Y Berhan1, A Haileamlak2. 1. Hawassa University College of Medicine and Health Sciences, Hawassa, Ethiopia. 2. Jimma University College of Public Health and Medicine, Jimma, Ethiopia.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The mode of delivery in term singleton breech presentation has been debated for more than half a century and has been examined in both randomised and observational studies. OBJECTIVE: To determine the absolute and relative risks of perinatal mortality and morbidity in planned vaginal breech delivery. SEARCH STRATEGY: A computer-based literature search was conducted mainly in the databases of HINARI, PubMed and Google scholar for studies comparing planned vaginal delivery and planned caesarean section. SELECTION CRITERIA: Studies that assessed the perinatal mortality and morbidity in relation to the term singleton breech mode of delivery between 1993 and 2014 were included. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: In this meta-analysis, 27 articles with a total sample size of 258 953 women were included. Relative and absolute risks of perinatal mortality and morbidity in relation to mode of delivery were determined. MAIN RESULTS: The relative risk of perinatal mortality and morbidity was about two- to five-fold higher in the planned vaginal than in the planned caesarean delivery group. The absolute risks of perinatal mortality, fetal neurologic morbidity, birth trauma, 5-minute Apgar score <7 and neonatal asphyxia in the planned vaginal delivery group were 0.3, 0.7, 0.7, 2.4 and 3.3%, respectively. CONCLUSION: Perinatal mortality and morbidity in the planned vaginal breech delivery were significantly higher than with planned caesarean delivery. Even taking into account the relatively low absolute risks of vaginal breech delivery, the current study substantiates the practice of individualised decision-making on the route of delivery in a term breech presentation. TWEETABLE ABSTRACT: Although vaginal breech delivery is controversial, this review has shown low absolute risk.
BACKGROUND: The mode of delivery in term singleton breech presentation has been debated for more than half a century and has been examined in both randomised and observational studies. OBJECTIVE: To determine the absolute and relative risks of perinatal mortality and morbidity in planned vaginal breech delivery. SEARCH STRATEGY: A computer-based literature search was conducted mainly in the databases of HINARI, PubMed and Google scholar for studies comparing planned vaginal delivery and planned caesarean section. SELECTION CRITERIA: Studies that assessed the perinatal mortality and morbidity in relation to the term singleton breech mode of delivery between 1993 and 2014 were included. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: In this meta-analysis, 27 articles with a total sample size of 258 953 women were included. Relative and absolute risks of perinatal mortality and morbidity in relation to mode of delivery were determined. MAIN RESULTS: The relative risk of perinatal mortality and morbidity was about two- to five-fold higher in the planned vaginal than in the planned caesarean delivery group. The absolute risks of perinatal mortality, fetal neurologic morbidity, birth trauma, 5-minute Apgar score <7 and neonatal asphyxia in the planned vaginal delivery group were 0.3, 0.7, 0.7, 2.4 and 3.3%, respectively. CONCLUSION: Perinatal mortality and morbidity in the planned vaginal breech delivery were significantly higher than with planned caesarean delivery. Even taking into account the relatively low absolute risks of vaginal breech delivery, the current study substantiates the practice of individualised decision-making on the route of delivery in a term breech presentation. TWEETABLE ABSTRACT: Although vaginal breech delivery is controversial, this review has shown low absolute risk.
Authors: Malango T Msukwa; Olivia Keiser; Andreas Jahn; Joep J van Oosterhout; Andrew Edmonds; Nozgechi Phiri; Ronald Manjomo; Mary-Ann Davies; Janne Estill Journal: Trop Med Int Health Date: 2019-04-01 Impact factor: 2.622
Authors: Cassandra R Duffy; Janet L Moore; Sarah Saleem; Antoinette Tshefu; Carl L Bose; Elwyn Chomba; Waldemar A Carlo; Ana L Garces; Nancy F Krebs; K Michael Hambidge; Shivaprasad S Goudar; Richard J Derman; Archana Patel; Patricia L Hibberd; Fabian Esamai; Edward A Liechty; Dennis D Wallace; Elizabeth M McClure; Robert L Goldenberg Journal: Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand Date: 2018-12-20 Impact factor: 3.636
Authors: Maiju Kekki; Topias Koukkula; Anne Salonen; Mika Gissler; Hannele Laivuori; Tuomas T Huttunen; Kati Tihtonen Journal: Arch Gynecol Obstet Date: 2022-09-08 Impact factor: 2.493
Authors: John Madar; Charles C Roehr; Sean Ainsworth; Hege Ersda; Colin Morley; Mario Rüdiger; Christiane Skåre; Tomasz Szczapa; Arjan Te Pas; Daniele Trevisanuto; Berndt Urlesberger; Dominic Wilkinson; Jonathan P Wyllie Journal: Notf Rett Med Date: 2021-06-02 Impact factor: 0.892