Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Asymmetric pelvis and term breech presentation: is planned vaginal delivery still a safe option?

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

Abstract

Purpose

To evaluate the obstetrical prognosis of term breech delivery in case of asymmetric pelvis.

Methods

An observational, comparative, retrospective, bi-centric study of 559 patients who had a computer tomography pelvimetry prior to delivery of a term breech presentation was conducted between August 2013 and August 2019. Patients with an attempted vaginal delivery were divided into two groups: a group of asymmetric pelvis (AP) when the difference between the lengths of both oblique diameters was ≥ 1 cm and a group of symmetric pelvis (SP) when the two oblique diameters differed by < 1 cm. The primary outcome was the rate of vaginal delivery. Secondary outcomes were a composite variable of neonatal and maternal morbidity and mortality.

Results

Of the 370 patients who attempted a vaginal breech delivery, 8% (n = 29) had an AP and 92% (n = 341) had a SP. In the AP group, the vaginal delivery rate was higher (93% versus 78%, p = 0.05). There was no statistically significant difference in neonatal (3% versus 1% in the AP and SP groups, respectively, p = 0.4) and maternal (17% versus 23% in the AP and SP groups, respectively, p = 0.5) morbidity and mortality.

Conclusion

When a pelvimetry is performed before an attempt of vaginal breech delivery, a difference of less than two centimetres between both oblique diameters does not seem to reduce the rate of vaginal birth and is not an indication for an elective caesarean section.

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
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Hickok DE, Gordon DC, Milberg JA, Williams MA, Daling JR (1992) The frequency of breech presentation by gestational age at birth: a large population-based study. Am J Obstet Gynecol 166:851–852

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Lansac J, Crenn-Hebert C, Rivière O, Vendittelli F (2015) How singleton breech babies at term are born in France: a survey of data from the AUDIPOG network. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 188:79–82

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. 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 Lond Engl 356:1375–1383

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Hansen AK, Wisborg K, Uldbjerg N, Henriksen TB (2008) Risk of respiratory morbidity in term infants delivered by elective caesarean section: cohort study. BMJ 336:85–87

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Van den Berg A, Van Elburg RM, Van Geijn HP, Fetter WP (2001) Neonatal respiratory morbidity following elective caesarean section in term infants. A 5 year retrospective study and a review of the literature. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 98(1):9–13

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Truffert P (2000) Neonatal consequences of caesarean section. J Gynecol Obstet Biol Reprod (Paris) 29:17–21

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Carayol M, Alexander S, Goffinet F (2004) Mode of delivery and term breech presentation in the PREMODA cohort. J Gynecol Obstet Biol Reprod Paris 33:37–44

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Goffinet F, Carayol M, Foidart J-M, 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 194:1002–1011

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Carbonne B, Goffinet F, Bréart G, Frydman R, Maria B, Uzan S et al (2001) The debate on breach presentation: delivery of breach presentations: the position of the National College of French gynaecologists (CNGOF). J Gynecol Obstet Biol Reprod (Paris) 30:191–192

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Azria É (2020) Breech Presentation: CNGOF guidelines for clinical practice-case selection for trial of labour. Gynecol Obstet Fertil Senol 48:120–131. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gofs.2019.10.026

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Schaal JP, Riethmuller D (2012) Pelvic bony dystocia. Mechanics and obstetrical techniques. Sauramps Médical, Montpellier, pp 433–484

    Google Scholar 

  12. Buthiau D (2003) Computerized tomography pelvimetry: recent advances. Gynecol Obstet Fertil 31:465–470

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Third- and Fourth-degree Perineal Tears, Management (Green-top Guideline No. 29). R Coll Obstet Amp Gynaecol n.d. https://www.rcog.org.uk/en/guidelines-research-services/guidelines/gtg29/. Accessed 16 Apr 2020

  14. Ruf H, Blanc B, Conte M, Adrai J, Delpont P, Dupont S (1985) Clinical and radiological assessment of pelvic bony dystocia. Editions techniques. Encycl Méd Chir,s Paris, France

  15. Rozenberg P (2007) Is there a role for X-ray pelvimetry in the twenty-first century? Gynecol Obstet Fertil 35:6–12

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Kotaska A, Menticoglou S, Gagnon R, Farine D, Basso M, Bos H et al (2009) SOGC clinical practice guideline: vaginal delivery of breech presentation. Int J Gynaecol Obstet Off Organ Int Fed Gynaecol Obstet 107:169–176

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gynäkologie und Geburtshilfe (DGGG) (2010). Arbeitsgemeinschaft Maternofoetale Medizin und Board für Pränatal- und Geburtsmedizin. Geburt bei Beckenendlage [AWMF-Leitlinien-Register Nr. 015/051 Entwicklungsstufe: 1]; letzte Überarbeitung

  18. Toivonen E, Palomäki O, Huhtala H, Uotila J (2012) Selective vaginal breech delivery at term-still an option. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 91:1177–1183

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Ben Abdennebi A, Aubry S, Ounalli L, Fayache MS, Delabrousse E, Petegnief Y (2017) Comparative dose levels between CT-scanner and slot-scanning device (EOS system) in pregnant women pelvimetry. Phys Med 33:77–86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejmp.2016.12.008

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Sigmann M-H, Delabrousse E, Riethmuller D, Runge M, Peyron C, Aubry S (2014) An evaluation of the EOS X-ray imaging system in pelvimetry. Diagn Interv Imaging 95:833–838

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Gabriel R, Harika G, Bonneau S (2016) Obstetrical pelvis. Anatomy clinical and radiologic study. EMC Elsevier Masson SAS, pp 5–007

    Google Scholar 

  22. Nicholson C, Allen HS (1946) Variation in the female pelvis. Lancet 248:192–195

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Michel SCA, Rake A, Treiber K, Seifert B, Chaoui R, Huch R et al (2002) MR obstetric pelvimetry: effect of birthing position on pelvic bony dimensions. AJR Am J Roentgenol 179:1063–1067

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Keller TM, Rake A, Michel SCA, Seifert B, Efe G, Treiber K et al (2003) Obstetric MR pelvimetry: reference values and evaluation of inter and intra-observer error and intra-individual variability. Radiology 227:37–43

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Michel S, Drain A, Closset E, Deruelle P, Subtil D (2009) Evaluation of decisional elements of vaginal delivery in case of breech presentation in 19 university hospitals in France. J Gynécol Obstét Biol Reprod 38:411–420

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Van Loon AJ, Mantingh A, Serlier EK, Kroon G, Mooyaart EL, Huisjes HJ (1997) Randomised controlled trial of magnetic-resonance pelvimetry in breech presentation at term. Lancet Lond Engl 350:1799–1804

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Balleyguier C, Jouanic JM, Corréas JM, Benachi A, Dumez Y, Menu Y (2003) CT pelvimetry: a new approach using multi detector CT and volume rendering. J Radiol 84:425–427

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Lenhard MS, Johnson TRC, Weckbach S, Nikolaou K, Friese K, Hasbargen U (2010) Pelvimetry revisited: analyzing cephalopelvic disproportion. Eur J Radiol 74:e107–e111

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Huerta-Enochian GS, Katz VL, Fox LK, Hamlin JA, Kollath JP (2006) Magnetic resonance-based serial pelvimetry: do maternal pelvic dimensions change during pregnancy? Am J Obstet Gynecol 194(6):1689–1694

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Offringa Y, Mottet N, Parant O, Riethmuller D, Vidal F, Guerby P (2019) Spatulas for entrapment of the after-coming head during vaginal breech delivery. Arch Gynecol Obstet 299:1283–1288

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Besancon University Medical Centre, University of Franche-Comté, 3 Alexander Fleming Boulevard, 25000, Besançon, France

    M. Lallemant, A. Bourtembourg, R. Ramanah & N. Mottet

  2. Department of Musculoskeletal Imaging, Besancon University Medical Centre, University of Franche-Comté, Besançon, France

    T. Ceri & S. Aubry

  3. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Paule de Viguier University Medical Centre, Toulouse III University, Toulouse, France

    Y. Offringa & P. Guerby

  4. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Grenoble Alpes University Medical Centre, Grenoble, France

    D. Riethmuller

  5. Nanomedecine Laboratory, Imaging and Therapeutics INSERM EA 4662, University of Franche-Comté, Besançon, France

    M. Lallemant, R. Ramanah & N. Mottet

Authors
  1. M. Lallemant
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. T. Ceri
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Y. Offringa
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. S. Aubry
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. A. Bourtembourg
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. D. Riethmuller
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. R. Ramanah
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. P. Guerby
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. N. Mottet
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

ML: protocol/project development, data collection or management, data analysis, manuscript writing/editing. TC: data collection or management, manuscript writing/editing. YO: data collection or management, manuscript writing/editing. SA: data collection or management. AB: manuscript writing/editing. DR: manuscript writing/editing. RR: manuscript writing/editing. PG: manuscript writing/editing. NM: protocol/project development, manuscript writing/editing.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to M. Lallemant.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The author declares that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. This study has been approved by the Institutional Review Board of the French College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (CEROG No. 2019-OBS-0302).

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Lallemant, M., Ceri, T., Offringa, Y. et al. Asymmetric pelvis and term breech presentation: is planned vaginal delivery still a safe option?. Arch Gynecol Obstet 304, 919–927 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-021-06036-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-021-06036-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation