Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics

, Volume 295, Issue 4, pp 833–838 | Cite as

Breech presentation at term and associated obstetric risks factors—a nationwide population based cohort study

  • Georg Macharey
  • Mika Gissler
  • Leena Rahkonen
  • Veli-Matti Ulander
  • Mervi Väisänen-Tommiska
  • Mika Nuutila
  • Seppo Heinonen
Maternal-Fetal Medicine

Abstract

Purpose

The aim of this study was to estimate whether breech presentation at term was associated with known individual obstetric risk factors for adverse fetal outcome.

Methods

This was a retrospective, nationwide Finnish population-based cohort study. Obstetric risks in all breech and vertex singleton deliveries at term were compared between the years 2005 and 2014. A multivariable logistic regression model was used to determine significant risk factors.

Results

The breech presentation rate at term for singleton pregnancies was 2.4%. The stillbirth rate in term breech presentation was significantly higher compared to cephalic presentation (0.2 vs 0.1%). The odds ratios (95% CIs) for fetal growth restriction, oligohydramnios, gestational diabetes, a history of cesarean section and congenital fetal abnormalities were 1.19 CI (1.07–1.32), 1.42 CI (1.27–1.57), 1.06 CI (1.00–1.13), 2.13 (1.98–2.29) and 2.01 CI (1.92–2.11).

Conclusions

The study showed that breech presentation at term on its own was significantly associated with antenatal stillbirth and a number of individual obstetric risk factors for adverse perinatal outcomes. The risk factors included oligohydramnios, fetal growth restriction, gestational diabetes, history of caesarean section and congenital anomalies.

Keywords

Breech presentation Predicting factors Risk factors Fetal growth restriction Stillbirth Oligohydramnios 

References

  1. 1.
    Cammu H, Dony N, Martens G, Colman R (2014) Common determinants of breech presentation at birth in singletons: a population-based study. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 177:106–109CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Martius G (1988) Lehrbuch der Geburtshilfe. 11th ed. Georg Thieme, StuttgartGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Zsirai L, Csakany GM, Vargha P, Fulop V, Tabak AG (2016) Breech presentation: its predictors and consequences. An analysis of the Hungarian Tauffer Obstetric Database (1996–2011). Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 95(3):347–354CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hannah ME, Hannah WJ, Hewson SA, Hodnett ED, Saigal S, Willan AR (2000) Planned caesarean section versus planned vaginal birth for breech presentation at term: a randomised multicentre trial. Term Breech Trial Collaborative Group. Lancet 356(9239):1375–1383CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Glezerman M (2006) Five years to the term breech trial: the rise and fall of a randomized controlled trial. Am J Obstet Gynecol 194(1):20–25CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Goffinet F, Carayol M, Foidart JM, Alexander S, Uzan S, Subtil D et al (2006) Is planned vaginal delivery for breech presentation at term still an option? Results of an observational prospective survey in France and Belgium. Am J Obstet Gynecol 194(4):1002–1011CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Maier B, Georgoulopoulos A, Zajc M, Jaeger T, Zuchna C, Hasenoehrl G (2011) Fetal outcome for infants in breech by method of delivery: experiences with a stand-by service system of senior obstetricians and women’s choices of mode of delivery. J Perinat Med 39(4):385–390CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Macharey G, Ulander VM, Heinonen S, Kostev K, Nuutila M, Vaisanen-Tommiska M (2015) Induction of labor in breech presentations at term: a retrospective observational study. Arch Gynecol Obstet 293:549–555CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Macharey G, Ulander VM, Heinonen S, Kostev K, Nuutila M, Vaisanen-Tommiska M (2016) Risk factors and outcomes in “well-selected” vaginal breech deliveries: a retrospective observational study. J Perinat Med. doi:10.1515/jpm-2015-0342
  10. 10.
    Parissenti TK, Hebisch G, Sell W, Staedele PE, Viereck V, Fehr MK (2016) Risk factors for emergency caesarean section in planned vaginal breech delivery. Arch Gynecol 295:51–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Alarab M, Regan C, O’Connell MP, Keane DP, O’Herlihy C, Foley ME (2004) Singleton vaginal breech delivery at term: still a safe option. Obstet Gynecol 103(3):407–412CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Louwen F, Leuchter LM, Reitter A (2012) Breech presentation - more than just caesarean vs. spontaneous birth. Z Geburtshilfe Neonatol 216(4):191–194CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Thorngren-Jerneck K, Herbst A (2006) Perinatal factors associated with cerebral palsy in children born in Sweden. Obstet Gynecol 108(6):1499–1505CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Gifford DS, Morton SC, Fiske M, Kahn K (1995) A meta-analysis of infant outcomes after breech delivery. Obstet Gynecol 85(6):1047–1054CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Whyte H, Hannah ME, Saigal S, Hannah WJ, Hewson S, Amankwah K et al (2004) Outcomes of children at 2 years after planned cesarean birth versus planned vaginal birth for breech presentation at term: the International Randomized Term Breech Trial. Am J Obstet Gynecol 191(3):864–871CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Krebs L, Langhoff-Roos J (2006) The relation of breech presentation at term to epilepsy in childhood. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 127(1):26–28CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Krebs L, Topp M, Langhoff-Roos J (1999) The relation of breech presentation at term to cerebral palsy. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 106(9):943–947CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Efkarpidis S, Alexopoulos E, Kean L, Liu D, Fay T (2004) Case-control study of factors associated with intrauterine fetal deaths. MedGenMed 6(2):53PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Mostello D, Chang JJ, Bai F, Wang J, Guild C, Stamps K et al (2014) Breech presentation at delivery: a marker for congenital anomaly? J Perinatol 34(1):11–15CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Fruscalzo A, Londero AP, Salvador S, Bertozzi S, Biasioli A, Della Martina M et al (2014) New and old predictive factors for breech presentation: our experience in 14,433 singleton pregnancies and a literature review. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 27(2):167–172CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Vandenbussche FP, Oepkes D (2005) The effect of the Term Breech Trial on medical intervention behaviour and neonatal outcome in The Netherlands: an analysis of 35,453 term breech infants. BJOG 112(8):1163 (author reply 1163–4)CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Wendland EM, Torloni MR, Falavigna M, Trujillo J, Dode MA, Campos MA, et al (2012) Gestational diabetes and pregnancy outcomes—a systematic review of the World Health Organization (WHO) and the International Association of Diabetes in Pregnancy Study Groups (IADPSG) diagnostic criteria. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 12:23-2393-12-23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Rayl J, Gibson PJ, Hickok DE (1996) A population-based case-control study of risk factors for breech presentation. Am J Obstet Gynecol 174(1 Pt 1):28–32CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Swedish Collaborative Breech Study Group (2005) Term breech delivery in Sweden: mortality relative to fetal presentation and planned mode of delivery. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 84(6):593–601CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Vistad I, Klungsoyr K, Albrechtsen S, Skjeldestad FE (2015) Neonatal outcome of singleton term breech deliveries in Norway from 1991 to 2011. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 94(9):997–1004CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Albrechtsen S, Rasmussen S, Dalaker K, Irgens LM (1998) The occurrence of breech presentation in Norway 1967–1994. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 77(4):410–415CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Vlemmix F, Bergenhenegouwen L, Schaaf JM, Ensing S, Rosman AN, Ravelli AC et al (2014) Term breech deliveries in the Netherlands: did the increased cesarean rate affect neonatal outcome? A population-based cohort study. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 93(9):888–896CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Zeitlin J, El Ayoubi M, Jarreau PH, Draper ES, Blondel B, Kunzel W et al (2010) Impact of fetal growth restriction on mortality and morbidity in a very preterm birth cohort. J Pediatr 157(5):733–79.e1CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Saastad E, Vangen S, Froen JF (2007) Suboptimal care in stillbirths—a retrospective audit study. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 86(4):444–450CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Harrington K, Thompson O, Jordan L, Page J, Carpenter RG, Campbell S (1998) Obstetric outcome in women who present with a reduction in fetal movements in the third trimester of pregnancy. J Perinat Med 26(2):77–82CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Scala C, Bhide A, Familiari A, Pagani G, Khalil A, Papageorghiou A et al (2015) Number of episodes of reduced fetal movement at term: association with adverse perinatal outcome. Am J Obstet Gynecol 213(5):678.e1–678.e6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Habek D (2007) Effects of smoking and fetal hypokinesia in early pregnancy. Arch Med Res 38(8):864–867CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Habek D, Kovacevic M (2011) Adverse pregnancy outcomes and long-term morbidity after early fetal hypokinesia in maternal smoking pregnancies. Arch Gynecol Obstet 283(3):491–495CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Golan A, Lin G, Evron S, Arieli S, Niv D, David MP (1994) Oligohydramnios: maternal complications and fetal outcome in 145 cases. Gynecol Obstet Invest 37(2):91–95CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Demol S, Bashiri A, Furman B, Maymon E, Shoham-Vardi I, Mazor M (2000) Breech presentation is a risk factor for intrapartum and neonatal death in preterm delivery. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 93(1):47–51CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Preboth M (2000) ACOG guidelines on antepartum fetal surveillance. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Am Fam Physician 62(5):1184, 1187–1188Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Ashwal E, Hiersch L, Melamed N, Aviram A, Wiznitzer A, Yogev Y (2014) The association between isolated oligohydramnios at term and pregnancy outcome. Arch Gynecol Obstet 290(5):875–881CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Rayburn WF (1990) Fetal body movement monitoring. Obstet Gynecol Clin North Am 17(1):95–110PubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Lai J, Nowlan NC, Vaidyanathan R, Shaw CJ, Lees CC (2016) Fetal movements as a predictor of health. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 95(9):968–975CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Dutton PJ, Warrander LK, Roberts SA, Bernatavicius G, Byrd LM, Gaze D et al (2012) Predictors of poor perinatal outcome following maternal perception of reduced fetal movements–a prospective cohort study. PLoS One 7(7):e39784CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Macharey G, Ulander VM, Kostev K, Vaisanen-Tommiska M, Ziller V (2014) Emergency peripartum hysterectomy and risk factors by mode of delivery and obstetric history: a 10-year review from Helsinki University Central Hospital. J Perinat Med 43:721–728Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Eshkoli T, Weintraub AY, Baron J, Sheiner E (2015) The significance of a uterine rupture in subsequent births. Arch Gynecol Obstet 292(4):799–803CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Braun FH, Jones KL, Smith DW (1975) Breech presentation as an indicator of fetal abnormality. J Pediatr 86(3):419–421CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Obstetrics and GynecologyHelsinki University Hospital (HUS), University of HelsinkiHelsinkiFinland
  2. 2.National Institute for Health and Welfare (THL)HelsinkiFinland

Personalised recommendations