fetal presentation means breech

TYPES OF BREECH PRESENTATION

● Frank breech – Both hips are flexed and both knees are extended so that the feet are adjacent to the head ( figure 1 ); accounts for 50 to 70 percent of breech fetuses at term.

● Complete breech – Both hips and both knees are flexed ( figure 2 ); accounts for 5 to 10 percent of breech fetuses at term.

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it's official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you're on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings
• Browse Titles

NCBI Bookshelf. A service of the National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health.

• Identification of breech presentation

Evidence review L

NICE Guideline, No. 201

National Guideline Alliance (UK) .

• Copyright and Permissions

Review question

What is the effectiveness of routine scanning between 36+0 and 38+6 weeks of pregnancy compared to standard care regarding breech presentation?

Introduction

Breech presentation in late pregnancy may result in prolonged or obstructed labour for the woman. There are interventions that can correct or assist breech presentation which are important for the woman’s and the baby’s health. This review aims to determine the most effective way of identifying a breech presentation in late pregnancy.

Summary of the protocol

Please see Table 1 for a summary of the Population, Intervention, Comparison and Outcome (PICO) characteristics of this review.

Summary of the protocol (PICO table).

For further details see the review protocol in appendix A .

Methods and process

This evidence review was developed using the methods and process described in Developing NICE guidelines: the manual 2014 . Methods specific to this review question are described in the review protocol in appendix A .

Declarations of interest were recorded according to NICE’s conflicts of interest policy .

Clinical evidence

Included studies.

One single centre randomised controlled trial (RCT) was included in this review ( McKenna 2003 ). The study was carried out in Northern Ireland, UK. The study compared ultrasound examination at 30-32 and 36-37 weeks with maternal abdomen palpation during the same gestation period. The intervention group in the study had the ultrasound scans in addition to the abdomen palpation, while the control group had only the abdomen palpation. Clinical management options reported in the study based on the ultrasound scan or the abdomen palpation include referral for full biophysical assessment which included umbilical artery Doppler ultrasound, early antenatal review, admission to antenatal ward, and induction of labour.

The included study is summarised in Table 2 .

See the literature search strategy in appendix B and study selection flow chart in appendix C .

Excluded studies

Studies not included in this review are listed, and reasons for their exclusion are provided in appendix K .

Summary of clinical studies included in the evidence review

Summaries of the studies that were included in this review are presented in Table 2 .

Summary of included studies.

See the full evidence tables in appendix D . No meta-analysis was conducted (and so there are no forest plots in appendix E ).

Quality assessment of clinical outcomes included in the evidence review

See the evidence profiles in appendix F .

Economic evidence

One study, a cost utility analysis was included ( Wastlund 2019 ).

See the literature search strategy in appendix B and economic study selection flow chart in appendix G .

Studies not included in this review with reasons for their exclusions are provided in appendix K .

Summary of studies included in the economic evidence review

For full details of the economic evidence, see the economic evidence tables in appendix H and economic evidence profiles in appendix I .

Wastlund (2019) assessed the cost effectiveness of universal ultrasound scanning for breech presentation at 36 weeks’ gestational age in nulliparous woman (N=3879). The comparator was selective ultrasound scanning which was reported as current practice. In this instance, fetal presentation was assessed by palpation of the abdomen by a midwife, obstetrician or general practitioner. The sensitivity of this method ranges between 57%-70% whereas ultrasound scanning is detected with 100% sensitivity and 100% specificity. Women in the selective ultrasound scan arm only received an ultrasound scan after detection of a breech presentation by abdominal palpation. Where a breech was detected, a woman was offered external cephalic version (ECV). The structure of the model undertook a decision tree, with end states being the mode of birth; either vaginal, elective or emergency caesarean section. Long term health outcomes were modelled based on the mortality risk associated with each mode of birth. Average lifetime quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were estimated from Euroqol general UK population values.

Only the probabilistic results (n=100000 simulations) were reported which showed that on average, universal ultrasound resulted in an absolute decrease in breech deliveries by 0.39% compared with selective ultrasound scanning. The expected cost per person with breech presentation of universal ultrasound was £2957 (95% Credibility Interval [CrI]: £2922 to £2991), compared to £2,949 (95%CrI: £2915 to £2984) from selective ultrasound. The expected QALYs per person was 24.27615 in the universal ultrasound cohort and 24.27582 in the selective ultrasound cohort. The incremental cost effectiveness ratio (ICER) from the probabilistic analysis was £23611 (95%CrI: £8184 to £44851).

A series of one-way sensitivity analysis were conducted which showed that the most important cost parameter was the unit cost of a universal ultrasound scan. This parameter is particularly noteworthy as the study costed this scan at a much lower value than the ‘standard antenatal ultrasound’ scan in NHS reference costs on the basis that such a scan can be performed by a midwife during a routine antenatal care visit in primary care. According to the NICE guideline manual economic evaluation checklist this model was assessed as being directly applicable with potentially severe limitations. The limitations were mostly attributable to the limitations of the clinical inputs.

Economic model

No economic modelling was undertaken for this review because the committee agreed that other topics were higher priorities for economic evaluation.

Evidence statements

Clinical evidence statements, comparison 1. routine ultrasound scan versus selective ultrasound scan, critical outcomes, unexpected breech presentation in labour.

No evidence was identified to inform this outcome.

Mode of birth

• Moderate quality evidence from 1 RCT (N=1993) showed that there is no clinically important difference between routine ultrasound scan at 36-37 weeks and selective ultrasound scan on the number of women who had elective caesarean section: RR 1.22 (95% CI 0.91 to 1.63).
• Moderate quality evidence from 1 RCT (N=1993) showed that there is no clinically important difference between routine ultrasound scan at 36-37 weeks and selective ultrasound scan on number of women who had emergency caesarean section: RR 1.20 (95% CI 0.90 to 1.60).
• High quality evidence from 1 RCT (N=1993) showed that there is no clinically important difference between routine ultrasound scan at 36-37 weeks and selective ultrasound scan on number of women who had vaginal birth: RR 0.95 (95% CI 0.89 to 1.01).

Important outcomes

Maternal anxiety, women’s experience and satisfaction of care, gestational age at birth.

• High quality evidence from 1 RCT (N=1993) showed that there is no clinically important difference between routine ultrasound scan at 36-37 weeks and selective ultrasound scan on the number of babies’ born between 39-42 gestational weeks: RR 0.98 (95% CI 0.94 to 1.02).

Admission to neonatal unit

• Low quality evidence from 1 RCT (N=1993) showed that there is no clinically important difference between routine ultrasound scan at 36-37 weeks and selective ultrasound scan on the number of babies admitted into the neonatal unit: RR 0.83 (95% CI 0.51 to 1.35).

Economic evidence statements

One directly applicable cost-utility analysis from the UK with potentially serious limitations compared universal ultrasound scanning for breech presentation at 36 weeks’ gestational age with selective ultrasound scanning, stated as current practice. Universal ultrasound scanning was found to be borderline cost effective; the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was £23611 per QALY gained. The cost of the scan was seen to be a key driver in the cost effectiveness result.

The committee’s discussion of the evidence

Interpreting the evidence, the outcomes that matter most.

Unexpected breech presentation in labour and mode of birth were prioritised as critical outcomes by the committee. This reflects the different options available to women with a known breech presentation in pregnancy and the different choices that women make. There are some women and/or clinicians who may feel uncomfortable with the risks of aiming for vaginal breech birth, and for these women and/or clinicians avoiding an unexpected breech presentation in labour would be the preferred option.

As existing evidence suggests that aiming for vaginal breech birth carries greater risk to the fetus than planned caesarean birth, it is important to consider whether earlier detection of the breech presentation would reduce the risk of these outcomes.

The committee agreed that maternal anxiety and women’s experience and satisfaction of care were important outcomes to consider as the introduction of an additional routine scan during pregnancy could have a treatment burden for women. Gestational age at birth and admission to neonatal unit were also chosen as important outcomes as the committee wanted to find out whether earlier detection of breech presentation would have an impact on whether the baby was born preterm, and as a consequence admitted to the neonatal unit. These outcomes were agreed to be important rather than critical as they are indirect outcomes of earlier detection of breech presentation.

The quality of the evidence

The quality of the evidence ranged from low to high. Most of the evidence was rated high or moderate, with only 1 outcome rated as low. The quality of the evidence was downgraded due to imprecision around the effect estimates for emergency caesarean section, elective caesarean section and admissions to neonatal unit.

No evidence was identified for the following outcomes: unexpected breech presentation in labour, maternal anxiety, women’s experiences and satisfaction of care.

The committee had hoped to find evidence that would inform whether early identification of breech presentation had an impact on preterm births, and although the review reported evidence for gestational age as birth, the available evidence was for births 39-42 weeks of gestation.

Benefits and harms

The available evidence compared routine ultrasound scanning with selective ultrasound scanning, and found no clinically important differences for mode of birth, gestational age at birth, or admissions to the neonatal unit. However, the committee discussed that it was important to note that the study did not focus on identifying breech presentation. The committee discussed the differences between the intervention in the study, which was an ultrasound scan to assess placental maturity, liquor volume, and fetal weight, to an ultrasound scan used to detect breech presentation. Whilst the ultrasound scan in the study has the ability to determine breech presentation, there are additional and costlier training required for the assessment of the other criteria. As such, it is important to separate the interventions. The committee also highlighted that the study did not look at whether an identification of breech presentation had an impact on the outcomes which were selected for this review.

In light of this, the committee felt that they were unable to reach a conclusion as to whether routine scanning to identify breech presentation, was associated with any benefits or harms. The committee agreed that while this review suggests routine ultrasound scanning to be no more effective than selective scanning, it does not definitively establish equivalence. Therefore, the committee agreed to recommend a continuation of the current practice with selective scanning and make a research recommendation to compare the clinical and cost effectiveness of routine ultrasound scanning versus selective ultrasound scanning from 36 weeks to identify fetal breech presentation.

Cost effectiveness and resource use

The committee acknowledged that there was included economic evidence on the effectiveness of routine scanning between 36+0 and 38+6 weeks of pregnancy compared to standard care regarding breech presentation.

The 1 included study suggested that offering a routine scan for breech is borderline cost effective. A key driver of cost effectiveness was the cost of the scan, which was substantially lower in the economic model than the figure quoted in NHS reference costs for routine ultrasound scanning. The committee noted that a scan for breech presentation only is a simpler technique and uses a cheaper machine. The committee agreed that the other costing assumptions presented in the study seemed appropriate.

However, the committee expressed concerns about the cohort study which underpinned the economic analysis which had a high risk of bias. The committee noted that a number of assumptions in the model which were key drivers of cost effectiveness, including the palpation diagnosis rates and prevalence of breech position, were from this 1 cohort study. This increased the uncertainty around the cost effectiveness of the routine scan. The committee also noted that, whilst the cost of the scan was fairly inexpensive, the resource impact would be substantial if a routine scan for breech presentation was offered to all pregnant women.

Overall, the committee felt that the clinical and cost effectiveness evidence presented was not strong enough to recommend offering a routine ultrasound scan given the potential for a significant resource impact. The recommendation to offer abdominal palpation to all pregnant women, and to offer an ultrasound scan where breech is suspected reflects current practice and so no substantial resource impact is anticipated.

McKenna 2003

Wastlund 2019

Appendix A. Review protocols

Review protocol for review question: What is the effectiveness of routine scanning between 36+0 and 38+6 weeks of pregnancy compared to standard care regarding breech presentation? (PDF, 244K)

Appendix B. Literature search strategies

Literature search strategies for review question: What is the effectiveness of routine scanning between 36+0 and 38+6 weeks of pregnancy compared to standard care regarding breech presentation? (PDF, 370K)

Appendix C. Clinical evidence study selection

Clinical study selection for review question: What is the effectiveness of routine scanning between 36+0 and 38+6 weeks of pregnancy compared to standard care regarding breech presentation? (PDF, 117K)

Appendix D. Clinical evidence tables

Clinical evidence tables for review question: What is the effectiveness of routine scanning between 36+0 and 38+6 weeks of pregnancy compared to standard care regarding breech presentation? (PDF, 213K)

Appendix E. Forest plots

Forest plots for review question: what is the effectiveness of routine scanning between 36+0 and 38+6 weeks of pregnancy compared to standard care regarding breech presentation.

This section includes forest plots only for outcomes that are meta-analysed. Outcomes from single studies are not presented here, but the quality assessment for these outcomes is provided in the GRADE profiles in appendix F .

Appendix F. GRADE tables

GRADE tables for review question: What is the effectiveness of routine scanning between 36+0 and 38+6 weeks of pregnancy compared to standard care regarding breech presentation? (PDF, 196K)

Appendix G. Economic evidence study selection

Economic evidence study selection for review question: what is the effectiveness of routine scanning between 36+0 and 38+6 weeks of pregnancy compared to standard care regarding breech presentation.

A single economic search was undertaken for all topics included in the scope of this guideline. One economic study was identified which was applicable to this review question. See supplementary material 2 for details.

Appendix H. Economic evidence tables

Economic evidence tables for review question: What is the effectiveness of routine scanning between 36+0 and 38+6 weeks of pregnancy compared to standard care regarding breech presentation? (PDF, 143K)

Appendix I. Economic evidence profiles

Economic evidence profiles for review question: What is the effectiveness of routine scanning between 36+0 and 38+6 weeks of pregnancy compared to standard care regarding breech presentation? (PDF, 129K)

Appendix J. Economic analysis

Economic evidence analysis for review question: what is the effectiveness of routine scanning between 36+0 and 38+6 weeks of pregnancy compared to standard care regarding breech presentation.

No economic analysis was conducted for this review question.

Appendix K. Excluded studies

Excluded clinical and economic studies for review question: what is the effectiveness of routine scanning between 36+0 and 38+6 weeks of pregnancy compared to standard care regarding breech presentation, clinical studies, table 8 excluded studies and reasons for their exclusion.

View in own window

Economic studies

A single economic search was undertaken for all topics included in the scope of this guideline. No economic studies were identified which were applicable to this review question. See supplementary material 2 for details.

Appendix L. Research recommendations

Research recommendations for review question: What is the effectiveness of routine scanning between 36+0 and 38+6 weeks of pregnancy compared to standard care regarding breech presentation? (PDF, 164K)

Evidence reviews underpinning recommendations 1.2.36 to 1.2.37

These evidence reviews were developed by the National Guideline Alliance, which is a part of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists

Disclaimer : The recommendations in this guideline represent the view of NICE, arrived at after careful consideration of the evidence available. When exercising their judgement, professionals are expected to take this guideline fully into account, alongside the individual needs, preferences and values of their patients or service users. The recommendations in this guideline are not mandatory and the guideline does not override the responsibility of healthcare professionals to make decisions appropriate to the circumstances of the individual patient, in consultation with the patient and/or their carer or guardian.

Local commissioners and/or providers have a responsibility to enable the guideline to be applied when individual health professionals and their patients or service users wish to use it. They should do so in the context of local and national priorities for funding and developing services, and in light of their duties to have due regard to the need to eliminate unlawful discrimination, to advance equality of opportunity and to reduce health inequalities. Nothing in this guideline should be interpreted in a way that would be inconsistent with compliance with those duties.

NICE guidelines cover health and care in England. Decisions on how they apply in other UK countries are made by ministers in the Welsh Government , Scottish Government , and Northern Ireland Executive . All NICE guidance is subject to regular review and may be updated or withdrawn.

• Cite this Page National Guideline Alliance (UK). Identification of breech presentation: Antenatal care: Evidence review L. London: National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE); 2021 Aug. (NICE Guideline, No. 201.)
• PDF version of this title (518K)

In this Page

Other titles in this collection.

• NICE Evidence Reviews Collection

Related NICE guidance and evidence

• NICE Guideline 201: Antenatal care

Supplemental NICE documents

• Supplement 1: Methods (PDF)
• Supplement 2: Health economics (PDF)

Related information

• PMC PubMed Central citations
• PubMed Links to PubMed

Similar articles in PubMed

• Review Management of breech presentation: Antenatal care: Evidence review M [ 2021] Review Management of breech presentation: Antenatal care: Evidence review M National Guideline Alliance (UK). 2021 Aug
• Vaginal delivery of breech presentation. [J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2009] Vaginal delivery of breech presentation. Kotaska A, Menticoglou S, Gagnon R, MATERNAL FETAL MEDICINE COMMITTEE. J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2009 Jun; 31(6):557-566.
• [The effect of the woman's age on the course of pregnancy and labor in breech presentation]. [Akush Ginekol (Sofiia). 1996] [The effect of the woman's age on the course of pregnancy and labor in breech presentation]. Dimitrov A, Borisov S, Nalbanski B, Kovacheva M, Chintolova G, Dzherov L. Akush Ginekol (Sofiia). 1996; 35(1-2):7-9.
• Review Cephalic version by moxibustion for breech presentation. [Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2005] Review Cephalic version by moxibustion for breech presentation. Coyle ME, Smith CA, Peat B. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2005 Apr 18; (2):CD003928. Epub 2005 Apr 18.
• Review Hands and knees posture in late pregnancy or labour for fetal malposition (lateral or posterior). [Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2005] Review Hands and knees posture in late pregnancy or labour for fetal malposition (lateral or posterior). Hofmeyr GJ, Kulier R. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2005 Apr 18; (2):CD001063. Epub 2005 Apr 18.

Recent Activity

• Identification of breech presentation Identification of breech presentation

Your browsing activity is empty.

Activity recording is turned off.

Turn recording back on

Connect with NLM

National Library of Medicine 8600 Rockville Pike Bethesda, MD 20894

Web Policies FOIA HHS Vulnerability Disclosure

Help Accessibility Careers

• Help & Feedback
• About epocrates

Breech presentation

Highlights & basics, diagnostic approach, risk factors, history & exam, differential diagnosis.

• Tx Approach

Emerging Tx

Complications.

PATIENT RESOURCES

Patient Instructions

Breech presentation refers to the baby presenting for delivery with the buttocks or feet first rather than head.

Associated with increased morbidity and mortality for the mother in terms of emergency cesarean section and placenta previa; and for the baby in terms of preterm birth, small fetal size, congenital anomalies, and perinatal mortality.

Incidence decreases as pregnancy progresses and by term occurs in 3% to 4% of singleton term pregnancies.

Treatment options include external cephalic version to increase the likelihood of vaginal birth or a planned cesarean section, the optimal gestation being 37 and 39 weeks, respectively.

Planned cesarean section is considered the safest form of delivery for infants with a persisting breech presentation at term.

Quick Reference

Key Factors

buttocks or feet as the presenting part

Fetal head under costal margin, fetal heartbeat above the maternal umbilicus.

Other Factors

subcostal tenderness

Pelvic or bladder pain.

Diagnostics Tests

1st Tests to Order

transabdominal/transvaginal ultrasound

Treatment options.

presumptive

<37 weeks' gestation

specialist evaluation

corticosteroid

magnesium sulfate

≥37 weeks' gestation not in labor

unsuccessful ECV with persistent breech

Classifications

Types of breech presentation

Baby's buttocks lead the way into the birth canal

Hips are flexed, knees are extended, and the feet are in close proximity to the head

65% to 70% of breech babies are in this position.

Baby presents with buttocks first

Both the hips and the knees are flexed; the baby may be sitting cross-legged.

One or both of the baby's feet lie below the breech so that the foot or knee is lowermost in the birth canal

This is rare at term but relatively common with premature fetuses.

Common Vignette

Other Presentations

Epidemiology

33% of births less than 28 weeks' gestation

14% of births at 29 to 32 weeks' gestation

9% of births at 33 to 36 weeks' gestation

6% of births at 37 to 40 weeks' gestation.

Pathophysiology

• Natasha Nassar, PhD
• Christine L. Roberts, MBBS, FAFPHM, DrPH
• Jonathan Morris, MBChB, FRANZCOG, PhD
• John W. Bachman, MD
• Rhona Hughes, MBChB
• Brian Peat, MD
• Lelia Duley, MBChB
• Justus Hofmeyr, MD

Clinical exam

Palpation of the abdomen to determine the position of the baby's head

Palpation of the abdomen to confirm the position of the fetal spine on one side and fetal extremities on the other

Palpation of the area above the symphysis pubis to locate the fetal presenting part

Palpation of the presenting part to confirm presentation, to determine how far the fetus has descended and whether the fetus is engaged.

Ultrasound examination

Premature fetus.

Prematurity is consistently associated with breech presentation. [ 6 ] [ 9 ] This may be due to the smaller size of preterm infants, who are more likely to change their in utero position.

Increasing duration of pregnancy may allow breech-presenting fetuses time to grow, turn spontaneously or by external cephalic version, and remain cephalic-presenting.

Larger fetuses may be forced into a cephalic presentation in late pregnancy due to space or alignment constraints within the uterus.

small for gestational age fetus

Low birth-weight is a risk factor for breech presentation. [ 9 ] [ 11 ] [ 12 ] [ 13 ] [ 14 ] Term breech births are associated with a smaller fetal size for gestational age, highlighting the association with low birth-weight rather than prematurity. [ 6 ]

nulliparity

Women having a first birth have increased rates of breech presentation, probably due to the increased likelihood of smaller fetal size. [ 6 ] [ 9 ]

Relaxation of the uterine wall in multiparous women may reduce the odds of breech birth and contribute to a higher spontaneous or external cephalic version rate. [ 10 ]

fetal congenital anomalies

Congenital anomalies in the fetus may result in a small fetal size or inappropriate fetal growth. [ 9 ] [ 12 ] [ 14 ] [ 15 ]

Anencephaly, hydrocephaly, Down syndrome, and fetal neuromuscular dysfunction are associated with breech presentation, the latter due to its effect on the quality of fetal movements. [ 9 ] [ 14 ]

previous breech delivery

The risk of recurrent breech delivery is 8%, the risk increasing from 4% after one breech delivery to 28% after three. [ 16 ]

The effects of recurrence may be due to recurring specific causal factors, either genetic or environmental in origin.

uterine abnormalities

Women with uterine abnormalities have a high incidence of breech presentation. [ 14 ] [ 17 ] [ 18 ] [ 19 ]

female fetus

Fifty-four percent of breech-presenting fetuses are female. [ 14 ]

abnormal amniotic fluid volume

Both oligohydramnios and polyhydramnios are associated with breech presentation. [ 1 ] [ 12 ] [ 14 ]

Low amniotic fluid volume decreases the likelihood of a fetus turning to a cephalic position; an increased amniotic fluid volume may facilitate frequent change in position.

placental abnormalities

An association between placental implantation in the cornual-fundal region and breech presentation has been reported, although some studies have not found it a risk factor. [ 8 ] [ 20 ] [ 21 ] [ 22 ] [ 10 ] [ 14 ]

The association with placenta previa is also inconsistent. [ 8 ] [ 9 ] [ 22 ] Placenta previa is associated with preterm birth and may be an indirect risk factor.

Pelvic or vaginal examination reveals the buttocks and/or feet, felt as a yielding, irregular mass, as the presenting part. [ 26 ] In cephalic presentation, a hard, round, regular fetal head can be palpated. [ 26 ]

The Leopold maneuver on examination suggests breech position by palpation of the fetal head under the costal margin. [ 26 ]

The baby's heartbeat should be auscultated using a Pinard stethoscope or a hand-held Doppler to indicate the position of the fetus. The fetal heartbeat lies above the maternal umbilicus in breech presentation. [ 1 ]

Tenderness under one or other costal margin as a result of pressure by the harder fetal head.

Pain due to fetal kicks in the maternal pelvis or bladder.

breech position

Visualizes the fetus and reveals its position.

Used to confirm a clinically suspected breech presentation. [ 28 ]

Should be performed by practitioners with appropriate skills in obstetric ultrasound.

Establishes the type of breech presentation by imaging the fetal femurs and their relationship to the distal bones.

Transverse lie

Differentiating Signs/Symptoms

Fetus lies horizontally across the uterus with the shoulder as the presenting part.

Similar predisposing factors such as placenta previa, abnormal amniotic fluid volume, and uterine anomalies, although more common in multiparity. [ 1 ] [ 2 ] [ 29 ]

Differentiating Tests

Clinical examination and fetal auscultation may be indicative.

Ultrasound confirms presentation.

Treatment Approach

Breech presentation <37 weeks' gestation.

The UK Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (RCOG) recommends that corticosteroids should be offered to women between 24 and 34+6 weeks' gestation, in whom imminent preterm birth is anticipated. Corticosteroids should only be considered after discussion of risks/benefits at 35 to 36+6 weeks. Given within 7 days of preterm birth, corticosteroids may reduce perinatal and neonatal death and respiratory distress syndrome. [ 32 ] The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) recommends a single course of corticosteroids for pregnant women between 24 and 33+6 weeks' gestation who are at risk of preterm delivery within 7 days, including those with ruptured membranes and multiple gestations. It may also be considered for pregnant women starting at 23 weeks' gestation who are at risk of preterm delivery within 7 days. A single course of betamethasone is recommended for pregnant women between 34 and 36+6 weeks' gestation at risk of preterm birth within 7 days, and who have not received a previous course of prenatal corticosteroids. Regularly scheduled repeat courses or serial courses (more than two) are not currently recommended. A single repeat course of prenatal corticosteroids should be considered in women who are less than 34 weeks' gestation, who are at risk of preterm delivery within 7 days, and whose prior course of prenatal corticosteroids was administered more than 14 days previously. Rescue course corticosteroids could be provided as early as 7 days from the prior dose, if indicated by the clinical scenario. [ 33 ]

Magnesium sulfate given before anticipated early preterm birth reduces the risk of cerebral palsy in surviving infants. Physicians electing to use magnesium sulfate for fetal neuroprotection should develop specific guidelines regarding inclusion criteria, treatment regimens, and concurrent tocolysis. [ 34 ]

Breech presentation from 37 weeks' gestation, before labor

ECV is the initial treatment for a breech presentation at term when the patient is not in labor. It involves turning a fetus presenting by the breech to a cephalic (head-down) presentation to increase the likelihood of vaginal birth. [ 35 ] [ 36 ] Where available, it should be offered to all women in late pregnancy, by an experienced clinician, in hospitals with facilities for emergency delivery, and no contraindications to the procedure. [ 35 ] There is no upper time limit on the appropriate gestation for ECV, with success reported at 42 weeks.

There is no general consensus on contraindications to ECV. Contraindications include multiple pregnancy (except after delivery of a first twin), ruptured membranes, current or recent (<1 week) vaginal bleeding, rhesus isoimmunization, other indications for cesarean section (e.g., placenta previa or uterine malformation), or abnormal electronic fetal monitoring. [ 35 ] One systematic review of relative contraindications for ECV highlighted that most contraindications do not have clear empirical evidence. Exceptions include placental abruption, severe preeclampsia/HELLP syndrome, or signs of fetal distress (abnormal cardiotocography and/or Doppler flow). [ 36 ]

The procedure involves applying external pressure and firmly pushing or palpating the mother's abdomen to coerce the fetus to somersault (either forward or backward) into a cephalic position. [ 37 ]

The overall ECV success rate varies but, in a large series, 47% of women following an ECV attempt had a cephalic presentation at birth. [ 35 ] [ 38 ]  Various factors influence the success rate. One systematic review found ECV success rates to be 68% overall, with the rate significantly higher for women from African countries (89%) compared with women from non-African countries (62%), and higher among multiparous (78%) than nulliparous women (48%). [ 39 ] Overall, the ECV success rates for nulliparous and multiparous non-African women were 43% and 73%, respectively, while for nulliparous and multiparous African women rates were 79% and 91%, respectively. Another study reported no difference in success rate or rate of cesarean section among women with previous cesarean section undergoing ECV compared with women with previous vaginal birth. However, numbers were small and further studies in this regard are required. [ 40 ]

Women's preference for vaginal delivery is a major contributing factor in their decision for ECV. However, studies suggest women with a breech presentation at term may not receive complete and/or evidence-based information about the benefits and risks of ECV. [ 41 ] [ 42 ] Although up to 60% of women reported ECV to be painful, the majority highlighted the benefits outweigh the risks (71%) and would recommend ECV to their friends or be willing to repeat for themselves (84%). [ 41 ] [ 42 ]

Cardiotocography and ultrasound should be performed before and after the procedure. Tocolysis should be used to facilitate the maneuver, and Rho(D) immune globulin should be administered to women who are Rhesus negative. [ 35 ] Tocolytic agents include adrenergic beta-2 receptor stimulants such as albuterol, terbutaline, or ritodrine (widely used with ECV in some countries, but not yet available in the US). One Cochrane review of tocolytic beta stimulants demonstrates that these are less likely to be associated with failed ECV, and are effective in increasing cephalic presentation and reducing cesarean section. [ 43 ] There is no current evidence to recommend one beta-2 adrenergic receptor agonist over another. Until these data are available, adherence to a local protocol for tocolysis is recommended. The Food and Drug Administration has issued a warning against using injectable terbutaline beyond 48 to 72 hours, or acute or prolonged treatment with oral terbutaline, in pregnant women for the prevention or prolonged treatment of preterm labor, due to potential serious maternal cardiac adverse effects and death. [ 44 ] Whether this warning applies to the subcutaneous administration of terbutaline in ECV is still unclear; however, studies currently support this use. The European Medicines Agency (EMA) recommends that injectable beta agonists should be used for up to 48 hours between the 22nd and 37th week of pregnancy only. They should be used under specialist supervision with continuous monitoring of the mother and unborn baby owing to the risk of adverse cardiovascular effects in both the mother and baby. The EMA no longer recommends oral or rectal formulations for obstetric indications. [ 45 ]

If ECV is successful, pregnancy care should continue as usual for any cephalic presentation. One systematic review assessing the mode of delivery after a successful ECV found that these women were at increased risk for cesarean section and instrumental vaginal delivery compared with women with spontaneous cephalic pregnancies. However, they still had a lower rate of cesarean section following ECV (i.e., 47%) compared with the cesarean section rate for those with a persisting breech (i.e., 85%). With a number needed to treat of three, ECV is still considered to be an effective means of preventing the need for cesarean section. [ 46 ]

Planned cesarean section should be offered as the safest mode of delivery for the baby, even though it carries a small increase in serious immediate maternal complications compared with vaginal birth. [ 24 ] [ 25 ] [ 31 ] In the US, most unsuccessful ECV with persistent breech will be delivered via cesarean section.

A vaginal mode of delivery may be considered by some clinicians as an option, particularly when maternal request is provided, senior and experienced staff are available, there is no absolute contraindication to vaginal birth (e.g., placenta previa, compromised fetal condition), and with optimal fetal growth (estimated weight above the tenth centile and up to 3800 g). Other factors that make planned vaginal birth higher risk include hyperextended neck on ultrasound and footling presentation. [ 24 ]

Breech presentation from 37 weeks' gestation, during labor

The first option should be a planned cesarean section.

There is a small increase in the risk of serious immediate maternal complications compared with vaginal birth (RR 1.29, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.61), including pulmonary embolism, infection, bleeding, damage to the bladder and bowel, slower recovery from the delivery, longer hospitalization, and delayed bonding and breast-feeding. [ 23 ] [ 31 ] [ 47 ] [ 48 ] [ 49 ] [ 50 ] [ 51 ] [ 52 ] [ 53 ] [ 54 ] [ 55 ] [ 56 ] [ 57 ] [ 58 ] Consider using antimicrobial triclosan-coated sutures for wound closure to reduce the risk of surgical site infection. [ 59 ]

The long-term risks include potential compromise of future obstetric performance, increased risk of repeat cesarean section, infertility, uterine rupture, placenta accreta, placental abruption, and emergency hysterectomy. [ 60 ] [ 61 ] [ 62 ] [ 63 ]

Planned cesarean section is safer for babies, but is associated with increased neonatal respiratory distress. The risk is reduced when the section is performed at 39 weeks' gestation. [ 64 ] [ 65 ] [ 66 ] For women undergoing a planned cesarean section, RCOG recommends an informed discussion about the potential risks and benefits of a course of prenatal corticosteroids between 37 and 38+6 weeks' gestation. Although prenatal corticosteroids may reduce admission to the neonatal unit for respiratory morbidity, it is uncertain if there is any reduction in respiratory distress syndrome, transient tachypnea of the newborn, or neonatal unit admission overall. In addition, prenatal corticosteroids may result in harm to the neonate, including hypoglycemia and potential developmental delay. [ 32 ] ACOG does not recommend corticosteroids in women >37 weeks' gestation. [ 33 ]

Undiagnosed breech in labor generally results in cesarean section after the onset of labor, higher rates of emergency cesarean section associated with the least favorable maternal outcomes, a greater likelihood of cord prolapse, and other poor infant outcomes. [ 23 ] [ 67 ] [ 49 ] [ 68 ] [ 69 ] [ 70 ] [ 71 ]

This mode of delivery may be considered by some clinicians as an option for women who are in labor, particularly when delivery is imminent. Vaginal breech delivery may also be considered, where suitable, when delivery is not imminent, maternal request is provided, senior and experienced staff are available, there is no absolute contraindication to vaginal birth (e.g., placenta previa, compromised fetal condition), and with optimal fetal growth (estimated weight above the tenth centile and up to 3800 g). Other factors that make planned vaginal birth higher risk include hyperextended neck on ultrasound and footling presentation. [ 24 ]

Findings from one systematic review of 27 observational studies revealed that the absolute risks of perinatal mortality, fetal neurologic morbidity, birth trauma, 5-minute Apgar score <7, and neonatal asphyxia in the planned vaginal delivery group were low at 0.3%, 0.7%, 0.7%, 2.4%, and 3.3%, respectively. However, the relative risks of perinatal mortality and morbidity were 2- to 5-fold higher in the planned vaginal than in the planned cesarean delivery group. Authors recommend ongoing judicious decision-making for vaginal breech delivery for selected singleton, term breech babies. [ 72 ]

ECV may also be considered an option for women with breech presentation in early labor, when delivery is not imminent, provided that the membranes are intact.

A woman presenting with a breech presentation <37 weeks is an area of clinical controversy. Optimal mode of delivery for preterm breech has not been fully evaluated in clinical trials, and the relative risks for the preterm infant and mother remain unclear. In the absence of good evidence, if diagnosis of breech presentation prior to 37 weeks' gestation is made, prematurity and clinical circumstances should determine management and mode of delivery.

Primary Options

12 mg intramuscularly every 24 hours for 2 doses

6 mg intramuscularly every 12 hours for 4 doses

The UK Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists recommends that corticosteroids should be offered to women between 24 and 34+6 weeks' gestation, in whom imminent preterm birth is anticipated. Corticosteroids should only be considered after discussion of risks/benefits at 35 to 36+6 weeks. Given within 7 days of preterm birth, corticosteroids may reduce perinatal and neonatal death and respiratory distress syndrome. [ 32 ]

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists recommends a single course of corticosteroids for pregnant women between 24 and 33+6 weeks' gestation who are at risk of preterm delivery within 7 days, including those with ruptured membranes and multiple gestations. It may also be considered for pregnant women starting at 23 weeks' gestation who are at risk of preterm delivery within 7 days. A single course of betamethasone is recommended for pregnant women between 34 and 36+6 weeks' gestation at risk of preterm birth within 7 days, and who have not received a previous course of prenatal corticosteroids. Regularly scheduled repeat courses or serial courses (more than two) are not currently recommended. A single repeat course of prenatal corticosteroids should be considered in women who are less than 34 weeks' gestation, who are at risk of preterm delivery within 7 days, and whose prior course of prenatal corticosteroids was administered more than 14 days previously. Rescue course corticosteroids could be provided as early as 7 days from the prior dose, if indicated by the clinical scenario. [ 33 ]

consult specialist for guidance on dose

external cephalic version (ECV)

There is no upper time limit on the appropriate gestation for ECV; it should be offered to all women in late pregnancy by an experienced clinician in hospitals with facilities for emergency delivery and no contraindications to the procedure. [ 35 ] [ 36 ]

ECV involves applying external pressure and firmly pushing or palpating the mother's abdomen to coerce the fetus to somersault (either forward or backward) into a cephalic position. [ 37 ]

There is no general consensus on contraindications to ECV. Contraindications include multiple pregnancy (except after delivery of a first twin), ruptured membranes, current or recent (<1 week) vaginal bleeding, rhesus isoimmunization, other indications for cesarean section (e.g., placenta previa or uterine malformation), or abnormal electronic fetal monitoring. [ 35 ]  One systematic review of relative contraindications for ECV highlighted that most contraindications do not have clear empirical evidence. Exceptions include placental abruption, severe preeclampsia/HELLP syndrome, or signs of fetal distress (abnormal cardiotocography and/or Doppler flow). [ 36 ]

Cardiotocography and ultrasound should be performed before and after the procedure.

If ECV is successful, pregnancy care should continue as usual for any cephalic presentation. A systematic review assessing the mode of delivery after a successful ECV found that these women were at increased risk for cesarean section and instrumental vaginal delivery compared with women with spontaneous cephalic pregnancies. However, they still had a lower rate of cesarean section following ECV (i.e., 47%) compared with the cesarean section rate for those with a persisting breech (i.e., 85%). With a number needed to treat of 3, ECV is still considered to be an effective means of preventing the need for cesarean section. [ 46 ]

tocolytic agents

see local specialist protocol for dosing guidelines

Tocolytic agents include adrenergic beta-2 receptor stimulants such as albuterol, terbutaline, or ritodrine (widely used with external cephalic version [ECV] in some countries, but not yet available in the US). They are used to delay or inhibit labor and increase the success rate of ECV. There is no current evidence to recommend one beta-2 adrenergic receptor agonist over another. Until these data are available, adherence to a local protocol for tocolysis is recommended.

The Food and Drug Administration has issued a warning against using injectable terbutaline beyond 48-72 hours, or acute or prolonged treatment with oral terbutaline, in pregnant women for the prevention or prolonged treatment of preterm labor, due to potential serious maternal cardiac adverse effects and death. [ 44 ] Whether this warning applies to the subcutaneous administration of terbutaline in ECV is still unclear; however, studies currently support this use. The European Medicines Agency (EMA) recommends that injectable beta agonists should be used for up to 48 hours between the 22nd and 37th week of pregnancy only. They should be used under specialist supervision with continuous monitoring of the mother and unborn baby owing to the risk of adverse cardiovascular effects in both the mother and baby. The EMA no longer recommends oral or rectal formulations for obstetric indications. [ 45 ]

A systematic review found there was no evidence to support the use of nifedipine for tocolysis. [ 73 ]

There is insufficient evidence to evaluate other interventions to help ECV, such as fetal acoustic stimulation in midline fetal spine positions, or epidural or spinal analgesia. [ 43 ]

Rho(D) immune globulin

300 micrograms intramuscularly as a single dose

Nonsensitized Rh-negative women should receive Rho(D) immune globulin. [ 35 ]

The indication for its administration is to prevent rhesus isoimmunization, which may affect subsequent pregnancy outcomes.

Rho(D) immune globulin needs to be given at the time of external cephalic version and should be given again postpartum to those women who give birth to an Rh-positive baby. [ 74 ]

It is best administered as soon as possible after the procedure, usually within 72 hours.

Dose depends on brand used. Dose given below pertains to most commonly used brands. Consult specialist for further guidance on dose.

elective cesarean section/vaginal breech delivery

Mode of delivery (cesarean section or vaginal breech delivery) should be based on the experience of the attending clinician, hospital policies, maternal request, and the presence or absence of complicating factors. In the US, most unsuccessful external cephalic version (ECV) with persistent breech will be delivered via cesarean section.

Cesarean section, at 39 weeks or greater, has been shown to significantly reduce perinatal mortality and neonatal morbidity compared with vaginal breech delivery (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.19 to 0.56). [ 31 ] Although safer for these babies, there is a small increase in serious immediate maternal complications compared with vaginal birth (RR 1.29, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.61), as well as long-term risks for future pregnancies, including pulmonary embolism, bleeding, infection, damage to the bladder and bowel, slower recovery from the delivery, longer hospitalization, and delayed bonding and breast-feeding. [ 23 ] [ 31 ] [ 47 ] [ 48 ] [ 49 ] [ 50 ] [ 51 ] [ 52 ] [ 53 ] [ 54 ] [ 55 ] [ 56 ] [ 57 ] [ 58 ] Consider using antimicrobial triclosan-coated sutures for wound closure to reduce the risk of surgical site infection. [ 59 ]

Vaginal delivery may be considered by some clinicians as an option, particularly when maternal request is provided, when senior and experienced staff are available, when there is no absolute contraindication to vaginal birth (e.g., placenta previa, compromised fetal condition), and with optimal fetal growth (estimated weight above the tenth centile and up to 3800 g). Other factors that make planned vaginal birth higher risk include hyperextended neck on ultrasound and footling presentation. [ 24 ]

For women undergoing a planned cesarean section, the UK Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists recommends an informed discussion about the potential risks and benefits of a course of prenatal corticosteroids between 37 and 38+6 weeks' gestation. Although prenatal corticosteroids may reduce admission to the neonatal unit for respiratory morbidity, it is uncertain if there is any reduction in respiratory distress syndrome, transient tachypnea of the newborn, or neonatal unit admission overall. In addition, prenatal corticosteroids may result in harm to the neonate, including hypoglycemia and potential developmental delay. [ 32 ] The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists does not recommend corticosteroids in women >37 weeks' gestation. [ 33 ]

It is best administered as soon as possible after delivery, usually within 72 hours.

Administration of postpartum Rho (D) immune globulin should not be affected by previous routine prenatal prophylaxis or previous administration for a potentially sensitizing event. [ 74 ]

≥37 weeks' gestation in labor: no imminent delivery

planned cesarean section

For women with breech presentation in labor, planned cesarean section at 39 weeks or greater has been shown to significantly reduce perinatal mortality and neonatal morbidity compared with vaginal breech delivery (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.19 to 0.56). [ 31 ]

Although safer for these babies, there is a small increase in serious immediate maternal complications compared with vaginal birth (RR 1.29, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.61), as well as long-term risks for future pregnancies, including pulmonary embolism, infection, bleeding, damage to the bladder and bowel, slower recovery from the delivery, longer hospitalization, and delayed bonding and breast-feeding. [ 23 ] [ 31 ] [ 47 ] [ 48 ] [ 49 ] [ 50 ] [ 51 ] [ 52 ] [ 53 ] [ 54 ] [ 55 ] [ 56 ] [ 57 ] [ 58 ]  Consider using antimicrobial triclosan-coated sutures for wound closure to reduce the risk of surgical site infection. [ 59 ]

Continuous cardiotocography monitoring should continue until delivery. [ 24 ] [ 25 ]

vaginal breech delivery

Mode of delivery (cesarean section or vaginal breech delivery) should be based on the experience of the attending clinician, hospital policies, maternal request, and the presence or absence of complicating factors.

This mode of delivery may be considered by some clinicians as an option, particularly when maternal request is provided, when senior and experienced staff are available, when there is no absolute contraindication to vaginal birth (e.g., placenta previa, compromised fetal condition), and with optimal fetal growth (estimated weight above the tenth centile and up to 3800 g). Other factors that make planned vaginal birth higher risk include hyperextended neck on ultrasound and footling presentation. [ 24 ]

For women with persisting breech presentation, planned cesarean section has, however, been shown to significantly reduce perinatal mortality and neonatal morbidity compared with vaginal breech delivery (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.19 to 0.56). [ 31 ]

ECV may also be considered an option for women with breech presentation in early labor, provided that the membranes are intact.

There is no upper time limit on the appropriate gestation for ECV. [ 35 ]

Involves applying external pressure and firmly pushing or palpating the mother's abdomen to coerce the fetus to somersault (either forward or backward) into a cephalic position. [ 37 ]

Relative contraindications include placental abruption, severe preeclampsia/HELLP syndrome, and signs of fetal distress (abnormal cardiotocography and/or abnormal Doppler flow). [ 35 ] [ 36 ]

Rho(D) immune globulin needs to be given at the time of ECV and should be given again postpartum to those women who give birth to an Rh-positive baby. [ 74 ]

≥37 weeks' gestation in labor: imminent delivery

cesarean section

For women with persistent breech presentation, planned cesarean section has been shown to significantly reduce perinatal mortality and neonatal morbidity compared with vaginal breech delivery (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.19 to 0.56). [ 31 ] Although safer for these babies, there is a small increase in serious immediate maternal complications compared with vaginal birth (RR 1.29, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.61), as well as long-term risks for future pregnancies, including pulmonary embolism, infection, bleeding, damage to the bladder and bowel, slower recovery from the delivery, longer hospitalization, and delayed bonding and breast-feeding. [ 23 ] [ 31 ] [ 47 ] [ 48 ] [ 49 ] [ 50 ] [ 51 ] [ 52 ] [ 53 ] [ 54 ] [ 55 ] [ 56 ] [ 57 ] [ 58 ]  Consider using antimicrobial triclosan-coated sutures for wound closure to reduce the risk of surgical site infection. [ 59 ]

This mode of delivery may be considered by some clinicians as an option, particularly when delivery is imminent, maternal request is provided, when senior and experienced staff are available, when there is no absolute contraindication to vaginal birth (e.g., placenta previa, compromised fetal condition), and with optimal fetal growth (estimated weight above the tenth centile and up to 3800 g). Other factors that make planned vaginal birth higher risk include hyperextended neck on ultrasound and footling presentation. [ 24 ]

It is best administered as soon as possible after the delivery, usually within 72 hours.

External cephalic version before term

Moxibustion, postural management, follow-up overview, perinatal complications.

Compared with cephalic presentation, persistent breech presentation has increased frequency of cord prolapse, abruptio placentae, prelabor rupture of membranes, perinatal mortality, fetal distress (heart rate <100 bpm), preterm delivery, lower fetal weight. [ 10 ] [ 11 ] [ 67 ]

complications of cesarean section

There is a small increase in the risk of serious immediate maternal complications compared with vaginal birth (RR 1.29, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.61), including pulmonary embolism, infection, bleeding, damage to the bladder and bowel, slower recovery from the delivery, longer hospitalization, and delayed bonding and breast-feeding. [ 23 ] [ 31 ] [ 47 ] [ 48 ] [ 49 ] [ 50 ] [ 51 ] [ 52 ] [ 53 ] [ 54 ] [ 55 ] [ 56 ] [ 57 ] [ 58 ]

The long-term risks include potential compromise of future obstetric performance, increased risk of repeat cesarean section, infertility, uterine rupture, placenta accreta, placental abruption, and emergency hysterectomy. [ 60 ] [ 61 ] [ 62 ] [ 63 ] The evidence suggests that using sutures, rather than staples, for wound closure after cesarean section reduces the incidence of wound dehiscence. [ 59 ]

Emergency cesarean section, compared with planned cesarean section, has demonstrated a higher risk of severe obstetric morbidity, intra-operative complications, postoperative complications, infection, blood loss >1500 mL, fever, pain, tiredness, and breast-feeding problems. [ 23 ] [ 48 ] [ 50 ] [ 70 ] [ 81 ]

Key Articles

Impey LWM, Murphy DJ, Griffiths M, et al; Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. Management of breech presentation: green-top guideline no. 20b. BJOG. 2017 Jun;124(7):e151-77. [Full Text]

Hofmeyr GJ, Hannah M, Lawrie TA. Planned caesarean section for term breech delivery. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015 Jul 21;(7):CD000166. [Abstract] [Full Text]

Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. External cephalic version and reducing the incidence of term breech presentation. March 2017 [internet publication]. [Full Text]

Cluver C, Gyte GM, Sinclair M, et al. Interventions for helping to turn term breech babies to head first presentation when using external cephalic version. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015 Feb 9;(2):CD000184. [Abstract] [Full Text]

de Hundt M, Velzel J, de Groot CJ, et al. Mode of delivery after successful external cephalic version: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Obstet Gynecol. 2014 Jun;123(6):1327-34. [Abstract]

Referenced Articles

1. Cunningham F, Gant N, Leveno K, et al. Williams obstetrics. 21st ed. New York: McGraw-Hill; 1997.

2. Kish K, Collea JV. Malpresentation and cord prolapse. In: DeCherney AH, Nathan L, eds. Current obstetric and gynecologic diagnosis and treatment. New York: McGraw-Hill Professional; 2002.

3. Scheer K, Nubar J. Variation of fetal presentation with gestational age. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1976 May 15;125(2):269-70. [Abstract]

4. Nassar N, Roberts CL, Cameron CA, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of clinical examination for detection of non-cephalic presentation in late pregnancy: cross sectional analytic study. BMJ. 2006 Sep 16;333(7568):578-80. [Abstract] [Full Text]

5. Roberts CL, Peat B, Algert CS, et al. Term breech birth in New South Wales, 1990-1997. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 2000 Feb;40(1):23-9. [Abstract]

6. Roberts CL, Algert CS, Peat B, et al. Small fetal size: a risk factor for breech birth at term. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 1999 Oct;67(1):1-8. [Abstract]

7. Brar HS, Platt LD, DeVore GR, et al. Fetal umbilical velocimetry for the surveillance of pregnancies complicated by placenta previa. J Reprod Med. 1988 Sep;33(9):741-4. [Abstract]

8. Kian L. The role of the placental site in the aetiology of breech presentation. J Obstet Gynaecol Br Commonw. 1963 Oct;70:795-7. [Abstract]

9. Rayl J, Gibson PJ, Hickok DE. A population-based case-control study of risk factors for breech presentation. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1996 Jan;174(1 Pt 1):28-32. [Abstract]

10. Westgren M, Edvall H, Nordstrom L, et al. Spontaneous cephalic version of breech presentation in the last trimester. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1985 Jan;92(1):19-22. [Abstract]

11. Brenner WE, Bruce RD, Hendricks CH. The characteristics and perils of breech presentation. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1974 Mar 1;118(5):700-12. [Abstract]

12. Hall JE, Kohl S. Breech presentation. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1956 Nov;72(5):977-90. [Abstract]

13. Morgan HS, Kane SH. An analysis of 16,327 breech births. JAMA. 1964 Jan 25;187:262-4. [Abstract]

14. Luterkort M, Persson P, Weldner B. Maternal and fetal factors in breech presentation. Obstet Gynecol. 1984 Jul;64(1):55-9. [Abstract]

15. Braun FH, Jones KL, Smith DW. Breech presentation as an indicator of fetal abnormality. J Pediatr. 1975 Mar;86(3):419-21. [Abstract]

16. Albrechtsen S, Rasmussen S, Dalaker K, et al. Reproductive career after breech presentation: subsequent pregnancy rates, interpregnancy interval, and recurrence. Obstet Gynecol. 1998 Sep;92(3):345-50. [Abstract]

17. Zlopasa G, Skrablin S, Kalafatić D, et al. Uterine anomalies and pregnancy outcome following resectoscope metroplasty. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2007 Aug;98(2):129-33. [Abstract]

18. Acién P. Breech presentation in Spain, 1992: a collaborative study. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 1995 Sep;62(1):19-24. [Abstract]

19. Michalas SP. Outcome of pregnancy in women with uterine malformation: evaluation of 62 cases. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 1991 Jul;35(3):215-9. [Abstract]

20. Fianu S, Vaclavinkova V. The site of placental attachment as a factor in the aetiology of breech presentation. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 1978;57(4):371-2. [Abstract]

21. Haruyama Y. Placental implantation as the cause of breech presentation [in Japanese]. Nihon Sanka Fujinka Gakkai Zasshi. 1987 Jan;39(1):92-8. [Abstract]

22. Filipov E, Borisov I, Kolarov G. Placental location and its influence on the position of the fetus in the uterus [in Bulgarian]. Akush Ginekol (Sofiia). 2000;40(4):11-2. [Abstract]

23. Waterstone M, Bewley S, Wolfe C. Incidence and predictors of severe obstetric morbidity: case-control study. BMJ. 2001 May 5;322(7294):1089-93. [Abstract] [Full Text]

24. Impey LWM, Murphy DJ, Griffiths M, et al; Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. Management of breech presentation: green-top guideline no. 20b. BJOG. 2017 Jun;124(7):e151-77. [Full Text]

25. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists Committee on Obstetric Practice. ACOG committee opinion no. 745: mode of term singleton breech delivery. Obstet Gynecol. 2018 Aug;132(2):e60-3. [Abstract] [Full Text]

26. Beischer NA, Mackay EV, Colditz P, eds. Obstetrics and the newborn: an illustrated textbook. 3rd ed. London: W.B. Saunders; 1997.

27. Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. Antepartum haemorrhage: green-top guideline no. 63. November 2011 [internet publication]. [Full Text]

28. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Practice bulletin no. 175: ultrasound in pregnancy. Obstet Gynecol. 2016 Dec;128(6):e241-56. [Abstract]

29. Enkin M, Keirse MJNC, Neilson J, et al. Guide to effective care in pregnancy and childbirth. 3rd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2000.

30. Hofmeyr GJ, Kulier R, West HM. External cephalic version for breech presentation at term. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012 Oct 17;(10):CD000083. [Abstract] [Full Text]

31. Hofmeyr GJ, Hannah M, Lawrie TA. Planned caesarean section for term breech delivery. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015 Jul 21;(7):CD000166. [Abstract] [Full Text]

32. Stock SJ, Thomson AJ, Papworth S, et al. Antenatal corticosteroids to reduce neonatal morbidity and mortality: Green-top Guideline No. 74. BJOG. 2022 Jul;129(8):e35-60. [Abstract] [Full Text]

33. American College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists Committee on Obstetric Practice. Committee opinion no. 713: antenatal corticosteroid therapy for fetal maturation. August 2017 (reaffirmed 2020) [internet publication]. [Full Text]

34. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists Committee on Obstetric Practice. Committee opinion no. 455: magnesium sulfate before anticipated preterm birth for neuroprotection. March 2010 (reaffirmed 2020) [internet publication]. [Full Text]

35. Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. External cephalic version and reducing the incidence of term breech presentation. March 2017 [internet publication]. [Full Text]

36. Rosman AN, Guijt A, Vlemmix F, et al. Contraindications for external cephalic version in breech position at term: a systematic review. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2013 Feb;92(2):137-42. [Abstract]

37. Hofmeyr GJ. Effect of external cephalic version in late pregnancy on breech presentation and caesarean section rate: a controlled trial. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1983 May;90(5):392-9. [Abstract]

38. Beuckens A, Rijnders M, Verburgt-Doeleman GH, et al. An observational study of the success and complications of 2546 external cephalic versions in low-risk pregnant women performed by trained midwives. BJOG. 2016 Feb;123(3):415-23. [Abstract]

39. Nassar N, Roberts CL, Barratt A, et al. Systematic review of adverse outcomes of external cephalic version and persisting breech presentation at term. Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol. 2006 Mar;20(2):163-71. [Abstract]

40. Sela HY, Fiegenberg T, Ben-Meir A, et al. Safety and efficacy of external cephalic version for women with a previous cesarean delivery. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2009 Feb;142(2):111-4. [Abstract]

41. Pichon M, Guittier MJ, Irion O, et al. External cephalic version in case of persisting breech presentation at term: motivations and women's experience of the intervention [in French]. Gynecol Obstet Fertil. 2013 Jul-Aug;41(7-8):427-32. [Abstract]

42. Nassar N, Roberts CL, Raynes-Greenow CH, et al. Evaluation of a decision aid for women with breech presentation at term: a randomised controlled trial [ISRCTN14570598]. BJOG. 2007 Mar;114(3):325-33. [Abstract] [Full Text]

43. Cluver C, Gyte GM, Sinclair M, et al. Interventions for helping to turn term breech babies to head first presentation when using external cephalic version. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015 Feb 9;(2):CD000184. [Abstract] [Full Text]

44. US Food & Drug Administration. FDA Drug Safety Communication: new warnings against use of terbutaline to treat preterm labor. Feb 2011 [internet publication]. [Full Text]

45. European Medicines Agency. Restrictions on use of short-acting beta-agonists in obstetric indications - CMDh endorses PRAC recommendations. October 2013 [internet publication]. [Full Text]

46. de Hundt M, Velzel J, de Groot CJ, et al. Mode of delivery after successful external cephalic version: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Obstet Gynecol. 2014 Jun;123(6):1327-34. [Abstract]

47. Lydon-Rochelle M, Holt VL, Martin DP, et al. Association between method of delivery and maternal rehospitalisation. JAMA. 2000 May 10;283(18):2411-6. [Abstract]

48. Yokoe DS, Christiansen CL, Johnson R, et al. Epidemiology of and surveillance for postpartum infections. Emerg Infect Dis. 2001 Sep-Oct;7(5):837-41. [Abstract]

49. van Ham MA, van Dongen PW, Mulder J. Maternal consequences of caesarean section. A retrospective study of intra-operative and postoperative maternal complications of caesarean section during a 10-year period. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 1997 Jul;74(1):1-6. [Abstract]

50. Murphy DJ, Liebling RE, Verity L, et al. Early maternal and neonatal morbidity associated with operative delivery in second stage of labour: a cohort study. Lancet. 2001 Oct 13;358(9289):1203-7. [Abstract]

51. Lydon-Rochelle MT, Holt VL, Martin DP. Delivery method and self-reported postpartum general health status among primiparous women. Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol. 2001 Jul;15(3):232-40. [Abstract]

52. Wilson PD, Herbison RM, Herbison GP. Obstetric practice and the prevalence of urinary incontinence three months after delivery. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1996 Feb;103(2):154-61. [Abstract]

53. Persson J, Wolner-Hanssen P, Rydhstroem H. Obstetric risk factors for stress urinary incontinence: a population-based study. Obstet Gynecol. 2000 Sep;96(3):440-5. [Abstract]

54. MacLennan AH, Taylor AW, Wilson DH, et al. The prevalence of pelvic disorders and their relationship to gender, age, parity and mode of delivery. BJOG. 2000 Dec;107(12):1460-70. [Abstract]

55. Thompson JF, Roberts CL, Currie M, et al. Prevalence and persistence of health problems after childbirth: associations with parity and method of birth. Birth. 2002 Jun;29(2):83-94. [Abstract]

56. Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. Australia's mothers and babies 2015 - in brief. October 2017 [internet publication]. [Full Text]

57. Mutryn CS. Psychosocial impact of cesarean section on the family: a literature review. Soc Sci Med. 1993 Nov;37(10):1271-81. [Abstract]

58. DiMatteo MR, Morton SC, Lepper HS, et al. Cesarean childbirth and psychosocial outcomes: a meta-analysis. Health Psychol. 1996 Jul;15(4):303-14. [Abstract]

59. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Caesarean birth. Mar 2021 [internet publication]. [Full Text]

60. Greene R, Gardeit F, Turner MJ. Long-term implications of cesarean section. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1997 Jan;176(1 Pt 1):254-5. [Abstract]

61. Coughlan C, Kearney R, Turner MJ. What are the implications for the next delivery in primigravidae who have an elective caesarean section for breech presentation? BJOG. 2002 Jun;109(6):624-6. [Abstract]

62. Hemminki E, Merilainen J. Long-term effects of cesarean sections: ectopic pregnancies and placental problems. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1996 May;174(5):1569-74. [Abstract]

63. Gilliam M, Rosenberg D, Davis F. The likelihood of placenta previa with greater number of cesarean deliveries and higher parity. Obstet Gynecol. 2002 Jun;99(6):976-80. [Abstract]

64. Morrison JJ, Rennie JM, Milton PJ. Neonatal respiratory morbidity and mode of delivery at term: influence of timing of elective caesarean section. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1995 Feb;102(2):101-6. [Abstract]

65. Annibale DJ, Hulsey TC, Wagner CL, et al. Comparative neonatal morbidity of abdominal and vaginal deliveries after uncomplicated pregnancies. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 1995 Aug;149(8):862-7. [Abstract]

66. Hook B, Kiwi R, Amini SB, et al. Neonatal morbidity after elective repeat cesarean section and trial of labor. Pediatrics. 1997 Sep;100(3 Pt 1):348-53. [Abstract]

67. Nassar N, Roberts CL, Cameron CA, et al. Outcomes of external cephalic version and breech presentation at term: an audit of deliveries at a Sydney tertiary obstetric hospital, 1997-2004. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2006;85(10):1231-8. [Abstract]

68. Nwosu EC, Walkinshaw S, Chia P, et al. Undiagnosed breech. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1993 Jun;100(6):531-5. [Abstract]

69. Flamm BL, Ruffini RM. Undetected breech presentation: impact on external version and cesarean rates. Am J Perinatol. 1998 May;15(5):287-9. [Abstract]

70. Cockburn J, Foong C, Cockburn P. Undiagnosed breech. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1994 Jul;101(7):648-9. [Abstract]

71. Leung WC, Pun TC, Wong WM. Undiagnosed breech revisited. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1999 Jul;106(7):638-41. [Abstract]

72. Berhan Y, Haileamlak A. The risks of planned vaginal breech delivery versus planned caesarean section for term breech birth: a meta-analysis including observational studies. BJOG. 2016 Jan;123(1):49-57. [Abstract] [Full Text]

73. Wilcox C, Nassar N, Roberts C. Effectiveness of nifedipine tocolysis to facilitate external cephalic version: a systematic review. BJOG. 2011 Mar;118(4):423-8. [Abstract]

74. Qureshi H, Massey E, Kirwan D, et al. BCSH guideline for the use of anti-D immunoglobulin for the prevention of haemolytic disease of the fetus and newborn. Transfus Med. 2014 Feb;24(1):8-20. [Abstract] [Full Text]

75. Hutton EK, Hofmeyr GJ, Dowswell T. External cephalic version for breech presentation before term. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015 Jul 29;(7):CD000084. [Abstract] [Full Text]

76. Coyle ME, Smith CA, Peat B. Cephalic version by moxibustion for breech presentation. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012 May 16;(5):CD003928. [Abstract] [Full Text]

77. Hofmeyr GJ, Kulier R. Cephalic version by postural management for breech presentation. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012 Oct 17;(10):CD000051. [Abstract] [Full Text]

78. Hannah ME, Whyte H, Hannah WJ, et al. Maternal outcomes at 2 years after planned cesarean section versus planned vaginal birth for breech presentation at term: the International Randomized Term Breech Trial. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2004 Sep;191(3):917-27. [Abstract]

79. Eide MG, Oyen N, Skjaerven R, et al. Breech delivery and Intelligence: a population-based study of 8,738 breech infants. Obstet Gynecol. 2005 Jan;105(1):4-11. [Abstract]

80. Whyte H, Hannah ME, Saigal S, et al. 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. 2004 Sep;191(3):864-71. [Abstract]

81. Brown S, Lumley J. Maternal health after childbirth: results of an Australian population based survey. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1998 Feb;105(2):156-61. [Abstract]

Published by

American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists

2016 (reaffirmed 2022)

Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (UK)

National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (UK)

Topic last updated: 2024-03-05

Natasha Nassar , PhD

Associate Professor

Menzies Centre for Health Policy

Sydney School of Public Health

University of Sydney

Christine L. Roberts , MBBS, FAFPHM, DrPH

Research Director

Clinical and Population Health Division

Perinatal Medicine Group

Kolling Institute of Medical Research

Jonathan Morris , MBChB, FRANZCOG, PhD

Professor of Obstetrics and Gynaecology and Head of Department

Peer Reviewers

John W. Bachman , MD

Consultant in Family Medicine

Department of Family Medicine

Mayo Clinic

Rhona Hughes , MBChB

Lead Obstetrician

Lothian Simpson Centre for Reproductive Health

The Royal Infirmary

Brian Peat , MD

Director of Obstetrics

Women's and Children's Hospital

North Adelaide

South Australia

Lelia Duley , MBChB

Professor of Obstetric Epidemiology

University of Leeds

Bradford Institute of Health Research

Temple Bank House

Bradford Royal Infirmary

Justus Hofmeyr , MD

Head of the Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology

East London Private Hospital

East London

South Africa

Fetal Presentation: Baby’s First Pose

Share this post

Occiput Anterior

Occiput posterior, transverse position, complete breech, frank breech, changing fetal presentation, baby positions.

The position in which your baby develops is called the “fetal presentation.” During most of your pregnancy, the baby will be curled up in a ball – that’s why we call it the “fetal position.” The baby might flip around over the course of development, which is why you can sometimes feel a foot poking into your side or an elbow prodding your bellybutton. As you get closer to delivery, the baby will change positions and move lower in your uterus in preparation. Over the last part of your pregnancy, your doctor or medical care provider will monitor the baby’s position to keep an eye out for any potential problems.

In the occiput anterior position, the baby is pointed headfirst toward the birth canal and is facing down – toward your back. This is the easiest possible position for delivery because it allows the crown of the baby’s head to pass through first, followed by the shoulders and the rest of the body. The crown of the head is the narrowest part, so it can lead the way for the rest of the head.

The baby’s head will move slowly downward as you get closer to delivery until it “engages” with your pelvis. At that point, the baby’s head will fit snugly and won’t be able to wobble around. That’s exactly where you want to be just before labor. The occiput anterior position causes the least stress on your little one and the easiest labor for you.

In the occiput posterior position, the baby is pointed headfirst toward the birth canal but is facing upward, toward your stomach. This can trap the baby’s head under your pubic bone, making it harder to get out through the birth canal. In most cases, a baby in the occiput posterior position will either turn around naturally during the course of labor or your doctor or midwife may help it along manually or with forceps.

In a transverse position, the baby is sideways across the birth canal rather than head- or feet-first. It’s rare for a baby to stay in this position all the way up to delivery, but your doctor may attempt to gently push on your abdomen until the baby is in a more favorable fetal presentation. If you go into labor while the baby is in a transverse position, your medical care provider will likely recommend a c-section to avoid stressing or injuring the baby.

Breech Presentation

If the baby’s legs or buttocks are leading the way instead of the head, it’s called a breech presentation. It’s much harder to deliver in this position – the baby’s limbs are unlikely to line up all in the right direction and the birth canal likely won’t be stretched enough to allow the head to pass. Breech presentation used to be extremely dangerous for mothers and children both, and it’s still not easy, but medical intervention can help.

Sometimes, the baby will turn around and you’ll be able to deliver vaginally. Most healthcare providers, however, recommend a cesarean section for all breech babies because of the risks of serious injury to both mother and child in a breech vaginal delivery.

A complete breech position refers to the baby being upside down for delivery – feet first and head up. The baby’s legs are folded up and the feet are near the buttocks.

In a frank breech position, the baby’s legs are extended and the baby’s buttocks are closest to the birth canal. This is the most common breech presentation .

By late in your pregnancy, your baby can already move around – you’re probably feeling those kicks! Unfortunately, your little one doesn’t necessarily know how to aim for the birth canal. If the baby isn’t in the occiput anterior position by about 32 weeks, your doctor or midwife will typically recommend trying adjust the fetal presentation. They’ll use monitors to keep an eye on the baby and watch for signs of stress as they push and lift on your belly to coax your little one into the right spot. Your doctor may also advise you to try certain exercises at home to encourage the baby to move into the proper position. For example, getting on your hands and knees for a few minutes every day can help bring the baby around. You can also put cushions on your chairs to make sure your hips are always elevated, which can help move things into the right place. It’s important to start working on the proper fetal position early, as it becomes much harder to adjust after about 37 weeks when there’s less room to move around.

In many cases, the baby will eventually line up properly before delivery. Sometimes, however, the baby is still in the wrong spot by the time you go into labor. Your doctor or midwife may be able to move the baby during labor using forceps or ventouse . If that’s not possible, it’s generally safer for you and the baby if you deliver by c-section.

Image Credit and License

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

• Stages of Pregnancy
• Foods to Avoid
• Medicines to Avoid
• Pregnancy Road Map

Birth Injuries

• Cerebral Palsy
• Brachial Plexus Injuries & Erb’s Palsy
• Brain Damage
• Meconium Aspiration
• Bone Fractures
• Nerve Damage

Newborn Care

• Baby Development

Legal Issues

• Birth Injury vs. Birth Defect
• Birth Injury Lawsuits
• Proving Your Case
• Elements Of A Case

• Email Address *
• Phone Number *
• Name This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Variation in fetal presentation

• Report problem with article
• View revision history

Citation, DOI, disclosures and article data

At the time the article was created The Radswiki had no recorded disclosures.

At the time the article was last revised Yuranga Weerakkody had no financial relationships to ineligible companies to disclose.

• Delivery presentations
• Variation in delivary presentation
• Abnormal fetal presentations

There can be many variations in the fetal presentation which is determined by which part of the fetus is projecting towards the internal cervical os . This includes:

cephalic presentation : fetal head presenting towards the internal cervical os, considered normal and occurs in the vast majority of births (~97%); this can have many variations which include

left occipito-anterior (LOA)

left occipito-posterior (LOP)

left occipito-transverse (LOT)

right occipito-anterior (ROA)

right occipito-posterior (ROP)

right occipito-transverse (ROT)

straight occipito-anterior

straight occipito-posterior

breech presentation : fetal rump presenting towards the internal cervical os, this has three main types

frank breech presentation  (50-70% of all breech presentation): hips flexed, knees extended (pike position)

complete breech presentation  (5-10%): hips flexed, knees flexed (cannonball position)

footling presentation  or incomplete (10-30%): one or both hips extended, foot presenting

other, e.g one leg flexed and one leg extended

shoulder presentation

cord presentation : umbilical cord presenting towards the internal cervical os

• 1. Fox AJ, Chapman MG. Longitudinal ultrasound assessment of fetal presentation: a review of 1010 consecutive cases. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 2006;46 (4): 341-4. doi:10.1111/j.1479-828X.2006.00603.x - Pubmed citation
• 2. Merz E, Bahlmann F. Ultrasound in obstetrics and gynecology. Thieme Medical Publishers. (2005) ISBN:1588901475. Read it at Google Books - Find it at Amazon

Incoming Links

• Obstetric curriculum
• Cord presentation
• Polyhydramnios
• Footling presentation
• Normal obstetrics scan (third trimester singleton)

Promoted articles (advertising)

ADVERTISEMENT: Supporters see fewer/no ads

By Section:

• Artificial Intelligence
• Classifications
• Imaging Technology
• Interventional Radiology
• Radiography
• Central Nervous System
• Gastrointestinal
• Gynaecology
• Haematology
• Head & Neck
• Hepatobiliary
• Interventional
• Musculoskeletal
• Paediatrics
• Not Applicable

Radiopaedia.org

• Feature Sponsor
• Expert advisers

• MSD careers

Fetal Presentation, Position, and Lie (Including Breech Presentation)

• Variations in Fetal Position and Presentation |

During pregnancy, the fetus can be positioned in many different ways inside the mother's uterus. The fetus may be head up or down or facing the mother's back or front. At first, the fetus can move around easily or shift position as the mother moves. Toward the end of the pregnancy the fetus is larger, has less room to move, and stays in one position. How the fetus is positioned has an important effect on delivery and, for certain positions, a cesarean delivery is necessary. There are medical terms that describe precisely how the fetus is positioned, and identifying the fetal position helps doctors to anticipate potential difficulties during labor and delivery.

Presentation refers to the part of the fetus’s body that leads the way out through the birth canal (called the presenting part). Usually, the head leads the way, but sometimes the buttocks (breech presentation), shoulder, or face leads the way.

Position refers to whether the fetus is facing backward (occiput anterior) or forward (occiput posterior). The occiput is a bone at the back of the baby's head. Therefore, facing backward is called occiput anterior (facing the mother’s back and facing down when the mother lies on her back). Facing forward is called occiput posterior (facing toward the mother's pubic bone and facing up when the mother lies on her back).

Lie refers to the angle of the fetus in relation to the mother and the uterus. Up-and-down (with the baby's spine parallel to mother's spine, called longitudinal) is normal, but sometimes the lie is sideways (transverse) or at an angle (oblique).

For these aspects of fetal positioning, the combination that is the most common, safest, and easiest for the mother to deliver is the following:

Head first (called vertex or cephalic presentation)

Facing backward (occiput anterior position)

Spine parallel to mother's spine (longitudinal lie)

Neck bent forward with chin tucked

Arms folded across the chest

If the fetus is in a different position, lie, or presentation, labor may be more difficult, and a normal vaginal delivery may not be possible.

Variations in fetal presentation, position, or lie may occur when

The fetus is too large for the mother's pelvis (fetopelvic disproportion).

The uterus is abnormally shaped or contains growths such as fibroids .

The fetus has a birth defect .

There is more than one fetus (multiple gestation).

Position and Presentation of the Fetus

Variations in fetal position and presentation.

Some variations in position and presentation that make delivery difficult occur frequently.

Occiput posterior position

In occiput posterior position (sometimes called sunny-side up), the fetus is head first (vertex presentation) but is facing forward (toward the mother's pubic bone—that is, facing up when the mother lies on her back). This is a very common position that is not abnormal, but it makes delivery more difficult than when the fetus is in the occiput anterior position (facing toward the mother's spine—that is facing down when the mother lies on her back).

When a fetus faces up, the neck is often straightened rather than bent,which requires more room for the head to pass through the birth canal. Delivery assisted by a vacuum device or forceps or cesarean delivery may be necessary.

Breech presentation

In breech presentation, the baby's buttocks or sometimes the feet are positioned to deliver first (before the head).

When delivered vaginally, babies that present buttocks first are more at risk of injury or even death than those that present head first.

The reason for the risks to babies in breech presentation is that the baby's hips and buttocks are not as wide as the head. Therefore, when the hips and buttocks pass through the cervix first, the passageway may not be wide enough for the head to pass through. In addition, when the head follows the buttocks, the neck may be bent slightly backwards. The neck being bent backward increases the width required for delivery as compared to when the head is angled forward with the chin tucked, which is the position that is easiest for delivery. Thus, the baby’s body may be delivered and then the head may get caught and not be able to pass through the birth canal. When the baby’s head is caught, this puts pressure on the umbilical cord in the birth canal, so that very little oxygen can reach the baby. Brain damage due to lack of oxygen is more common among breech babies than among those presenting head first.

In a first delivery, these problems may occur more frequently because a woman’s tissues have not been stretched by previous deliveries. Because of risk of injury or even death to the baby, cesarean delivery is preferred when the fetus is in breech presentation, unless the doctor is very experienced with and skilled at delivering breech babies or there is not an adequate facility or equipment to safely perform a cesarean delivery.

Breech presentation is more likely to occur in the following circumstances:

Labor starts too soon (preterm labor).

The uterus is abnormally shaped or contains abnormal growths such as fibroids .

Other presentations

In face presentation, the baby's neck arches back so that the face presents first rather than the top of the head.

In brow presentation, the neck is moderately arched so that the brow presents first.

Usually, fetuses do not stay in a face or brow presentation. These presentations often change to a vertex (top of the head) presentation before or during labor. If they do not, a cesarean delivery is usually recommended.

In transverse lie, the fetus lies horizontally across the birth canal and presents shoulder first. A cesarean delivery is done, unless the fetus is the second in a set of twins. In such a case, the fetus may be turned to be delivered through the vagina.

• Cookie Preferences

Copyright © 2024 Merck & Co., Inc., Rahway, NJ, USA and its affiliates. All rights reserved.

• Case report
• Open access
• Published: 26 April 2024

An unusual case of severe asphyxia with the fetal position unexpectedly inverted in a malformed uterus: a case report

• Jiro Abe   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-3977-2679 1 , 2 , 3 ,
• Takashi Nasu 1 ,
• Ayumu Noro 1 &
• Junko Tsubaki 1  

Journal of Medical Case Reports volume  18 , Article number:  209 ( 2024 ) Cite this article

242 Accesses

1 Altmetric

Metrics details

We present a severe neonatal consequence due to the unexpected and crucial inversion of the fetal position after sudden termination of tocolysis during early labor of a woman with congenital uterine anomaly. It has been reported that congenital uterine anomalies latently affect the fetal position. The clinical pitfalls in childbirth with uterine anomalies are discussed here on the basis of clinical evidence.

Case presentation

At a perinatal medical center in Japan, a 29-year-old Japanese mother who had a history of bicornuate uterus, received tocolysis to prolong her pregnancy for 5 days during the late preterm period after preterm-premature rupture of the membrane. She gave birth to a 2304 g male neonate of the gestational age of 35 weeks and 5 days with severe asphyxia by means of crash cesarean section for fetal sustained bradycardia after sudden termination of tocolysis. We found the fetal position to reverse from cephalic to breech position during early labor. He ended up having severe cerebral palsy after brain cooling against hypoxic-ischemic encephalopathy for 3 days. The mechanism of inversion from cephalic to breech position without amnionic fluid remains unclear, although women with a known diagnosis of a uterine anomaly have higher risk of adverse outcomes such as malpresentation.

Conclusions

When considering the clinical course of this case on the basis of the medical reports, we suspected that uterine anomalies and changes in intrauterine pressure could cause fetal malpresentation and adverse neonatal outcomes.

Peer Review reports

Uterine abnormalities may be overlooked in women with successful reproductive outcomes, but one study estimated that, even in women with normal pregnancy outcomes, the incidence of congenital uterine anomalies is approximately 3%. The likelihood of fetal malpresentation at the time of delivery is notably increased by the presence of uterine anomalies [ 1 ]. A case is presented where a mother with bicornuate uterus received tocolytic treatment with β-stimulants after surpassing 35 weeks of gestation. Following the discontinuation of tocolysis associated with the onset of labor, the fetus experienced distress and malpresentation, ultimately resulting in severe cerebral palsy in the child. There are no existing case reports that show a change in fetal presentation during labor with uterine anomalies resulting in fetal asphyxia.

A 29-year-old Japanese mother who had a history of bicornuate uterus gave birth to a 2304 g male neonate of the gestational age of 35 weeks and 5 days with severe asphyxia. She was a primigravida without health issues, and her pregnancy course, including changes in maternal body mass index (BMI) and gestational weight gain, was smooth. She was admitted to our hospital to receive tocolysis treatments using ritodrine hydrochloride because of preterm premature rupture of membrane at 35 weeks’ gestation, receiving antibiotics, no antenatal corticosteroids, and no magnesium sulfate. The ultrasound examinations revealed overall fetal growth, reduced amniotic fluid, and a fetal vertex position. A total of 3 hours before the birth, the administration of the tocolytic agent, by ritodrine hydrochloride using the maximum dose of 200 µg per minute, was terminated to promote vaginal delivery, and she was transferred to a delivery room. Non-reassuring patterns repetitively emerged at 1 hour prior to the birth, which were only confirmed by cardiotocography without an ultrasound examination performed at that time (Fig.  1 A). General fetal resuscitation such as maternal oxygen administration and intravenous infusion of a liter of non-glucose crystalloid without acute tocolysis was used as part of the obstetric management of labor, while preparing for cesarean delivery for fetal distress. Quick pelvic examinations ensured the fetus’s cephalic position while observing the mother in preparation for an emergency cesarean operation, although the fetal position during delivery was not confirmed by ultrasound. Half an hour before the birth, fetal bradycardia was sustained while the pelvic examination indicated that the fetal head was unexpectedly floating (Fig.  1 A). A crash cesarean section was performed, where he was found to be in a breech presentation. We found quite little amniotic fluid without the evidence of meconium-stained amniotic fluid or cord coiling. The pathological findings of the placenta and umbilical cord proved only mild chorioamnionitis without any evidence of delivery injury or anomaly afterward.

(A) Cardiotocography immediately before birth. Non-reassuring patterns repetitively emerged 1 hour prior to birth. Pelvic examinations revealed a fixed cephalic position. At half an hour, fetal bradycardia was sustained while the pelvic examination indicated that the fetal head was unexpectedly floating. (B) Sequential brain magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). According to sequential brain MRI findings, his lesions post hypoxic-ischemic encephalopathy (HIE) were mainly located in the basal ganglia and the brain stem

After delivery he presented with bradycardia and deep cyanosis without breathing, muscle movements, and reflections. Because his asphyxia turned out to be refractory to routine resuscitation, he was intubated after 1 minute. His skin color rapidly became pink, and the heart rate returned to a normal range without the recovery of muscle movements and reflex actions. He received an appearance, pulse, grimace, activity, and respiration (APGAR) score of 1 at 1 minute and 3 at 5 minutes; the arterial cord blood sample was not available, because of technical difficulty in sampling umbilical cord blood. He needed special care that included mechanical ventilation and correction of mixed acidosis (pH 6.85, pvCO2 77 mmHg, HCO 3 − 12.6 mmol/l at 15 minutes after birth), and then he was given phenobarbital. At 1.5 hours after birth, he was transferred to another tertiary care hospital where he received therapeutic hypothermia for hypoxic-ischemic encephalopathy; the Sarnat grade was moderate, and the Thompson score was calculated as 16 points [ 2 ]. He was a late preterm and low-birth-weight newborn with no congenital anomalies or other problems that would be predictive of neonatal asphyxia through newborn screening especially focusing on the brain, heart, or metabolism. We could not find clinical and pathological evidence of his severe asphyxia in the end. Chromosomal testing was not conducted. He ended up having severe cerebral palsy after brain cooling for 3 days. His sequential brain MRI findings supported the severity of the encephalopathy that mainly affected the basal ganglia and brain stem (Fig.  1 B). He is now 9 months of age and remains in bed with special healthcare requirements that include tube feeding, while presenting with dystonia with severe mental developmental retardation.

Discussion and conclusions

The mother had some delivery risks as follows: a uterine anomaly, absent amniotic fluid after preterm-premature rupture of membrane, and threatened late-preterm labor. The placental blood flow in mothers with congenital uterine anomalies is reduced, and there is a predicted decrease in the reserve capacity for blood supply to the fetus, particularly during delivery. When a mother has congenital uterine anomalies, there is a 5-fold increased risk of preterm birth and a 20-fold increased risk of placental abruption [ 3 ]. This case is believed to be caused by circulatory insufficiency between the mother and fetus, with the influence of congenital uterine anomaly likely playing a background role. Increased intrauterine pressure might have occurred by abrupt termination of tocolysis with the lack of amniotic fluid, which would make the fetal status worse, although there was no evidence of excessively rapid uterine contractions in the tocography (Fig.  1 A).

Uterine anomalies are known to significantly elevate the chances of fetal malpresentation during delivery. According to the meta-analysis by Chan, the likelihood of fetal malpresentation was found to be higher in cases of arcuate uterus, unification defects, and canalization defects, with the odds being 2.53 [95% confidence interval (CI) 1.54–4.18; p  < 0.001], 3.87 (95% CI 2.42–6.18; p  < 0.001), and 6.24 (95% CI 4.05–9.62; p  < 0.001) times, respectively [ 4 ]. Furthermore, a retrospective study by Hua and colleagues, which encompassed all types of uterine anomalies (including uterine septum, unicornuate uterus, bicornuate uterus, and uterine didelphys), revealed that women with these anomalies were 8.6 times more likely to experience breech presentation of the fetus compared with women with standard uterine anatomy (95% CI 6.2–12.0; p  < 0.01) [ 5 ]. Additionally, a comprehensive retrospective cross-sectional study, examining a total of 109,736 singleton infants (both preterm and full-term), of which 4535 were breech at birth, determined that women with any form of uterine malformation had an almost 10-fold increase in the likelihood of breech fetal presentation (odds ratio, 9.47; 95% CI 6.77–13.25) [ 6 ]. Possible causes are thought to be changes in intrauterine and external pressure, for example, the effects of uterine malformations, the sudden discontinuation of uterine contraction inhibiting drugs, and the transfer from the delivery table to the bed. The unexpected inversion of the fetal position with very little amniotic fluid during early labor would have led to the poor consequence, causing the umbilical cord to twist and consequently leading to the interruption of placental blood flow.

It may have been unavoidable, but we can suggest two preventive plans for this case. One plan would be ongoing expectant management with or without tocolysis. The issue of whether to suppress or allow progressive labor to proceed during the late-preterm period remains controversial [ 7 ]. If waiting for labor while inhibiting uterine contractions, it is necessary to carefully monitor changes in intrauterine pressure when stopping tocolytic agents. The other one would be planned earlier delivery including elective cesarean operation. Bicornuate uterus has been reported to be a risk factor for unsuccessful vaginal delivery [ 8 ]. A major meta-analysis discovered that the likelihood of undergoing a primary cesarean delivery was 2.6 times higher for women with congenital uterine anomalies (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 2.6; 95% CI 1.7–4.0; p  < 0.01) [ 5 ]. Additionally, a retrospective cohort study over a decade at a French university hospital assessed women known to have uterine malformations, focusing on the baby’s presentation and the method of delivery. In this group, women with uterine abnormalities showed a significantly increased incidence of breech presentations (36.51% as opposed to 4.52%; p  < 0.01) and cesarean deliveries (55.26% compared with 18.70%; p  < 0.01), in contrast to women with normally formed uteri [ 9 ].

Women with congenital uterine anomalies face significantly higher risks of preterm birth, placental abruption, fetal malpresentation, and breech presentation. Several studies highlight the increased odds of complications such as fetal malpresentation and breech births, indicating a need for careful monitoring and possibly alternative delivery plans, including elective cesarean operations. Our report concludes with suggestions for managing such high-risk cases, emphasizing the importance of careful monitoring or possibly opting for an earlier planned delivery to mitigate risks.

Availability of data and materials

The approval from the parent allowed us to use the patient’s data and report this case with data anonymization.

Simón C, Martinez L, Pardo F, et al . Müllerian defects in women with normal reproductive outcome. Fertil Steril. 1991;56:1192–3.

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Chansarn P, Torgalkar R, Wilson D, Fan CPS, Widjaja E, Whyte H, Tam WYE, Lee KS. Correlation of Thompson and modified Sarnat scores in neonatal hypoxic ischemic encephalopathy. J Perinatol. 2021;41:1522–3.

Vaz SA, Dotters-Katz SK, Kuller JA. Diagnosis and management of congenital uterine anomalies in pregnancy. Obstet Gynecol Surv. 2017;72:194–201.

Chan YY, Jayaprakasan K, Tan A, et al . Reproductive outcomes in women with congenital uterine anomalies: a systematic review. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2011;38:371–82.

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Hua M, Odibo AO, Longman RE, et al . Congenital uterine anomalies and adverse pregnancy outcomes. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2011;205:558e1–5.

Article   Google Scholar  

Cui H, Chen Y, Li Q, et al . Cesarean rate and risk factors for singleton breech presentation in China. J Reprod Med. 2016;61:270–4.

PubMed   Google Scholar  

Kugelman A, Colin AA. Late preterm infants: near term but still in a critical developmental time period. Pediatrics. 2013;132:741–51.

Mastrolia SA, Baumfeld Y, Hershkovitz R, Loverro G, Naro ED, Yohai D, Schwarzman P, Weintraub AY. Bicornuate uterus is an independent risk factor for cervical OS insufficiency: a retrospective population based cohort study. Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2017;30:2705–10.

Guinard E, Subtil D, Deruelle P. Congenital müllerian anomalies and delivery: analysis of 304 cases between 2000 and 2010 at the university hospital of Lille [in French]. Gynecol Obstet Fertil. 2014;42:471–6.

Download references

Acknowledgements

We appreciate clinical support from Asuka Takahata, Tetsuo Onda, Naho Fuseya.

We all declare no financial support or relationships that may pose a conflict of interest by disclosing any financial arrangements we have with a company whose product figures prominently in the submitted manuscript or with a company making a competing product, or any conflict relating to technology or methodology.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Pediatrics, JCHO Hokkaido Hospital, 3-18, Nakanoshima 1 Jyou 8 Tyoume, Sapporo, Japan

Jiro Abe, Takashi Nasu, Ayumu Noro & Junko Tsubaki

Department of Pediatrics, Graduate School of Medicine, Hokkaido University, Kita-15, Nishi 7, Kita-Ku, Sapporo, 060-8638, Japan

Mitochondrial Redox Biology, Medical Research Council Mitochondrial Biology Unit and Department of Medicine, University of Cambridge, The Keith Peters Building, Cambridge Biomedical Campus Hills Road, Cambridge, CB2 0XY, UK

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

Jiro Abe designed and prepared the manuscript; Takashi Nasu, Ayumu Noro, and Junko Tsubaki provided technical support and conceptual advice. All of the authors read and approved the final version of the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jiro Abe .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate.

We strictly followed the rules for publication by the research ethics committee in Hokkaido University Hospital, which permitted us to participate.

Consent for publication

Written informed consent was obtained from the patient for publication of this case report and any accompanying images. A copy of the written consent is available for review by the Editor-in-Chief of this journal.

Competing interests

We have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

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

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Abe, J., Nasu, T., Noro, A. et al. An unusual case of severe asphyxia with the fetal position unexpectedly inverted in a malformed uterus: a case report. J Med Case Reports 18 , 209 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13256-024-04524-0

Download citation

Received : 01 February 2022

Accepted : 25 March 2024

Published : 26 April 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s13256-024-04524-0

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Inverted fetal position
• Neonatal asphyxia
• Hypoxic-ischemic encephalopathy
• Late preterm
• Uterine anomalies

Journal of Medical Case Reports

ISSN: 1752-1947

• Submission enquiries: Access here and click Contact Us
• General enquiries: [email protected]

An unusual case of severe asphyxia with the fetal position unexpectedly inverted in a malformed uterus: a case report

Affiliations.

• 1 Department of Pediatrics, JCHO Hokkaido Hospital, 3-18, Nakanoshima 1 Jyou 8 Tyoume, Sapporo, Japan. [email protected].
• 2 Department of Pediatrics, Graduate School of Medicine, Hokkaido University, Kita-15, Nishi 7, Kita-Ku, Sapporo, 060-8638, Japan. [email protected].
• 3 Mitochondrial Redox Biology, Medical Research Council Mitochondrial Biology Unit and Department of Medicine, University of Cambridge, The Keith Peters Building, Cambridge Biomedical Campus Hills Road, Cambridge, CB2 0XY, UK. [email protected].
• 4 Department of Pediatrics, JCHO Hokkaido Hospital, 3-18, Nakanoshima 1 Jyou 8 Tyoume, Sapporo, Japan.
• PMID: 38664817
• PMCID: PMC11046871
• DOI: 10.1186/s13256-024-04524-0

Background: We present a severe neonatal consequence due to the unexpected and crucial inversion of the fetal position after sudden termination of tocolysis during early labor of a woman with congenital uterine anomaly. It has been reported that congenital uterine anomalies latently affect the fetal position. The clinical pitfalls in childbirth with uterine anomalies are discussed here on the basis of clinical evidence.

Case presentation: At a perinatal medical center in Japan, a 29-year-old Japanese mother who had a history of bicornuate uterus, received tocolysis to prolong her pregnancy for 5 days during the late preterm period after preterm-premature rupture of the membrane. She gave birth to a 2304 g male neonate of the gestational age of 35 weeks and 5 days with severe asphyxia by means of crash cesarean section for fetal sustained bradycardia after sudden termination of tocolysis. We found the fetal position to reverse from cephalic to breech position during early labor. He ended up having severe cerebral palsy after brain cooling against hypoxic-ischemic encephalopathy for 3 days. The mechanism of inversion from cephalic to breech position without amnionic fluid remains unclear, although women with a known diagnosis of a uterine anomaly have higher risk of adverse outcomes such as malpresentation.

Conclusions: When considering the clinical course of this case on the basis of the medical reports, we suspected that uterine anomalies and changes in intrauterine pressure could cause fetal malpresentation and adverse neonatal outcomes.

Keywords: Hypoxic-ischemic encephalopathy; Inverted fetal position; Late preterm; Neonatal asphyxia; Tocolysis; Uterine anomalies.

© 2024. The Author(s).

Publication types

• Case Reports
• Asphyxia Neonatorum / complications
• Breech Presentation
• Cesarean Section*
• Infant, Newborn
• Labor Presentation
• Urogenital Abnormalities / complications
• Uterus* / abnormalities*

Supplementary concepts

• Uterine Anomalies