OBJECTIVE: A large trial published in 2000 concluded that planned vaginal delivery of term breech births is associated with high neonatal risks. Because the obstetric practices in that study differed from those in countries where planned vaginal delivery is still common, we conducted an observational prospective study to describe neonatal outcome according to the planned mode of delivery for term breech births in 2 such countries. STUDY DESIGN: Observational prospective study with an intent-to-treat analysis to compare the groups for which cesarean and vaginal deliveries were planned. Associations between the outcome and planned mode of delivery were controlled for confounding by multivariate analysis. The main outcome measure was a variable that combined fetal and neonatal mortality and severe neonatal morbidity. The study population consisted of 8105 pregnant women delivering singleton fetuses in breech presentation at term in 138 French and 36 Belgian maternity units. RESULTS: Cesarean delivery was planned for 5579 women (68.8%) and vaginal delivery for 2526 (31.2%). Of the women with planned vaginal deliveries, 1796 delivered vaginally (71.0%). The rate of the combined neonatal outcome measure was low in the overall population (1.59%; 95% CI [1.33-1.89]) and in the planned vaginal delivery group (1.60%; 95% CI [1.14-2.17]). It did not differ significantly between the planned vaginal and cesarean delivery groups (unadjusted odds ratio = 1.10, 95% CI [0.75-1.61]), even after controlling for confounding variables (adjusted odds ratio = 1.40, 95% CI [0.89-2.23]). CONCLUSION: In places where planned vaginal delivery is a common practice and when strict criteria are met before and during labor, planned vaginal delivery of singleton fetuses in breech presentation at term remains a safe option that can be offered to women.
OBJECTIVE: A large trial published in 2000 concluded that planned vaginal delivery of term breech births is associated with high neonatal risks. Because the obstetric practices in that study differed from those in countries where planned vaginal delivery is still common, we conducted an observational prospective study to describe neonatal outcome according to the planned mode of delivery for term breech births in 2 such countries. STUDY DESIGN: Observational prospective study with an intent-to-treat analysis to compare the groups for which cesarean and vaginal deliveries were planned. Associations between the outcome and planned mode of delivery were controlled for confounding by multivariate analysis. The main outcome measure was a variable that combined fetal and neonatal mortality and severe neonatal morbidity. The study population consisted of 8105 pregnant women delivering singleton fetuses in breech presentation at term in 138 French and 36 Belgian maternity units. RESULTS: Cesarean delivery was planned for 5579 women (68.8%) and vaginal delivery for 2526 (31.2%). Of the women with planned vaginal deliveries, 1796 delivered vaginally (71.0%). The rate of the combined neonatal outcome measure was low in the overall population (1.59%; 95% CI [1.33-1.89]) and in the planned vaginal delivery group (1.60%; 95% CI [1.14-2.17]). It did not differ significantly between the planned vaginal and cesarean delivery groups (unadjusted odds ratio = 1.10, 95% CI [0.75-1.61]), even after controlling for confounding variables (adjusted odds ratio = 1.40, 95% CI [0.89-2.23]). CONCLUSION: In places where planned vaginal delivery is a common practice and when strict criteria are met before and during labor, planned vaginal delivery of singleton fetuses in breech presentation at term remains a safe option that can be offered to women.
Authors: J Burgos; L Rodríguez; P Cobos; C Osuna; M Del Mar Centeno; R Larrieta; T Martínez-Astorquiza; L Fernández-Llebrez Journal: J Perinatol Date: 2015-07-16 Impact factor: 2.521
Authors: James Deline; Lisa Varnes-Epstein; Lee T Dresang; Mark Gideonsen; Laura Lynch; John J Frey Journal: Ann Fam Med Date: 2012 Nov-Dec Impact factor: 5.166
Authors: Mariella Mailàth-Pokorny; Oliver Preyer; Christian Dadak; Andreas Lischka; Martina Mittlböck; Peter Wagenbichler; Thomas Laml Journal: Wien Klin Wochenschr Date: 2009 Impact factor: 1.704
Authors: Daniel F Mackay; Rachael Wood; Albert King; David N Clark; Sally-Ann Cooper; Gordon C S Smith; Jill P Pell Journal: Int J Epidemiol Date: 2015-01-21 Impact factor: 7.196