Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-v2bm5 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-15T15:23:01.690Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

External cephalic version at term

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 October 2008

GJ Hofmeyr
GJ Hofmeyr*
Affiliation:
Department of Obstetricsand Gynaecology, Coronation and JG Strijdom Hospitals and University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa
*
GJ Hofmeyr, Professor and Head, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Coronation and JG Strijdom Hospitals and University of the Witwatersrand, Medical School, 7 York Rd, Parktown 2193, Johannesburg, South Africa.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

It is remarkable that, for all the sophistication of current obstetric practice, uncertainty should persist concerning the management of as fundamental a problem as breech presentation, particularly with respect to the place of external cephalic version (ECV). This review will focus on information available for guiding clinical decisions, and practical aspects of the procedure.

Type
Articles
Information
Fetal and Maternal Medicine Review , Volume 5 , Issue 4 , November 1993 , pp. 213 - 222
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1993

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1Westgren, M, Edvall, H, Nordstrom, E, Svalenius, E. Spontaneous cephalic version of breech presentation in the last trimester. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1985; 92: 19–22.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
2Tompkins, P. An enquiry into the cause of breech presentation. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1946; 51: 595–602.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3Ben-Rafael, Z, Seidman, DS, Recabi, K, Bider, D, Mashiach, S. Uterine anomalies. A retrospective, matched-control study. J Reprod Med 1991; 36: 723–27.Google ScholarPubMed
4Michalas, SP. Outcome of pregnancy in women with uterine malformation: evaluation of 62 cases. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 1991; 35: 215–19.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
5Rannay, B. The gentle art of external cephalic version. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1973; 116: 239–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6Robertson, IS. Breech presentation associated with anticonvulsant drugs. J Obstet Gynecol 1984; 4: 174–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7Stevenson, CS. The principal cause of breech presentation in single term pregnancies. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1950; 60: 41–53.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
8Fianu, S, Vaclavinkova, V. The site of placental attachment as a factor in the aetiology of breech presentation. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 1978; 57: 371–72.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
9Soernes, T, Bakke, T. The length of human umbilical cord in vertex and breech presentations. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1986; 154: 1086–87.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
10Moessinger, AC, Blaes, WA, Marone, PA, Polsen, DC. Umbilical cord length as an index of fetal activity: experimental study and clinical implications. Pediatr Res 1982; 16: 109–12.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
11Stevenson, CS. Certain concepts in the handling of breech and transverse presentations in late pregnancy. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1951; 62: 488–505.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
12Thorp, JM Jr, Jenkins, T, Watson, W. Utility of Leopold manoeuvres in screening for malpresentation. Obstet Gynecol 1991; 78: 394–96.Google ScholarPubMed
13Sorenson, T, Hasch, E, Lange, AP. Fetal presentation during pregnancy. Lancet 1979; ii: 477.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
14Scheer, K, Nubar, J. Variation of fetal presentation with gestational age. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1976; 125: 269–70.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
15Hickok, 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; 166: 851–52.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
16Hofmeyr, GJ. Breech presentation and abnormal lie in late pregnancy. In: Chalmers, I, Enkin, M, Keirse, MJNC eds. Effective care in pregnancy and childbirth. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1989: 653–65.Google Scholar
17Elkins, VH. In: Enkin, M, Chalmers, I eds. Effectiveness and satisfaction in antenatal care. London: Spastics International Medical Publishers, 1982: 216.Google Scholar
18Chenia, F, Crowther, C. Does advice to assume the knee-chest position reduce the incidence of breech presentation at delivery? A randomized clinical trial. Birth 1987; 14: 75–78.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
19Bung, P, Huch, R, Huch, A. Is die Indische wendung eine erfolgreiche Methode zur senkungder Beckenendlagefrequenz? Geburtsh Frauenheilk 1987; 47: 202–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
20Hartadottir, H, Thornton, J. A randomised trial of the knee/chest position to encourage spontaneous version of breech pregnancies. Proc 26th Br Congress Obstet Gynaecol, Manchester, UK 1992: 356.Google Scholar
21Brosset, A. The value of prophylactic external version in cases of breech presentation. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 1956; 35: 555–62.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
22MacArthur, J. Reduction of the hazards of breech presentation by external cephalic version. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1964; 88: 302–306.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
23Bradley-Watson, PJ. The decreasing value of external cephalic version in modern obstetric practice. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1975; 123: 237–40.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
24Lyons, ER, Papsin, FR. Caesarean section in the management of breech presentation. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1978; 130: 558–61.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
25Mensink, WFA, Huisjes, HJ. Is external version useful in breech presentation? (English abstract). Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd 1980; 124: 1828–31.Google Scholar
26Kasule, J, Chimbira, THK, Brown, IMcL. Controlled trial of external cephalic version. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1985; 92: 14–18.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
27Saling, E, Muller-Holve, W. External cephalic version under tocolysis. J Perinat Med 1975; 3: 115–22.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
28Hofmeyr, GJ. Effect of external cephalic version in late pregnancy on breech presentation and caesarean section rate: a controlled trial. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1983; 90: 392–99.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
29Robertson, AW, Kopelman, JN, Read, JA, Duff, P, Magelssen, DJ, Dashow, EE. External cephalic version at term: is a tocolytic necessary?. Obstet Gynecol 1987; 70: 896–99.Google ScholarPubMed
30Tan, GW, Jen, SW, Tan, SL, Salmon, YM. A prospective randomised control trial of external cephalic version comparing two methods of uterine tocolysis with a non-tocolytic group. Singapore Med J 1989; 30: 155–58.Google Scholar
31van Veelen, AJ, van Cappellen, AW, Flu, PK, Straub, MJPF, Wallenburg, HCS. Effect of external cephalic version in late pregnancy on presentation at delivery: a randomized control trial. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1989; 96: 916–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
32Van De Pavert, R, Gravenhorst, JB, Keirse, MJNC. Value of external version in breech presentation at term. Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd 1990; 134: 2245–48.Google Scholar
33van Dorsten, JP, Schifrin, BS, Wallace, RI. Randomized control trial of external cephalic version with tocolysis in late pregnancy. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1981; 141: 417–24.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
34Mahomed, K, Seeras, R, Coulsen, R. External cephalic version at term: a randomized controlled trial using tocolysis. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1991; 98: 8–13.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
35Brocks, V, Philipsen, T, Secher, NJ. A randomized trial of external cephalic version with tocolysis in late pregnancy. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1984; 91: 653–56.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
36Fortunato, SJ, Mercer, LJ, Guzick, DS. External cephalic version with tocolysis: factors associated with success. Obstet Gynecol 1988; 72: 59–62.Google ScholarPubMed
37Hofmeyr, GJ, Sadan, O, Myer, IG, Galal, KC, Simko, G. External cephalic version and spontaneous version rates: ethnic and other determinants. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1986; 93: 13–16.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
38Thunedborg, P, Fischer-Rasmussen, W, Tollund, L. The benefit of external cephalic version with tocolysis as a routine procedure in late pregnancy. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 1991; 42: 23–27.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
39Hanss, JW. The efficacy of external cephalic version and its impact on the breech experience. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1990; 162: 1459–63.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
40DeRosa, J, Anderle, LJ. External cephalic version of term singleton breech presentations with tocolysis: a retrospective study in a community hospital. J Am Osteopath Assoc 1991; 91: 351–52, 355–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
41Marchick, R. Antepartum external cephalic version with tocolysis: a study of term singleton breech presentations. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1988; 158: 1339–46.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
42Morrison, JC, Myatt, RE, Martin, JN, Meeks, GR, Martin, RW, Bucovaz, ET et al. External cephalic version of the breech presentation under tocolysis. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1986; 154: 900–903.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
43Pluta, M, Schmidt, S, Giffei, JM, Saling, E. Die ausere Wendung des Feten aus Beckenendlage Schadellage in Terminnale unter Tokolyse. Z Geburtshilfe Perinatol 1981; 1985: 207–15.Google Scholar
44Dyson, DC, Ferguson, JE, Hensleigh, P. Antepartum external cephalic version under tocolysis. Obstet Gynecol 1986; 67: 63–68.Google ScholarPubMed
45Rabinovici, J, Barkai, G, Shaler, J, Serr, DM, Mashiach, S. Impact of a protocol for external cephalic version under tocolysis at term. Isr J Med Sci 1986; 22: 34–40.Google ScholarPubMed
46Kirkinen, P, Ylostalo, P. Ultrasonic examination before external version of breech presentation. Gynecol Obstet Invest 1982; 13: 90–97.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
47Donald, WL, Barton, JJ. Ultrasonography and external cephalic version at term. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1990; 162: 1542–45.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
48Tatum, RK, Orr, JW, Soong, S, Huddleston, JF. Vaginal breech delivery of selected infants weighing more than 2000 grams: a retrospective analysis of seven years’ experience. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1985; 152: 145–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
49Miller, JM. Maternal and neonatal morbidity in caesarean section. Obstet Gynecol Clin North Am 1988; 15: 629–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
50 Department of Health. Report on confidential enquiries into maternal deaths in England and Wales, 1982–84. London: Her Majesty’s Stationery Office, 1989.Google Scholar
51Garel, M, Lelong, N, Marchand, A, Kaminski, M. Psychological consequences of caesarean childbirth: a four-year follow-up study. Early Hum Dev 1990; 21: 105–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
52Hofmeyr, GJ. External cephalic version at term: how high are the stakes?. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1991; 98: 8–13.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
53Hofmeyr, GJ, Sonnendecker, EWW. Cardiotocographic changes after external cephalic version. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1983; 90: 914–18.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
54Hofmeyr, GJ. External cephalic version at term. In: Chalmers, I ed. Oxford database of perinatal trials. Version 1.2. Disk issue 7. Spring 1992.Google Scholar
55Heritage, CK, Cunningham, MD. Association of elective repeat caesarean delivery and persistent pulmonary hypertension of the newborn. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1987; 152: 627–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
56Flamm, BL, Fried, MW, Lonky, NM, Giles, WS. External cephalic version after previous caesarean section. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1991; 165: 370–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
57Ferguson, JE, Dyson, DC. Intrapartum external cephalic version. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1985; 152: 297–98.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
58Tchabo, JG, Tomai, T. Selected intrapartum external cephalic version of the second twin. Obstet Gynecol 1992; 79: 421–23.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
59Gocke, SE, Nageotte, MP, Garite, T, Towers, CV, Dorchester, W. Management of the non-vertex second twin: primary cesarean section, external version or primary breech extraction. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1989; 161: 111–14.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
60Hofmeyr, GJ. External cephalic version at term with tocolysis. Its place in developing countries. Trop Doct 1988; 18: 119–24.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
61Bergstrom, S. External cephalic version and daily post-versional maternal self-assessment of fetal presentation. A prospective study. Gynecol Obstet Invest 1992; 33: 15–18.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
62Kilpatrick, SJ, Safford, KL, Pomeroy, T, Hoedt, L, Scheerer, L, Laros, RK. Maternal hydration increases amniotic fluid index. Obstet Gynecol 1991; 78: 1098–102.Google ScholarPubMed
63Kilpatrick, SJ, Safford, KL. Maternal hydration increases amniotic fluid index in women with normal amniotic fluid. Obstet Gynecol 1993; 18: 49–52.Google Scholar
64Fried, AW, Cloutier, M, Woodring, JH, Shier, RW. Sonography of the transverse fetal lie. Am J Radiol 1984; 142: 421–23.Google ScholarPubMed
65Hughey, MJ. Fetal position during pregnancy. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1985; 153: 885–86.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
66Phelan, JP, Boucher, M, Mueller, E, McCart, D, Horenstein, J, Clark, SL. The non-laboring transverse lie. A management dilemma. J Reprod Med 1986; 31: 184–86.Google Scholar
67Phelan, JP, Stine, LE, Edwards, NB, Clark, SL, Horenstein, J. The role of external version in the intrapartum management of the transverse lie presentation. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1985; 151: 724–26.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed