Obstet Gynecol Sci.  2016 Mar;59(2):85-90. 10.5468/ogs.2016.59.2.85.

External cephalic version experiences in Korea

• Kim MY
• Park MY
• Kim GJ

• KMID: 2159001
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.5468/ogs.2016.59.2.85

Abstract

OBJECTIVE
The aim of this study was to evaluate obstetric outcomes of external cephalic version (ECV) performed at or near term.
METHODS
Single pregnant woman with breech presentation at or near term (n=145), who experienced ECV by one obstetrician from November 2009 to July 2014 in our institution were included in the study. Maternal baseline characteristic and fetal ultrasonographic variables were checked before the procedure. After ECV, the delivery outcomes of the women were gathered. Variables affecting the success or failure of ECV were evaluated.
RESULTS
Success rate of ECV was 71.0% (n=103). Four variables (parity, amniotic fluid index, fetal spine position and rotational direction) were observed to be in correlation with success or failure of ECV. In contactable 83 individuals experienced successful ECV, cesarean delivery rates were 18.1%, 28.9%, and 5.3% in total, nulliparas, and multiparas, respectively.
CONCLUSION
Based on the results, ECV is proposed to be safe for both mother and her fetus. In addition, it is a valuable procedure that increases probability of vaginal delivery for women with breech presentation.

Keyword

Breech presentation; External cephalic version; Vaginal delivery

MeSH Terms

Amniotic Fluid
Breech Presentation
Female
Fetus
Humans
Korea*
Mothers
Pregnancy
Pregnant Women
Spine
Version, Fetal*

Figure

• 

  Fig. 1 Counterclockwise external cephalic version. In case of engaged fetus, each hand takes one fetal pole and fetal buttocks pushed out of the maternal pelvis. Fetal head gently pushed toward direction of fetal face, counterclockwise in this figure.

Reference

1. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Births: method of delivery [Internet]. Atlanta (GA): Centers for Disease Control and Prevention;c2015. cited 2015 July 17. Available from: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/delivery.htm.

2. Chung SH, Seol HJ, Choi YS, Oh SY, Kim A, Bae CW. Changes in the cesarean section rate in Korea (1982-2012) and a review of the associated factors. J Korean Med Sci. 2014; 29:1341–1352.

3. Kok M, Cnossen J, Gravendeel L, Van Der Post JA, Mol BW. Ultrasound factors to predict the outcome of external cephalic version: a meta-analysis. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2009; 33:76–84.

4. Committee on. Gynecology, American College of Obstetrics and Gynecologists. External cephalic version. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2001; 72:198–204.

5. Chan LY, Tang JL, Tsoi KF, Fok WY, Chan LW, Lau TK. Intrapartum cesarean delivery after successful external cephalic version: a meta-analysis. Obstet Gynecol. 2004; 104:155–160.

6. Bradley-Watson PJ. The decreasing value of external cephalic version in modern obstetric practice. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1975; 123:237–240.

7. Hofmeyr GJ, Kulier R. External cephalic version for breech presentation at term. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012; 10:CD000083.

8. Boucher M, Bujold E, Marquette GP, Vezina Y. The relationship between amniotic fluid index and successful external cephalic version: a 14-year experience. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2003; 189:751–754.

9. Newman RB, Peacock BS, VanDorsten JP, Hunt HH. Predicting success of external cephalic version. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1993; 169(2 Pt 1):245–249.

10. Kok M, van der Steeg JW, van der Post JA, Mol BW. Prediction of success of external cephalic version after 36 weeks. Am J Perinatol. 2011; 28:103–110.

11. Burgos J, Melchor JC, Cobos P, Centeno M, Pijoan JI, Fernandez-Llebrez L, et al. Does fetal weight estimated by ultrasound really affect the success rate of external cephalic version? Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2009; 88:1101–1106.

12. Kirkinen P, Ylostalo P. Ultrasonic examination before external version of breech presentation. Gynecol Obstet Invest. 1982; 13:90–97.

13. Vezina Y, Bujold E, Varin J, Marquette GP, Boucher M. Cesarean delivery after successful external cephalic version of breech presentation at term: a comparative study. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2004; 190:763–768.

14. Chan LY, Leung TY, Fok WY, Chan LW, Lau TK. High incidence of obstetric interventions after successful external cephalic version. BJOG. 2002; 109:627–631.

15. Kuppens SM, Hutton EK, Hasaart TH, Aichi N, Wijnen HA, Pop VJ. Mode of delivery following successful external cephalic version: comparison with spontaneous cephalic presentations at delivery. J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2013; 35:883–888.

16. Lau TK, Lo KW, Rogers M. Pregnancy outcome after successful external cephalic version for breech presentation at term. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1997; 176(1 Pt 1):218–223.

17. 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; 123:1327–1334.

18. Jeong EH, Park KH, Ryu A, Oh KJ, Lee SY, Kim A. Clinical and sonographic parameters at mid-trimester and the risk of cesarean delivery in low-risk nulliparas. J Clin Ultrasound. 2014; 07. 12. DOI: 10.1002/jcu.22212.

19. Kim SN, Park KH, Jung HJ, Hong JS, Shin DM, Kang WS. Clinical and sonographic parameters at 37 weeks' gestation for predicting the risk of primary cesarean delivery in nulliparous women. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2010; 36:486–492.

20. Clock C, Kurtzman J, White J, Chung JH. Cesarean risk after successful external cephalic version: a matched, retrospective analysis. J Perinatol. 2009; 29:96–100.