Management of Breech Presentation (Green-top Guideline No. 20b)
Summary: The aim of this guideline is to aid decision making regarding the route of delivery and choice of various techniques used during delivery. It does not include antenatal or postnatal care. Information regarding external cephalic version is the topic of the separate Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists Green-top Guideline No. 20a, External Cephalic Version and Reducing the Incidence of Term Breech Presentation .
Breech presentation occurs in 3–4% of term deliveries and is more common in preterm deliveries and nulliparous women. Breech presentation is associated with uterine and congenital abnormalities, and has a significant recurrence risk. Term babies presenting by the breech have worse outcomes than cephalic presenting babies, irrespective of the mode of delivery.
A large reduction in the incidence of planned vaginal breech birth followed publication of the Term Breech Trial. Nevertheless, due to various circumstances vaginal breech births will continue. Lack of experience has led to a loss of skills essential for these deliveries. Conversely, caesarean section can has serious long-term consequences.
COVID disclaimer: This guideline was developed as part of the regular updates to programme of Green-top Guidelines, as outlined in our document Developing a Green-top Guideline: Guidance for developers , and prior to the emergence of COVID-19.
Version history: This is the fourth edition of this guideline.
Please note that the RCOG Guidelines Committee regularly assesses the need to update the information provided in this publication. Further information on this review is available on request.
Developer declaration of interests:
Mr M Griffiths is a member of Doctors for a Woman's right to Choose on Abortion. He is an unpaid member of a Quality Standards Advisory Committee at NICE, for which he does receive expenses for related travel, accommodation and meals.
Mr LWM Impey is Director of Oxford Fetal Medicine Ltd. and a member of the International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology. He also holds patents related to ultrasound processing, which are of no relevance to the Breech guidelines.
Professor DJ Murphy provides medicolegal expert opinions in Scotland and Ireland for which she is remunerated.
Dr LK Penna: None declared.
- Access the PDF version of this guideline on Wiley
- Access the web version of this guideline on Wiley
This page was last reviewed 16 March 2017.
Login to your account
If you don't remember your password, you can reset it by entering your email address and clicking the Reset Password button. You will then receive an email that contains a secure link for resetting your password
If the address matches a valid account an email will be sent to __email__ with instructions for resetting your password
Property | Value |
---|---|
Status | |
Version | |
Ad File | |
Disable Ads Flag | |
Environment | |
Moat Init | |
Moat Ready | |
Contextual Ready | |
Contextual URL | |
Contextual Initial Segments | |
Contextual Used Segments | |
AdUnit | |
SubAdUnit | |
Custom Targeting | |
Ad Events | |
Invalid Ad Sizes |
Access provided by
Breech presentation management: A critical review of leading clinical practice guidelines
Download started
- Download PDF Download PDF
- Add to Mendeley
- Breech presentation
- Clinical practice guidelines
1 Background
3.1 icahe guideline quality checklist.
Guideline [date of publication] | Publisher | Origin | Assessment of evidence and grading of recommendations | Rank | iCAHE score (%) | No. of ref | Peer reviewed (Y/N) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Management of breech presentation (Green-top Guideline No. 20b) [2017] | Royal College of Obstetricians & Gynaecologists (RCOG) | United Kingdom | RCOG classification of evidence level and grading of recommendations scheme | 1 | 12/14 (85.71) | 76 | Y |
No. 384 — management of breech presentation at term [2019] | The Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada (SOGC) | Canada | GRADE methodology framework | 1 | 12/14 (85.7) | 82 | Y |
National Clinical Guideline: the management of breech presentation [2017] | Institute of Obstetrician and Gynaecologists, Royal College of Physicians of Ireland (IOG) | Ireland | Literature review including professional guidelines | 2 | 11/14 (78.57) | 60 | Y |
Management of breech presentation at term [2016] | Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (RANZCOG) | Australia and New Zealand | NHMRC Levels of evidence and grades of recommendations for developers | 3 | 10/14 (71.43) | 12 | N |
Breech presentation: clinical practice guideline from the French College of Gynaecologists and Obstetricians [2020] | French College of Gynaecologists and Obstetricians (CNGOF) | France | HAS framework | 3 | 10/14 (71.43) | 12 | Y |
Mode of term singleton breech delivery [2018] | The American College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (ACOG) | United States of America | Literature review including professional guidelines | 4 | 5/14 (35.71) | 16 | Y |
- Open table in a new tab
3.2 Level of evidence for the basis of recommendations
Organisation | RCOG | SOGC | IOG | RANZCOG | CNGOF | ACOG |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Birth mode counselling | Counselling should consist of short/long term risks and benefits of planned VBB versus planned C/S for mother and fetus in an unbiased way (5b). | Counselling should consist of short/long term risks and benefit of planned VBB versus planned C/S to both mother and fetus (5b). | Should be completed by senior obstetrician as soon as possible (5b). | Women should be informed about ECV (5b). | Acknowledges that information presented to women is an essential part of care (5b). | Informed consent should be documented including risks that perinatal and neonatal mortality and serious short term neonatal morbidity may be higher for vaginal breech birth compared to C/S (5b). |
Outlines specific important points include: | Include short/long term risks to mother and fetus (5b). | Specifics of counselling should be documented (5b). | ||||
No difference in long term neonatal outcomes regardless of birth mode (3c). | Include that planned course of action could change based on clinical circumstances (5b). | Counselling should involve risks and benefits of planned VBB (5b). | Crucial the women understand the information provided (5b). | |||
Selection of appropriate pregnancies and skilled intrapartum care may allow for a planned VBB to be almost as safe as a planned cephalic birth (2c). | Acceptable to offer C/S if diagnosed before labour commences — advise woman she may labour too quick to carry out C/S, especially if she labours preterm or has had a previous vaginal birth (5b). | Counselling should consist of short/long term risks and benefit of planned VBB versus planned C/S to both mother and fetus (5b). | ||||
Maternal complications are least with VBB, higher risk with planned C/S and the highest risk is with emergency C/S (1b). | Discussion must be documented (5b). | |||||
Risk of C/S to future pregnancies — vaginal birth after caesarean risk, increased risks with repeat C/S and risk of abnormally invasive placenta (1b, 2c, 4b). | ||||||
Risk of perinatal mortality VBB versus CS | Cephalic vaginal birth risk 1/1000. | C/S risk 0−0.8/1000. | Specific statistics not included. | C/S risk 0.3%. | VBB risk 1%. | C/S risk 1.6%. |
C/S risk 0.5/1000. | VBB risk 0.8−1.7/1000. | VBB risk 1.3%. | C/S risk <1%. | VBB risk 5%. | ||
VBB risk 2/1000. | Risks based on having appropriately skilled clinicians. | (1c) | (1c, 3d) | (1c) | ||
(1b, 3c) | (1c, 2c, 3c, 3e) | |||||
USS | Not specifically addressed but guideline implies its use — i.e. check for hyperextended head, EFW <10th, >3.8 kg (2c). | Recommended to determine type of breech, assess fetal growth and attitude of the fetal head/neck (1c, 2c, 3c, 4c). | Recommended to confirm presentation and biophysical profile, check for fetal malformation/s, identify placental location and EFW; | Recommended to confirm presentation and rule out abnormalities (including hyperextension of the fetal neck, cord or footling presentation), EFW (5b). | Recommended to exclude hyperextension of the fetal head (5b). | Not mentioned. |
Recommends use in conjunction with ECV guideline which would require USS (1b). | If malformation detected offer referral for genetic testing (2c). | |||||
ECV | Offer the procedure in the absence of contraindication (1b). | Recommended in the absence of contraindication (1a, 4b). | Offer the procedure and advise woman if successful, spontaneous version to breech could occur (1b, 1c). | Recommended in the absence of contraindication (2d). | Offered in the absence of contraindications (5b). | Should be offered in the absence of contraindications (1a). |
Referral to another service/practitioner for on-going care or as a second opinion | Recommends if access is limited to experienced personnel (5b) | Referral to more experienced centres, back-up on-call arrangements and continuing training in VBB skills should be promoted (5b). | Not discussed. | Not discussed. | Clinicians who are uncertain about supporting a woman in a trial of labour should refer her to clinicians more familiar with VBB management rather than directly referring her for a C/S (5b). | Not discussed. |
VBB success rate or emergency C/S rate in planned VBB | Incidence of Emergency C/S in planned VBB 29−45% (2c, 3c). | Likelihood of C/S is 40−50% (2c, 3c). | Specific rate not discussed. | Almost 90% of breech presentations are born by C/S — no differentiation made between elective and non-elective C/S (3e). | Planned VBB success rate of 70% (3d). | Reports rate of in labour C/S for breech presentation to be 86.9% in 2002 (3e). |
Guidelines | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Indications for C/S | RCOG | SOGC | IOG | RANZCOG | CNGOF | ACOG | JBI levels of evidence for criteria |
Footling breech | + | + | + | – | – | – | 2c |
Any presentation other than frank or complete | – | – | – | + | + | + | 2d, 3d, 5b |
Hyperextension of the fetal head/neck | + | + | – | – | + | – | 2c, 2d, 3c, 5b |
Extension of the fetal head/neck | – | – | – | + | – | – | 5b |
Fetal growth/weight: | |||||||
<10th centile | + | – | + | – | – | – | 2c, 3c |
<2.5 kg | – | – | – | – | – | + | 2d |
<2.8 kg | – | + | – | – | – | – | 2c, 3c, 3e |
>3.8 kg | + | – | + | – | + | – | 2c, 5b |
>4 kg | – | + | – | – | – | + | 1c, 2c, 2d, 3c, 3e |
Growth restriction | – | – | – | + | – | – | 5b |
Macrosomia | – | – | – | + | – | – | 5b |
Previous C/S | – | – | + | – | – | – | 2c, 3a |
Other factors: | |||||||
Fetal compromise | + | – | + | – | – | – | |
Fetal anomalies that may interfere with a vaginal birth | – | + | – | + | – | – | |
Cord presentation | – | + | – | + | – | – | |
Clinically inadequate maternal pelvis | – | + | – | + | + | – | |
Low AFI (vertical pocket <3 cm) | – | – | – | – | – | + | |
# Of contraindications per guideline | 5 | 7 | 5 | 7 | 4 | 4 | n/a |
JBI levels of evidence as per each guideline | 2c | 2c, 3c, 3e, 4c | 2c, 3a, 3c, 3e | 5b | 3d, 5b | 2d | n/a |
Labour management | RCOG | SOGC | IOG | RANZCOG | CNGOF | ACOG |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Monitoring | Inform women CEFM may lead to improved outcomes though evidence is lacking (2c) | CEFM recommended (4c) | CEFM is indicated (2c) | CEFM (5b) | CEFM (5b) | Simply states VBB may be reasonable under hospital specific protocol (2d). |
Maternal position | Semi-recumbent or all fours, should depend on maternal preference and experience of the attendant (2c, 3c, 5b) | Not discussed | Not discussed | Not discussed | Not discussed | See above |
Clinicians | Skilled birth attendant is essential for safety of VBB (2c, 2d, 3c, 3e) | Skilled obstetrician should be present during the active second stage and birth (1c, 2c) | VBB should be conducted by a senior obstetrician. All obstetricians and midwives involved in intrapartum care should be trained in how to conduct a VBB (2c). | Suitably experienced obstetrician to manage delivery, arrangements to manage shift changes and fatigue (5b). | Obstetrician must be present, immediate access to an anaesthesiologist and paediatrician at the final stage of fetal expulsion (5b). | See above |
Facilities | Hospital facilities with immediate access to C/S though birth in theatre not usually recommended (1c, 2c) | Should take place in hospital where rapid C/S is available, especially if the woman does not meet criteria but wishes to have a vaginal birth (3e, 5c) | Guideline imply birth should take place in hospital with immediate access to C/S, paediatricians, etc. (1c, 2c) | Immediate access to skilled anaesthetic staff, C/S and paediatric resuscitation (5b) | In a maternity ward with immediate access to C/S (3d, 5b). | See above |
Pain relief | Epidural is likely to increase the risk of intervention, effect on VBB is unclear (2c). | Not specifically mentioned | Not discussed | Access to anaesthetic staff though pain relief not specifically mentioned (5b). | Epidural with low concentration of local anaesthesia must be encouraged (5b). | See previous |
First stage/passive second stage | First stage should be managed according to the same principles as a cephalic presentation. Recommend allowance for passive descent of breech to perineum in second stage (2c). | Passive second stage of up to 90 min to allow the breech to descend well into the pelvis (2c) | Women presenting in late first stage or in second stage should not prompt an emergency C/S, especially if they have had a previous vaginal birth (3c, 4d). | Not discussed | See below. | See above |
Active second stage | Assistance without traction if there is delay or the evidence of poor fetal condition. All obstetricians and midwives should be familiar with techniques to assist VBB (5b). | Traction should be avoiding if possible. | See above | Not discussed | Active pushing should begin when fetus is engaged as low as possible (5b). | See above |
Recommend the presence of a skilled obstetrician (5c). | ||||||
Induction/augmentation | Not usually recommended. Amniotomy reserved for definite clinical indications. | Amniotomy should be avoided unless there is a clear indication and fetus is well engaged. Oxytocin augmentation may be appropriate for infrequent or weak contractions. Induction of labour maybe appropriate (selection criteria). (2c, 2d) | Oxytocic agents to induce or augment labour should be avoided as it may disguise fetopelvic disproportion, though acceptable for delivery of the after-coming head (5b). | Not discussed | Not contraindicated though there is a higher rate of C/S birth in women who are induced (in general) (3d, 5b). | See above |
May consider oxytocin in the presence of epidural anaesthesia and fewer than 4:10 contractions. | ||||||
(2c, 5b) | ||||||
Undiagnosed breech before labour | Women near or in active second stage should not be routinely offered C/S. Where labour is progressing rapidly and fetus is very low, attempting a C/S is likely to increase perinatal and maternal risk as is an attempt of VBB in theatre with spinal anaesthesia or C/S when the breech is on the perineum. USS if time permits. | USS should be performed, if unavailable breech type and normal growth should be determined clinically otherwise C/S indicated (2c, 3c, 3e, 4b, 4c). | See first stage/passive second stage. | USS if able, obstetrician to discuss risks/benefits of emergency C/S versus VBB according to individual circumstances (5b). | Not discussed | See above |
(1c, 5b) |
3.3 Antenatal care
3.4 selection and exclusion criteria, 3.5 intrapartum care, 4 discussion, 4.1 icahe guideline quality checklist, 4.2 consistencies and inconsistencies, 4.3 levels of evidence, 4.4 birth mode decision making, 4.5 breech presentations, 4.6 autonomy, consent and breech birth.
“Where there is maternal preference for vaginal birth, the woman should be counselled about the risks and benefits of planned vaginal breech delivery in the intended location and clinical situation” (p. 4 & 8).
“…the respective risks and benefits of each option (emergency C/S or VBB) according to her individual circumstances” (p. 4 & 9)
4.7 Midwifery and breech birth
5 limitations, 6 conclusion, ethical statement, conflict of interest, credit authorship contribution statement, acknowledgements and declarations, article metrics, related articles.
- Download Hi-res image
- Download .PPT
- Access for Developing Countries
- Articles & Issues
- Articles in Press
- Current Issue
- Past Issues
- Supplements
- For Authors
- About Open Access
- Guide for Authors
- Permissions
- Researcher Academy
- Submit a Manuscript
- Audioslides
- Journal Info
- About the Journal
- Activate Online Access
- Editorial Board
- Peer Reviewers
- Information for Advertisers
- Sign up for e-Alerts
- Thank you to Reviewers
- 2019 Reviewer list
- 2019 Certificates of Excellence
- More Periodicals
- Find a Periodical
- Go to Product Catalog
- ACM Member Access
The content on this site is intended for healthcare professionals.
- Privacy Policy
- Terms and Conditions
- Accessibility
- Help & Contact
- Type 2 Diabetes
- Heart Disease
- Digestive Health
- Multiple Sclerosis
- Diet & Nutrition
- 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 Breech?
When a fetus is delivered buttocks or feet first
- Types of Presentation
Risk Factors
Complications.
Breech concerns the position of the fetus before labor . Typically, the fetus comes out headfirst, but in a breech delivery, the buttocks or feet come out first. This type of delivery is risky for both the pregnant person and the fetus.
This article discusses the different types of breech presentations, risk factors that might make a breech presentation more likely, treatment options, and complications associated with a breech delivery.
Verywell / Jessica Olah
Types of Breech Presentation
During the last few weeks of pregnancy, a fetus usually rotates so that the head is positioned downward to come out of the vagina first. This is called the vertex position.
In a breech presentation, the fetus does not turn to lie in the correct position. Instead, the fetus’s buttocks or feet are positioned to come out of the vagina first.
At 28 weeks of gestation, approximately 20% of fetuses are in a breech position. However, the majority of these rotate to the proper vertex position. At full term, around 3%–4% of births are breech.
The different types of breech presentations include:
- Complete : The fetus’s knees are bent, and the buttocks are presenting first.
- Frank : The fetus’s legs are stretched upward toward the head, and the buttocks are presenting first.
- Footling : The fetus’s foot is showing first.
Signs of Breech
There are no specific symptoms associated with a breech presentation.
Diagnosing breech before the last few weeks of pregnancy is not helpful, since the fetus is likely to turn to the proper vertex position before 35 weeks gestation.
A healthcare provider may be able to tell which direction the fetus is facing by touching a pregnant person’s abdomen. However, an ultrasound examination is the best way to determine how the fetus is lying in the uterus.
Most breech presentations are not related to any specific risk factor. However, certain circumstances can increase the risk for breech presentation.
These can include:
- Previous pregnancies
- Multiple fetuses in the uterus
- An abnormally shaped uterus
- Uterine fibroids , which are noncancerous growths of the uterus that usually appear during the childbearing years
- Placenta previa, a condition in which the placenta covers the opening to the uterus
- Preterm labor or prematurity of the fetus
- Too much or too little amniotic fluid (the liquid that surrounds the fetus during pregnancy)
- Fetal congenital abnormalities
Most fetuses that are breech are born by cesarean delivery (cesarean section or C-section), a surgical procedure in which the baby is born through an incision in the pregnant person’s abdomen.
In rare instances, a healthcare provider may plan a vaginal birth of a breech fetus. However, there are more risks associated with this type of delivery than there are with cesarean delivery.
Before cesarean delivery, a healthcare provider might utilize the external cephalic version (ECV) procedure to turn the fetus so that the head is down and in the vertex position. This procedure involves pushing on the pregnant person’s belly to turn the fetus while viewing the maneuvers on an ultrasound. This can be an uncomfortable procedure, and it is usually done around 37 weeks gestation.
ECV reduces the risks associated with having a cesarean delivery. It is successful approximately 40%–60% of the time. The procedure cannot be done once a pregnant person is in active labor.
Complications related to ECV are low and include the placenta tearing away from the uterine lining, changes in the fetus’s heart rate, and preterm labor.
ECV is usually not recommended if the:
- Pregnant person is carrying more than one fetus
- Placenta is in the wrong place
- Healthcare provider has concerns about the health of the fetus
- Pregnant person has specific abnormalities of the reproductive system
Recommendations for Previous C-Sections
The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) says that ECV can be considered if a person has had a previous cesarean delivery.
During a breech delivery, the umbilical cord might come out first and be pinched by the exiting fetus. This is called cord prolapse and puts the fetus at risk for decreased oxygen and blood flow. There’s also a risk that the fetus’s head or shoulders will get stuck inside the mother’s pelvis, leading to suffocation.
Complications associated with cesarean delivery include infection, bleeding, injury to other internal organs, and problems with future pregnancies.
A healthcare provider needs to weigh the risks and benefits of ECV, delivering a breech fetus vaginally, and cesarean delivery.
In a breech delivery, the fetus comes out buttocks or feet first rather than headfirst (vertex), the preferred and usual method. This type of delivery can be more dangerous than a vertex delivery and lead to complications. If your baby is in breech, your healthcare provider will likely recommend a C-section.
A Word From Verywell
Knowing that your baby is in the wrong position and that you may be facing a breech delivery can be extremely stressful. However, most fetuses turn to have their head down before a person goes into labor. It is not a cause for concern if your fetus is breech before 36 weeks. It is common for the fetus to move around in many different positions before that time.
At the end of your pregnancy, if your fetus is in a breech position, your healthcare provider can perform maneuvers to turn the fetus around. If these maneuvers are unsuccessful or not appropriate for your situation, cesarean delivery is most often recommended. Discussing all of these options in advance can help you feel prepared should you be faced with a breech delivery.
American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. If your baby is breech .
TeachMeObGyn. Breech presentation .
MedlinePlus. Breech birth .
Hofmeyr GJ, Kulier R, West HM. External cephalic version for breech presentation at term . Cochrane Database Syst Rev . 2015 Apr 1;2015(4):CD000083. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD000083.pub3
By Christine Zink, MD Dr. Zink is a board-certified emergency medicine physician with expertise in the wilderness and global medicine.
When viewing this topic in a different language, you may notice some differences in the way the content is structured, but it still reflects the latest evidence-based guidance.
Breech presentation
- Overview
- Theory
- Diagnosis
- Management
- Follow up
- Resources
Breech presentation refers to the baby presenting for delivery with the buttocks or feet first rather than head.
Associated with increased morbidity and mortality for the mother in terms of emergency caesarean section and placenta praevia; and for the baby in terms of preterm birth, small fetal size, congenital anomalies, and perinatal mortality.
Incidence decreases as pregnancy progresses and by term occurs in 3% to 4% of singleton term pregnancies.
Treatment options include external cephalic version to increase the likelihood of vaginal birth or a planned caesarean section, the optimal gestation being 37 and 39 weeks, respectively.
Planned caesarean section is considered the safest form of delivery for infants with a persisting breech presentation at term.
Breech presentation in pregnancy occurs when a baby presents with the buttocks or feet rather than the head first (cephalic presentation) and is associated with increased morbidity and mortality for both the mother and the baby. [1] Cunningham F, Gant N, Leveno K, et al. Williams obstetrics. 21st ed. New York: McGraw-Hill; 1997. [2] Kish K, Collea JV. Malpresentation and cord prolapse. In: DeCherney AH, Nathan L, eds. Current obstetric and gynecologic diagnosis and treatment. New York: McGraw-Hill Professional; 2002. There is good current evidence regarding effective management of breech presentation in late pregnancy using external cephalic version and/or planned caesarean section.
History and exam
Key diagnostic factors.
- presence of risk factors
- buttocks or feet as the presenting part
- fetal head under costal margin
- fetal heartbeat above the maternal umbilicus
Other diagnostic factors
- subcostal tenderness
- pelvic or bladder pain
Risk factors
- premature fetus
- small for gestational age fetus
- nulliparity
- fetal congenital anomalies
- previous breech delivery
- uterine abnormalities
- abnormal amniotic fluid volume
- placental abnormalities
- female fetus
Diagnostic investigations
1st investigations to order.
- transabdominal/transvaginal ultrasound
Treatment algorithm
<37 weeks' gestation and in labour, ≥37 weeks' gestation not in labour, ≥37 weeks' gestation in labour: no imminent delivery, ≥37 weeks' gestation in labour: imminent delivery, contributors, natasha nassar, phd.
Associate Professor
Menzies Centre for Health Policy
Sydney School of Public Health
University of Sydney
Disclosures
NN has received salary support from Australian National Health and a Medical Research Council Career Development Fellowship; she is an author of a number of references cited in this topic.
Christine L. Roberts, MBBS, FAFPHM, DrPH
Research Director
Clinical and Population Health Division
Perinatal Medicine Group
Kolling Institute of Medical Research
CLR declares that she has no competing interests.
Jonathan Morris, MBChB, FRANZCOG, PhD
Professor of Obstetrics and Gynaecology and Head of Department
JM declares that he has no competing interests.
Peer reviewers
John w. bachman, md.
Consultant in Family Medicine
Department of Family Medicine
Mayo Clinic
JWB declares that he has no competing interests.
Rhona Hughes, MBChB
Lead Obstetrician
Lothian Simpson Centre for Reproductive Health
The Royal Infirmary
RH declares that she has no competing interests.
Brian Peat, MD
Director of Obstetrics
Women's and Children's Hospital
North Adelaide
South Australia
BP declares that he has no competing interests.
Lelia Duley, MBChB
Professor of Obstetric Epidemiology
University of Leeds
Bradford Institute of Health Research
Temple Bank House
Bradford Royal Infirmary
LD declares that she has no competing interests.
Justus Hofmeyr, MD
Head of the Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology
East London Private Hospital
East London
South Africa
JH is an author of a number of references cited in this topic.
Differentials
- Transverse lie
- Caesarean birth
- Mode of term singleton breech delivery
Use of this content is subject to our disclaimer
Log in or subscribe to access all of BMJ Best Practice
Log in to access all of bmj best practice, help us improve bmj best practice.
Please complete all fields.
I have some feedback on:
We will respond to all feedback.
For any urgent enquiries please contact our customer services team who are ready to help with any problems.
Phone: +44 (0) 207 111 1105
Email: [email protected]
Your feedback has been submitted successfully.
Breech Presentation
- ⚡ Product Bundles (best value)
- ✨ 1300+ OSCE Stations
- 🧠 UKMLA AKT Question Bank
- 💊 PSA Question Bank
- 🗂️ Data Interpretation Cases | ECG , ABG , Blood tests
- 💬 SCA Cases for MRCGP
- 📖 Geeky Medics OSCE Textbooks
Table of Contents
Suggest an improvement
- Hidden Post Title
- Hidden Post URL
- Hidden Post ID
- Type of issue * N/A Fix spelling/grammar issue Add or fix a link Add or fix an image Add more detail Improve the quality of the writing Fix a factual error
- Please provide as much detail as possible * You don't need to tell us which article this feedback relates to, as we automatically capture that information for you.
- Your Email (optional) This allows us to get in touch for more details if required.
- Which organ is responsible for pumping blood around the body? * Enter a five letter word in lowercase
- Comments This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
- Breech presentation : fetal head at uterine fundus, buttocks or feet over maternal pelvis; occurs in 3-4% of all fetuses in the UK.
- Aetiology : mostly idiopathic.
- Complete (flexed) breech : one or both knees flexed.
- Footling (incomplete) breech : one or both feet below fetal buttocks, hips and knees extended.
- Frank (extended) breech : hips flexed, knees extended; increased risk of developmental dysplasia of the hip.
- Maternal : multiparity, fibroids, previous breech, Mullerian duct abnormalities.
- Fetal : preterm, macrosomia, fetal abnormalities, multiple pregnancy.
- Placental : placenta praevia, polyhydramnios, oligohydramnios, amniotic bands.
- Breech common before 36 weeks, often asymptomatic, diagnosed incidentally.
- 20% breech at 28 weeks, 16% at 32 weeks, 3-4% at term.
- Longitudinal lie, head at fundus, irregular mass over pelvis, fetal heart auscultated higher, palpation of feet/sacrum at cervical os during vaginal examination.
- Investigations : ultrasound scan to confirm breech presentation and assess for abnormalities.
- External cephalic version (ECV) : manual rotation under ultrasound; success rate 40% in primiparous, 60% in multiparous; contraindications include antepartum haemorrhage, ruptured membranes, previous caesarean, major uterine abnormality, multiple pregnancy, abnormal CTG.
- Vaginal delivery : risks include head entrapment, birth asphyxia, intracranial haemorrhage, perinatal mortality, cord prolapse, trauma; contraindications include footling breech, macrosomia, growth restriction, other complications of vaginal birth, lack of trained staff, previous caesarean.
- Caesarean section : elective procedure at term, preferred for preterm babies, unsuccessful ECV, or maternal preference; fewer risks than vaginal delivery.
- Fetal complications : developmental dysplasia of the hip, cord prolapse, fetal head entrapment, birth asphyxia, intracranial haemorrhage, perinatal mortality.
- ECV complications : transient fetal heart abnormalities, fetomaternal haemorrhage, placental abruption (rare).
Introduction
Breech presentation is a type of malpresentation and occurs when the fetal head lies over the uterine fundus and fetal buttocks or feet present over the maternal pelvis (instead of cephalic/head presentation).
The incidence in the United Kingdom of breech presentation is 3-4% of all fetuses. 1
Breech presentation is most commonly idiopathic .
Types of breech presentation
The three types of breech presentation are:
- Complete (flexed) breech : one or both knees are flexed (Figure 1)
- Footling (incomplete) breech : one or both feet present below the fetal buttocks, with hips and knees extended (Figure 2)
- Frank (extended) breech : both hips flexed and both knees extended. Babies born in frank breech are more likely to have developmental dysplasia of the hip (Figure 3)
Risk factors
Risk factors for breech presentation can be divided into maternal , fetal and placental risk factors:
- Maternal : multiparity, fibroids, previous breech presentation, Mullerian duct abnormalities
- Fetal : preterm, macrosomia, fetal abnormalities (anencephaly, hydrocephalus, cystic hygroma), multiple pregnancy
- Placental : placenta praevia , polyhydramnios, oligohydramnios , amniotic bands
Clinical features
Before 36 weeks , breech presentation is not significant, as the fetus is likely to revert to a cephalic presentation. The mother will often be asymptomatic with the diagnosis being incidental.
The incidence of breech presentation is approximately 20% at 28 weeks gestation, 16% at 32 weeks gestation and 3-4% at term . Therefore, breech presentation is more common in preterm labour . Most fetuses with breech presentation in the early third trimester will turn spontaneously and be cephalic at term.
However, spontaneous version rates for nulliparous women with breech presentation at 36 weeks of gestation are less than 10% .
Clinical examination
Typical clinical findings of a breech presentation include:
- Longitudinal lie
- Head palpated at the fundus
- Irregular mass over pelvis (feet, legs and buttocks)
- Fetal heart auscultated higher on the maternal abdomen
- Palpation of feet or sacrum at the cervical os during vaginal examination
For more information, see the Geeky Medics guide to obstetric abdominal examination .
Positions in breech presentation
There are multiple fetal positions in breech presentation which are described according to the relation of the fetal sacrum to the maternal pelvis .
These are: direct sacroanterior, left sacroanterior, right sacroanterior, direct sacroposterior, right sacroposterior, left sacroposterior, left sacrotransverse and right sacrotranverse. 5
Investigations
An ultrasound scan is diagnostic for breech presentation. Growth, amniotic fluid volume and anatomy should be assessed to check for abnormalities.
There are three management options for breech presentation at term, with consideration of maternal choice: external cephalic version , vaginal delivery and Caesarean section .
External cephalic version
External cephalic version (ECV) involves manual rotation of the fetus into a cephalic presentation by applying pressure to the maternal abdomen under ultrasound guidance. Entonox and subcutaneous terbutaline are used to relax the uterus.
ECV has a 40% success rate in primiparous women and 60% in multiparous women . It should be offered to nulliparous women at 36 weeks and multiparous women at 37 weeks gestation.
If ECV is unsuccessful, then delivery options include elective caesarean section or vaginal delivery.
Contraindications for undertaking external cephalic version include:
- Antepartum haemorrhage
- Ruptured membranes
- Previous caesarean section
- Major uterine abnormality
- Multiple pregnancy
- Abnormal cardiotocography (CTG)
Vaginal delivery
Vaginal delivery is an option but carries risks including head entrapment, birth asphyxia, intracranial haemorrhage, perinatal mortality, cord prolapse and fetal and/or maternal trauma.
The preference is to deliver the baby without traction and with an anterior sacrum during delivery to decrease the risk of fetal head entrapment .
The mother may be offered an epidural , as vaginal breech delivery can be very painful. 6
Contraindications for vaginal delivery in a breech presentation include:
- Footling breech: the baby’s head and trunk are more likely to be trapped if the feet pass through the dilated cervix too soon
- Macrosomia: usually defined as larger than 3800g
- Growth restricted baby: usually defined as smaller than 2000g
- Other complications of vaginal birth: for example, placenta praevia and fetal compromise
- Lack of clinical staff trained in vaginal breech delivery
Caesarean section
A caesarian section booked as an elective procedure at term is the most common management for breech presentation.
Caesarean section is preferred for preterm babies (due to an increased head to abdominal circumference ratio in preterm babies) and is used if the external cephalic version is unsuccessful or as a maternal preference. This option has fewer risks than a vaginal delivery.
Complications
Fetal complications of breech presentation include:
- Developmental dysplasia of the hip (DDH)
- Cord prolapse
- Fetal head entrapment
- Birth asphyxia
- Intracranial haemorrhage
- Perinatal mortality
Complications of external cephalic version include:
- Transient fetal heart abnormalities (common)
- Fetomaternal haemorrhage
- Placental abruption (rare)
Miss Saba Al Juboori
Consultant in Obstetrics and Gynaecology
Miss Neeraja Kuruba
Dr chris jefferies.
- Oxford Handbook of Obstetrics and Gynaecology. Breech Presentation: Overview. Published in 2011.
- Jemimah Thomas. Image: Complete breech.
- Bonnie Urquhart Gruenberg. Footling breech. Licence: [ CC BY-SA ]
- Bonnie Urquhart Gruenberg. Frank breech . Licence: [ CC BY-SA ]
- A Comprehensive Textbook of Obstetrics and Gynaecology. Chapter 50: Malpresentation and Malposition: Breech Presentation. Published in 2011.
- Diana Hamilton Fairley. Lecture Notes: Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Malpresentation, Breech Presentation. Published in 2009.
Other pages
- Product Bundles 🎉
- Join the Team 🙌
- Institutional Licence 📚
- OSCE Station Creator Tool 🩺
- Create and Share Flashcards 🗂️
- OSCE Group Chat 💬
- Newsletter 📰
- Advertise With Us
Join the community
- View PDF
- Download full issue
Women and Birth
Breech presentation management: a critical review of leading clinical practice guidelines.
- Previous article in issue
- Next article in issue
Cited by (0)
Breech Presentation
- Author: Richard Fischer, MD; Chief Editor: Ronald M Ramus, MD more...
- Sections Breech Presentation
- Vaginal Breech Delivery
- Cesarean Delivery
- Comparative Studies
- External Cephalic Version
- Conclusions
- Media Gallery
Breech presentation is defined as a fetus in a longitudinal lie with the buttocks or feet closest to the cervix. This occurs in 3-4% of all deliveries. The percentage of breech deliveries decreases with advancing gestational age from 22-25% of births prior to 28 weeks' gestation to 7-15% of births at 32 weeks' gestation to 3-4% of births at term. [ 1 ]
Predisposing factors for breech presentation include prematurity , uterine malformations or fibroids, polyhydramnios , placenta previa , fetal abnormalities (eg, CNS malformations, neck masses, aneuploidy), and multiple gestations . Fetal abnormalities are observed in 17% of preterm breech deliveries and in 9% of term breech deliveries.
Perinatal mortality is increased 2- to 4-fold with breech presentation, regardless of the mode of delivery. Deaths are most often associated with malformations, prematurity, and intrauterine fetal demise .
Types of breeches
The types of breeches are as follows:
Frank breech (50-70%) - Hips flexed, knees extended (pike position)
Complete breech (5-10%) - Hips flexed, knees flexed (cannonball position)
Footling or incomplete (10-30%) - One or both hips extended, foot presenting
Historical considerations
Vaginal breech deliveries were previously the norm until 1959 when it was proposed that all breech presentations should be delivered abdominally to reduce perinatal morbidity and mortality. [ 2 ]
Vaginal breech delivery
Three types of vaginal breech deliveries are described, as follows:
Spontaneous breech delivery: No traction or manipulation of the infant is used. This occurs predominantly in very preterm, often previable, deliveries.
Assisted breech delivery: This is the most common type of vaginal breech delivery. The infant is allowed to spontaneously deliver up to the umbilicus, and then maneuvers are initiated to assist in the delivery of the remainder of the body, arms, and head.
Total breech extraction: The fetal feet are grasped, and the entire fetus is extracted. Total breech extraction should be used only for a noncephalic second twin; it should not be used for a singleton fetus because the cervix may not be adequately dilated to allow passage of the fetal head. Total breech extraction for the singleton breech is associated with a birth injury rate of 25% and a mortality rate of approximately 10%. Total breech extractions are sometimes performed by less experienced accoucheurs when a foot unexpectedly prolapses through the vagina. As long as the fetal heart rate is stable in this situation, it is permissible to manage expectantly to allow the cervix to completely dilate around the breech (see the image below).
Technique and tips for assisted vaginal breech delivery
The fetal membranes should be left intact as long as possible to act as a dilating wedge and to prevent overt cord prolapse .
Oxytocin induction and augmentation are controversial. In many previous studies, oxytocin was used for induction and augmentation, especially for hypotonic uterine dysfunction. However, others are concerned that nonphysiologic forceful contractions could result in an incompletely dilated cervix and an entrapped head.
An anesthesiologist and a pediatrician should be immediately available for all vaginal breech deliveries. A pediatrician is needed because of the higher prevalence of neonatal depression and the increased risk for unrecognized fetal anomalies. An anesthesiologist may be needed if intrapartum complications develop and the patient requires general anesthesia .
Some clinicians perform an episiotomy when the breech delivery is imminent, even in multiparas, as it may help prevent soft tissue dystocia for the aftercoming head (see the images below).
The Pinard maneuver may be needed with a frank breech to facilitate delivery of the legs but only after the fetal umbilicus has been reached. Pressure is exerted in the popliteal space of the knee. Flexion of the knee follows, and the lower leg is swept medially and out of the vagina.
No traction should be exerted on the infant until the fetal umbilicus is past the perineum, after which time maternal expulsive efforts should be used along with gentle downward and outward traction of the infant until the scapula and axilla are visible (see the image below).
Use a dry towel to wrap around the hips (not the abdomen) to help with gentle traction of the infant (see the image below).
An assistant should exert transfundal pressure from above to keep the fetal head flexed.
Once the scapula is visible, rotate the infant 90° and gently sweep the anterior arm out of the vagina by pressing on the inner aspect of the arm or elbow (see the image below).
Rotate the infant 180° in the reverse direction, and sweep the other arm out of the vagina. Once the arms are delivered, rotate the infant back 90° so that the back is anterior (see the image below).
The fetal head should be maintained in a flexed position during delivery to allow passage of the smallest diameter of the head. The flexed position can be accomplished by using the Mauriceau Smellie Veit maneuver, in which the operator's index and middle fingers lift up on the fetal maxillary prominences, while the assistant applies suprapubic pressure (see the image below).
Alternatively, Piper forceps can be used to maintain the head in a flexed position (see the image below).
In many early studies, routine use of Piper forceps was recommended to protect the head and to minimize traction on the fetal neck. Piper forceps are specialized forceps that are placed from below the infant and, unlike conventional forceps, are not tailored to the position of the fetal head (ie, it is a pelvic, not cephalic, application). The forceps are applied while the assistant supports the fetal body in a horizontal plane.
During delivery of the head, avoid extreme elevation of the body, which may result in hyperextension of the cervical spine and potential neurologic injury (see the images below).
Lower Apgar scores, especially at 1 minute, are more common with vaginal breech deliveries. Many advocate obtaining an umbilical cord artery and venous pH for all vaginal breech deliveries to document that neonatal depression is not due to perinatal acidosis.
Fetal head entrapment may result from an incompletely dilated cervix and a head that lacks time to mold to the maternal pelvis. This occurs in 0-8.5% of vaginal breech deliveries. [ 3 ] This percentage is higher with preterm fetuses (< 32 wk), when the head is larger than the body. Dührssen incisions (ie, 1-3 cervical incisions made to facilitate delivery of the head) may be necessary to relieve cervical entrapment. However, extension of the incision can occur into the lower segment of the uterus, and the operator must be equipped to deal with this complication. The Zavanelli maneuver has been described, which involves replacement of the fetus into the abdominal cavity followed by cesarean delivery. While success has been reported with this maneuver, fetal injury and even fetal death have occurred.
Nuchal arms, in which one or both arms are wrapped around the back of the neck, are present in 0-5% of vaginal breech deliveries and in 9% of breech extractions. [ 3 ] Nuchal arms may result in neonatal trauma (including brachial plexus injuries) in 25% of cases. Risks may be reduced by avoiding rapid extraction of the infant during delivery of the body. To relieve nuchal arms when it is encountered, rotate the infant so that the fetal face turns toward the maternal symphysis pubis (in the direction of the impacted arm); this reduces the tension holding the arm around the back of the fetal head, allowing for delivery of the arm.
Cervical spine injury is predominantly observed when the fetus has a hyperextended head prior to delivery. Ballas and Toaff (1976) reported 20 cases of hyperextended necks, defined as an angle of extension greater than 90° ("star-gazing"), discovered on antepartum radiographs. [ 4 ] Of the 11 fetuses delivered vaginally, 8 (73%) sustained complete cervical spinal cord lesions, defined as either transection or nonfunction.
Cord prolapse may occur in 7.4% of all breech labors. This incidence varies with the type of breech: 0-2% with frank breech, 5-10% with complete breech, and 10-25% with footling breech. [ 3 ] Cord prolapse occurs twice as often in multiparas (6%) than in primigravidas (3%). Cord prolapse may not always result in severe fetal heart rate decelerations because of the lack of presenting parts to compress the umbilical cord (ie, that which predisposes also protects).
Prior to the 2001 recommendations by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), approximately 50% of breech presentations were considered candidates for vaginal delivery. Of these candidates, 60-82% were successfully delivered vaginally.
Candidates can be classified based on gestational age. For pregnancies prior to 26 weeks' gestation, prematurity, not mode of delivery, is the greatest risk factor. Unfortunately, no randomized clinical trials to help guide clinical management have been reported. Vaginal delivery can be considered, but a detailed discussion of the risks from prematurity and the lack of data regarding the ideal mode of delivery should take place with the parent(s). For example, intraventricular hemorrhage, which can occur in an infant of extremely low birth weight, should not be misinterpreted as proof of a traumatic vaginal breech delivery.
For pregnancies between 26 and 32 weeks, retrospective studies suggest an improved outcome with cesarean delivery, although these reports are subject to selection bias. In contrast, between 32 and 36 weeks' gestation, vaginal breech delivery may be considered after a discussion of risks and benefits with the parent(s).
After 37 weeks' gestation, parents should be informed of the results of a multicenter randomized clinical trial that demonstrated significantly increased perinatal mortality and short-term neonatal morbidity associated with vaginal breech delivery (see Comparative Studies). For those attempting vaginal delivery, if estimated fetal weight (EFW) is more than 4000 g, some recommend cesarean delivery because of concern for entrapment of the unmolded head in the maternal pelvis, although data to support this practice are limited.
A frank breech presentation is preferred when vaginal delivery is attempted. Complete breeches and footling breeches are still candidates, as long as the presenting part is well applied to the cervix and both obstetrical and anesthesia services are readily available in the event of a cord prolapse.
The fetus should show no neck hyperextension on antepartum ultrasound imaging (see the image below). Flexed or military position is acceptable.
Regarding prior cesarean delivery, a retrospective study by Ophir et al of 71 women with one prior low transverse cesarean delivery who subsequently delivered a breech fetus found that 24 women had an elective repeat cesarean and 47 women had a trial of labor. [ 5 ] In the 47 women with a trial of labor, 37 (78.7%) resulted in a vaginal delivery. Two infants in the trial of labor group had nuchal arms (1 with a transient brachial plexus injury) and 1 woman required a hysterectomy for hemorrhage due to a uterine dehiscence discovered after vaginal delivery. Vaginal breech delivery after one prior cesarean delivery is not contraindicated, though larger studies are needed.
Primigravida versus multiparous
It had been commonly believed that primigravidas with a breech presentation should have a cesarean delivery, although no data (prospective or retrospective) support this view. The only documented risk related to parity is cord prolapse, which is 2-fold higher in parous women than in primigravid women.
Radiographic and CT pelvimetry
Historically, radiograph pelvimetry was believed to be useful to quantitatively assess the inlet and mid pelvis. Recommended pelvimetry criteria included a transverse inlet diameter larger than 11.5 cm, anteroposterior inlet diameter larger than 10.5 cm, transverse midpelvic diameter (between the ischial spines) larger than 10 cm, and anteroposterior midpelvic diameter larger than 11.5 cm. However, radiographic pelvimetry is rarely, if ever, used in the United States.
CT pelvimetry , which is associated with less fetal radiation exposure than conventional radiographic pelvimetry, was more recently advocated by some investigators. It, too, is rarely used today.
Ultimately, if the obstetrical operator is not experienced or comfortable with vaginal breech deliveries, cesarean delivery may be the best choice. Unfortunately, with the dwindling number of experienced obstetricians who still perform vaginal breech deliveries and who can teach future generations of obstetricians, this technique may soon be lost due to attrition.
In 1970, approximately 14% of breeches were delivered by cesarean delivery. By 1986, that rate had increased to 86%. In 2003, based on data from the National Center for Health Statistics, the rate of cesarean delivery for all breech presentations was 87.2%. Most of the remaining breeches delivered vaginally were likely second twins, fetal demises, and precipitous deliveries. However, the rise in cesarean deliveries for breeches has not necessarily equated with an improvement in perinatal outcome. Green et al compared the outcome for term breeches prior to 1975 (595 infants, 22% cesarean delivery rate for breeches) with those from 1978-1979 (164 infants, 94% cesarean delivery rate for breeches). [ 6 ] Despite the increase in rates of cesarean delivery, the differences in rates of asphyxia, birth injury, and perinatal deaths were not significant.
Maneuvers for cesarean delivery are similar to those for vaginal breech delivery, including the Pinard maneuver, wrapping the hips with a towel for traction, head flexion during traction, rotation and sweeping out of the fetal arms, and the Mauriceau Smellie Veit maneuver.
An entrapped head can still occur during cesarean delivery as the uterus contracts after delivery of the body, even with a lower uterine segment that misleadingly appears adequate prior to uterine incision. Entrapped heads occur more commonly with preterm breeches, especially with a low transverse uterine incision. As a result, some practitioners opt to perform low vertical uterine incisions for preterm breeches prior to 32 weeks' gestation to avoid head entrapment and the kind of difficult delivery that cesarean delivery was meant to avoid. Low vertical incisions usually require extension into the corpus, resulting in cesarean delivery for all future deliveries.
If a low transverse incision is performed, the physician should move quickly once the breech is extracted in order to deliver the head before the uterus begins to contract. If any difficulty is encountered with delivery of the fetal head, the transverse incision can be extended vertically upward (T incision). Alternatively, the transverse incision can be extended laterally and upward, taking great care to avoid trauma to the uterine arteries. A third option is the use of a short-acting uterine relaxant (eg, nitroglycerin) in an attempt to facilitate delivery.
Only 3 randomized studies have evaluated the mode of delivery of the term breech. All other studies were nonrandomized or retrospective, which may be subject to selection bias.
In 1980, Collea et al randomized 208 women in labor with term frank breech presentations to either elective cesarean delivery or attempted vaginal delivery after radiographic pelvimetry. [ 7 ] Oxytocin was allowed for dysfunctional labor. Of the 60 women with adequate pelves, 49 delivered vaginally. Two neonates had transient brachial plexus injuries. Women randomized to elective cesarean delivery had higher postpartum morbidity rates (49.3% vs 6.7%).
In 1983, Gimovsky et al randomized 105 women in labor with term nonfrank breech presentations to a trial of labor versus elective cesarean delivery. [ 8 ] In this group of women, 47 had complete breech presentations, 16 had incomplete breech presentations (hips flexed, 1 knee extended/1 knee flexed), 32 had double-footling presentations, and 10 had single-footling presentations. Oxytocin was allowed for dysfunctional labor. Of the labor group, 44% had successful vaginal delivery. Most cesarean deliveries were performed for inadequate pelvic dimensions on radiographic pelvimetry. The rate of neonatal morbidity did not differ between neonates delivered vaginally and those delivered by cesarean delivery, although a higher maternal morbidity rate was noted in the cesarean delivery group.
In 2000, Hannah and colleagues completed a large, multicenter, randomized clinical trial involving 2088 term singleton fetuses in frank or complete breech presentations at 121 institutions in 26 countries. [ 9 ] In this study, popularly known as the Term Breech Trial, subjects were randomized into a planned cesarean delivery group or a planned vaginal birth group. Exclusion criteria were estimated fetal weight (EFW) more than 4000 g, hyperextension of the fetal head, lethal fetal anomaly or anomaly that might result in difficulty with delivery, or contraindication to labor or vaginal delivery (eg, placenta previa ).
Subjects randomized to cesarean delivery were scheduled to deliver after 38 weeks' gestation unless conversion to cephalic presentation had occurred. Subjects randomized to vaginal delivery were treated expectantly until labor ensued. Electronic fetal monitoring was either continuous or intermittent. Inductions were allowed for standard obstetrical indications, such as postterm gestations. Augmentation with oxytocin was allowed in the absence of apparent fetopelvic disproportion, and epidural analgesia was permitted.
Adequate labor was defined as a cervical dilation rate of 0.5 cm/h in the active phase of labor and the descent of the breech fetus to the pelvic floor within 2 hours of achieving full dilation. Vaginal delivery was spontaneous or assisted and was attended by an experienced obstetrician. Cesarean deliveries were performed for inadequate progress of labor, nonreassuring fetal heart rate, or conversion to footling breech. Results were analyzed by intent-to-treat (ie, subjects were analyzed by randomization group, not by ultimate mode of delivery).
Of 1041 subjects in the planned cesarean delivery group, 941 (90.4%) had cesarean deliveries. Of 1042 subjects in the planned vaginal delivery group, 591 (56.7%) had vaginal deliveries. Indications for cesarean delivery included: fetopelvic disproportion or failure to progress in labor (226), nonreassuring fetal heart rate tracing (129), footling breech (69), request for cesarean delivery (61), obstetrical or medical indications (45), or cord prolapse (12).
The composite measurement of either perinatal mortality or serious neonatal morbidity by 6 weeks of life was significantly lower in the planned cesarean group than in the planned vaginal group (5% vs 1.6%, P < .0001). Six of 16 neonatal deaths were associated with difficult vaginal deliveries, and 4 deaths were associated with fetal heart rate abnormalities. The reduction in risk in the cesarean group was even greater in participating countries with overall low perinatal mortality rates as reported by the World Health Organization. The difference in perinatal outcome held after controlling for the experience level of the obstetrician. No significant difference was noted in maternal mortality or serious maternal morbidity between the 2 groups within the first 6 weeks of delivery (3.9% vs 3.2%, P = .35).
A separate analysis showed no difference in breastfeeding, sexual relations, or depression at 3 months postpartum, though the reported rate of urinary incontinence was higher in the planned vaginal group (7.3% vs 4.5%).
Based on the multicenter trial, the ACOG published a Committee Opinion in 2001 that stated "planned vaginal delivery of a singleton term breech may no longer be appropriate." This did not apply to those gravidas presenting in advanced labor with a term breech and imminent delivery or to a nonvertex second twin.
A follow-up study by Whyte et al was conducted in 2004 on 923 children who were part of the initial multicenter study. [ 10 ] The authors found no differences between the planned cesarean delivery and planned vaginal breech delivery groups with regards to infant death rates or neurodevelopmental delay by age 2 years. Similarly, among 917 participating mothers from the original trial, no substantive differences were apparent in maternal outcome between the 2 groups. [ 11 ] No longer-term maternal effects, such as the impact of a uterine scar on future pregnancies, have yet been reported.
A meta-analysis of the 3 above mentioned randomized trials was published in 2015. The findings included a reduction in perinatal/neonatal death, reduced composite short-term outcome of perinatal/neonatal death or serious neonatal morbidity with planned cesarean delivery versus planned vaginal delivery. [ 12 ] However, at 2 years of age, there was no significant difference in death or neurodevelopmental delay between the two groups. Maternal outcomes assessed at 2 years after delivery were not significantly different.
With regard to preterm breech deliveries, only one prospective randomized study has been performed, which included only 38 subjects (28-36 wk) with preterm labor and breech presentation. [ 13 ] Of these subjects, 20 were randomized to attempted vaginal delivery and 18 were randomized to immediate cesarean delivery. Of the attempted vaginal delivery group, 25% underwent cesarean delivery for nonreassuring fetal heart rate tracings. Five neonatal deaths occurred in the vaginal delivery group, and 1 neonatal death occurred in the cesarean delivery group. Two neonates died from fetal anomalies, 3 from respiratory distress, and 1 from sepsis.
Nonanomalous infants who died were not acidotic at delivery and did not have birth trauma. Differences in Apgar scores were not significant, although the vaginal delivery group had lower scores. The small number of enrolled subjects precluded any definitive conclusions regarding the safety of vaginal breech delivery for a preterm breech.
Retrospective analyses showed a higher mortality rate in vaginal breech neonates weighing 750-1500 g (26-32 wk), but less certain benefit was shown with cesarean delivery if the fetal weight was more than 1500 g (approximately 32 wk). Therefore, this subgroup of very preterm infants (26-32 wk) may benefit from cesarean delivery, although this recommendation is based on potentially biased retrospective data.
A large cohort study was published in 2015 from the Netherlands Perinatal Registry, which included 8356 women with a preterm (26-36 6/7 weeks) breech from 2000 to 2011, over three quarters of whom intended to deliver vaginally. In this overall cohort, there was no significant difference in perinatal mortality between the planned vaginal delivery and planned cesarean delivery groups (adjusted odds ratio 0.97, 95% confidence interval 0.60 – 1.57). However, the subgroup delivering at 28 to 32 weeks had a lower perinatal mortality with planned cesarean section (aOR 0.27, 95% CI 0.10 – 0.77). After adding a composite of perinatal morbidity, planned cesarean delivery was associated with a better outcome than a planned vaginal delivery (aOR 0.77, 95% CI 0.63 – 0.93. [ 14 ]
A Danish study found that nulliparous women with a singleton breech presentation who had a planned vaginal delivery were at significantly higher risk for postoperative complications, such as infection, compared with women who had a planned cesarean delivery. This increased risk was due to the likelihood of conversion to an emergency cesarean section, which occurred in over 69% of the planned vaginal deliveries in the study. [ 15 ]
The Maternal-Fetal Medicine Units Network of the US National Institute of Child Health and Human Development considered a multicenter randomized clinical trial of attempted vaginal delivery versus elective cesarean delivery for 24- to 28-week breech fetuses. [ 16 ] However, it was not initiated because of anticipated difficulty with recruitment, inadequate numbers to show statistically significant differences, and medicolegal concerns. Therefore, this study is not likely to be performed.
External cephalic version (ECV) is the transabdominal manual rotation of the fetus into a cephalic presentation.
Initially popular in the 1960s and 1970s, ECV virtually disappeared after reports of fetal deaths following the procedure. Reintroduced to the United States in the 1980s, it became increasingly popular in the 1990s.
Improved outcome may be related to the use of nonstress tests both before and after ECV, improved selection of low-risk fetuses, and Rh immune globulin to prevent isoimmunization.
Prepare for the possibility of cesarean delivery. Obtain a type and screen as well as an anesthesia consult. The patient should have nothing by mouth for at least 8 hours prior to the procedure. Recent ultrasonography should have been performed for fetal position, to check growth and amniotic fluid volume, to rule out a placenta previa, and to rule out anomalies associated with breech. Another sonogram should be performed on the day of the procedure to confirm that the fetus is still breech.
A nonstress test (biophysical profile as backup) should be performed prior to ECV to confirm fetal well-being.
Perform ECV in or near a delivery suite in the unlikely event of fetal compromise during or following the procedure, which may require emergent delivery.
ECV can be performed with 1 or 2 operators. Some prefer to have an assistant to help turn the fetus, elevate the breech out of the pelvis, or to monitor the position of the baby with ultrasonography. Others prefer a single operator approach, as there may be better coordination between the forces that are raising the breech and moving the head.
ECV is accomplished by judicious manipulation of the fetal head toward the pelvis while the breech is brought up toward the fundus. Attempt a forward roll first and then a backward roll if the initial attempts are unsuccessful. No consensus has been reached regarding how many ECV attempts are appropriate at one time. Excessive force should not be used at any time, as this may increase the risk of fetal trauma.
Following an ECV attempt, whether successful or not, repeat the nonstress test (biophysical profile if needed) prior to discharge. Also, administer Rh immune globulin to women who are Rh negative. Some physicians traditionally induce labor following successful ECV. However, as virtually all of these recently converted fetuses are unengaged, many practitioners will discharge the patient and wait for spontaneous labor to ensue, thereby avoiding the risk of a failed induction of labor. Additionally, as most ECV’s are attempted prior to 39 weeks, as long as there are no obstetrical or medical indications for induction, discharging the patient to await spontaneous labor would seem most prudent.
In those with an unsuccessful ECV, the practitioner has the option of sending the patient home or proceeding with a cesarean delivery. Expectant management allows for the possibility of spontaneous version. Alternatively, cesarean delivery may be performed at the time of the failed ECV, especially if regional anesthesia is used and the patient is already in the delivery room (see Regional anesthesia). This would minimize the risk of a second regional analgesia.
In those with an unsuccessful ECV, the practitioner may send the patient home, if less than 39 weeks, with plans for either a vaginal breech delivery or scheduled cesarean after 39 weeks. Expectant management allows for the possibility of a spontaneous version. Alternatively, if ECV is attempted after 39 weeks, cesarean delivery may be performed at the time of the failed ECV, especially if regional anesthesia is used and the patient is already in the delivery room (see Regional anesthesia). This would minimize the risk of a second regional analgesia.
Success rate
Success rates vary widely but range from 35% to 86% (average success rate in the 2004 National Vital Statistics was 58%). Improved success rates occur with multiparity, earlier gestational age, frank (versus complete or footling) breech presentation, transverse lie, and in African American patients.
Opinions differ regarding the influence of maternal weight, placental position, and amniotic fluid volume. Some practitioners find that thinner patients, posterior placentas, and adequate fluid volumes facilitate successful ECV. However, both patients and physicians need to be prepared for an unsuccessful ECV; version failure is not necessarily a reflection of the skill of the practitioner.
Zhang et al reviewed 25 studies of ECV in the United States, Europe, Africa, and Israel. [ 17 ] The average success rate in the United States was 65%. Of successful ECVs, 2.5% reverted back to breech presentation (other estimates range from 3% to 5%), while 2% of unsuccessful ECVs had spontaneous version to cephalic presentation prior to labor (other estimates range from 12% to 26%). Spontaneous version rates depend on the gestational age when the breech is discovered, with earlier breeches more likely to undergo spontaneous version.
A prospective study conducted in Germany by Zielbauer et al demonstrated an overall success rate of 22.4% for ECV among 353 patients with a singleton fetus in breech presentation. ECV was performed at 38 weeks of gestation. Factors found to increase the likelihood of success were a later week of gestation, abundant amniotic fluid, fundal and anterior placental location, and an oblique lie. [ 18 ]
A systematic review in 2015 looked at the effectiveness of ECV with eight randomized trials of ECV at term. Compared to women with no attempt at ECV, ECV reduced non-cephalic presentation at birth by 60% and reduced cesarean sections by 40% in the same group. [ 19 ] Although the rate of cesarean section is lower when ECV is performed than if not, the overall rate of cesarean section remains nearly twice as high after successful ECV due to both dystocia and non-reassuring fetal heart rate patterns. [ 20 ] Nulliparity was the only factor shown in follow-up to increase the risk of instrumental delivery following successful ECV. [ 21 ]
While most studies of ECV have been performed in university hospitals, Cook showed that ECV has also been effective in the private practice setting. [ 22 ] Of 65 patients with term breeches, 60 were offered ECV. ECV was successful in 32 (53%) of the 60 patients, with vaginal delivery in 23 (72%) of the 32 patients. Of the remaining breech fetuses believed to be candidates for vaginal delivery, 8 (80%) had successful vaginal delivery. The overall vaginal delivery rate was 48% (31 of 65 patients), with no significant morbidity.
Cost analysis
In 1995, Gifford et al performed a cost analysis of 4 options for breech presentations at term: (1) ECV attempt on all breeches, with attempted vaginal breech delivery for selected persistent breeches; (2) ECV on all breeches, with cesarean delivery for persistent breeches; (3) trial of labor for selected breeches, with scheduled cesarean delivery for all others; and (4) scheduled cesarean delivery for all breeches prior to labor. [ 23 ]
ECV attempt on all breeches with attempted vaginal breech delivery on selected persistent breeches was associated with the lowest cesarean delivery rate and was the most cost-effective approach. The second most cost-effective approach was ECV attempt on all breeches, with cesarean delivery for persistent breeches.
Uncommon risks of ECV include fractured fetal bones, precipitation of labor or premature rupture of membranes , abruptio placentae , fetomaternal hemorrhage (0-5%), and cord entanglement (< 1.5%). A more common risk of ECV is transient slowing of the fetal heart rate (in as many as 40% of cases). This risk is believed to be a vagal response to head compression with ECV. It usually resolves within a few minutes after cessation of the ECV attempt and is not usually associated with adverse sequelae for the fetus.
Trials have not been large enough to determine whether the overall risk of perinatal mortality is increased with ECV. The Cochrane review from 2015 reported perinatal death in 2 of 644 in ECV and 6 of 661 in the group that did not attempt ECV. [ 19 ]
A 2016 Practice Bulletin by ACOG recommended that all women who are near term with breech presentations should be offered an ECV attempt if there are no contraindications (see Contraindications below). [ 24 ] ACOG guidelines issued in 2020 recommend that ECV should be performed starting at 37+0 weeks, in order to reduce the likelihood of reversion and to increase the rate of spontaneous version. [ 25 ]
ACOG recommends that ECV be offered as an alternative to a planned cesarean section for a patient who has a term singleton breech fetus, wishes to have a planned vaginal delivery of a vertex-presenting fetus, and has no contraindications. ACOG also advises that ECV be attempted only in settings where cesarean delivery services are available. [ 26 ]
ECV is usually not performed on preterm breeches because they are more likely to undergo spontaneous version to cephalic presentation and are more likely to revert to breech after successful ECV (approximately 50%). Earlier studies of preterm ECV did not show a difference in the rates of breech presentations at term or overall rates of cesarean delivery. Additionally, if complications of ECV were to arise that warranted emergent delivery, it would result in a preterm neonate with its inherent risks. The Early External Cephalic Version (ECV) 2 trial was an international, multicentered, randomized clinical trial that compared ECV performed at 34-35 weeks’ gestation compared with 37 weeks’ gestation or more. [ 27 ] Early ECV increased the chance of cephalic presentation at birth; however, no difference in cesarean delivery rates was noted, along with a nonstatistical increase in preterm births.
A systematic review looked at 5 studies of ECV completed prior to 37 weeks and concluded that compared with no ECV attempt, ECV commenced before term reduces the non-cephalic presentation at birth, however early ECV may increase the risk of late preterm birth. [ 28 ]
Given the increasing awareness of the risks of late preterm birth and early term deliveries, the higher success of earlier ECV should be weighed against the risks of iatrogenic prematurity should a complication arise necessitating delivery.
Contraindications
Absolute contraindications for ECV include multiple gestations with a breech presenting fetus, contraindications to vaginal delivery (eg, herpes simplex virus infection, placenta previa), and nonreassuring fetal heart rate tracing.
Relative contraindications include polyhydramnios or oligohydramnios , fetal growth restriction , uterine malformation , and major fetal anomaly.
Controversial candidates
Women with prior uterine incisions may be candidates for ECV, but data are scant. In 1991, Flamm et al attempted ECV on 56 women with one or more prior low transverse cesarean deliveries. [ 29 ] The success rate of ECV was 82%, with successful vaginal births in 65% of patients with successful ECVs. No uterine ruptures occurred during attempted ECV or subsequent labor, and no significant fetal complications occurred.
In 2010 ACOG acknowledged that although there is limited data in both the above study and one more recently, [ 30 ] no serious adverse events occurred in these series. A larger prospective cohort study that was published in 2014 reported similar success rates of ECV among women with and without prior cesarean section, although lower vaginal birth rates. There were, however, no cases of uterine rupture or other adverse outcomes. [ 31 ]
Another controversial area is performing ECV on a woman in active labor. In 1985, Ferguson and Dyson reported on 15 women in labor with term breeches and intact membranes. [ 32 ] Four patients were dilated greater than 5 cm (2 women were dilated 8 cm). Tocolysis was administered, and intrapartum ECV was attempted. ECV was successful in 11 of 15 patients, with successful vaginal births in 10 patients. No adverse effects were noted. Further studies are needed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of intrapartum ECV.
Data regarding the benefit of intravenous or subcutaneous beta-mimetics in improving ECV rates are conflicting.
In 1996, Marquette et al performed a prospective, randomized, double-blinded study on 283 subjects with breech presentations between 36 and 41 weeks' gestation. [ 33 ] Subjects received either intravenous ritodrine or placebo. The success rate of ECV was 52% in the ritodrine group versus 42% in the placebo group ( P = .35). When only nulliparous subjects were analyzed, significant differences were observed in the success of ECV (43% vs 25%, P < .03). ECV success rates were significantly higher in parous versus nulliparous subjects (61% vs 34%, P < .0001), with no additional improvement with ritodrine.
A systematic review published in 2015 of six randomized controlled trials of ECV that compared the use of parenteral beta-mimetic tocolysis during ECV concluded that tocolysis was effective in increasing the rate of cephalic presentation in labor and reducing the cesarean delivery rate by almost 25% in both nulliparous and multiparous women. [ 34 ] Data on adverse effects and other tocolytics was insufficient. A review published in 2011 on Nifedipine did not show an improvement in ECV success. [ 35 ]
Regional anesthesia
Regional analgesia, either epidural or spinal, may be used to facilitate external cephalic version (ECV) success. When analgesia levels similar to that for cesarean delivery are given, it allows relaxation of the anterior abdominal wall, making palpation and manipulation of the fetal head easier. Epidural or spinal analgesia also eliminates maternal pain that may cause bearing down and tensing of the abdominal muscles. If ECV is successful, the epidural can be removed and the patient sent home to await spontaneous labor. If ECV is unsuccessful, a patient can proceed to cesarean delivery under her current anesthesia, if the gestational age is more than 39 weeks.
The main disadvantage is the inherent risk of regional analgesia, which is considered small. Additionally, lack of maternal pain could potentially result in excessive force being applied to the fetus without the knowledge of the operator.
In 1994, Carlan et al retrospectively analyzed 61 women who were at more than 36 weeks' gestation and had ECV with or without epidural. [ 36 ] The success rate of ECV was 59% in the epidural group and 24% in the nonepidural group ( P < .05). In 7 of 8 women with unsuccessful ECV without epidural, a repeat ECV attempt after epidural was successful. No adverse effects on maternal or perinatal morbidity or mortality occurred.
In 1997, Schorr et al randomized 69 subjects who were at least 37 weeks' gestation to either epidural or control groups prior to attempted ECV. [ 37 ] Those in whom ECV failed underwent cesarean delivery. The success rate of ECV was 69% in the epidural group and 32% in the control group (RR, 2.12; 95% CI, 1.24-3.62). The cesarean delivery rate was 79% in the control group and 34% in the epidural group ( P = .001). No complications of epidural anesthesia and no adverse fetal effects occurred.
In 1999, Dugoff et al randomized 102 subjects who were at more than 36 weeks' gestation with breech presentations to either spinal anesthesia or a control group. [ 38 ] All subjects received 0.25 mg terbutaline subcutaneously. The success rate of ECV was 44% in the spinal group and 42% in the nonspinal group, which was not statistically significant.
In contrast, a 2007 randomized clinical trial of spinal analgesia versus no analgesia in 74 women showed a significant improvement in ECV success (66.7% vs 32.4%, p = .004), with a significantly lower pain score by the patient. [ 39 ]
The 2015 systematic review asserted that regional analgesia in combination with a tocolytic was more effective than the tocolytic alone for increasing ECV success; however there was no difference in cephalic presentation in labor. Data from the same review was insufficient to assess regional analgesia without tocolysis [ 34 ]
Acoustic stimulation
Johnson and Elliott performed a randomized, blinded trial on 23 subjects to compare acoustic stimulation prior to ECV with a control group when the fetal spine was in the midline (directly back up or back down). [ 40 ] Of those who received acoustic stimulation, 12 of 12 fetuses shifted to a spine-lateral position after acoustic stimulation, and 11 (91%) underwent successful ECV. In the control group, 0 of 11 shifts and 1 (9%) successful ECV ( P < .0001) occurred. Additional studies are needed.
Amnioinfusion
Although an earlier study reported on the utility of amnioinfusion to successfully turn 6 fetuses who initially failed ECV, [ 41 ] a subsequent study was published of 7 women with failed ECV who underwent amniocentesis and amnioinfusion of up to 1 liter of crystalloid. [ 42 ] Repeat attempts of ECV were unsuccessful in all 7 cases. Amnioinfusion to facilitate ECV cannot be recommended at this time.
Vaginal delivery rates after successful version
The rate of cesarean delivery ranges from 0-31% after successful external cephalic version (ECV). Controversy has existed on whether there is a higher rate of cesarean delivery for labor dystocia following ECV. In 1994, a retrospective study by Egge et al of 76 successful ECVs matched with cephalic controls by delivery date, parity, and gestational age failed to note any significant difference in the cesarean delivery rate (8% in ECV group, 6% in control group). [ 43 ]
However, in 1997, Lau et al compared 154 successful ECVs to 308 spontaneously occurring cephalic controls (matched for age, parity, and type of labor onset) with regard to the cesarean delivery rate. [ 44 ] Cesarean delivery rates were higher after ECV (16.9% vs 7.5%, P < .005) because of higher rates of cephalopelvic disproportion and nonreassuring fetal heart rate tracings. This may be related to an increased frequency of compound presentations after ECV. Immediate induction of labor after successful ECV may also contribute to an increase in the cesarean delivery rate due to failed induction in women with unripe cervices and unengaged fetal heads.
Further, in another cohort study from 2015, factors were described which decreased the vaginal delivery rate after successful ECV including labor induction, less than 2 weeks between ECV and delivery, high body mass index, and previous cesarean. [ 45 ] The overall caesarean delivery rate in this cohort was 15%.
Vaginal breech delivery requires an experienced obstetrician and careful counseling of the parents. Although studies on the delivery of the preterm breech are limited, the multicenter Term Breech Trial found an increased rate of perinatal mortality and serious immediate perinatal morbidity, though no differences were seen in infant outcome at 2 years of age.
Parents must be informed about potential risks and benefits to the mother and neonate for both vaginal breech delivery and cesarean delivery. Discussion of risks should not be limited only to the current pregnancy. The risks of a cesarean on subsequent pregnancies, including uterine rupture and placental attachment abnormalities ( placenta previa , abruption , accreta), as well as maternal and perinatal sequelae from these complications, should be reviewed as well.
It remains concerning that the dearth of experienced physicians to teach younger practitioners will lead to the abandonment of vaginal breeches altogether. For those wishing to learn the art of vaginal breech deliveries, simulation training with pelvic models has been advocated to familiarize trainees with the procedure in a nonthreatening environment. [ 46 ] Once comfortable with the appropriate maneuvers, vaginal delivery of the second, noncephalic twin, may be attempted under close supervision by an experienced physician. The cervix will already be fully dilated, and, assuming the second twin is not significantly larger, the successful vaginal delivery rate has been quoted to be as high as 96%.
External cephalic version (ECV) is a safe alternative to vaginal breech delivery or cesarean delivery, reducing the cesarean delivery rate for breech by 50%. ACOG recommends offering ECV to all women with a breech fetus near term. [ 24 ] Adjuncts such as tocolysis, regional anesthesia, and acoustic stimulation when appropriate may improve ECV success rates.
Hickok DE, Gordon DC, Milberg JA, Williams MA, Daling JR. The frequency of breech presentation by gestational age at birth: a large population-based study. Am J Obstet Gynecol . 1992 Mar. 166(3):851-2. [QxMD MEDLINE Link] .
Wright RC. Reduction of perinatal mortality and morbidity in breech delivery through routine use of cesarean section. Obstet Gynecol . 1959. 14:758-63.
Cheng M, Hannah M. Breech delivery at term: a critical review of the literature. Obstet Gynecol . 1993 Oct. 82(4 Pt 1):605-18. [QxMD MEDLINE Link] .
Ballas S, Toaff R. Hyperextension of the fetal head in breech presentation: radiological evaluation and significance. Br J Obstet Gynaecol . 1976 Mar. 83(3):201-4. [QxMD MEDLINE Link] .
Ophir E, Oettinger M, Yagoda A, Markovits Y, Rojansky N, Shapiro H. Breech presentation after cesarean section: always a section?. Am J Obstet Gynecol . 1989 Jul. 161(1):25-8. [QxMD MEDLINE Link] .
Green JE, McLean F, Smith LP, Usher R. Has an increased cesarean section rate for term breech delivery reduced in incidence of birth asphyxia, trauma, and death?. Am J Obstet Gynecol . 1982 Mar 15. 142(6 Pt 1):643-8. [QxMD MEDLINE Link] .
Collea JV, Chein C, Quilligan EJ. The randomized management of term frank breech presentation: a study of 208 cases. Am J Obstet Gynecol . 1980 May 15. 137(2):235-44. [QxMD MEDLINE Link] .
Gimovsky ML, Wallace RL, Schifrin BS, Paul RH. Randomized management of the nonfrank breech presentation at term: a preliminary report. Am J Obstet Gynecol . 1983 May 1. 146(1):34-40. [QxMD MEDLINE Link] .
Hannah ME, Hannah WJ, Hewson SA, Hodnett ED, Saigal S, Willan AR. Planned caesarean section versus planned vaginal birth for breech presentation at term: a randomised multicentre trial. Term Breech Trial Collaborative Group. Lancet . 2000 Oct 21. 356(9239):1375-83. [QxMD MEDLINE Link] .
Whyte H, Hannah ME, Saigal S, et al. Outcomes of children at 2 years after planned cesarean birth versus planned vaginal birth for breech presentation at term: the International Randomized Term Breech Trial. Am J Obstet Gynecol . 2004 Sep. 191(3):864-71. [QxMD MEDLINE Link] .
Hannah ME, Whyte H, Hannah WJ, Hewson S, Amankwah K, Cheng M. Maternal outcomes at 2 years after planned cesarean section versus planned vaginal birth for breech presentation at term: the international randomized Term Breech Trial. Am J Obstet Gynecol . 2004 Sep. 191(3):917-27. [QxMD MEDLINE Link] .
Hofmeyr GJ, Hannah M, Lawrie TA. Planned caesarean section for term breech delivery. Cochrane Database Syst Rev . 2015 Jul 21. 7:CD000166. [QxMD MEDLINE Link] .
Zlatnik FJ. The Iowa premature breech trial. Am J Perinatol . 1993 Jan. 10(1):60-3. [QxMD MEDLINE Link] .
Bergenhenegouwen L, Vlemmix F, Ensing S, Schaaf J, van der Post J, Abu-Hanna A, et al. Preterm Breech Presentation: A Comparison of Intended Vaginal and Intended Cesarean Delivery. Obstet Gynecol . 2015 Dec. 126 (6):1223-30. [QxMD MEDLINE Link] .
Caning MM, Rasmussen SC, Krebs L. Maternal outcomes of planned mode of delivery for term breech in nulliparous women. PLoS One . 2024. 19 (4):e0297971. [QxMD MEDLINE Link] . [Full Text] .
Eller DP, VanDorsten JP. Route of delivery for the breech presentation: a conundrum. Am J Obstet Gynecol . 1995 Aug. 173(2):393-6; discussion 396-8. [QxMD MEDLINE Link] .
Zhang J, Bowes WA Jr, Fortney JA. Efficacy of external cephalic version: a review. Obstet Gynecol . 1993 Aug. 82(2):306-12. [QxMD MEDLINE Link] .
Zielbauer AS, Louwen F, Jennewein L. External cephalic version at 38 weeks' gestation at a specialized German single center. PLoS One . 2021. 16 (8):e0252702. [QxMD MEDLINE Link] . [Full Text] .
Hofmeyr GJ, Kulier R, West HM. External cephalic version for breech presentation at term. Cochrane Database Syst Rev . 2015 Apr 1. 4:CD000083. [QxMD MEDLINE Link] .
de Hundt M, Velzel J, de Groot CJ, Mol BW, Kok M. Mode of delivery after successful external cephalic version: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Obstet Gynecol . 2014 Jun. 123 (6):1327-34. [QxMD MEDLINE Link] .
de Hundt M, Vlemmix F, Bais JM, de Groot CJ, Mol BW, Kok M. Risk factors for cesarean section and instrumental vaginal delivery after successful external cephalic version. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med . 2016 Jun. 29 (12):2005-7. [QxMD MEDLINE Link] .
Cook HA. Experience with external cephalic version and selective vaginal breech delivery in private practice. Am J Obstet Gynecol . 1993 Jun. 168(6 Pt 1):1886-9; discussion 1889-90. [QxMD MEDLINE Link] .
Gifford DS, Keeler E, Kahn KL. Reductions in cost and cesarean rate by routine use of external cephalic version: a decision analysis. Obstet Gynecol . 1995 Jun. 85(6):930-6. [QxMD MEDLINE Link] .
Practice Bulletin No. 161 Summary: External Cephalic Version. Obstet Gynecol . 2016 Feb. 127 (2):412-3. [QxMD MEDLINE Link] .
[Guideline] External Cephalic Version: ACOG Practice Bulletin, Number 221. Obstet Gynecol . 2020 May. 135 (5):e203-e212. [QxMD MEDLINE Link] .
[Guideline] ACOG Committee Opinion No. 745: Mode of Term Singleton Breech Delivery. Obstet Gynecol . 2018 Aug; reaffirmed 2023. 132 (2):e60-e63. [QxMD MEDLINE Link] . [Full Text] .
Hutton E, Hannah M, Ross S, Delisle MF, Carson G, Windrim R, et al. The Early External Cephalic Version (ECV) 2 Trial: an international multicentre randomised controlled trial of timing of ECV for breech pregnancies. BJOG . 2011 Apr. 118(5):564-577. [QxMD MEDLINE Link] .
Hutton EK, Hofmeyr GJ, Dowswell T. External cephalic version for breech presentation before term. Cochrane Database Syst Rev . 2015 Jul 29. 7:CD000084. [QxMD MEDLINE Link] .
Flamm BL, Fried MW, Lonky NM, Giles WS. External cephalic version after previous cesarean section. Am J Obstet Gynecol . 1991 Aug. 165(2):370-2. [QxMD MEDLINE Link] .
de Meeus JB, Ellia F, Magnin G. External cephalic version after previous cesarean section: a series of 38 cases. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol . 1998 Oct. 81 (1):65-8. [QxMD MEDLINE Link] .
Burgos J, Cobos P, Rodríguez L, Osuna C, Centeno MM, Martínez-Astorquiza T, et al. Is external cephalic version at term contraindicated in previous caesarean section? A prospective comparative cohort study. BJOG . 2014 Jan. 121 (2):230-5; discussion 235. [QxMD MEDLINE Link] .
Ferguson JE 2nd, Dyson DC. Intrapartum external cephalic version. Am J Obstet Gynecol . 1985 Jun 1. 152(3):297-8. [QxMD MEDLINE Link] .
Marquette GP, Boucher M, Theriault D, Rinfret D. Does the use of a tocolytic agent affect the success rate of external cephalic version?. Am J Obstet Gynecol . 1996 Oct. 175(4 Pt 1):859-61. [QxMD MEDLINE Link] .
Cluver C, Gyte GM, Sinclair M, Dowswell T, Hofmeyr GJ. Interventions for helping to turn term breech babies to head first presentation when using external cephalic version. Cochrane Database Syst Rev . 2015 Feb 9. 2:CD000184. [QxMD MEDLINE Link] .
Wilcox CB, Nassar N, Roberts CL. Effectiveness of nifedipine tocolysis to facilitate external cephalic version: a systematic review. BJOG . 2011 Mar. 118 (4):423-8. [QxMD MEDLINE Link] .
Carlan SJ, Dent JM, Huckaby T, Whittington EC, Shaefer D. The effect of epidural anesthesia on safety and success of external cephalic version at term. Anesth Analg . 1994 Sep. 79(3):525-8. [QxMD MEDLINE Link] .
Schorr SJ, Speights SE, Ross EL, et al. A randomized trial of epidural anesthesia to improve external cephalic version success. Am J Obstet Gynecol . 1997 Nov. 177(5):1133-7. [QxMD MEDLINE Link] .
Dugoff L, Stamm CA, Jones OW 3rd, Mohling SI, Hawkins JL. The effect of spinal anesthesia on the success rate of external cephalic version: a randomized trial. Obstet Gynecol . 1999 Mar. 93(3):345-9. [QxMD MEDLINE Link] .
Weiniger CF, Ginosar Y, Elchalal U, Sharon E, Nokrian M, Ezra Y. External cephalic version for breech presentation with or without spinal analgesia in nulliparous women at term: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol . 2007 Dec. 110(6):1343-50. [QxMD MEDLINE Link] .
Johnson RL, Elliott JP. Fetal acoustic stimulation, an adjunct to external cephalic version: a blinded, randomized crossover study. Am J Obstet Gynecol . 1995 Nov. 173(5):1369-72. [QxMD MEDLINE Link] .
Benifla JL, Goffinet F, Darai E, Madelenat P. Antepartum transabdominal amnioinfusion to facilitate external cephalic version after initial failure. Obstet Gynecol . 1994 Dec. 84(6):1041-2. [QxMD MEDLINE Link] .
Adama van Scheltema PN, Feitsma AH, Middeldorp JM, Vandenbussche FP, Oepkes D. Amnioinfusion to facilitate external cephalic version after initial failure. Obstet Gynecol . 2006 Sep. 108(3 Pt 1):591-2. [QxMD MEDLINE Link] .
Egge T, Schauberger C, Schaper A. Dysfunctional labor after external cephalic version. Obstet Gynecol . 1994 May. 83(5 Pt 1):771-3. [QxMD MEDLINE Link] .
Lau TK, Lo KW, Rogers M. Pregnancy outcome after successful external cephalic version for breech presentation at term. Am J Obstet Gynecol . 1997 Jan. 176(1 Pt 1):218-23. [QxMD MEDLINE Link] .
Burgos J, Iglesias M, Pijoan JI, Rodriguez L, Fernández-Llebrez L, Martínez-Astorquiza T. Probability of cesarean delivery after successful external cephalic version. Int J Gynaecol Obstet . 2015 Nov. 131 (2):192-5. [QxMD MEDLINE Link] .
Deering S, Brown J, Hodor J, Satin AJ. Simulation training and resident performance of singleton vaginal breech delivery. Obstet Gynecol . 2006 Jan. 107(1):86-9. [QxMD MEDLINE Link] .
- Footling breech presentation. Once the feet have delivered, one may be tempted to pull on the feet. However, a singleton gestation should not be pulled by the feet because this action may precipitate head entrapment in an incompletely dilated cervix or may precipitate nuchal arms. As long as the fetal heart rate is stable and no physical evidence of a prolapsed cord is evident, management may be expectant while awaiting full cervical dilation.
- Assisted vaginal breech delivery. Thick meconium passage is common as the breech is squeezed through the birth canal. This is usually not associated with meconium aspiration because the meconium passes out of the vagina and does not mix with the amniotic fluid.
- Assisted vaginal breech delivery. The Ritgen maneuver is applied to take pressure off the perineum during vaginal delivery. Episiotomies are often performed for assisted vaginal breech deliveries, even in multiparous women, to prevent soft tissue dystocia.
- Assisted vaginal breech delivery. No downward or outward traction is applied to the fetus until the umbilicus has been reached.
- Assisted vaginal breech delivery. With a towel wrapped around the fetal hips, gentle downward and outward traction is applied in conjunction with maternal expulsive efforts until the scapula is reached. An assistant should be applying gentle fundal pressure to keep the fetal head flexed.
- Assisted vaginal breech delivery. After the scapula is reached, the fetus should be rotated 90° in order to deliver the anterior arm.
- Assisted vaginal breech delivery. The anterior arm is followed to the elbow, and the arm is swept out of the vagina.
- Assisted vaginal breech delivery. The fetus is rotated 180°, and the contralateral arm is delivered in a similar manner as the first. The infant is then rotated 90° to the backup position in preparation for delivery of the head.
- Assisted vaginal breech delivery. The fetal head is maintained in a flexed position by using the Mauriceau maneuver, which is performed by placing the index and middle fingers over the maxillary prominence on either side of the nose. The fetal body is supported in a neutral position, with care to not overextend the neck.
- Piper forceps application. Piper forceps are specialized forceps used only for the after-coming head of a breech presentation. They are used to keep the fetal head flexed during extraction of the head. An assistant is needed to hold the infant while the operator gets on one knee to apply the forceps from below.
- Assisted vaginal breech delivery. Low 1-minute Apgar scores are not uncommon after a vaginal breech delivery. A pediatrician should be present for the delivery in the event that neonatal resuscitation is needed.
- Assisted vaginal breech delivery. The neonate after birth.
- Ultrasound demonstrating a fetus in breech presentation with a hyperextended head (ie, "star gazing").
Contributor Information and Disclosures
Richard Fischer, MD Professor, Division Head, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Division of Maternal-Fetal Medicine, Cooper University Hospital Richard Fischer, MD is a member of the following medical societies: American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists , American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine , Association of Professors of Gynecology and Obstetrics , Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine Disclosure: Stock ownership for: Pfizer Pharmaceuticals (< 5% of portfolio); Johnson & Johnson (< 5% of portfolio).
Alisa B Modena, MD, FACOG Assistant Professor, Cooper Medical School of Rowan University; Attending Physician, Division of Maternal-Fetal Medicine, Cooper University Hospital Alisa B Modena, MD, FACOG is a member of the following medical societies: American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists , American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine , Philadelphia Perinatal Society, Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine Disclosure: Nothing to disclose.
Francisco Talavera, PharmD, PhD Adjunct Assistant Professor, University of Nebraska Medical Center College of Pharmacy; Editor-in-Chief, Medscape Drug Reference Disclosure: Received salary from Medscape for employment. for: Medscape.
Richard S Legro, MD Professor, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Division of Reproductive Endocrinology, Pennsylvania State University College of Medicine; Consulting Staff, Milton S Hershey Medical Center Richard S Legro, MD is a member of the following medical societies: American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists , Society of Reproductive Surgeons , American Society for Reproductive Medicine , Endocrine Society , Phi Beta Kappa Disclosure: Received honoraria from Korea National Institute of Health and National Institute of Health (Bethesda, MD) for speaking and teaching; Received honoraria from Greater Toronto Area Reproductive Medicine Society (Toronto, ON, CA) for speaking and teaching; Received honoraria from American College of Obstetrics and Gynecologists (Washington, DC) for speaking and teaching; Received honoraria from National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Pediatric and Adolescent Gynecology Research Thi.
Ronald M Ramus, MD Professor of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Director, Division of Maternal-Fetal Medicine, Virginia Commonwealth University School of Medicine Ronald M Ramus, MD is a member of the following medical societies: American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists , American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine , Medical Society of Virginia , Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine Disclosure: Nothing to disclose.
What would you like to print?
- Print this section
- Print the entire contents of
- Print the entire contents of article
- HIV in Pregnancy
- Anemia and Thrombocytopenia in Pregnancy
- Pulmonary Disease and Pregnancy
- Adrenal Disease and Pregnancy
- Cardiovascular Disease and Pregnancy
- Kidney Disease and Pregnancy
- Pregnancy After Transplantation
- Is immunotherapy for cancer safe in pregnancy?
- Labetalol, Nifedipine: Outcome on Pregnancy Hypertension
- The Pregnancy Challenges of Women With Chronic Conditions
- Drug Interaction Checker
- Pill Identifier
- Calculators
- 2020/viewarticle/immunotherapy-cancer-safe-pregnancy-2024a100083dnews news Is immunotherapy for cancer safe in pregnancy?
- 2002261369-overviewDiseases & Conditions Diseases & Conditions Postterm Pregnancy
- Pregnancy Classes
Breech Births
In the last weeks of pregnancy, a baby usually moves so his or her head is positioned to come out of the vagina first during birth. This is called a vertex presentation. A breech presentation occurs when the baby’s buttocks, feet, or both are positioned to come out first during birth. This happens in 3–4% of full-term births.
What are the different types of breech birth presentations?
- Complete breech: Here, the buttocks are pointing downward with the legs folded at the knees and feet near the buttocks.
- Frank breech: In this position, the baby’s buttocks are aimed at the birth canal with its legs sticking straight up in front of his or her body and the feet near the head.
- Footling breech: In this position, one or both of the baby’s feet point downward and will deliver before the rest of the body.
What causes a breech presentation?
The causes of breech presentations are not fully understood. However, the data show that breech birth is more common when:
- You have been pregnant before
- In pregnancies of multiples
- When there is a history of premature delivery
- When the uterus has too much or too little amniotic fluid
- When there is an abnormally shaped uterus or a uterus with abnormal growths, such as fibroids
- The placenta covers all or part of the opening of the uterus placenta previa
How is a breech presentation diagnosed?
A few weeks prior to the due date, the health care provider will place her hands on the mother’s lower abdomen to locate the baby’s head, back, and buttocks. If it appears that the baby might be in a breech position, they can use ultrasound or pelvic exam to confirm the position. Special x-rays can also be used to determine the baby’s position and the size of the pelvis to determine if a vaginal delivery of a breech baby can be safely attempted.
Can a breech presentation mean something is wrong?
Even though most breech babies are born healthy, there is a slightly elevated risk for certain problems. Birth defects are slightly more common in breech babies and the defect might be the reason that the baby failed to move into the right position prior to delivery.
Can a breech presentation be changed?
It is preferable to try to turn a breech baby between the 32nd and 37th weeks of pregnancy . The methods of turning a baby will vary and the success rate for each method can also vary. It is best to discuss the options with the health care provider to see which method she recommends.
Medical Techniques
External Cephalic Version (EVC) is a non-surgical technique to move the baby in the uterus. In this procedure, a medication is given to help relax the uterus. There might also be the use of an ultrasound to determine the position of the baby, the location of the placenta and the amount of amniotic fluid in the uterus.
Gentle pushing on the lower abdomen can turn the baby into the head-down position. Throughout the external version the baby’s heartbeat will be closely monitored so that if a problem develops, the health care provider will immediately stop the procedure. ECV usually is done near a delivery room so if a problem occurs, a cesarean delivery can be performed quickly. The external version has a high success rate and can be considered if you have had a previous cesarean delivery.
ECV will not be tried if:
- You are carrying more than one fetus
- There are concerns about the health of the fetus
- You have certain abnormalities of the reproductive system
- The placenta is in the wrong place
- The placenta has come away from the wall of the uterus ( placental abruption )
Complications of EVC include:
- Prelabor rupture of membranes
- Changes in the fetus’s heart rate
- Placental abruption
- Preterm labor
Vaginal delivery versus cesarean for breech birth?
Most health care providers do not believe in attempting a vaginal delivery for a breech position. However, some will delay making a final decision until the woman is in labor. The following conditions are considered necessary in order to attempt a vaginal birth:
- The baby is full-term and in the frank breech presentation
- The baby does not show signs of distress while its heart rate is closely monitored.
- The process of labor is smooth and steady with the cervix widening as the baby descends.
- The health care provider estimates that the baby is not too big or the mother’s pelvis too narrow for the baby to pass safely through the birth canal.
- Anesthesia is available and a cesarean delivery possible on short notice
What are the risks and complications of a vaginal delivery?
In a breech birth, the baby’s head is the last part of its body to emerge making it more difficult to ease it through the birth canal. Sometimes forceps are used to guide the baby’s head out of the birth canal. Another potential problem is cord prolapse . In this situation the umbilical cord is squeezed as the baby moves toward the birth canal, thus slowing the baby’s supply of oxygen and blood. In a vaginal breech delivery, electronic fetal monitoring will be used to monitor the baby’s heartbeat throughout the course of labor. Cesarean delivery may be an option if signs develop that the baby may be in distress.
When is a cesarean delivery used with a breech presentation?
Most health care providers recommend a cesarean delivery for all babies in a breech position, especially babies that are premature. Since premature babies are small and more fragile, and because the head of a premature baby is relatively larger in proportion to its body, the baby is unlikely to stretch the cervix as much as a full-term baby. This means that there might be less room for the head to emerge.
Want to Know More?
- Creating Your Birth Plan
- Labor & Birth Terms to Know
- Cesarean Birth After Care
Compiled using information from the following sources:
- ACOG: If Your Baby is Breech
- William’s Obstetrics Twenty-Second Ed. Cunningham, F. Gary, et al, Ch. 24.
- Danforth’s Obstetrics and Gynecology Ninth Ed. Scott, James R., et al, Ch. 21.
BLOG CATEGORIES
- Pregnancy Symptoms 5
- Can I get pregnant if… ? 3
- Paternity Tests 2
- The Bumpy Truth Blog 7
- Multiple Births 10
- Pregnancy Complications 68
- Pregnancy Concerns 62
- Cord Blood 4
- Pregnancy Supplements & Medications 14
- Pregnancy Products & Tests 8
- Changes In Your Body 5
- Health & Nutrition 2
- Labor and Birth 65
- Planning and Preparing 24
- Breastfeeding 29
- Week by Week Newsletter 40
- Is it Safe While Pregnant 55
- The First Year 40
- Genetic Disorders & Birth Defects 17
- Pregnancy Health and Wellness 149
- Your Developing Baby 16
- Options for Unplanned Pregnancy 18
- Child Adoption 19
- Fertility 54
- Pregnancy Loss 11
- Uncategorized 4
- Women's Health 34
- Prenatal Testing 16
- Abstinence 3
- Birth Control Pills, Patches & Devices 21
- Thank You for Your Donation
- Unplanned Pregnancy
- Getting Pregnant
- Healthy Pregnancy
- Privacy Policy
- Pregnancy Questions Center
Share this post:
Similar post.
Episiotomy: Advantages & Complications
Retained Placenta
What is Dilation in Pregnancy?
Track your baby’s development, subscribe to our week-by-week pregnancy newsletter.
- The Bumpy Truth Blog
- Fertility Products Resource Guide
Pregnancy Tools
- Ovulation Calendar
- Baby Names Directory
- Pregnancy Due Date Calculator
- Pregnancy Quiz
Pregnancy Journeys
- Partner With Us
- Corporate Sponsors
6.1.2 Diagnosis
- The cephalic pole is palpable in the uterine fundus; round, hard, and mobile; the indentation of the neck can be felt.
- The inferior pole is voluminous, irregular, less hard, and less mobile than the head.
- During labour, vaginal examination reveals a “soft mass” divided by the cleft between the buttocks, with a hard projection at end of the cleft (the coccyx and sacrum).
- After rupture of the membranes: the anus can be felt in the middle of the cleft; a foot may also be felt.
- The clinical diagnosis may be difficult: a hand may be mistaken for a foot, a face for a breech.
6.1.3 Management
Route of delivery.
Before labour, external version (Chapter 7, Section 7.7 ) may be attempted to avoid breech delivery.
If external version is contra-indicated or unsuccessful, the breech position alone – in the absence of any other anomaly – is not, strictly speaking, a dystocic presentation, and does not automatically require a caesarean section. Deliver vaginally, if possible – even if the woman is primiparous.
Breech deliveries must be done in a CEmONC facility, especially for primiparous women.
Favourable factors for vaginal delivery are:
- Frank breech presentation;
- A history of vaginal delivery (whatever the presentation);
- Normally progressing dilation during labour.
The footling breech presentation is a very unfavourable position for vaginal delivery (risk of foot or cord prolapse). In this situation, the route of delivery depends on the number of previous births, the state of the membranes and how far advanced the labour is.
During labour
- Monitor dilation every 2 to 4 hours.
- If contractions are of good quality, dilation is progressing, and the foetal heart rate is regular, an expectant approach is best. Do not rupture the membranes unless dilation stops.
- If the uterine contractions are inadequate, labour can be actively managed with oxytocin.
Note : if the dilation stales, transfer the mother to a CEmONC facility unless already done, to ensure access to surgical facility for potential caesarean section.
At delivery
- Insert an IV line before expulsion starts.
- Consider episiotomy at expulsion. Episiotomy is performed when the perineum is sufficiently distended by the foetus's buttocks.
- Presence of meconium or meconium-stained amniotic fluid is common during breech delivery and is not necessarily a sign of foetal distress.
- The infant delivers unaided , as a result of the mother's pushing, simply supported by the birth attendant who gently holds the infant by the bony parts (hips and sacrum), with no traction. Do not pull on the legs.
Once the umbilicus is out, the rest of the delivery must be completed within 3 minutes, otherwise compression of the cord will deprive the infant of oxygen. Do not touch the infant until the shoulder blades appear to avoid triggering the respiratory reflex before the head is delivered.
- Monitor the position of the infant's back; impede rotation into posterior position.
Figures 6.2 - Breech delivery
6.1.4 Breech delivery problems
Posterior orientation.
If the infant’s back is posterior during expulsion, take hold of the hips and turn into an anterior position (this is a rare occurrence).
Obstructed shoulders
The shoulders can become stuck and hold back the infant's upper chest and head. This can occur when the arms are raised as the shoulders pass through the mother's pelvis. There are 2 methods for lowering the arms so that the shoulders can descend:
1 - Lovset's manoeuvre
- With thumbs on the infant's sacrum, take hold of the hips and pelvis with the other fingers.
- Turn the infant 90° (back to the left or to the right), to bring the anterior shoulder underneath the symphysis and engage the arm. Deliver the anterior arm.
- Then do a 180° counter-rotation (back to the right or to the left); this engages the posterior arm, which is then delivered.
Figures 6.3 - Lovset's manoeuvre
6.3c - Delivering the anterior arm and shoulder
2 - Suzor’s manoeuvre
In case the previous method fails:
- Turn the infant 90° (its back to the right or to the left).
- Pull the infant downward: insert one hand along the back to look for the anterior arm. With the operator thumb in the infant armpit and middle finger along the arm, bring down the arm (Figure 6.4a).
- Lift infant upward by the feet in order to deliver the posterior shoulder (Figure 6.4b).
Figures 6.4 - Suzor's manoeuvre
6.4b - Delivering the posterior shoulder
Head entrapment
The infant's head is bulkier than the body, and can get trapped in the mother's pelvis or soft tissue.
There are various manoeuvres for delivering the head by flexing it, so that it descends properly, and then pivoting it up and around the mother's symphysis. These manoeuvres must be done without delay, since the infant must be allowed to breathe as soon as possible. All these manoeuvres must be performed smoothly, without traction on the infant.
1 - Bracht's manoeuvre
- After the arms are delivered, the infant is grasped by the hips and lifted with two hands toward the mother's stomach, without any traction, the neck pivoting around the symphysis.
- Having an assistant apply suprapubic pressure facilitates delivery of the aftercoming head.
2 - Modified Mauriceau manoeuvre
- Infant's head occiput anterior.
- Kneel to get a good traction angle: 45° downward.
- Support the infant on the hand and forearm, then insert the index and middle fingers, placing them on the infant’s maxilla. Placing the index and middle fingers into the infant’s mouth is not recommended, as this can fracture the mandible.
- Place the index and middle fingers of the other hand on either side of the infant's neck and lower the infant's head to bring the sub-occiput under the symphysis (Figure 6.6a).
- Tip the infant’s head and with a sweeping motion bring the back up toward the mother's abdomen, pivoting the occiput around her symphysis pubis (Figure 6.6b).
- Suprapubic pressure on the infant's head along the pelvic axis helps delivery of the head.
- As a last resort, symphysiotomy (Chapter 5, Section 5.7 ) can be combined with this manoeuvre.
Figures 6.6 - Modified Mauriceau manoeuvre
6.6a - Step 1 Infant straddles the birth attendant's forearm; the head, occiput anterior, is lowered to bring the occiput in contact with the symphysis.
6.6b - Step 2 The infant's back is tipped up toward the mother's abdomen.
3 - Forceps on aftercoming head
This procedure can only be performed by an operator experienced in using forceps.
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
The PMC website is updating on October 15, 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .
- Advanced Search
- Journal List
- BMC Pregnancy Childbirth
Revisiting the management of term breech presentation: a proposal for overcoming some of the controversies
Lionel carbillon.
1 Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Sorbonne Paris Nord University, Assistance Publique – Hopitaux de Paris, Avenue du 14 juillet, Hôpital Jean Verdier, 93140 Bondy Cedex, France
2 Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Assistance Publique – Hôpitaux de Paris, Hôpital Jean Verdier, Bondy, France
Amelie Benbara
Ahmed tigaizin, rouba murtada, marion fermaut, fatma belmaghni, alexandre bricou, jeremy boujenah, associated data.
Not applicable.
The debate surrounding the management of term breech presentation has excessively focused on the mode of delivery. Indeed, a steady decline in the rate of vaginal breech delivery has been observed over the last three decades, and the soundness of the vaginal route was seriously challenged at the beginning of the 2000s. However, associations between adverse perinatal outcomes and antenatal risk factors have been observed in foetuses that remain in the breech presentation in late gestation, confirming older data and raising the question of the role of these antenatal risk factors in adverse perinatal outcomes. Thus, aspects beyond the mode of delivery must be considered regarding the awareness and adequate management of such situations in term breech pregnancies.
In the context of the most recent meta-analysis and with the publication of large-scale epidemiologic studies from medical birth registries in countries that have not abruptly altered their criteria for individual decision-making regarding the breech delivery mode, the currently available data provide essential clues to understanding the underlying maternal-foetal conditions beyond the delivery mode that play a role in perinatal outcomes, such as foetal growth restriction and gestational diabetes mellitus. In view of such data, an accurate evaluation of these underlying conditions is necessary in cases of persistent term breech presentation. Timely breech detection, estimated foetal weight/growth curves and foetal/maternal well-being should be considered along with these possible antenatal risk factors; a thorough analysis of foetal presentation and an evaluation of the possible benefit of external cephalic version and pelvic adequacy in each specific situation of persistent breech presentation should be performed.
The adequate management of term breech pregnancies requires screening and the efficient identification of breech presentation at 36 weeks of gestation, followed by thorough evaluations of foetal weight, growth and mobility, while obstetric history, antenatal gestational disorders and pelvis size/conformation are considered. The management plan, including external cephalic version and follow-up based on the maternal/foetal condition and potentially associated disorders, should be organized on a case-by-case basis by a skilled team after the woman is informed and helped to make a reasoned decision regarding delivery route.
The ideal management of women with term breech presentation remains a matter of intense debate. The rate of vaginal delivery has steadily declined in the last decades of the last century [ 1 ]. In 2000, the Term Breech Trial (TBT) Collaborative Group concluded that a composite variable combining perinatal and neonatal mortality or serious neonatal morbidity was significantly lower in the planned caesarean section (CS) group than in the planned vaginal birth group [ 2 ], which marked an apparent turning point in this controversy. Based on the short-term outcomes presented in the TBT study, the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (RCOG) [ 3 ] and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) [ 4 ] recommended over the next few years that all women with persistent singleton breech presentation at term should undergo a planned CS delivery. An important and almost immediate impact on the practice was also observed in some countries that previously had a high proportion of vaginal breech deliveries [ 5 ]. TBT was the largest randomized trial ever published on the term breech mode of delivery. However, despite its undeniable strengths, a number of weaknesses have been identified. Specifically, there was a lack of adherence to strict criteria for vaginal birth in an important proportion of the included patients and nonoptimal methods of labour management as recognized by the TBT group itself [ 6 – 8 ]. In addition, when the TBT Collaborative Group published the 2-year analysis of paediatric outcomes, despite a large (greater than 50%) post-randomization loss to follow-up [ 9 ], these researchers found no reduction in the risk of death or neurodevelopmental delay in children at 2 years of age, thus raising questions regarding the real lessons to be drawn from this trial. Using multiple logistic regression analyses, the TBT group also reported [ 10 ] that the risk of maternal morbidity was lowest following vaginal birth (odds ratio [OR] 1.0) and highest following CS after active labour (36.1% in the TBT) (OR 3.33; 95% CI 1.75–6.33, P < 0.001), particularly after a short second stage < 30 min (OR 0.25; 95% CI 0.11–0.57, P < 0.001) [ 9 ].
Later, population-based retrospective studies helped refine the consequences of applying recommendations of systematically planned CS for women with term breech presentation at the population level. Hartnack Tharin et al. [ 11 ] found that the rate of CS for term breech deliveries increased from 79.6 to 94.2% between 1997 and 2008 in Denmark, while intrapartum or early neonatal mortality decreased from 0.13 to 0.05% [relative risk (RR) 0.38 (95% CI 0.15–0.98)], which was a significant but lower reduction than the difference reported in the TBT. Using the Dutch National Perinatal Registry from 1999 to 2007, Vlemmix et al. [ 12 ] stated that after publication of the TBT, the elective CS rate increased from 24 to 60%, and overall perinatal mortality and short-term morbidity decreased. In contrast, these outcomes remained stable in the planned vaginal birth group. However, the authors estimated that 338 CS deliveries would need to be performed to prevent one perinatal death, and Schutte et al. [ 13 ] estimated the perinatal case fatality rate for elective CS for breech presentation in 2000–2002 at 0.47/1000 operations. At the same time, in the Netherlands the incidence of severe maternal morbidity (SMM) was estimated at 6.4/1000 during an elective CS compared with 3.9/1000 during an attempted vaginal delivery (OR 1.7; 95% CI 1.4–2.0), with an increased risk for SMM in the next pregnancy (OR 3.0; 95% CI 2.7–3.3) [ 14 ], despite the numerous facilities and adequate resources allocated to perinatal care in such a high-income country.
On the other hand, new guidelines were published in 2009 by the Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada (SOGC) stating that “planned vaginal delivery is reasonable in selected women with a term singleton breech foetus”. Afterwards, a study [ 15 ] including 52,671 breech deliveries in Canada (2003–2011) reported in 2011 that vaginal deliveries increased from 2.7% in 2003 to 3.9%. In this study, a concomitant increase in composite neonatal mortality and morbidity rates was observed with an adjusted rate ratio of 3.60 (95% CI 2.50–5.15), compared with CS without labour [ 15 ]. Moreover, CS with labour also increased from 8.7 to 9.8%, highlighting the particular difficulty in returning to previous practices after the clinical skills required to conduct a vaginal breech delivery have declined [ 15 , 16 ].
Some authors recently considered that “the TBT recommendations should be withdrawn” [ 6 ], while others still consider that the “results (of the TBT) are generalizable” [ 16 , 17 ]. Nevertheless, national guideline bodies have partially reversed their recommendations based on these discussions [ 18 – 20 ]. However, as rightly noted by Joseph et al. [ 16 ], the availability of clinical skills has declined in some of these countries, raising concerns from a pedagogic resident education and training standpoint [ 16 ]. In this regard, a meaningful role could be given to the possibility of training by simulation in building and maintaining specific skills and competencies for vaginal breech delivery.
A new meta-analysis [ 21 ] and several large-scale epidemiologic datasets from medical birth registries [ 22 – 24 ] recently evaluated risk factors associated with adverse perinatal outcomes in planned vaginal breech labours at term. These investigations were conducted in countries that have not abruptly modified their policies and that have continuously applied similar strict criteria over the last several decades for individual decision-making in cases of term breech presentation. We believe that the time has come to go beyond the sole question of delivery mode in the management of these situations.
Term breech presentation: are we asking the right questions?
It now appears time to expand our thinking and, considering recent important data that help elucidate the underlying significance of persistent breech presentation at term, to offer more dynamic and multidisciplinary insight into the management of these cases.
Indeed, similar to some older studies [ 25 – 27 ], several recent population-based studies [ 22 , 23 ] strongly suggest that the increased risk observed in foetuses that remain in the breech presentation at term is closely linked to antenatal or underlying disorders that may be associated with the breech presentation and is not solely due to the mode of delivery. Because adverse outcomes can be caused by underlying or gestational disorders, any discussion that is limited to delivery mode seems too restrictive and does not address the whole issue.
Most recent large-scale data
Deterministic or accidental breech presentation.
In a recent Finnish population-based case-control study including all singleton deliveries from 1 January 2005 to 31 December 2014 and excluding preterm deliveries, antepartum-diagnosed stillbirths, placenta previa and infants with congenital malformations (499,206 foetuses at term), Macharey et al. [ 22 ] evaluated the antenatal risk factors associated with adverse perinatal outcomes in planned vaginal breech labour at term. They found that the stillbirth rate was significantly higher in cases of planned vaginal breech labour than in cases of cephalic presentation (0.2 vs 0.1%, respectively), which was correlated with foetal growth restriction, oligohydramnios, gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) and a history of CS. Furthermore, in another recent survey based on the same cohort of mother-neonate dyads that also excluded congenital malformations, placenta previa and prelabour stillbirths [ 23 ], this same group showed that breech presentation at term was significantly associated with antenatal stillbirth and a number of individual obstetric risk factors for adverse perinatal outcomes, including oligohydramnios, foetal growth restriction, gestational diabetes, history of CS section and congenital anomalies. Among all planned singleton vaginal deliveries with the foetus in the breech presentation at term, a composite adverse perinatal outcome defined as umbilical arterial pH < 7.00, 5-min Apgar score below 7 and/or neonatal mortality during the first 6 days of life (excluding stillbirth) was associated with foetal growth restriction (aOR 2.94 [1.30–6.67]), oligohydramnios (adjusted OR 2.94 [1.15–7.81]), gestational diabetes (aOR 2.89[1.54–5.40]), and a history of CS (aOR 2.94 [1.28–6.77]).
In another recent population-based study based on perinatal data of all (650,968) children born in Norway from 1999 to 2009 [ 24 ], the authors recognized the limitations of most registry-based studies, as the selection of women with breech presentation and planned vaginal delivery was based on criteria that might have identified pregnancies with a lower risk of adverse outcomes compared with those selected for CS delivery. Moreover, in this study [ 24 ], the intrapartum conversion of some of the planned vaginal deliveries to an emergency CS delivery may have increased the risk for adverse outcome in the CS group. However, Bjellmo et al. [ 24 ] conducted an innovative analysis comparing breech deliveries to vaginal cephalic births. Thus, they showed that singleton children born at term without congenital malformations had a higher risk for stillbirth and neonatal mortality if they were born in the breech presentation “regardless of whether they were born vaginally or by CS delivery” (0.9 per 1000 in those actually delivered vaginally and 0.8 per 1000 in those actually born by CS delivery) compared with those born by vaginal cephalic delivery (0.3 per 1000). Of note, among those children born in the breech rather than in the cephalic presentation, these authors [ 24 ] found that a higher proportion of infants were born small for gestational age (SGA). However, these authors [ 23 ] did not distinguish foetal growth restriction among SGA neonates. In their interpretation, Bjellmo et al. [ 23 ] considered that “the overall higher risk for stillbirth and the higher proportion of infants born SGA among children born in the breech than in the cephalic presentation may suggest that foetuses with antenatal acquired risk factors for adverse outcomes are more likely to present in the breech than in the cephalic presentation at birth.” According to these authors, the findings were most likely explained by a combination of antenatal acquired risk factors for neonatal death with increased vulnerability to the birth process. Of note, in the TBT group, birth weights of less than 2.8 kg were also associated with adverse perinatal outcomes ( P = 0.003) [ 10 ]. In fact, a limitation in the Norwegian study [ 24 ] was that, unlike Macharey et al., the authors did not distinguish foetal growth restriction among these SGA neonates. Indeed, in a large cohort study conducted with the National Health Service region in England through a multivariable analysis of 92,218 normally formed singletons delivered during 2009–2011 from 24 weeks of gestation, including 389 stillbirths, Gardosi et al. [ 25 ] showed that foetal growth restriction had the largest population attributable risk for stillbirth which was fivefold greater if it was not detected antenatally than when it was (32.0% v 6.2%). The above data suggest that some antenatal features associated with term breech presentation, notably foetal growth restriction, and some gestational disorders (such as uncontrolled gestational diabetes mellitus) could affect the prognosis in term breech cases. Previous data also support this conclusion; Luterkort M et al. [ 26 ] had previously reported in a prospective follow-up of 228 pregnancies with the foetus in the breech presentation in the 33rd gestational week that the 96 foetuses (42%) who remained in the breech presentation at delivery weighed 4.9% less than their vertex controls after adjustments were made for gestational age and had an increased frequency of oligohydramnios. Krebs et al. [ 27 ] later confirmed this association between breech presentation and foetal growth restriction from a register-based, case-control cohort of infants with cerebral palsy born between 1979 and 1986 in East Denmark.
In fact, as reported by Fox and Chapman [ 28 ], up to 21% of all foetuses adopt a noncephalic presentation at 28–29 weeks of gestation, and this proportion progressively decreases to 5% from 37 to 38 weeks [ 28 ]. Certain conditions, such as uterine malformation, can disturb both this continuous process of spontaneous cephalic version and normal foetal growth, thereby leading to increased term breech presentation rates in these cases [ 29 ]. This point highlights the importance of estimating foetal weight and well-being in cases of persistent breech presentation at term. Furthermore, even some cases of controlled GDM may be associated with excess foetal weight during the last weeks of pregnancy, leading to possible dystocia due to this overgrowth, or with other GDM-related complications, such as preeclampsia; thus, foetal weight estimates should be monitored closely beginning in the 37th week of gestation, with regular reassessment as long as the patient has not delivered.
The impact of strict criteria on the selection of vaginal delivery
From a broad perspective, in the most recent meta-analysis investigating the risks of planned vaginal breech delivery versus planned CS for term breech birth [ 21 ], the overall heterogeneity (I 2 = 36%) was informative. The variability of neonatal mortality among 14 studies accounting for 74,094 breech vaginal deliveries was low (ranging from 0.08 to 0.37%). On the other hand, neonatal mortality was markedly higher in only 2 studies authored by Singh et al. [ 30 ] and Hannah et al. [ 2 ] (the TBT). These two studies [ 2 , 30 ] accounted for 1099 breech vaginal deliveries (1.5% of births) and had perinatal mortality rates as high as 21 and 1.3%, respectively, for planned vaginal births (25.6% of perinatal deaths). The same was true for neurological morbidity, which was 3.4 and 1%, respectively, in the studies by Singh et al. [ 30 ] and TBT [ 2 ], while it ranged from 0.07 to 0.2% in the 14 other studies encompassing 74,094 breech vaginal deliveries conducted with the implementation of more stringent exclusion criteria for vaginal breech delivery.
In these 14 studies accounting for 74,094 breech vaginal deliveries, the retrospective observational cohort study from the Finnish Medical Birth Register [ 31 ] and the prospective observational study PREMODA [ 32 ] (as well as the more recent Norwegian Medical Birth Registry study) applied similar pre-established exclusion criteria for planned vaginal birth. In the PREMODA study, an increased absolute rate of perinatal death or serious neonatal morbidity was observed in both the planned vaginal group (1.60, 95% CI 1.14–2.17) and planned CS delivery group (1.45 [1.16–1.81]) with breech presentation among the total population of 264,105 births, but the planned vaginal group and the planned CS delivery group with breech presentation did not differ significantly for the combined outcome of foetal/neonatal mortality or serious morbidity (odds ratio [OR] = 1.10, 95% CI [0.75–1.61]). The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists proposes comparable pre-established criteria for the management of term breech presentation, recommending that “women should be informed that a higher risk of planned vaginal breech birth is expected where there are independent indications for CS section and in circumstances such as a hyperextended neck on ultrasound, high estimated foetal weight (more than 3,800 g), low estimated weight (less than tenth centile), footling presentation, [and] evidence of antenatal foetal compromise” but considers that “the role of pelvimetry is unclear” [ 20 ]. Of note concerning this last point, Van Loon et al. showed in a randomized controlled trial [ 33 ] that the adequacy of pelvis size, as assessed by pelvimetry, improved the selection of delivery route. In line with them, two recent studies support this view [ 34 , 35 ]. Other authors also included criteria for the adequate management and continuous monitoring of foetal heart rate during labour (which is common in maternity wards of most high-income countries but could be monitored intermittently in the TBT). Indeed, decreased variability and late decelerations are more prevalent during breech deliveries than vertex deliveries [ 36 ], and good labour progress is a predictor of better neonatal outcomes [ 37 ]. In the Finnish Medical Birth Register [ 31 ], 1270 women (43.6%) were selected as candidates for vaginal breech delivery, and the selection quality was confirmed by the low conversion rate of vaginal to CS breech delivery (11.4%). This rate was higher (36.1%) in the TBT [ 30 ].
As noted by methodologists [ 38 ], real-world prenatal patient care is subject to decision-making based on the continuous evaluation of risk factors, medical history, comorbidities, behavioural aspects, and other factors that indeed cannot be strictly reproduced in randomized controlled trials. For example, in the TBT [ 2 ], an upper limit of 4000–4500 g was given for estimated foetal weight. However, as the duration between randomization and delivery inevitably lengthened in the planned vaginal delivery group, a significantly higher number of macrosomic neonates were born in the planned vaginal delivery group ( P = 0.002). In actuality, an informed woman who opts for vaginal delivery at 36 or 37 weeks of gestation usually changes her mind if she has not delivered several weeks later and if the clinician tells her that the birthweight will probably exceed 3800–4000 g, with an associated increased risk of adverse perinatal outcomes. Thus, in cases of even minor glycaemic disorder, special attention should be paid in the 37th week of gestation to foetal weight estimates and the possible occurrence of preeclampsia or associated gestational disorders; moreover, cases of SGA foetuses with possible foetal growth restriction should be closely followed, regardless of the delivery mode chosen by the patient [ 26 , 39 ].
How might we maximize patient benefit from a safe external cephalic version attempt?
With the restrictive practice of breech vaginal delivery in the last 15 years, national colleges of obstetricians (RCOG, ACOG, SOGC and RANZCOG) and FIGO updated their guidelines and recommended external cephalic version (ECV) at term to limit the increase in elective CS rate for cases of term breech presentation. However, recent data urge us to develop a broader perspective and an accurate assessment of the real impact of various ECV policies.
Indeed, the true impact of ECV may first be limited by the timely detection of breech presentation. In a retrospective cohort study of 394 consecutive cases of breech presentation at term, Hemelaar et al. [ 40 ] found that over two periods separated by 10 years (1998–1999 and 2008–2009), the proportion of breech presentations not diagnosed antenatally increased from 23.2 to 32.5% ( P = 0.04), causing 52.8% of women who were eligible for ECV to miss an attempt in 2008–2009. The authors also reported that the proportion of women who declined ECV during the same period decreased significantly from 19.1 to 9.0%.
Eligibility is a second limitation. In Australia, a large-scale survey [ 41 ] showed that 22.3% of 32,321 singleton breech pregnancies were considered ineligible (due to oligohydramnios, antepartum haemorrhage or abruption, previous CS or pelvic abnormality, placenta previa, placenta accreta, or an infant with major congenital anomalies). In this survey [ 41 ], only 10.5% of the singleton breech pregnancies had an ECV. In a systematic review, Rosman et al. [ 42 ] identified 60 studies that reported 39 different contraindications and five guidelines with 18 contraindications (varying from five to 13 contraindications per guideline), with oligohydramnios being the only contraindication that was consistently mentioned in all guidelines. Thus, there was no general consensus on the eligibility of patients for ECV, but contraindications generally include all conditions in which this procedure may be associated with a particular risk for the foetus or mother. These conditions include the following: severe intrauterine growth restriction, abnormal umbilical artery Doppler index and/or nonreassuring foetal heart rate, which may require an emergency CS birth; foetuses with a hyperextended head and significant foetal or uterine malformations, which may carry a particular foetal risk; rhesus alloimmunization, which might be reactivated by the procedure; and recent vaginal bleeding or ruptured membranes, which were associated with cord prolapse in 33% of reported cases after ECV attempt [ 43 ].
If CS or rapid delivery is indicated for another obstetric condition, ECV is also contraindicated, notably in cases of placenta previa, severe preeclampsia, and increased risk of placental abruption. Other situations, such as maternal obesity, nonsevere SGA foetuses, and nonsevere oligohydramnios, merely decrease the likelihood of ECV success. In contexts such as severe oligohydramnios or multiple gestations, ECV is simply impracticable, except for a second twin after delivery of the first. Furthermore, previous uterine surgery (CS delivery, myomectomy, or hysteroplasty) is considered a relative contraindication for ECV by some but not all authors [ 44 ]. On the other hand, in patients with gestational diabetes mellitus, incomplete or uncontrolled glucose levels are associated with an increased risk of foetal macrosomia in late pregnancy, and even if the estimated foetal weight seems compatible with a planned vaginal delivery when the mode of delivery is discussed, rapid foetal growth during the last weeks may lead to major difficulties during delivery. Therefore, in such a context, we believe there is potential for a particular benefit from successful ECV at 36 weeks.
Predictors of successful ECV
Pinard previously observed that unengaged breech presentation is an important predictor of successful ECV [ 45 ]; the same observation was made by Lau et al. [ 46 ], Aisenbrey et al. [ 47 ], and Hutton et al. [ 48 ]. In the large series of 1776 ECVs published by Hutton et al. [ 48 ], descent and impaction of the breech foetus were the most discriminating factors for predicting successful ECV, regardless of parity. Other predictors of success include parity [ 45 , 47 , 49 , 50 ], abundant amniotic fluid [ 49 – 51 ], nonfrank breech presentation [ 47 ], gestational age under 38 weeks [ 43 ], and posterior placenta [ 50 ]. In contrast, nulliparity and tense uterus are associated with a lower likelihood of success [ 44 , 48 , 52 ].
Velzel et al. [ 53 ] recently reviewed prediction models, most of which were developed without any external validation, and found that the most reliable predictors of successful ECV were nonimpacted breech presentation, parity and uterine softness (which usually go hand in hand), normal amniotic fluid index, posterior placental location, and, as noted by Pinard [ 45 ], foetal head in a palpable situation. These criteria might be used to support patient counselling and decision-making about ECV and to reduce the proportion of women declining ECV, particularly in the most favourable situations for ECV.
Obstetric outcomes after an ECV attempt
De Hundt et al. [ 54 ] conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis and showed that women who have had a successful ECV for breech presentation are at increased risk for CS delivery (OR 2.2; 95% CI 1.6–3.0) and instrumental vaginal delivery (OR 1.4; 95% CI 1.1–1.7) compared with women with spontaneous cephalic presentation. Interestingly, stratification by time delay between successful ECV and delivery revealed a trend for increased risk of CS during the first week after ECV [ 55 ]. Furthermore, in a cohort of 301 women with successful ECV, De Hundt et al. [ 56 ] found that nulliparity was the only of seven factors that predicted the risk of CS and instrumental vaginal delivery (OR 2.7; 95% CI 1.2–6.1). Based on a retrospective, population-based cohort study using the CDC’s birth data files from the US in 2006, Balayla et al. [ 57 ] also showed that relative to breech controls without an ECV attempt, cases of ECV failure with persistent breech presentation and labour attempts were associated with increased odds of CS delivery (adjusted OR 1.38; 95% CI 1.21–1.57), assisted ventilation at birth (aOR 1.50; 95% CI 1.27–1.78), 5-min Apgar score < 7 (aOR 1.35; 95% CI 1.20–1.51), and neonatal intensive care unit admission (aOR 1.48; 95% CI 1.20–1.82).
This information should also be considered in the dialog with women regarding the way in which late pregnancy and delivery should be managed based on existing data, their own situations and their wishes.
The true benefit of an active and systematic ECV policy is widely appreciated [ 58 , 59 ], and such evaluation may be subject to bias. Burgos et al. [ 58 ] found that their policy decreased the rate of breech presentation at delivery by 39.0% and decreased the CS rate for cases of breech presentation at term from 59 to 44%. On the other hand, Coppola et al. [ 59 ] reported that their CS rate was not significantly reduced in the planned ECV group, even after adjustments were made for age, parity and previous CS delivery. Thus, each perinatal centre should implement an appropriate and coherent policy in accordance with the prevalence of pathologies in the population.
Towards a consensus for a global shared vision and management of term breech presentation that could include the following
- A policy of breech presentation screening at 36 weeks of gestation is efficient and cost effective [ 60 ].
- Such screening should allow timely ECV and a careful evaluation of potential underlying antenatal risks, considering obstetric history, estimated foetal weight/growth and potential gestational disorders [ 23 – 27 , 29 ].
- Foetal weight estimates based on clinical and ultrasound examinations are essential, despite the large confidence interval of all available algorithms for producing such estimates. Vaginal birth may be excluded when the estimated foetal weight approximates the upper limit used for selection in most national guidelines (3800 g) [ 18 – 20 ], particularly in the absence of previous successful vaginal delivery.
- Before vaginal delivery is considered, clinical pelvic examination is universally recommended to rule out pathological pelvic contraction. Radiologic or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) pelvimetry is not universally conducted [ 20 , 23 , 24 , 31 , 32 ]. However, Van Loon et al. [ 33 ] demonstrated in a randomized controlled trial that the use of MRI pelvimetry in breech presentation at term allowed better selection of delivery route, with a significantly lower emergency CS rate. More specifically, several recent studies [ 34 , 35 ] have evaluated the contribution of pelvimetry and found that MRI pelvimetry provided useful criteria for the preselection and counselling of women with breech presentation and the desire for vaginal delivery. Therefore, pelvimetry is diversely used in Europe for the preselection and counselling of women (particularly nulliparous women) with breech presentation and is specifically used in regions where vaginal delivery is still considered an option [ 35 ].
- In cases of failed ECV with persistent breech presentation, this policy should allow customized care tailored to each situation in the last weeks of pregnancy.
- A discussion with the informed patient is essential. One must thoroughly consider the experience of the health care team/the availability of clinical skills required for conducting a vaginal breech delivery and carefully select women who are eligible for planned vaginal delivery (considering obstetric history and the criteria described above for the choice between planned vaginal and CS deliveries) [ 20 , 23 , 24 , 26 , 28 ].
- Regardless of the planned mode of delivery [ 22 ], adequate follow-up during the last weeks of pregnancy is mandatory, with particular consideration of possible associated underlying disorders (particularly foetal growth restriction or excessive foetal weight in cases of gestational diabetes mellitus) [ 24 – 26 ]. Thus, the foetal weight estimation should be carefully considered in the 37th week of gestation, even in cases of minor glycaemic disorder, with regular reassessments and a plan for CS delivery if the patient remains pregnant for many more weeks and if foetal weight estimates reach approximately 3600–3800 g.
- If vaginal delivery is planned, careful labour management by a skilled team is needed, accompanied by continuous foetal heart rate monitoring [ 36 ] and a particular focus on the rate of progress in the second delivery stage [ 37 ]. When such conditions are not or cannot be fulfilled, a planned CS may be the best choice.
- When a CS has been planned, adequate follow-up during the last weeks of pregnancy and careful calculation of the delivery date are needed, taking into account possible comorbidities and gestational disorders.
Term breech presentation is a condition for which personalized obstetrical care is particularly needed. The best way is likely to be as follows: first, efficiently screen for breech presentation at 36–37 weeks of gestation; second, thoroughly evaluate the maternal/foetal condition, foetal weight and growth potential, and the type (frank, complete, or footling) and mobility of breech presentation; and three, consider the obstetric history and pelvic size/conformation. The management plan, including ECV and follow-up during the last weeks, should then be organized taking into account antenatal risk factors on a case-by-case basis by a skilled team after informing the woman, discussing her personal situation and criteria and helping her make a rational decision. Foetal overgrowth or growth restriction and/or oligohydramnios may necessitate timely CS, and the mode of delivery should be re-evaluated as necessary according to obstetric conditions (e.g., estimated foetal weight and Bishop score).
Acknowledgements
Abbreviations.
ACOG | American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists |
CS | Caesarean section |
ECV | External cephalic version |
FIGO | International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics |
RANZCOG | Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists |
RCOG | Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists |
SMM | Severe maternal morbidity |
SOGC | Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada |
TBT | Term breech trial |
Authors’ contributions
Study conception and design: LC, AB, JB, AT, FB, AB. Analysis and interpretation of data: LC, JB. Drafting of manuscript: LC. Critical revision: LC, JB, RM, MF. The authors read and approved the final manuscript.
Availability of data and materials
Ethics approval and consent to participate, consent for publication, competing interests.
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
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
- My Bibliography
- Collections
- Citation manager
Save citation to file
Email citation, add to collections.
- Create a new collection
- Add to an existing collection
Add to My Bibliography
Your saved search, create a file for external citation management software, your rss feed.
- Search in PubMed
- Search in NLM Catalog
- Add to Search
Management of Breech Presentation: A Comparison of Four National Evidence-Based Guidelines
Affiliation.
- 1 Third Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Faculty of Medicine, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Greece.
- PMID: 31167240
- DOI: 10.1055/s-0039-1692391
Objective: The management of breech presentation may improve perinatal outcomes. The aim of this study was to synthesize and compare published evidence of four national guidelines on breech presentation.
Study design: A descriptive review of four recently published national guidelines on breech presentation and external cephalic version (ECV) was conducted: Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists guideline on "External Cephalic Version and Reducing the Incidence of Term Breech Presentation" and "Management of Breech Presentation", American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists guideline on "External Cephalic Version" and "Mode of Term Singleton Breech Delivery," Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada guideline on "Vaginal Delivery of Breech Presentation" and the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists guideline on "Management of breech presentation at term."
Results: Regarding ECV, there is no recommendation by the SOGC, whereas all other national guidelines recommend this technique. Regarding breech vaginal delivery, there are limited recommendations by the ACOG, whereas all other guidelines provide similar recommendations. The RANZCOG makes no special recommendations on the intrapartum period.
Conclusion: The differences among national guidelines point out the need for the adoption of an international consensus on the management of breech presentation.
Thieme. All rights reserved.
PubMed Disclaimer
Conflict of interest statement
None declared.
Similar articles
- Reconsideration of planned vaginal breech delivery in selected cases. Achanna S, Nanda J, Paramjothi P. Achanna S, et al. Med J Malaysia. 2021 May;76(3):390-394. Med J Malaysia. 2021. PMID: 34031339
- Vaginal delivery of breech presentation. Kotaska A, Menticoglou S, Gagnon R; MATERNAL FETAL MEDICINE COMMITTEE. Kotaska A, et al. J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2009 Jun;31(6):557-566. doi: 10.1016/S1701-2163(16)34221-9. J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2009. PMID: 19646324 English, French.
- Breech presentation: Clinical practice guidelines from the French College of Gynaecologists and Obstetricians (CNGOF). Sentilhes L, Schmitz T, Azria E, Gallot D, Ducarme G, Korb D, Mattuizzi A, Parant O, Sananès N, Baumann S, Rozenberg P, Sénat MV, Verspyck E. Sentilhes L, et al. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2020 Sep;252:599-604. doi: 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2020.03.033. Epub 2020 Mar 25. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2020. PMID: 32249011 Review.
- Use of external cephalic version for breech pregnancy and mode of delivery for breech and twin pregnancy: a survey of Canadian practitioners. Hutton EK, Hannah ME, Barrett J. Hutton EK, et al. J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2002 Oct;24(10):804-10. doi: 10.1016/s1701-2163(16)30473-x. J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2002. PMID: 12399807
- [Breech Presentation: CNGOF Guidelines for Clinical Practice - External Cephalic Version and other Interventions to turn Breech Babies to Cephalic Presentation]. Ducarme G. Ducarme G. Gynecol Obstet Fertil Senol. 2020 Jan;48(1):81-94. doi: 10.1016/j.gofs.2019.10.024. Epub 2019 Oct 31. Gynecol Obstet Fertil Senol. 2020. PMID: 31678503 Review. French.
- Does overweight and obesity have an impact on delivery mode and peripartum outcome in breech presentation? A FRABAT cohort study. Jennewein L, Agel L, Hoock SC, Hentrich AE, Louwen F, Zander N. Jennewein L, et al. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2024 Jul;310(1):285-292. doi: 10.1007/s00404-024-07403-7. Epub 2024 Mar 18. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2024. PMID: 38498162 Free PMC article.
- Cephalic version by moxibustion for breech presentation. Coyle ME, Smith C, Peat B. Coyle ME, et al. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2023 May 9;5(5):CD003928. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD003928.pub4. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2023. PMID: 37158339 Free PMC article. Review.
- Combined Assessment of the Obstetrical Conjugate and Fetal Birth Weight Predicts Birth Mode Outcome in Vaginally Intended Breech Deliveries of Primiparous Women-A Frabat Study. Zander N, Raimann FJ, Al Naimi A, Brüggmann D, Louwen F, Jennewein L. Zander N, et al. J Clin Med. 2022 Jun 3;11(11):3201. doi: 10.3390/jcm11113201. J Clin Med. 2022. PMID: 35683588 Free PMC article.
- Learning Breech Birth in an Upright Position Is Influenced by Preexisting Experience-A FRABAT Prospective Cohort Study. Jennewein L, Brüggmann D, Fischer K, Raimann FJ, Pfeifenberger HR, Agel L, Zander N, Eichbaum C, Louwen F. Jennewein L, et al. J Clin Med. 2021 May 14;10(10):2117. doi: 10.3390/jcm10102117. J Clin Med. 2021. PMID: 34068873 Free PMC article.
- The influence of the fetal leg position on the outcome in vaginally intended deliveries out of breech presentation at term - A FRABAT prospective cohort study. Jennewein L, Allert R, Möllmann CJ, Paul B, Kielland-Kaisen U, Raimann FJ, Brüggmann D, Louwen F. Jennewein L, et al. PLoS One. 2019 Dec 2;14(12):e0225546. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0225546. eCollection 2019. PLoS One. 2019. PMID: 31790449 Free PMC article.
Publication types
- Search in MeSH
Related information
Linkout - more resources, full text sources.
- Georg Thieme Verlag Stuttgart, New York
- Ovid Technologies, Inc.
- Citation Manager
NCBI Literature Resources
MeSH PMC Bookshelf Disclaimer
The PubMed wordmark and PubMed logo are registered trademarks of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Unauthorized use of these marks is strictly prohibited.
Like what you're reading?
Leadership topics for presentation
Get your team on prezi – watch this on demand video.
Anete Ezera September 27, 2024
Leadership is a core skill in any organization. Presentations on leadership-related topics can make a huge difference in team performance, motivation, and the success of the whole organization. Getting to understand different themes of leadership helps teams know how to go about their challenges, inspire others and attain set goals. So in this article, we’ll discuss important leadership topics for presentations that would contribute effectively to team training and development. We’ll also highlight some of Prezi’s unique tools and templates that make creating these presentations engaging and visually compelling.
Why leadership topics for presentations matter
Discussing leadership topics in presentations helps to build a strong foundation for current and future leaders within an organization. These discussions can clarify what it means to lead effectively, foster a culture of collaboration, and equip team members with the tools needed to face complex situations. Leadership topics for presentations also provide an opportunity to reinforce core values, set strategic directions, and empower individuals to take initiative.
Leadership topics for presentations can be very useful for teams in terms of effective communication, increased employee engagement, and better-informed decision-making. From learning about distinct leadership styles, strategies, and skills, the team can be ready to adapt to different situations, enhance their problem-solving capabilities, and become more resilient in the wake of change.
How do you introduce a topic in leadership?
Introducing your leadership topics for presentations effectively sets the stage for a meaningful delivery. Begin with a clear objective that states what the audience will learn. This can be initiated by asking an interesting question, using a power-packed quote, or sharing a story that drives home why leadership matters in scenarios drawn from real life. You may want to use some of Prezi’s storytelling templates like the Climb to Success template, to frame your introduction by visually mapping the journey of leadership, so that your audience finds it easy to relate to the topic.
What are the 3 underlying themes of leadership?
When discussing leadership, three key themes often emerge:
- Vision : A leader must have a vision regarding where they want to take their team or organization. This involves goal setting for the long term and effective goal communication so as to inspire other people. Visionary leaders have the ability to create well-painted pictures of the future that inspire and bind their teams together.
- Influence : Leadership doesn’t just mean giving orders. It’s the ability to influence others through trust and respect with strong interpersonal skills. Those who can motivate and involve their teams typically achieve the most effective change and achieve the best results.
- Adaptability : In today’s rapidly changing world, leaders must be flexible and open to change. This involves being able to pivot when necessary, embrace new ideas, and lead through uncertainty. Adaptable leaders are prepared to handle crises, seize opportunities, and guide their teams through transitions smoothly.
Best leadership topics for presentation
Here are some compelling leadership topics that can be explored in presentations to inspire and guide teams:
Emotional intelligence in leadership
One of the key components of effective leadership is emotional intelligence (EQ)— which combines self-awareness, empathy, and the ability to manage their own emotions and those of others. A presentation on EQ can make leaders aware of how to establish better rapport with their teams of employees, help in conflict management and enable them to create a positive work culture.
Prezi template suggestion : For EQ leadership topics for presentations, use the Puzzle template to demonstrate how the different components of emotional intelligence fit together, making the concept more tangible and relatable for your audience.
Transformational leadership
Transformational leadership zeroes in on inspiring and motivating teams to achieve high levels of performance. It’s an excellent leadership topic for a presentation because it drives innovation, cultivates a positive team culture, and emphasizes personal development. A transformational leadership presentation can show leaders how to inspire change within their own teams.
Prezi example : For transformational leadership topics for presentations, check out The 20 New Leadership Books for 2020 for insights into the latest strategies and ideas.
Leading through change
Change management is a crucial skill for leaders, especially in dynamic business environments. A change management presentation for leadership might include strategies to guide teams through transition, including how to overcome resistance and keep morale high during uncertain times.
Prezi template suggestion : The Climb to Success template can effectively visualize the journey through change, highlighting steps and strategies to navigate challenges.
Building trust and transparency
Trust and transparency are the foundation of effective leadership. This would be a good topic to present because it shows how to establish trust within teams through open communication and by being consistent and honest with your intentions. Trust develops a comfortable atmosphere, and team members feel respected, which enhances their readiness to contribute.
Prezi example : Why Leaders Need to Get Out of Their Own Way offers insights into overcoming personal barriers to build trust and lead authentically.
Decision-making and problem-solving
Leaders are constantly bombarded with tough decisions and problems that require quick thinking and good judgment. A presentation on decision-making can include different models and techniques like the SWOT analysis, pros and cons lists or decision trees for leaders to utilize while making their choices.
Prezi template suggestion : Use the Data Analysis template to visually map out decision-making processes, making complex information easier to digest.
Conflict resolution
In any team setting, conflict is sure to arise. However, good leaders should be able to harness this and deliver a productive response. A presentation on conflict resolution can provide ways on how to put differences aside, how to maintain professionalism and turn conflicts into opportunities for growth.
Prezi example : The presentation 5 Signs That Your Team Is Suffering from Communication Issues explores common communication breakdowns and how leaders can resolve them to maintain a cohesive team dynamic.
The importance of diversity and inclusion
Diversity and inclusion should never be overlooked; they’re essential components of a thriving organization. This leadership topic for a presentation can emphasize the benefits of diverse teams, such as increased creativity, better decision-making, and enhanced employee satisfaction.
Prezi template suggestion : For diversity leadership topics for presentations, this Corporate template can be adapted to showcase how inclusive leadership practices can be integrated into the onboarding process and overall team culture.
The 5 levels of leadership
The 5 levels of leadership were developed by John Maxwell, and it outlines the stages of leadership growth from position-based leadership to pinnacle leadership. Presenting these levels helps leaders identify where they’re currently at and shows them what steps they can take to advance their leadership journey.
Prezi example : How to Define Your Purpose, Vision, Mission, Values, and Key Measures aligns well with the concept of evolving leadership levels by helping leaders connect their personal and organizational goals.
Time management for leaders
Time management is a key leadership skill that influences a person’s ability to prioritize, delegate and effectively implement ideas. Presentations related to this idea can include the Eisenhower Matrix, time-blocking or any prioritization strategies which would enable leaders to make the best possible use of their productivity.
Prezi example : How to Be More Productive and Focus offers practical tips on managing time effectively, which can be crucial for leaders juggling multiple responsibilities.
Additional leadership topics for presentations
To further expand your leadership toolkit, here are additional leadership topics for presentations that can add depth and variety:
Coaching and mentoring
Good leaders act as coaches and mentors by helping others to develop their skills and careers. A presentation on this topic can cover the key differences between coaching and mentoring, best practices for providing guidance, as well as the benefits of nurturing talent within your team.
Strategic thinking
Strategic thinking is the ability to see the changes that are likely to occur and actively plan for the future. A strategic leader will come up with solid plans based on a clear understanding of what must happen for both their team members and their organization to be successful over time. A presentation on this subject might involve providing templates for strategic plans, risk assessment, and competitive analysis. Leaders require these skills to attain success in a competitive business environment and help their teams meet their objectives.
Building resilience in leadership
Leaders need to have a lot of resilience, especially in periods of crisis or when drastic changes are taking place. Resilience-building presentations can introduce ways to handle stress and keep optimistic while leading the team through difficult times. A resilient leader bounces back from setbacks, demonstrates perseverance, and channels the teams to do likewise.
Leading with empathy
Empathetic leadership is the practice of understanding and sharing feelings with others to nurture a workplace where support and inclusivity thrive. A presentation on empathetic leadership can give practical advice on enhancing active listening and discerning what our team members need. Empathy builds relationships within the team, keeps spirits high, and promotes collaboration.
Innovation and creativity in leadership
For leaders interested in driving change and staying competitive, encouraging innovation and creativity is a must. Possible presentations on this topic could involve how to foster a culture of creativity, supporting new ideas, and implementing innovative solutions. This could also include citing some case studies of companies that have prospered due to innovation.
How to deliver a strong presentation on leadership
Define your key message.
Clearly outline the main takeaway you want your audience to remember. Center your presentation around this core idea to keep your content focused and impactful.
Use appropriate visual aids
Leverage Prezi’s dynamic templates to create a visually engaging presentation that supports your message. This keeps the audience’s attention and makes complex leadership topics easier to understand.
Rehearse your presentation multiple times to ensure smooth transitions and a confident tone. Practicing helps you stay on track and reduces anxiety, allowing you to present more naturally.
Engage with your audience
Try to include interactive elements in your presentation, like questions or a quick poll, to get your audience involved. This is the kind of interactivity that drives important points home and keeps the audience interested in the content.
Refine your content with Prezi AI
Use Prezi’s AI text editing tools to iron out your presentation so that the message is clearly delivered. This will help to get your wording on point for making a powerful, memorable leadership presentation.
Start with a strong opening
Capture your audience’s attention right from the beginning with a compelling story, a surprising fact, or a thought-provoking question. A powerful introduction sets the tone for the rest of your presentation and draws your audience in.
Keep it concise and focused
Avoid overwhelming your audience with too much information. Stick to the key points and use clear, concise language. This keeps your presentation focused and ensures that your audience retains the most important information.
Use body language effectively
Your body language plays a crucial role in how your message is received. Maintain eye contact, use purposeful gestures, and move confidently to convey your message with authority and engage your audience.
Use real-world examples
Use real-world examples or case studies to illustrate your points and make your content relatable. This approach helps bridge the gap between theory and practice, showing your audience how leadership concepts apply in real situations.
End with a strong conclusion
Summarize your main points and leave your audience with a clear call to action or thought-provoking takeaway. A strong conclusion reinforces your message and ensures that your presentation leaves a lasting impact.
Using these presenting tips along with the leadership topic ideas mentioned above, you’re on your way to a successful and inspiring leadership presentation that’s sure to inspire your team.
Introducing Prezi for topics for leadership presentations
Prezi’s unique format elevates leadership topics for presentations by offering a more engaging and interactive experience compared to traditional slide-based tools. The dynamic movement allows presenters to take their audience on a visual journey. This specific feature can make complex leadership topics for presentations more approachable. Whether focusing on specific details or connecting overarching themes, Prezi’s zooming and panning features bring presentations to life, making information more relatable and engaging for the audience.
Dynamic movement and visual storytelling
Prezi’s dynamic movement and visual storytelling features enable presenters to break away from the linear progression of typical slide decks. Different from slide-by-slide formats, Prezi allows content to be explored fluidly. This can be of great help in leadership topics for presentations which include very difficult concepts or layered themes. Through this approach, you can make the audience see mental pictures of how ideas are related. For example, stages of leadership development or steps in a decision-making process. This helps in making the content more digestible and retentive.
For example, when discussing the 5 levels of leadership, you can use Prezi to visually represent each level as part of a larger journey. This not only captures the audience’s attention but also reinforces the progression and growth inherent in leadership development.
Prezi’s zooming and panning features
Prezi’s zooming and panning features prove useful for leadership topics for presentations because they allow presenters to dive deep into specific points, while still maintaining a broader context. For example, during a strategic thinking presentation, the presenter can focus on detailed data analysis or key strategic models by zooming in. Then he an shift to an outward zoom to demonstrate how these components fit into the business strategy at large.
This ability to shift focus seamlessly keeps the audience engaged. It also helps to emphasize key points without losing sight of the big picture. It’s an excellent way to handle complex leadership presentations, making the content more interactive and engaging.
Simplifying the creation process with Prezi AI
Prezi AI enhances the presentation creation process with AI-powered tools designed to save time and improve content quality.
- Presentation maker : Prezi AI can turn bullet points into animated slides with only a few clicks. This means that your content will have a professional and polished appearance even if you’re not a designer. This is particularly beneficial since you can focus on communicating an inspiring message, not battle with the design of slides.
- AI text editing : Prezi AI also offers AI text editing. This feature helps refine your presentation content for clarity, impact, and flow. This feature ensures that your leadership message is communicated effectively, enhancing the overall quality of the presentation. Whether you’re discussing leadership strategies, conflict resolution, or decision-making processes, AI text editing can polish your content to resonate better with your audience.
- Animated slides : With Prezi AI you can turn your bullet points into animated slides that engage your audience even more. Visuals are crucial in leadership topics for presentations since they help illustrate points clearly and make them more accessible. That’s why turning bullet points into animated slides can help you communicate your message in a more memorable way.
Prezi templates tailored to leadership topics for presentations
We’ve identified numerous Prezi templates already that could really enhance your leadership topics for presentations. Prezi offers a vast template library for different topics, be it strategic planning, emotional intelligence or team development. Whatever your leadership topic may be, these templates can be used with or without extra customization to fit your exact needs.
The only tool you need for leadership presentations
Prezi’s ability to turn static content into a visual journey helps audiences connect with the material on a deeper level. This fosters better understanding and retention of leadership concepts. Whether you’re addressing a team of professionals, conducting a training session, or presenting at a conference, Prezi’s features ensure that your leadership topics for presentations are communicated with clarity, creativity, and impact.
Enliven your leadership topics for presentations
Leadership topics for presentations hold valuable insights that have the potential to motivate, lead, and change teams for the better. By exploring these topics, teams can develop the skills and mindset needed to navigate challenges. They’ll also be able to foster a positive work environment and achieve their goals. With Prezi’s vibrant presentation tools and AI-powered capabilities, presenting these topics can be an impactful learning experience for your audience.
For more leadership topic ideas, check out our guide on good presentation topics to continue building your knowledge and skills in leadership.
Give your team the tools they need to engage
Like what you’re reading join the mailing list..
- Prezi for Teams
- Top Presentations
IMAGES
VIDEO
COMMENTS
Breech presentation of the fetus in late pregnancy may result in prolonged or obstructed labour with resulting risks to both woman and fetus. Interventions to correct breech presentation (to cephalic) before labour and birth are important for the woman's and the baby's health. The aim of this review is to determine the most effective way of ...
Breech presentation refers to the fetus in the longitudinal lie with the buttocks or lower extremity entering the pelvis first. The 3 types of breech presentation are frank, complete, and incomplete. ... the cause and pathophysiology of breech presentation and highlights the role of the interprofessional team in its management. Objectives:
Management of Breech Presentation (Green-top Guideline No. 20b) Summary: The aim of this guideline is to aid decision making regarding the route of delivery and choice of various techniques used during delivery. It does not include antenatal or postnatal care. Information regarding external cephalic version is the topic of the separate Royal ...
Breech presentation, which occurs in approximately 3 percent of fetuses at term, describes the fetus whose presenting part is the buttocks and/or feet. Although most breech fetuses have normal anatomy, this presentation is associated with an increased risk for congenital malformations and mild deformations, torticollis, and developmental ...
Breech and external cephalic version. Breech presentation is when the fetus is lying longitudinally and its buttocks, foot or feet are presenting instead of its head. Figure 1. Breech presentations. Breech presentation occurs in three to four per cent of term deliveries and is more common in nulliparous women.
The management of breech presentation continues to cause academic and clinical contention globally [].In recent years, research has shown that if certain criteria are met, and appropriately experienced and skilled clinicians are available, Vaginal Breech Birth (VBB) is a safe option [].However, with Caesarean Section (C/S) rates for breech presentation ranging from 69% to 100% [], the ...
At full term, around 3%-4% of births are breech. The different types of breech presentations include: Complete: The fetus's knees are bent, and the buttocks are presenting first. Frank: The fetus's legs are stretched upward toward the head, and the buttocks are presenting first. Footling: The fetus's foot is showing first.
Breech presentation in pregnancy occurs when a baby presents with the buttocks or feet rather than the head first ... There is good current evidence regarding effective management of breech presentation in late pregnancy using external cephalic version and/or planned caesarean section. History and exam. Key diagnostic factors.
Investigations. An ultrasound scan is diagnostic for breech presentation. Growth, amniotic fluid volume and anatomy should be assessed to check for abnormalities. Management. There are three management options for breech presentation at term, with consideration of maternal choice: external cephalic version, vaginal delivery and Caesarean section. External cephalic version
The management of breech presentation continues to cause academic and clinical contention globally [[1], [2], [3]]. In recent years, research has shown that if certain criteria are met, and appropriately experienced and skilled clinicians are available, Vaginal Breech Birth (VBB) is a safe option [[4], [5], [6]].
The most widely quoted study regarding the management of breech presentation at term is the 'Term Breech Trial'. Published in 2000, this large, international multicenter randomised clinical trial compared a policy of planned vaginal delivery with planned caesarean section for selected breech presentations.
Assessment of the fetal presentation should be performed immediately prior to a scheduled cesarean. Planned vaginal delivery of a term singleton breech may be reasonable under hospital-specific protocol for both eligibility and management of labor (including use of oxytocin). 1,2 If the patient opts for a vaginal breech delivery, a detailed ...
Breech presentation is when the baby's buttocks, foot or feet present instead of its head. Breech presentation is sometimes associated with uterine, placental, or fetal abnormalities. 3. Antenatal Management Breech presentation does not become clinically significant until 36 weeks gestation.
Overview. Breech presentation is defined as a fetus in a longitudinal lie with the buttocks or feet closest to the cervix. This occurs in 3-4% of all deliveries. The percentage of breech deliveries decreases with advancing gestational age from 22-25% of births prior to 28 weeks' gestation to 7-15% of births at 32 weeks' gestation to 3-4% of ...
Breech Births. In the last weeks of pregnancy, a baby usually moves so his or her head is positioned to come out of the vagina first during birth. This is called a vertex presentation. A breech presentation occurs when the baby's buttocks, feet, or both are positioned to come out first during birth. This happens in 3-4% of full-term births.
Background: Breech birth is a divisive clinical issue, however vaginal breech births continue to occur despite a globally high caesarean section rate for breech presenting fetuses. Inconsistencies are known to exist between clinical practice guidelines relating to the management of breech presentation.
Management of Breech Presentation Breech presentation refers to a fetal position in which the baby's buttocks or feet are positioned to be delivered first instead of the head. While most babies naturally assume a head-down position for birth, occurring in about 3-4% of pregnancies, breech presentation presents unique challenges and
Presentation of the feet or buttocks of the foetus. 6.1.1 The different breech presentations. In a complete breech presentation, the legs are tucked, and the foetus is in a crouching position (Figure 6.1a).; In a frank breech presentation, the legs are extended, raised in front of the torso, with the feet near the head (Figure 6.1b).; In a footling breech presentation (rare), one or both feet ...
Conclusion. The adequate management of term breech pregnancies requires screening and the efficient identification of breech presentation at 36 weeks of gestation, followed by thorough evaluations of foetal weight, growth and mobility, while obstetric history, antenatal gestational disorders and pelvis size/conformation are considered.
as this may influence decision-making about the mode of delivery.If a breech presentation is confirmed, a senior obstetrician should discuss with the women the mode of delivery, including the risks and. benefits to the woman and her baby both short-term and long-term. This discussion should take pl.
Objective: The management of breech presentation may improve perinatal outcomes. The aim of this study was to synthesize and compare published evidence of four national guidelines on breech presentation. Study design: A descriptive review of four recently published national guidelines on breech presentation and external cephalic version (ECV) was conducted: Royal College of Obstetricians and ...
Conclusion. Although the management of breech presentation at birth still remains a dilemma, even in the modern obstetrics, we must point out that national protocols are needed for a better result. For a trial a labor we need special selection criteria, intrapartum management parameters and practiced delivery techniques. Vaginal breech delivery ...
Time management is a key leadership skill that influences a person's ability to prioritize, delegate and effectively implement ideas. Presentations related to this idea can include the Eisenhower Matrix, time-blocking or any prioritization strategies which would enable leaders to make the best possible use of their productivity.