Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Patient satisfaction with childbirth after external cephalic version

  • Maternal-Fetal Medicine
  • Published:
Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

To assess acceptance and impact of external cephalic version (ECV) for breech presentation at term on maternal satisfaction with childbirth.

Methods

Retrospective study on n = 131 women with breech presentation comparing maternal satisfaction after ECV and consecutive childbirth (n = 66; 50.4 % of these successful attempts in n = 33; 50 %) against the group without ECV and primary caesarean section (CS) (n = 65; 49.6 %) instead using a questionnaire.

Results

Women with successful ECV tolerated side effects of the intervention better than after unsuccessful ECV (pain, tocolytics, mental and physical state, for all p < 0.001). They were not more satisfied with childbirth than women who experienced an unsuccessful ECV (p = 0.37). However, they would undergo the procedure again (p = 0.003) and would recommend it to other women (p < 0.001). Only women with spontaneous vaginal deliveries after successful version were more satisfied with childbirth than women with planned CS (p = 0.05). Women with version attempts tend to perceive childbirth as being less problematic with fewer complications (9.5 vs. 19 %, p = 0.12). Unsuccessful ECVs had no negative impact on satisfaction with childbirth (p = 0.072).

Conclusion

Attempting ECV seems to be an option for increasing the rate of vaginal births with breech presentation without negative impact on maternal satisfaction regarding consecutive childbirth.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Hannah ME, Hannah WJ, Hewson SA, Hodnett ED, Saigal S, Willan AR, Term Breech Trial Collaborative Group (2000) Planned caesarean section versus planned vaginal birth for breech presentation at term: a randomized multicentre trial. Lancet 356(9239):1375–1383

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. 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 39:385–390

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Kotaska A, Menticoglou S, Gagnon R, Farine D, Basso M, Bos H, Delisle MF, Grabowska K, Hudon L, Mundle W, Murphy-Kaulbeck L, Ouellet A, Pressey T, Roggensack A (2009) Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada. SOGC clinical practice guideline: vaginal delivery of breech presentation: No. 226. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 107:169–176

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. German Society of Gynaecology and Obstetrics (2010). Breech delivery. AWMF 015/051 (S1): guidelines, recommendations and statements. http://www.dggg.de/fileadmin/public_docs/Leitlinien/3-4-3-beckenendlage-2010.pdf

  5. Hofmeyr GJ, Kulier R (2012) External cephalic version for breech presentation at term. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 10:CD000083. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD000083.pub2

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Hutton EK, Hofmeyr GJ (2006) External cephalic version for breech presentation before term. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 1:CD000084. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD000084.pub2

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Grootscholten K, Kok M, Oei SG, Mol BW, van der Post JA (2008) External cephalic version-related risks: a meta-analysis. Obstet Gynecol 112:1143–1151

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Nassar N, Roberts CL, Barratt A, Bell JC, Olive EC, Peat B (2006) Systematic review of adverse outcomes of external cephalic version and persisting breech presentation at term. Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol 20:163–171

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Larkin P, Begley CM, Devane D (2009) Women’s experiences of labour and birth: an evolutionary concept analysis. Midwifery 25:e49–e59

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Schindl M, Birner P, Reingrabner M, Joura E, Husslein P, Langer M (2003) Elective cesarian section vs. spontaneous delivery: a comparative study of birth experience. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 82:834–840

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Bogner G, Xu F, Simbruner C, Bacherer A, Reisenberger K (2012) Single institute experience, management, success rate and outcome after external cephalic version at term. Int J Gynecol Obstet 116:134–137

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Dencker A, Taft C, Bergqvist L, Lilja H, Berg M (2010) Childbirth experience questionnaire (CEQ): development and evaluation of a multidimensional instrument. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 10:81

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Rijnders M, Offerhaus Pien, Dommelen P, Wiegers T, Buitendijk S (2010) Prevalence, outcome, and women’s experiences of external cephalic version in a low-risk population. Birth 37:124–133

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Haines HM, Rubertsson C, Pallant JF, Hildingsson I (2012) The influence of women’s fear, attitudes and beliefs of childbirth on mode and experience of birth. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 12:55

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Fischer T, Krause M, Feige A (1996) Breech presentation–information, anxiety and pattern of expectations of established obstetricians and pregnant patients. 2: results of a survey of women with breech presentation. Z Geburtshilfe Neonatol 200:61–65

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Wimmer-Puchinger B (1992) Pregnancy as a crisis: psychosocial conditions of complication in pregnancy. Springer, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  17. Jally JE, Murtagh MJ, Macphail S, Thomson R (2008) More in hope than expectation: a systematic review of women’s expectations and experience of pain relief in labour. BMC Med 6:7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Waldenström U, Hildingsson I, Ryding EL (2006) Antenatal fear of childbirth and its association with subsequent caesarean section and experience of childbirth. BJOG 113:638–646

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Lütje W (2007) What are the factors influencing satisfaction and experience after childbirth? Die Hebamme 20:44–51

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Pang MW, Leung TN, Lau TK, Hang Chung TK (2008) Impact of first childbirth on changes in women’s preference for mode of delivery: follow-up of a longitudinal observational study. Birth 35:121–128

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Christiaens W, Bracke P (2007) Assessment of social psychological determinants of satisfaction with childbirth in a cross-national perspective. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 7:26

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Fair CD, Morrison TE (2012) The relationship between prenatal control, expectations, experienced control, and birth satisfaction among primiparous women. Midwifery 28:39–44

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Appelbaum RA, Straker JK, Geron SM (2000) Assessing satisfaction in health and long-term care. Springer Publishing, New York

    Google Scholar 

  24. Salmon P, Miller R, Drew NC (1990) Womens’s anticipation and experience of childbirth: the independence of fulfilment, unpleasantness and pain. Br J Med Psychcol 63:255–259

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Lavender T, Walkinshaw SA, Walton I (1999) A prospective study of women’s views of factors contributing to a positive birth experience. Midwifery 15:40–46

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Hodnett ED (2002) Pain and women’s satisfaction with the experience of childbirth: a systematic review. Am J Obstet Gynecol 186:60–72

    Google Scholar 

  27. Chalmers B, Kaczorowski J, Darling E, Heaman M, Fell DB, O’Brien B, Lee L (2010) Maternity Experiences Study Group of the Canadian Perinatal Surveillance System. Caesarean and vaginal birth in Canadian women: a comparison of experiences. Birth 37:44–49

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflict of interest

None of the authors have any conflicts of interest to the subject of the submitted manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Paracelsus Medical University Salzburg, Salzburger Landeskrankenanstalten (SALK), Müllner Haupstrasse 48, 5020, Salzburg, Austria

    Gerhard Bogner, Christiane Schausberger, Thorsten Fischer & Volker Jacobs

  2. Institute for Health Management, Health Quality Center, Dinghoferstrasse 4, 4020, Linz, Austria

    Barbara Eva Hammer

  3. Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology I, Klinikum Wels-Grieskirchen, Grieskirchnerstr. 42, 4600, Wels, Austria

    Klaus Reisenberger

Authors
  1. Gerhard Bogner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Barbara Eva Hammer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Christiane Schausberger
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Thorsten Fischer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Klaus Reisenberger
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Volker Jacobs
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Gerhard Bogner.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Bogner, G., Hammer, B.E., Schausberger, C. et al. Patient satisfaction with childbirth after external cephalic version. Arch Gynecol Obstet 289, 523–531 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-013-3007-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-013-3007-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation