Delivery in breech presentation: What way should we choose?

##plugins.themes.academic_pro.article.sidebar##

Published Jan 23, 2013
Download
pdf
Vol. 91 No. 1 (2013): Issue Jan 2013

##plugins.themes.academic_pro.article.main##

Mourali Mechaal
Kawali Abdelkrim
Fitouhi Lobna
Hadroug L
Gharsa Anissa
Hmila Faouzia
Binous Naoufel
Ben Zineb Nabil
El Fekih Chiraz

Abstract

Background: The breech delivery is considered dangerous because of the higher rates of perinatal mortality and morbidity which become attached to it, consequences of obstetric traumas bound to the obstetric operations. What way of delivery is it necessary to privilege? What are the arguments which we have to support our choice?
Aim: To assess the maternal and fetal outcome according to the way of delivery.
Methods: In this retrospective study, 194 women with a singleton pregnancy in a breech presentation delivered at term in our maternity unit in Ariana’s Hospital from January 2007 to December 2009.
Results: Breech presentation was noticed in 2, 59%. The main factors favoring this presentation are: the primipara, the uterine deformations, the pathological ponds, the abnormalities of the amniotic liquid, the fetal weight and the fetal deformations. Vaginal delivery was accepted in 57,7% of women and 75% from them delivered in natural way. The rate of caesarians was 56,7 %. Among these patients, 74, 5 % were indications in a cold caesarian (scar womb, pathological pond, RPM > 12 hours, estimated (esteemed) fetal weight > 3800g). The Apgar’s score was superior to seven in 97.6% of cases. There was no significant difference in fetal morbidity, Apgar’s score or in the need of transfer in intensive care unit.
Conclusion: When the acceptance conditions of the vaginal delivery are combined and when the surveillance of the labour is rigorous, it seems that there is no excess of neonatal risk by the natural ways.

Keywords:

Breech presentation, delivery, cesarean section, dystocia, prognosis

##plugins.themes.academic_pro.article.details##

References

  1. D. Broche, D. Riethmuller, C. Vidal. et al. Obstetric and perinatal outcomes of a disreputable presentation: the nonfrank breech, J. Gynecol. Obstet. Biol. Reprod. 2005; 34: 781-88.
  2. M. Cheng, M. Hannah. Breech delivery at term: a critical review of the literature, Obstet. Gynecol.1993; 82: 605-18.
  3. M. Hannah, W. Hannah, S. Hewson. et al. Planned cesarean section versus planned vaginal birth for breech presentation at term: a randomized multicentre trial. Term Breech Trial Collaborative Group, Lancet 2000; 356: 1375-83.
  4. B. Carbonne, R. Frydman, F. Goffinet. et al. Recommandations pour la pratique clinique. Césarienne : conséquences et indications, J. Gynecol. Obstet. Biol. Reprod 2000 ; 29 : 9-108.
  5. F. Puech. La présentation du siège. In: J. Lansac and G. Body, Editors, Pratique de l'accouchement, SIMEP, Paris (1992), pp. 95-107.
  6. Gilbert WM, Hicks SM, Boe NM. et al Vaginal versus cesarean delivery for breech presentation in California: a population-based study. Obstet Gynecol 2003; 102: 911-7.
  7. Sibony O, Luton D, Oury JF. et al. Six hundred and ten breech versus 12,405 cephalic deliveries at term: is there any difference in the neonatal outcome? Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2003; 107: 140-4.
  8. Michel S, Drain A, Closset E. et al. Evaluation des protocoles de décision de voie d'accouchement en cas de présentation du siège dans 19 CHU en France. J Gynecol Obstet Biol Reprod 2009;38:411-20.
  9. Recommandations pour la pratique clinique: la césarienne. Collège National des Gynécologues et Obstétriciens Français 2000.
  10. Broche D.-E, Maillet R, Curie V. et al. Accouchement en présentation du siège. EMC Obstétrique. Paris: Elsevier Masson SAS,2008: 5-049-L-40.
  11. Delotte J, Trastour C, Bafghi A. et al. Influence de la voie d'accouchement dans la présentation du siège à terme sur le score d'Apgar et les transferts en néonatologie. Résultat de la prise en charge de 568 grossesses singleton dans une maternité française de niveau III. J Gynecol Obstet Biol Reprod 2008;37:149-53.
  12. Mailà th-Pokorni M, Preyer O, Dadak C et al. Breech presentation: a retrospective analysis of 12 years‘ experience at a single center. Wien Klin Wochenschr 2009;121:209-15.
  13. Carayol M, Blondel B, Zeitlin J. et al. Changes in the rates of caesarean delivery before labour for breech presentation at term in France: 1972-2003. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2007;132:20-26.
  14. Roman H, Carayol M, Watier L. et al. Planned vaginal delivery of fetuses in breech presentation at term: Prenatal determinants predictive of elevated risk of cesarean delivery during labour. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2008;138:14-22.
  15. Broche D-E, Riethmuller D, Vidal C. et al. Pronostic obstétrical et néonatal d'une présentation podalique de mauvaise réputation : le siège complet. J Gynecol Obstet Biol Reprod 2005;34:781-88.
  16. Rietberg C, Elferink-stinkens P, Brand R. et al. Term breech presentation in the Netherland from 1995 to 1999: mortality and morbidity in relation to the mode of delivery of 33.824 infants. BJORG 2003;110:604-9.
  17. Grall J.-Y, Dubois J, Moquet P.-Y. et al. Présentation du siège. EMC Obstétrique:5-049-L-40.
  18. Van Roosmalen J, Rosendaal F. There is still room for disagreement about vaginal delivery of breech infants at term. BJORG 2002;109:967-69.
  19. B. Carbonne, R. Frydman, F. Goffinet. et al. Recommandations pour la pratique clinique. Césarienne : conséquences et indications. J. Gynecol. Obstet. Biol. Reprod. 2000; 29: 9-108.
  20. M. Martel, C. MacKinnon, Clinical Practice Obstetrics Committee and Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada, Guidelines for vaginal birth after previous caesarean birth, J. Obstet. Gynaecol. Can. 2005 ; 27 : 164-88.
  21. Vendittelli F, Rivière E, Pons J-C. et al. La présentation du siège à terme : évolution des pratiques en France et analyse des résultats néonatals en fonction des pratiques obstétricales, à partir du réseau sentinelle AUDIPOG. J Gynecol Obstet Biol Reprod 2002;31:261-72.
  22. Michel S, Drain A, Closset E. et al. Evaluation des protocoles de décision de voie d'accouchement en cas de présentation du siège dans 19 CHU en France. J Gynecol Obstet Biol Reprod 2009;38:411-20.
  23. Whyte H, Hannah ME, Saigal S. et al. Term Breech Trial collaborative group. Outcomes of children at 2 years after planned cesarean birth vs planned vaginal birth for breech presentation at term: the International Randomized Term Breech Trial. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2003;188:220-27.
  24. Carbonne B. Essai de Hannah sur le mode d'accouchement en présentation du siège : pour qui sonne le glas ? Gynecol Obstet Fertilité 2006;34:677-78.
  25. Pradhan P, Mohajer M, Deshpande S. Outcome of term breech births: 10-year experience at a district general hospital. Br J Obstet Gynecol 2005;112:218-22.