women; 2 trials; v ery low‐quality evidence ) Analysis 1.6 . Quality of evidence as assessed using GRADE is very low.

Comparison 1: X‐ray pelvimetry versus no X‐ray pelvimetry, Outcome 6: Scar dehiscence

One trial including 305 infants ( Crichton 1962 ) assessed incidence of perinatal asphyxia. Little difference was found: RR 0.66 (95% CI 0.39 to 1.10; 305 infants; 1 trial) Analysis 1.7 .

Comparison 1: X‐ray pelvimetry versus no X‐ray pelvimetry, Outcome 7: Perinatal asphyxia

Admission to special care baby unit

One trial including 288 infants ( Thubisi 1993 ) assessed the need for admission to a special care baby unit. Little difference was found: RR 0.20 (95% CI 0.01 to 4.13; 288 infants; 1 trial; very low‐quality evidence ) Analysis 1.8 . Quality of evidence as assessed using GRADE is very low.

Comparison 1: X‐ray pelvimetry versus no X‐ray pelvimetry, Outcome 8: Admission to special care baby units

No trials assessed the Apgar score less than seven at five minutes as an outcome.

Women without previous caesarean section

Three trials included women with no previous caesarean section ( Crichton 1962 ; Gaitan 2009 ; Parsons 1985 ) with a total number of 769 women. There is a higher caesarean section rate (and symphysiotomy rate in Crichton 1962 ) in the X‐ray pelvimetry group (RR 1.24, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.52; 769 women; 3 trials). There is no difference in perinatal mortality (RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.21 to 1.90; 769 women; 3 trials). There was a slight decrease in perinatal asphyxia and perinatal mortality in Crichton 1962 , but this decrease in perinatal mortality was not observed in Parsons 1985 or Gaitan 2009 . Neither trial reported perinatal asphyxia. The decrease seen in Crichton 1962 could be due to chance or lack in fetal monitoring. None of these trials reported puerperal pyrexia, wound sepsis, blood transfusion, or admission to special care baby unit. Scar dehiscence was not relevant to these women.

Women with previous caesarean section

Two trials included women who had a previous transverse lower segment caesarean section ( Richards 1985 ; Thubisi 1993 ), with a total number of 390 women. There was an overall increase in the caesarean section rate in both studies in the X‐ray pelvimetry groups (RR 1.45, 95% CI 1.26 to 1.67; 390 women; 2 trials). There was a slight decrease in perinatal mortality, which could have occurred by chance, in Richards 1985 , but this was not observed in Thubisi 1993 where there were no perinatal deaths in either group (RR 0.19, 95% CI 0.01 to 3.91; 390 women; 2 trials). There were similar rates of scar dehiscence in the intervention and control groups (RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.14 to 2.46; 390 women; 2 trials). Thubisi 1993 reported a slight increase in admissions to special care baby units in the control group, but again these could have occurred by chance. Richards 1985 did not report this outcome. Only Thubisi 1993 reported puerperal pyrexia, wound sepsis and blood transfusion and did not find any difference between the groups.

We carried out sensitivity analysis for lack of allocation concealment. Parsons 1985 and Thubisi 1993 were assessed to be at high risk of selection bias and were removed from Analysis 1.1 : Caesarean section/symphysiotomy and Analysis 1.2 : Perinatal mortality. There were not sufficient data to remove these trials from the other outcomes and maintain a meaningful analysis.

For the outcome caesarean section/symphysiotomy, removing the trial data widened the CIs and lessened the effect slightly (RR 1.25, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.49), but the data still showed that women who had pelvimetry were more likely to have a caesarean section. Regarding the women without a previous caesarean section, removing Parsons 1985 meant that the CIs crossed the line of no effect (RR 1.19, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.47).

There were no perinatal deaths in either Parsons 1985 or Thubisi 1993 , so removing the data from the meta‐analysis made no difference to the overall relative risk.

X‐ray pelvimetry versus no pelvimetry or clinical pelvimetry is the only comparison included in this review due to the lack of trials identified that used other types of pelvimetry (other radiological examination).

Summary of main results

Five trials with a total of 1159 women were included. All used X‐ray pelvimetry to assess the pelvis. X‐ray pelvimetry versus no pelvimetry or clinical pelvimetry is the only comparison included in this review due to the lack of trials identified that used other types or pelvimetry.

Women who received an X‐ray pelvimetry, had a higher risk having a caesarean section, without a decrease in perinatal mortality. The control groups tended to a slightly raised perinatal mortality, but this could be due to chance. The numbers studied were insufficient to assess perinatal mortality adequately. No clear differences were found between groups for puerperal pyrexia, wound sepsis, blood transfusion, scar dehiscence, perinatal asphyxia or admission to special care baby unit. No trial reported Apgar score less than seven at five minutes.

Parsons 1985 explains the increased perinatal mortality and asphyxia in Crichton 1962 by the lack of electronic fetal monitoring available to the women in Crichton's trial. The two deaths in the study of Richards 1985 occurred in utero before the onset of labour.

Some of the outcomes in this review, relating to women with a previous caesarean, are difficult to interpret because they are mediated by another outcome, for example, wound sepsis and blood transfusion are only relevant to those women who have a caesarean section.

Overall completeness and applicability of evidence

The trials are compatible with respect to the common measures of outcome. The small number of trials included in this review address the research question and do not support the use of X‐ray pelvimetry, though they are of low quality, and there are no trials to assess the use of computed tomography (CT) or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) pelvimetry. The paucity of trials assessing the effectiveness of all methods of pelvimetry, for both women with and without a previous caesarean, limits the applicability of this review. The majority of the few trials available are over 20 years old. This perhaps reflects how little pelvimetry is used by clinicians in current practice.

The trials were also conducted in a small number of countries (South Africa, Spain, and the USA) and therefore the findings may not be applicable to low‐income settings.

Quality of the evidence

All trial designs regarding treatment allocation were of poor quality, assessed as high or unclear risk of bias. None of the trials blinded participants, staff or outcome assessors. The trials were not well‐reported so it was difficult to assess the other 'Risk of bias' domains. The two trials in women with previous caesarean sections were performed at the same institution a few years apart. We have found that overall, the findings are at a moderate to high risk of bias. Please see Figure 2 for a summary of the risk of bias.

We used GRADEpro software to grade evidence for our selected outcomes; for caesarean section we rated the evidence low quality and all the other outcomes, perinatal mortality, wound sepsis, blood transfusion, scar dehiscence and admission to special care baby unit as very low quality. Downgrading was due to risk of bias relating to lack of allocation concealment and blinding, and imprecision of effect estimates. Please see Table 1 .

Potential biases in the review process

We took steps to reduce bias as we are aware of the potential to introduce bias throughout the process of writing the review. Two review authors assessed each study for possible inclusion, assessed the quality of the trials and extracted data independently. We recognise that assessing the quality of the trials can be subjective and that different people assessing risk of bias may have come up with different judgements.

Agreements and disagreements with other studies or reviews

The results of this review agree with another non‐Cochrane systematic review that looked at clinical interventions, including X‐ray pelvimetry, which increased vaginal birth after caesarean section (VBAC) ( Catling‐Paull 2011 ). Catling‐Paull 2011 found that X‐ray pelvimetry was a poor predictor of birth outcome, and that women who received pelvimetry were less likely to attempt a vaginal birth. Subsequently, the caesarean section rate was higher in the groups where women had pelvimetry.

Implications for practice

X‐ray pelvimetry versus no pelvimetry or clinical pelvimetry is the only comparison included in this review due to the lack of trials identified that used other types or pelvimetry (e.g. other radiological examinations). There is not enough evidence to support the use of X‐ray pelvimetry for deciding on the mode of delivery in women whose fetuses have a cephalic presentation, and the practice may be harmful to the mother by increasing the risk of having a caesarean section, without increasing the benefit to the fetus or neonate.

Implications for research

Further research should be directed towards defining whether there are specific clinical situations, for example, breech presentations, in which X‐ray pelvimetry can be shown to be of value. Newer methods of pelvimetry should be subjected to randomised trials to assess their value.

Further trials of X‐ray pelvimetry in cephalic presentations would be of value if large enough to assess the effect on perinatal mortality.

Anthony Todd, December 2020

It occurred to me that, having been involved with dogs with large heads and tiny pelvices that a simple measurement of the widest part of the pelvis may be related to the chances of dystocia. A basic measurement at any stage of pregnancy. or before. may predict with some, not all, as exceptions in nature are the rule, accuracy the chances of dystocia. these women could therefore be identified and prepared [in all sorts of ways] for the likelihood of dystocia.

Protocol first published: Issue 2, 1997 Review first published: Issue 2, 1997

Acknowledgements

Professor Justus Hofmeyr and Ms Cheryl Nikodem for assisting me with the study and teaching me (V Vannevel) the use of Review Manager. Thanks to Therese Dowswell (Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth) for her contribution in assessing studies and help preparing the 'Summary of findings' table for this update (2016).

This research was supported by a grant from the Department of Reproductive Health and Research, World Health Organization (WHO). The findings, interpretations and conclusions expressed in this paper are entirely those of the authors and should not be attributed in any manner whatsoever to WHO.

We thank El‐Marie Farrell for contributions to the previous update.

As part of the pre‐publication editorial process, this review has been commented on by three peers (an editor and two referees who are external to the editorial team), a member of Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's international panel of consumers and the Group's Statistical Adviser.

This project was supported by the National Institute for Health Research, via Cochrane Infrastructure funding to Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth. The views and opinions expressed therein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the Systematic Reviews Programme, NIHR, NHS or the Department of Health.

Edited (no change to conclusions)

Data and analyses

Comparison 1.

Characteristics of studies

Characteristics of included studies [ordered by study id].

Characteristics of excluded studies [ordered by study ID]

Differences between protocol and review

Title: We changed the title from Pelvimetry for fetal cephalic presentations at or near term to Pelvimetry for fetal cephalic presentations at or near term for deciding on mode of delivery .

Objectives: We removed assessing the effects of postnatal pelvimetry from the objectives as this could not impact on mode of delivery.

We also removed the following hypothesis.

• Information provided by pelvimetry in women without previous caesarean section is useful because it decreases the morbidity and mortality in the women and fetuses or neonates.
• Information provided by pelvimetry in women with previous caesarean section is useful because it decreases the morbidity and mortality in the women and fetuses or neonates.

We have clarified aspects in the section on Criteria for considering studies for this review, as follows:

All acceptably randomised comparisons of the use of pelvimetry in cephalic presentations in:

• women without previous caesarean section;
• women with previous caesarean section.

has changed to:

• Women without caesarean section;
• Women with previous caesarean section.

Pregnant women with singleton, cephalic presentation fetus who have or have not had a previous caesarean section. Studies which recruited women before, or during labour were included as well as women for spontaneous labour, induction or trial of scar after previous caesarean section.

Policy of elective caesarean section or trial of labour or scar depending on the prediction of pelvimetry as opposed to trial of labour or scar in all.

Outcomes: We changed ' Caesarean section/symphysiotomy' to ' Caesarean section'. Crichton 1962 only, reported the composite outcome of caesarean section/symphysiotomy, and did not report data for these outcomes separately. It is not clear how many symphysiotomies were performed in this trial and we could not report the data as two separate outcomes. We have documented this in the results section and in footnotes in Analysis 1.1 .

'Summary of findings' table: We assessed the trial quality by using GRADE assessment. This is documented in Table 1 .

Contributions of authors

V Vannevel assisted RC Pattinson with the 2016 update. V Vannevel analysed and interpreted the results, and prepared the update. A Cuthbert assessed studies for inclusion and prepared the 'Summary of findings' table.

Sources of support

Internal sources.

• University of Pretoria, South Africa

External sources

• South African Medical Research Council, South Africa
• Department of Reproductive Health and Research, World Health Organization, Switzerland
• UNDP‐UNFPA‐UNICEF‐WHO‐World Bank Special Programme of Research, Development and Research Training in Human Reproduction (HRP), Department of Reproductive Health and Research (RHR), World Health Organization, Switzerland

Declarations of interest

Robert C Pattinson: no conflict of interest. Anna Cuthbert: no conflict of interest. Valerie Vannevel: no conflict of interest.

References to studies included in this review

Crichton 1962 {published data only}.

• Crichton D. The accuracy and value of cephalopelvimetry . Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology of the British Commonwealth 1962; 69 :366-78. [ Google Scholar ]

Gaitan 2009 {published data only}

• Gaitan N, Duenas JL, Bedoya C, Taboada C, Polo J. Prospective, randomised and controlled study to evaluate the usefulness of radiopelvimetry in induced labour in primigravidae [Estudio prospectivo, aleatorizado y controlado para evaluar la utilidad de la radiopelvimetria en la induccion de parto en primigravidas]. Progresos de Obstetricia y Ginecologia 2009; 52 ( 10 ):552-6. [ Google Scholar ]
• Gaitan Quintero N, Duenas Diez JL, Bedoya Bergua C, Taboada Montes C, Padillo JP. The use of the radiopelvimetria previously to the induction of labor in primigravidas . Journal of Maternal-Fetal and Neonatal Medicine 2010; 23 ( S1 ):278. [ Google Scholar ]

Parsons 1985 {published data only}

• Parsons MT, Spellacy WN. Prospective randomised study of X-ray pelvimetry in the primigravida . Obstetrics & Gynecology 1985; 66 :76-9. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

Richards 1985 {published data only}

• Richards A, Strang A, Moodley J, Philpott H. Vaginal delivery following caesarean section - is X-ray pelvimetry a reliable predictor? In: Proceedings of 4th Conference on Priorities in Perinatal Care in South Africa, 1985; Natal, South Africa . 1985:62-5.

Thubisi 1993 {published data only}

• Thubisi M, Ebrahim A, Moodley J, Shweni PM. Vaginal delivery after previous caesarean section: is X-ray pelvimetry necessary? British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology 1993; 100 :421-4. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

References to studies excluded from this review

Farrell 2002 {unpublished data only}.

• Volschenk S, Farrell E, Jeffery BS, Pattinson RC. Clinical pelvimetry as a predictor of vaginal delivery in women with one previous caesarean section . In: 20th Conference on Priorities in Perinatal Care in Southern Africa; 2001 March 6-9; KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa . 2002.

Additional references

Catling‐paull 2011.

• Catling-Paull C, Johnston R, Ryan C, Foureur MJ, Homer CSE. Clinical interventions that increase the uptake and success of vaginal birth after caesarean section: a systematic review . Journal of Advanced Nursing 2011; 67 ( 8 ):1646-61. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Dodd JM, Crowther CA, Huertas E, Guise JM, Horey D. Planned elective repeat caesarean section versus planned vaginal birth for women with a previous caesarean birth . Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2013, Issue 12 . Art. No: CD004224. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004224.pub3] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]

Higgins 2011

• Higgins JPT, Green S, editors. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 [updated March 2011]. The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011 . Available from www.cochrane-handbook.org .

Mengert 1948

• Mengert WF. Estimation of pelvic capacity . JAMA 1948; 138 :169-74. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

Morgan 1992

• Morgan MA, Thurnau GR. Efficacy of the fetal-pelvic index in nulliparous women at high risk for fetal-pelvic disproportion . American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 1992; 166 ( 3 ):810-4. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

Morris 1993

• Morris CW, Heggie JCP, Acton CM. Computed tomography pelvimetry: accuracy and radiation dose compared with conventional pelvimetry . Australasian Radiology 1993; 37 :186-91. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

RevMan 2014 [Computer program]

• The Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration Review Manager (RevMan) . Version 5.3. Copenhagen: The Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration, 2014.

Sporri 2002

• Sporri S, Thoeny HC, Raio L, Lachat R, Vock P, Schneider H. MR imaging pelvimetry: a useful adjunct in the treatment of women at risk for dystocia? American Journal of Roentgenology 2002; 179 :137-44. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

van Ham 1997

• Ham MAEC, Dongen PWJ, Mulder J. Maternal consequences of caesarean section - A retrospective study of intra-operative and postoperative maternal complications of caesarean section during a 10-year period . European Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology and Reproductive Biology 1997; 74 :1-6. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

References to other published versions of this review

Pattinson 1997.

• Pattinson RC, Farrell EME. Pelvimetry for fetal cephalic presentations at or near term . Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 1997, Issue 2 . Art. No: CD000161. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD000161] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]

• Get new issue alerts Get alerts

Secondary Logo

Journal logo.

Colleague's E-mail is Invalid

Your message has been successfully sent to your colleague.

Save my selection

The Normal Fetal Cephalic Index in the Second and Third Trimesters of Pregnancy

Constantine, Sarah MBBS, FRANZCR ∗ ; Kiermeier, Andreas PhD (Stat) † ; Anderson, Peter DSc, DDSc, MD (Edin), PhD, MSurg (Melb), MFST (Ed), FDSRCS (Ed), FDSRCS (Eng), FRCS (Eng), FRCS (Plast.), FACS, FRACS ‡

∗ Department of Medical Imaging, Women's and Children's Hospital

† Statistical Process Improvement Consulting and Training Pty Ltd

‡ Australian Craniofacial Unit, Women's and Children's Hospital, North Adelaide, SA, Australia.

Received for publication December 27, 2018; accepted February 20, 2019.

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Address correspondence to: Sarah Constantine, MBBS, FRANZCR, Department of Medical Imaging, Women's and Children's Hospital, Level 2, 72 King William Rd, North Adelaide, SA 5006, Australia (e-mail: [email protected] ).

Supplemental digital contents are available for this article. Direct URL citations appear in the printed text and are provided in the HTML and PDF versions of this article on the journal’s Web site ( www.ultrasound-quarterly.com ).

The cephalic index (CI) is used in the evaluation of individuals with craniosynostosis. There is little agreement as to the normal range and stability of the CI during the fetal period, partly due to limited literature. We sought to determine the range, distribution and stability of the fetal CI in the second half of pregnancy. We also aimed to identify any relationship to delivery complications such as obstructed labor and malpresentation.

The fetal head circumference, biparietal diameter (BPD) and occipitofrontal diameter (OFD) measurements were obtained from standard ultrasound images. Each of 4304 fetuses had measurements taken at morphology scan performed between 17 and 22 weeks' gestation, and at growth scanning at 28 to 33 weeks' gestation. The cephalic index was calculated using the formula: CI = BPD/OFD × 100. The distribution of the CI at both scans is very close to a normal distribution. The mean CI at 17 to 22 weeks was 75.9 (SD, 3.7); the mean CI at 28 to 33 weeks was 77.8 (SD, 3.5). The mean change in CI was 1.9 (SD, 4.28), which is not statistically significantly different from zero ( t = 0.656, P = 0.512, 95% confidence interval). No relationship was found between the CI in normal fetuses and delivery complications. There is a wide variation in the change in CI in the third trimester. A value below the normal range in the third trimester or a progressive reduction in CI during the latter half of pregnancy should provoke detailed scanning of the fetal cranial sutures to check for craniosynostosis.

Full Text Access for Subscribers:

Individual subscribers.

Institutional Users

Not a subscriber.

You can read the full text of this article if you:

• + Favorites
• View in Gallery

Readers Of this Article Also Read

Evaluation of soft-tissue hematomas with real-time, contrast-enhanced..., sonographic diagnosis of velamentous and marginal placental cord insertion.

Pregnancy: 29 - 32 weeks

• Download PDF Copy

Between the 29th and 32nd week of pregnancy, the baby continues to be very active and makes numerous movements.

Each pregnancy is different and there is no particular amount of movements a mother should be expecting to feel at this stage, but she should be aware of the baby’s movement pattern and contact her local hospital or midwife if this pattern starts to change.

During this period of growth, the baby’s sucking reflex is developing where it can now suck its thumb and fingers.

The baby is also gaining weight and starting to look less wrinkled, as fat stores smooth out the skin.

The greasy vernix and fine hair (lanugo) that cover and protect the baby’s delicate skin has begun to disappear and the baby’s eyes can now focus.

Lung development is rapid, although the baby still wouldn’t be able to breathe independently at this stage.

By the 32nd week, the baby may be positioned with its head pointing downwards, in preparation for birth. This positioning is referred to as cephalic presentation.

If the baby is not lying in this position at this stage, there is no cause for concern as there is still enough time for the baby to turn.

Billions of neurons are developing in the brain and the lungs and muscles are still maturing.

The head is growing larger to accommodate the growing brain and the eyes can move and possibly even follow a light outside of the abdomen.

The baby is still positioned with the head up at this stage, but will move into the birthing position in the coming weeks.

The baby is quite active, although there may be less movement than previously due to the uterus becoming more cramped.

The reduced space in the abdomen may mean the mother frequently experiences problems such as trapped wind or heartburn.

The baby’s eyes are now often wide open and the baby may have a substantial amount of hair.

Red blood cells are now developing in the bone marrow and there is also a great deal of brain development at this stage. The baby now measures about 270 mm and weighs around 1,300 grams (3 pounds).

The mother may have felt the beginning of “practice” contractions, referred to as Braxton Hicks. These contractions can feel intense sometimes, but they are not painful.

At 31 weeks, the central nervous system has developed to the point that it can control body temperature. Space in the uterus is limited and the mother can expect to feel fewer movements.

Related Stories

• Placental DNA methylation patterns altered by pregnancy air pollution exposure, research reveals
• Study links diverse Gardnerella species in pregnant women to higher preterm birth risk
• USC researcher receives $3.1M to study early brain development in babies born to diabetic mothers

The major organs are now almost fully mature and growth now becomes more focused on maturing those organs and growing stores of fat and muscle.

The mother can expect the baby’s weight to double between this stage and birth. The eyes are now fully open and the irises can contract and dilate in response to light.

The mother can also expect to experience indigestion, sleeplessness, backache and weight gain. It is normal for the mother to be gaining around one pound each week at this stage.

Although the lungs are still not fully matured, the baby is practising breathing. The body also starts to absorb minerals from the intestinal tract such as iron and calcium. The lanugo that protected the baby’s delicate skin begins to fall off.

A baby born at this stage has a good chance of survival, although the baby would still be in need of intensive medical care to aid breathing and feeding.

The baby now measures around 280mm and weighs about 3.75 pounds or 1,700 grams.

• www.nhs.uk/.../pregnancy-weeks-29-30-31-32.aspx
• www.bbc.co.uk/.../week.shtml?due=%28none%29&week=29
• www.mayoclinic.org/.../art-20045997

Further Reading

• All Pregnancy Content
• Early Signs of Pregnancy
• Is it Safe to Exercise During Pregnancy?
• Pregnancy: 0-8 weeks
• Pregnancy: 9 - 12 weeks

Last Updated: Feb 27, 2019

Sally Robertson

Sally first developed an interest in medical communications when she took on the role of Journal Development Editor for BioMed Central (BMC), after having graduated with a degree in biomedical science from Greenwich University.

Please use one of the following formats to cite this article in your essay, paper or report:

Robertson, Sally. (2019, February 27). Pregnancy: 29 - 32 weeks. News-Medical. Retrieved on June 09, 2024 from https://www.news-medical.net/health/Pregnancy-29-32-weeks.aspx.

Robertson, Sally. "Pregnancy: 29 - 32 weeks". News-Medical . 09 June 2024. <https://www.news-medical.net/health/Pregnancy-29-32-weeks.aspx>.

Robertson, Sally. "Pregnancy: 29 - 32 weeks". News-Medical. https://www.news-medical.net/health/Pregnancy-29-32-weeks.aspx. (accessed June 09, 2024).

Robertson, Sally. 2019. Pregnancy: 29 - 32 weeks . News-Medical, viewed 09 June 2024, https://www.news-medical.net/health/Pregnancy-29-32-weeks.aspx.

Suggested Reading

Cancel reply to comment

• Trending Stories
• Latest Interviews
• Top Health Articles

Discover how SciY empowers scientists

Santi Dominguez

In this interview, NewsMedical talks to Santi Dominguez about the genesis of SCiY, and how the consortium intends to empower scientists and researchers.

Why use light scattering to analyze proteins and viral vectors?

Dr. Michelle Chen

n this interview, Dr. Michelle Chen, Senior Director of Analytical Sciences at Wyatt Technology, talks to NewsMedical about how to use light scattering techniques to analyze proteins for their multi-attribute quantification (MAQ).

Changing the landscape of R&D to build clinical success from the ground up

Amanda Jones

In this interview, NewsMedical talks to Amanda Jones at Revvity about the strategies and solutions available to revolutionize the landscape of R&D in clinical research.

Latest News

Newsletters you may be interested in

Your AI Powered Scientific Assistant

Hi, I'm Azthena, you can trust me to find commercial scientific answers from News-Medical.net.

A few things you need to know before we start. Please read and accept to continue.

• Use of “Azthena” is subject to the terms and conditions of use as set out by OpenAI .
• Content provided on any AZoNetwork sites are subject to the site Terms & Conditions and Privacy Policy .
• Large Language Models can make mistakes. Consider checking important information.

Great. Ask your question.

Azthena may occasionally provide inaccurate responses. Read the full terms .

While we only use edited and approved content for Azthena answers, it may on occasions provide incorrect responses. Please confirm any data provided with the related suppliers or authors. We do not provide medical advice, if you search for medical information you must always consult a medical professional before acting on any information provided.

Your questions, but not your email details will be shared with OpenAI and retained for 30 days in accordance with their privacy principles.

Please do not ask questions that use sensitive or confidential information.

Read the full Terms & Conditions .

Provide Feedback

Download FREE Practo app

Get ₹200 HealthCash

• Consult with a doctor

Cephalic presentation at 24 weeks

Share this page, i am a 29 year old pregnant woman waiting to deliver my kid next week due to some complications in my pregnancy. i would like to know how my baby’s cephalic presentation would be at 33 weeks because head first is the way to deliver a baby naturally. can someone answer this question for me.

Asked for Female, 29 Years 20230 Views v

cephalic presentation is the presentation in which the head present first ..If you're trying for normal vaginal delivery then this is the favourable position... however if you are delivering earlier ...  Read More

Hello! I am a 28 year old woman and I am 26 weeks pregnant. I wanted to ask about the position of the fetus in the womb during these weeks. I want to know about the appropriate cephalic presentation of the child at 28 weeks. Should I be careful about something or must I incorporate something new to my already existing plans after 28 weeks?

Asked for Female, 28 Years 21427 Views v

There is literally nothing which you can do about the baby's position because the baby keeps on moving in the womb.. cephalic position as such means a normal position for a vaginal delivery but whethe ...  Read More

Didn't find the answer you are looking for?

Talk to experienced gynaecologist online and get your health questions answered in just 5 minutes.

Does cephalic presentation change again? Or will it remain same? Chances of normal delivery? Doctor said everything is normal

Asked for Female, 29 Years 1322 Views v

Position is fixed after 36 weeks Yes cephalic position is favorable fr delivery ...  Read More

Cephalic presentation seen at my last scan. I am 24 weeks pregnant. Is this normal at this time of pregnancy? Is the baby will change its position?

Asked for Female, 29 Years 2363 Views v

Normal Yes may change Position fixes at 36 weeks ...  Read More

I am a 29 year old pregnant woman waiting to deliver my kid next week due to some complications in my pregnancy. I want to give birth naturally and I don’t want to get into C-section without any proper reason. I would like to know how my baby’s cephalic presentation would be at 33 weeks because head first is the way to deliver a baby naturally. Can

Asked for Female, 29 Years 5152 Views v

Cephalic presentation is gud sign.... If the head is fixed n BPD is within 9.2cms then gud chances of normal delivery ...  Read More

I am a woman, 37 weeks pregnant and may pop the baby out any moment. I was just wondering about the cephalic position of the baby at 37 weeks. It is almost the end of the gestation period and I am quite worried about the position. Should I actually worry about the cephalic position? What is the significance of it now?

Asked for Female, 37 Years 6013 Views v

cephalic position is presentation by vertex..which s the favourable position for normal vaginal delivery... and the total pregnancy s 40 weeks but baby becomes mature after 37 weeks for u to deliver ...  Read More

I m 28weeks pregnant...my last scan was done..but my babies position is cephalic presentation... please tell me what is cephalic presentation...

Asked for Female, 26 Years 10000 Views v

Need details about your concern Connect with me online for detailed consultation Https://prac.to/drdigvijay ...  Read More

I am a 35 week pregnant woman and I fully intend to deliver the baby through natural means. I do not want a C- Section unless it is completely necessary. For that to happen, I know that the baby must come head first through the vaginal opening. So, what must be the cephalic position of the baby at 35 weeks? If the baby is not upside down yet, what

Asked for Female, 35 Years 9182 Views v

Cephalic means baby is with head down position which is normal position. ...  Read More

I m 31 weeks and 4 days pregnant & my doppler scan shows single live fetus in cephalic presentation .is it normal?

Asked for Female, 31 Years 1967 Views v

Hi dear it's normal You can easily take an online consultation for further treatment guidance Homeopathic medicines are well proved to promote a healthy pregnancy and normal delivery Visit my webs ...  Read More

I m 31 weeks 5 days. As per the scan report cephalic presentation.. What it means? Normal delivery possible?

Asked for Female, 28 Years 2291 Views v

Cephalic ppt mean the head of the baby is down at the right position for normal delivery But wether normal delivery is possible or not can’t say as that depends on various other factors like weight o ...  Read More

Currently I'm 24 weeks pregnant.im masturbating the clitoris daily cause I can't control the urge .is it cause preterm labour?

Asked for Female, 25 Years 739 Views v

Pls connect for online consultation and advice ...  Read More

Kindly go through my urine examination report..it's showing some pus cells and cal oxilate few .. kindly recommend me.what to do..I m 24 weeks pregnant

Asked for Female, 31 Years 62 Views v

Nothing to be done, plenty of fluids And general hygiene ...  Read More

I have completed 24 weeks of pregnancy. can you suggest the test I have to do in between 14 to 25th week

Asked for Female, 27 Years 107 Views v

Pls connect for online consultation for suggestions ...  Read More

I am 34 week 4 days pregnant. In last 2 scan , my baby position is cephalic presentation spine towards to right posterior? Anterior placenta. Is normal delivery possible? What I have to do for normal delivery ?

Asked for Female, 29 Years 967 Views v

Yes it is Walk 45 min daily ...  Read More

My baby is currently in cephalic presentation as per 30th week check up and 32 week scan. Is there any chance that the baby may change the position?

Asked for Female, 30 Years 532 Views v

Yes there are chances ...  Read More

Why am i feeling movement mostly at lower abdomen... I feel kicks at lower abdomen mostly. I rarely feel movement around belly.. My placenta position is anterior. I m 24 weeks pregnant. Is everything ok with this situation?

Asked for Female, 31 Years 772 Views v

That's normal Kicks will be felt where the feet n hands are ...  Read More

During my anamoly scan at 18 weeks 5 days, my cephalic index showed 69 and dolicocephaly. Is it normal or common finding? Or it will affect in future?

Asked for Female, 35 Years 592 Views v

Incomplete information Need the ultrasound to comment Was the dual test normal? ...  Read More

Noticed little spotting for the first time in 24 weeks of pregnancy. Is there anything to worry? Or is it normal?

Asked for Female, 29 Years 190 Views v

Please consult for proper discussion. ...  Read More

Am 24 weeks pregnant but am bleeding like spotting I will say more than spotting but it is pink in color and it has been 3 days is it normal

Asked for Female, 26 Years 1431 Views v

Consult obstetrician ...  Read More

Dear Doctor Myself 31 years second pregnancy... 24 weeks pregnancy... feeling dizziness and head ache frequently from last one week... I'm taking calcium and vit d3... Not taking iron due to gastric... May I know what should I do..

Asked for Female, 31 Years 148 Views v

BP , sugar, hemoglobin to be checked Take plenty of fluids Take rest Take small frequent meals Consult ur doctor ...  Read More

Hello Dr Am 24 weeks pregnant but I bleed for 3 days is it normal or not bleeding At 24 weeks or should I visit gynecologist

Asked for Female, 26 Years 367 Views v

Consult gynaecologist asap ...  Read More

My anomaly scan was fine ,gained 2 kgs total in 24 weeks pregnancy . Can feel slight movements in stomach too but I don't show much on my belly size and it's my first pregnancy . Is it normal ?

Asked for Female, 35 Years 299 Views v

History noted. More details needed for proper evaluation. You can consult on Practo app or on 8318"469886. ...  Read More

Any Recommendations in 24 weeks and 2 days For Normal Pregnancy. Scannings? Tests? Any others? Anything others before visiting Doctor?

Asked for Female, 27 Years 117 Views v

Contact me on practo for detailed information about this and treatment for the same. ...  Read More

I am 24 week pregnant and i am having headache can i take crocin? If yes then it should be of how mucb mg?

Asked for Female, 23 Years 106 Views v

Yes Paracetamol 500mg tablets can be taken. But please get your blood pressure checked? Do you have pedal edema i.e swelling of feet and ankles? ...  Read More

Hii doctor. I am 24 week pregnent. I have posterior placenta with grade 1 maturity. What does it mean? Should i have to take bed rest?

1431 Views v

...  Read More

Hi I m 24 week pregnant and I want to know that which medical test need to be done at this stage . And at which week next ultrasound need to be done.As I have already done my anomaly scan and everything is normal .Please suggest .

Asked for Female, 24 Years 492 Views v

Hi. At 28 weeks you need to do the blood tests and interval growth scan . Not now . ...  Read More

Urine culture is insignificant but I have 10-14 pus and epithelial cells and vaginal discharge. Should I take uti medications . I am so frightened to take medications for uti 24 weeks currently

Asked for Female, 27 Years 216 Views v

Take Urikind sachet twice a day for 2 weeks Take Syrup Urilizer two spoons three times a day for a month ...  Read More

I am about 24 weeks pregnant .i felt nearly 30 movements from morning . But after dinner, I didn't feel any ( it has been a hour since I had dinner )

Asked for Female, 27 Years 277 Views v

Please observe over the next few days. ...  Read More

I am 24 weeks pregnant. Before 2 weeks my tummy used to be hard, now for past 3 days, my bump looks flexible ( somewhat soft ). Is there any reason . Should I inform gynaecologist

Asked for Female, 27 Years 243 Views v

Hi there, that's absolutely fine. Nothing to worry about. Those are the changes common in pregnancy. Make sure you feel baby movements. ...  Read More

I am 24 weeks pregnant. For past 3 days ,My baby is moving almost all the day except some two to three hours . Is it normal .

Asked for Female, 28 Years 378 Views v

Yes Movements will regularise in coming few weeks. Best time to feel movements is after full food lying on one side and concentrating on movements for an hour. Take your iron and calcium tablets prope ...  Read More

Related Topics:

Doubts about periods or pregnancy?

Consult with a gynaecologist online

• Private & confidential
• Share reports
• Free follow-ups

The question asked on this page is a free question. You can ask a free health question by downloading the Practo app.

Recently Asked Questions

Fear during 24 weeks, iugr diagnosed in 24 weeks, pregnancy week 24 weeks 6 days, lost my baby @ 24 weeks, baby movements 24 weeks.

Is cephalic presentation normal at 21 weeks?

You May Also Like

Planning visitors during hospital stay, you’re pregnant how these moms reacted, jump to your week of pregnancy, trending on what to expect, moms share home remedies for pregnancy morning sickness, 8 expensive products moms say are worth the money, ⚠️ you can't see this cool content because you have ad block enabled., 14 moms on what labor really feels like, what are your go-to healthy snacks, things they don't tell you about: mom edition, pregnancy brain moments let's have a laugh, help keep our community safe, to create a safe place, please, on our end, we will.

An official website of the United States government

Here’s how you know

Official websites use .gov A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS A lock ( Lock A locked padlock ) or https:// means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

NOAA predicts above-normal 2024 Atlantic hurricane season

La nina and warmer-than-average ocean temperatures are major drivers of tropical activity.

NOAA's GOES-16 satellite captured Hurricane Idalia approaching the western coast of Florida while Hurricane Franklin churned in the Atlantic Ocean at 5:01 p.m. EDT on August 29, 2023.

• Spanish language infographic: 2024 Atlantic Hurricane Season Outlook summary
• Spanish language infographic: List of 2024 Atlantic tropical cyclone names chosen by WMO
• NOAA’s summary of the 2023 Atlantic Hurricane Season
• NOAA’s new hurricane forecast model , HAFS 
• A mapping tool for U.S. state and county-level information on a population’s risk for, and vulnerability to, major tropical cyclones
• An interactive website to track the paths of hurricane s this season
• Updated U.S. Hurricane Strikes Poster, 1950-2023  
• Links to hurricane safety and preparedness materials materials
• National Hurricane Center homepage for real-time updates on active systems: Bookmark www.hurricanes.gov

NOAA National Weather Service forecasters at the Climate Prediction Center predict above-normal hurricane activity in the Atlantic basin this year. NOAA’s outlook for the 2024 Atlantic hurricane season, which spans from June 1 to November 30, predicts an 85% chance of an above-normal season, a 10% chance of a near-normal season and a 5% chance of a below-normal season.

NOAA is forecasting a range of 17 to 25 total named storms (winds of 39 mph or higher). Of those, 8 to 13 are forecast to become hurricanes (winds of 74 mph or higher), including 4 to 7 major hurricanes (category 3, 4 or 5; with winds of 111 mph or higher). Forecasters have a 70% confidence in these ranges. The upcoming Atlantic hurricane season is expected to have above-normal activity due to a confluence of factors, including near-record warm ocean temperatures in the Atlantic Ocean, development of La Nina conditions in the Pacific, reduced Atlantic trade winds and less wind shear, all of which tend to favor tropical storm formation.

“With another active hurricane season approaching, NOAA’s commitment to keeping every American informed with life-saving information is unwavering,” said NOAA Administrator Rick Spinrad, Ph.D. “AI-enabled language translations and a new depiction of inland wind threats in the forecast cone are just two examples of the proactive steps our agency is taking to meet our mission of saving lives and protecting property.”

"Severe weather and emergencies can happen at any moment, which is why individuals and communities need to be prepared today," said FEMA Deputy Administrator Erik A. Hooks. "Already, we are seeing storms move across the country that can bring additional hazards like tornadoes, flooding and hail. Taking a proactive approach to our increasingly challenging climate landscape today can make a difference in how people can recover tomorrow."

As one of the strongest El Ninos ever observed nears its end, NOAA scientists predict a quick transition to La Nina conditions, which are conducive to Atlantic hurricane activity because La Nina tends to lessen wind shear in the tropics. At the same time, abundant oceanic heat content in the tropical Atlantic Ocean and Caribbean Sea creates more energy to fuel storm development. 

This hurricane season also features the potential for an above-normal west African monsoon, which can produce African easterly waves that seed some of the strongest and longer-lived Atlantic storms. Finally, light trade winds allow hurricanes to grow in strength without the disruption of strong wind shear, and also minimize ocean cooling. Human-caused climate change is warming our ocean globally and in the Atlantic basin, and melting ice on land, leading to sea level rise, which increases the risk of storm surge. Sea level rise represents a clear human influence on the damage potential from a given hurricane.

Enhanced communications in store for 2024 season

NOAA will implement improvements to its forecast communications, decision support and storm recovery efforts this season. These include:

• The National Hurricane Center (NHC) will expand its offering of Spanish language text products to include all Public Advisories, the Tropical Cyclone Discussion, the Tropical Cyclone Update and Key Messages in the Atlantic basin. 
• Beginning on or around August 15, NHC will start to issue an experimental version of the forecast cone graphic that includes a depiction of inland tropical storm and hurricane watches and warnings in effect for the continental U.S. Research indicates that the addition of inland watches and warnings to the cone graphic will help communicate inland hazards during tropical cyclone events without overcomplicating the current version of the graphic.
• This season, the NHC will be able to issue U.S. tropical cyclone watches and warnings with regular or intermediate public advisories. This means that if updates to watches and warnings for storm surge or winds are needed, the NHC will be able to notify the public in an intermediate advisory instead of having to wait for the next full advisory issued every 6 hours.

New tools for hurricane analysis and forecasting this year

• Two new  forecast models  developed by  NOAA researchers  will go into operation this season: The  Modular Ocean Model or MOM6  will be added to the Hurricane Analysis and Forecast System to improve the representation of the key role the ocean plays in driving hurricane intensity. Another model, SDCON, will predict the probability of tropical cyclone rapid intensification.
• NOAA’s new generation of Flood Inundation Mapping, made possible through President Biden’s Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, will provide information to emergency and water managers to prepare and respond to potential flooding and help local officials better prepare to protect people and infrastructure.
• NOAA’s Weather Prediction Center , in partnership with the NHC, will issue an experimental rainfall graphic for the Caribbean and Central America during the 2024 hurricane season. This graphic provides forecast rainfall totals associated with a tropical cyclone or disturbance for a specified time period.

System upgrades in operation

NOAA will upgrade its observing systems critical in understanding and forecasting hurricanes. These projects will provide more observations of the ocean and atmosphere in the Caribbean, the Gulf of Mexico, on the U.S. East Coast and in the tropical Atlantic.

• NOAA’s National Data Buoy Center recently upgraded many coastal weather buoys in the tropical western Atlantic and Caribbean to include time of occurrence and measurements of one-minute wind speed and direction, 5-second peak wind gust and direction and lowest 1-minute barometric pressure to support tropical cyclone forecasting. 
• New this year, NOAA will gather additional observations using Directional Wave Spectra Drifters (DWSDs), deployed from the NOAA P-3 hurricane hunter aircraft and in the vicinity of Saildrones , uncrewed surface vehicles which will be deployed at the start of the hurricane season, providing one-minute data in real time. 11-12 Saildrones are planned for deployment in 2024. 
• Starting in June, dozens of observational underwater gliders are planned to deploy in waters off the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico and the eastern U.S. coast. Additionally, a new lightweight dropsonde called Streamsonde will be deployed into developing tropical storms , collecting multiple real-time observations to collect valuable wind data. 
• The CHAOS (Coordinated Hurricane Atmosphere-Ocean Sampling) research experiment aims to improve the understanding of air-sea interactions, providing sustained monitoring of key ocean features. 

About NOAA seasonal outlooks NOAA’s outlook is for overall seasonal activity and is not a landfall forecast. In addition to the Atlantic seasonal outlook, NOAA also issues seasonal hurricane outlooks for the eastern Pacific , central Pacific and western north Pacific hurricane basins. 

NOAA’s Climate Prediction Center will update the 2024 Atlantic seasonal outlook in early August, prior to the historical peak of the season.

Climate, weather, and water affect all life on our ocean planet.  NOAA’s mission  is to understand and predict our changing environment, from the deep sea to outer space, and to manage and conserve America’s coastal and marine resources.

Media contact

Erica Grow Cei,  erica.grow.cei@noaa.gov , (202) 853-6088

Related Features //