Literature DB >> 20557535

Prevalence, outcome, and women's experiences of external cephalic version in a low-risk population.

Marlies Rijnders1, Pien Offerhaus, Paula van Dommelen, Therese Wiegers, Simone Buitendijk.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Until recently, external cephalic version to prevent breech presentation at birth was not widely accepted. The objective of our study was to assess the prevalence, outcomes, and women's experiences of external cephalic version to improve the implementation of the procedure in the Netherlands.
METHODS: A prospective cohort study was conducted of 167 women under the care of a midwife with confirmed breech presentation at a gestational age of 33 completed weeks or more.
RESULTS: Between June 2007 and January 2008, 167 women with a confirmed breech presentation were offered an external cephalic version. Of this group, 123 women (73.7%, 95% CI: 65.5-80.5) subsequently received the version. These women had about a ninefold increased probability of a cephalic presentation at birth compared with women who did not undergo a version (relative risk [RR]: 8.8, 95% CI: 2.2-34.8). The chance of a vaginal birth after an external cephalic version was almost threefold (RR: 2.7, 95% CI: 1.5-5.0). The success rate was 39 percent, although considerable differences existed associated with region and parity. Ninety-four percent of women with a successful version rated it as a good experience compared with 71 percent of women who had a failed version (p = 0.015). Significant pain during the version was experienced by 34 percent of women, of whom 18 percent also experienced fear during the version, compared with no women who reported little or no pain (p = 0.006). Women who reported significant pain or fear during the version experienced the version more negatively (OR: 6.0, 95% CI: 3.3-12.2 and OR: 2.7, 95% CI: 1.1-6.0, respectively).
CONCLUSIONS: One in every four women with a breech presentation in independent midwifery care did not receive an external cephalic version. Of the women who received a version one third experienced significant pain during the procedure. Considerable regional variation in success rate existed.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20557535     DOI: 10.1111/j.1523-536X.2010.00392.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Birth        ISSN: 0730-7659            Impact factor:   3.689


  4 in total

1.  Fetal heart rate abnormalities during and after external cephalic version: Which fetuses are at risk and how are they delivered?

Authors:  Simone M Kuppens; Ida Smailbegovic; Saskia Houterman; Ingrid de Leeuw; Tom H Hasaart
Journal:  BMC Pregnancy Childbirth       Date:  2017-10-17       Impact factor: 3.007

2.  A prospective study using an individualized nomogram to predict the success rate of external cephalic version.

Authors:  Jing Lin; Wei Liu; Wei Gu; Ye Zhou
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2022-07-12       Impact factor: 4.996

3.  A qualitative interview study exploring pregnant women's and health professionals' attitudes to external cephalic version.

Authors:  Rebecca Say; Richard Thomson; Stephen Robson; Catherine Exley
Journal:  BMC Pregnancy Childbirth       Date:  2013-01-16       Impact factor: 3.007

4.  This baby is not for turning: Women's experiences of attempted external cephalic version.

Authors:  N P Watts; K Petrovska; A Bisits; C Catling; C S E Homer
Journal:  BMC Pregnancy Childbirth       Date:  2016-08-26       Impact factor: 3.007

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.