breech presentation in early pregnancy

Pregnancy Classes

Breech Births

In the last weeks of pregnancy, a baby usually moves so his or her head is positioned to come out of the vagina first during birth. This is called a vertex presentation. A breech presentation occurs when the baby’s buttocks, feet, or both are positioned to come out first during birth. This happens in 3–4% of full-term births.

What are the different types of breech birth presentations?

Complete breech: Here, the buttocks are pointing downward with the legs folded at the knees and feet near the buttocks.
Frank breech: In this position, the baby’s buttocks are aimed at the birth canal with its legs sticking straight up in front of his or her body and the feet near the head.
Footling breech: In this position, one or both of the baby’s feet point downward and will deliver before the rest of the body.

What causes a breech presentation?

The causes of breech presentations are not fully understood. However, the data show that breech birth is more common when:

You have been pregnant before
In pregnancies of multiples
When there is a history of premature delivery
When the uterus has too much or too little amniotic fluid
When there is an abnormally shaped uterus or a uterus with abnormal growths, such as fibroids
The placenta covers all or part of the opening of the uterus placenta previa

How is a breech presentation diagnosed?

A few weeks prior to the due date, the health care provider will place her hands on the mother’s lower abdomen to locate the baby’s head, back, and buttocks. If it appears that the baby might be in a breech position, they can use ultrasound or pelvic exam to confirm the position. Special x-rays can also be used to determine the baby’s position and the size of the pelvis to determine if a vaginal delivery of a breech baby can be safely attempted.

Can a breech presentation mean something is wrong?

Even though most breech babies are born healthy, there is a slightly elevated risk for certain problems. Birth defects are slightly more common in breech babies and the defect might be the reason that the baby failed to move into the right position prior to delivery.

Can a breech presentation be changed?

It is preferable to try to turn a breech baby between the 32nd and 37th weeks of pregnancy . The methods of turning a baby will vary and the success rate for each method can also vary. It is best to discuss the options with the health care provider to see which method she recommends.

Medical Techniques

External Cephalic Version (EVC) is a non-surgical technique to move the baby in the uterus. In this procedure, a medication is given to help relax the uterus. There might also be the use of an ultrasound to determine the position of the baby, the location of the placenta and the amount of amniotic fluid in the uterus.

Gentle pushing on the lower abdomen can turn the baby into the head-down position. Throughout the external version the baby’s heartbeat will be closely monitored so that if a problem develops, the health care provider will immediately stop the procedure. ECV usually is done near a delivery room so if a problem occurs, a cesarean delivery can be performed quickly. The external version has a high success rate and can be considered if you have had a previous cesarean delivery.

ECV will not be tried if:

You are carrying more than one fetus
There are concerns about the health of the fetus
You have certain abnormalities of the reproductive system
The placenta is in the wrong place
The placenta has come away from the wall of the uterus ( placental abruption )

Complications of EVC include:

Prelabor rupture of membranes
Changes in the fetus’s heart rate
Placental abruption
Preterm labor

Vaginal delivery versus cesarean for breech birth?

Most health care providers do not believe in attempting a vaginal delivery for a breech position. However, some will delay making a final decision until the woman is in labor. The following conditions are considered necessary in order to attempt a vaginal birth:

The baby is full-term and in the frank breech presentation
The baby does not show signs of distress while its heart rate is closely monitored.
The process of labor is smooth and steady with the cervix widening as the baby descends.
The health care provider estimates that the baby is not too big or the mother’s pelvis too narrow for the baby to pass safely through the birth canal.
Anesthesia is available and a cesarean delivery possible on short notice

What are the risks and complications of a vaginal delivery?

In a breech birth, the baby’s head is the last part of its body to emerge making it more difficult to ease it through the birth canal. Sometimes forceps are used to guide the baby’s head out of the birth canal. Another potential problem is cord prolapse . In this situation the umbilical cord is squeezed as the baby moves toward the birth canal, thus slowing the baby’s supply of oxygen and blood. In a vaginal breech delivery, electronic fetal monitoring will be used to monitor the baby’s heartbeat throughout the course of labor. Cesarean delivery may be an option if signs develop that the baby may be in distress.

When is a cesarean delivery used with a breech presentation?

Most health care providers recommend a cesarean delivery for all babies in a breech position, especially babies that are premature. Since premature babies are small and more fragile, and because the head of a premature baby is relatively larger in proportion to its body, the baby is unlikely to stretch the cervix as much as a full-term baby. This means that there might be less room for the head to emerge.

Want to Know More?

Creating Your Birth Plan
Labor & Birth Terms to Know
Cesarean Birth After Care

Compiled using information from the following sources:

ACOG: If Your Baby is Breech
William’s Obstetrics Twenty-Second Ed. Cunningham, F. Gary, et al, Ch. 24.
Danforth’s Obstetrics and Gynecology Ninth Ed. Scott, James R., et al, Ch. 21.

Share this post:

Episiotomy: Advantages & Complications

Retained Placenta

What is Dilation in Pregnancy?

Track your baby’s development, subscribe to our week-by-week pregnancy newsletter.

The Bumpy Truth Blog
Fertility Products Resource Guide

Pregnancy Tools

Ovulation Calendar
Baby Names Directory
Pregnancy Due Date Calculator
Pregnancy Quiz

Pregnancy Journeys

Partner With Us
Corporate Sponsors

What does it mean when a baby is breech?

Signs of a breech baby, why are some babies breech, how to turn a breech baby: is it possible, will i need a c-section if my baby is breech, how to turn a breech baby naturally.

Breech is a term used to describe your baby's position in the womb. Breech position means your baby is bottom-down instead of head-down.

Babies are often active in early pregnancy, moving into different positions. But by around 8 months, there's not much room in the uterus. Most babies maximize their cramped quarters by settling in head down, in what's known as a cephalic or vertex presentation. But if you have a breech baby, it means they're poised to come out buttocks and/or feet first. At 28 weeks or less, about a quarter of babies are breech, and at 32 weeks, 7 percent are breech. By the end of pregnancy, only 3 to 4 percent of babies are in breech position. At term, a baby in breech position is unlikely to turn on their own.

There are several types of breech presentations:

Frank breech (bottom first with feet up near the head)
Complete breech (bottom first with legs crossed)
Incomplete or footling breech (one or both feet are poised to come out first)

(In rare cases, a baby will be sideways in the uterus with their shoulder, back, or arm presenting first – this is called a transverse lie.)

See what these breech presentations look like .

If your baby is in breech position, you may feel them kicking in your lower belly. Or you may feel pressure under your ribcage, from their head.

By the beginning of your third trimester , your practitioner may be able to tell what position your baby is in by feeling your abdomen and locating the baby's head, back, and bottom.

If your baby's position isn't clear during an abdominal exam at 36 weeks, your caregiver may do an internal exam to try to feel what part of the baby is in your pelvis. In some cases, they may use ultrasound to confirm the baby's position.

We don't usually know why some babies are breech – in most cases it seems to be chance. While sometimes a baby with certain birth defects may not turn to a head-down position, most babies in breech position are perfectly fine. Here are some things that might increase the risk of a breech presentation:

You're carrying multiples
You've been pregnant before
You've had a breech presentation before
There's too much amniotic fluid or not enough amniotic fluid
You have placenta previa (the placenta is covering all of part of the opening of the uterus)
Your baby is preterm
Your uterus is shaped abnormally or has growths, such as fibroids
The umbilical cord is short
You were a breech delivery, or your sibling or parent was a breech delivery
Advanced maternal age (especially age 45 and older)
Your baby is a low weight at delivery
You're having a girl

There is a procedure for turning a breech baby. It's called an external cephalic version (ECV). An ob/gyn turns your baby by applying pressure to your abdomen and manually manipulating the baby into a head-down position. Some women find it very uncomfortable or even painful.

An EVC has about a 58 percent success rate, and it's more likely to work if this isn't your first baby. It's not for everyone – you can't have the procedure if you're carrying multiples or if you have too little amniotic fluid or placental abruption , for example. Your provider also won't attempt to turn your breech baby if your baby has any health problems.

The procedure is done after 36 weeks and in the hospital, where your baby can be monitored and where you'll be near a delivery room should any complications arise.

It depends, and it's something you'll want to talk with your caregiver about ahead of time. Discuss your preferences, the advantages and risks of each option ( vaginal and cesarean delivery of a breech presentation), and their experience. The biggest risk of a breech delivery is when the body delivers but the head stays entrapped within the cervix.

In the United States, most breech babies are delivered via cesarean. You may wind up having a vaginal breech delivery if your labor is so rapid that you arrive at the hospital just about to deliver. Another scenario is if you have a twin pregnancy where the first baby is in the head-first position and the second baby is not. A baby who delivers head-first will make room for the breech baby.

However, the vast majority of babies who remain breech arrive by c-section. If a c-section is planned, it will usually be scheduled at 39 weeks. To make sure your baby hasn't changed position in the meantime, you'll have an ultrasound at the hospital to confirm their position just before the surgery.

If you go into labor or your water will break s before your planned c-section, be sure to call your provider right away and head for the hospital.

In rare circumstances, if you're at low risk of complications and your caregiver is experienced delivering breech babies vaginally, you may choose to have what is called a "trial of vaginal birth." This means that you can attempt to deliver vaginally but should be prepared to have a cesarean delivery if labor isn't progressing well. You and your baby will be closely monitored during labor.

In addition to ECV, there are some alternative, natural ways to try to turn your baby. There's no proof that any of them work – or that all of them are safe. Consult your practitioner before trying them.

There's no conclusive proof that the mother's position has any effect on the baby's position, but the idea is to employ gravity to help your baby somersault into a head-down position. A few tips:

Get into one of the following positions twice a day, starting at around 32 weeks.
Be sure to do these moves on an empty stomach, lest your lunch comes back up.
Make sure there's someone around to help you get up if you start feeling lightheaded.
If you find these positions uncomfortable, stop doing them.

Position 1: Lie flat on your back and raise your pelvis so that it's 9 to 12 inches off the floor. Support your hips with a pillow and stay in this position for five to 15 minutes. Position 2: Kneel down, with your forearms on the floor in front of you, so that your bottom sticks up in the air. Stay in this position for five to 15 minutes. Sleeping position

Many women wonder if there are sleeping positions to turn a breech baby. But the positions you use to try to coax your baby head down for a short time shouldn't be used while you're sleeping. (It's not safe to sleep flat on your back in late pregnancy, for example, because the weight of your baby may compress the blood vessels that provide oxygen and nutrients to them.)

The best position for sleeping during pregnancy is on your side. Placing a pillow between your legs in this position may help open your pelvis, giving your baby room to move more easily. Support your back with plenty of pillows, too. Again, there's no proof that this works, but since it's the best sleeping position for you and your baby, you may as well give it a try.

Moxibustion

This ancient Chinese technique burns herbs to stimulate key acupressure points. To help turn a breech baby, an acupuncturist or other practitioner burns mugwort near the acupressure point of your pinky toes. According to Chinese medicine, this should stimulate your baby's activity enough that they may change position on their own. Some studies show that moxibustion in combination with acupuncture and/or positioning methods may be of some benefit. Others show moxibustion to provide no help in coaxing a baby into cephalic position. If you've discussed it with your caregiver and want to give it a try, contact your state acupuncture or Chinese medicine association and ask for the names of licensed practitioners.

One small study found that women who are regularly hypnotized into a state of deep relaxation at 37 to 40 weeks are more likely to have their baby turn than other women. If you're willing to try this technique, look for a licensed hypnotherapist with experience working with pregnant women.

Chiropractic care

There's a technique – called The Webster Breech Technique – that aims to reduce stress on the pelvis by relaxing the uterus and surrounding ligaments. The idea is that a breech baby can turn more naturally in a relaxed uterus, but research is limited as to the risks and benefits of this technique. If you're interested, talk with your provider about working with a chiropractor who's experienced with the technique.

This is a safe – and again, unproven – method based on the fact that your baby can hear sounds outside the womb. Simply play music close to the lower part of your abdomen (some women use headphones) to encourage your baby to move in the direction of the sound.

Learn more:

C-section recovery
Third trimester pregnancy guide and checklist
Hospital bag checklist

Was this article helpful?

Breech, posterior, transverse lie: What position is my baby in?

woman with hand on belly at medical office

Raspberry leaf tea is popular during pregnancy – but possible benefits aren't proven

Too much amniotic fluid (polyhydramnios)

C-section recovery: Timeline, aftercare tips, and expectations

Mom laying with c-section scar laying down with baby

BabyCenter's editorial team is committed to providing the most helpful and trustworthy pregnancy and parenting information in the world. When creating and updating content, we rely on credible sources: respected health organizations, professional groups of doctors and other experts, and published studies in peer-reviewed journals. We believe you should always know the source of the information you're seeing. Learn more about our editorial and medical review policies .

ACOG. 2019. If your baby is breech. FAQ. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. https://www.acog.org/womens-health/faqs/if-your-baby-is-breech Opens a new window [Accessed November 2021]

ACOG. 2018. Mode of term singleton breech delivery. Committee opinion number 745. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. https://www.acog.org/clinical/clinical-guidance/committee-opinion/articles/2018/08/mode-of-term-singleton-breech-delivery Opens a new window [Accessed November 2021]

Brici P et al. 2019. Turning foetal breech presentation at 32-35 weeks of gestational age by acupuncture and moxibustion. Evidence-based Complementary and Alternative Medicine https://www.hindawi.com/journals/ecam/2019/8950924/ Opens a new window [Accessed November 2021]

Ekeus C et al. 2019. Vaginal breech delivery at term and neonatal morbidity and mortality — a population-based cohort study in Sweden. Journal of Maternal Fetal Neonatal Medicine 32(2):265. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28889774/ Opens a new window [Accessed November 2021]

Fruscalzo A et al 2014. New and old predictive factors for breech presentation: our experience in 14433 singleton pregnancies and a literature review. Journal of Maternal Fetal Neonatal Medicine 27(2): 167-72. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23688372/ Opens a new window [Accessed November 2021]

Garcia MM et al. 2019 Effectiveness and safety of acupuncture and moxibustion in pregnant women with noncephalic presentation: An overview of systematic reviews. Evidence Based Complementary Alternative Medicine 7036914. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31885661/ Opens a new window [Accessed November 2021]

Gray C. 2021. Breech presentation. StatPearls. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK448063/ Opens a new window [Accessed November 2021]

Meaghan M et al. 2021. External cephalic version. NCBI StatPearls. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK482475/ Opens a new window [Accessed November 2021]

MedlinePlus. 2020. Breech - series - Types of breech presentation. https://medlineplus.gov/ency/presentations/100193_3.htm Opens a new window [Accessed November 2020]

Noli SA et al. 2019. Preterm birth, low gestational age, low birth weight, parity, and other determinants of breech presentation: Results from a large retrospective population-based study. Biomed Research International https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6766171/ Opens a new window [Accessed November 2021]

Pistolese RA. 2002. The Webster Technique: A chiropractic technique with obstetric implications. Journal of Manipulative and Physiological Therapeutics 25(6): E1-9. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12183701/ Opens a new window [Accessed November 2021]

Where to go next

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 .

Appointments at Mayo Clinic

Pregnancy week by week
Fetal presentation before birth

The way a baby is positioned in the uterus just before birth can have a big effect on labor and delivery. This positioning is called fetal presentation.

Babies twist, stretch and tumble quite a bit during pregnancy. Before labor starts, however, they usually come to rest in a way that allows them to be delivered through the birth canal headfirst. This position is called cephalic presentation. But there are other ways a baby may settle just before labor begins.

Following are some of the possible ways a baby may be positioned at the end of pregnancy.

Head down, face down

When a baby is head down, face down, the medical term for it is the cephalic occiput anterior position. This the most common position for a baby to be born in. With the face down and turned slightly to the side, the smallest part of the baby's head leads the way through the birth canal. It is the easiest way for a baby to be born.

Head down, face up

When a baby is head down, face up, the medical term for it is the cephalic occiput posterior position. In this position, it might be harder for a baby's head to go under the pubic bone during delivery. That can make labor take longer.

Most babies who begin labor in this position eventually turn to be face down. If that doesn't happen, and the second stage of labor is taking a long time, a member of the health care team may reach through the vagina to help the baby turn. This is called manual rotation.

In some cases, a baby can be born in the head-down, face-up position. Use of forceps or a vacuum device to help with delivery is more common when a baby is in this position than in the head-down, face-down position. In some cases, a C-section delivery may be needed.

Illustration of the head-down, face-up position

Frank breech

When a baby's feet or buttocks are in place to come out first during birth, it's called a breech presentation. This happens in about 3% to 4% of babies close to the time of birth. The baby shown below is in a frank breech presentation. That's when the knees aren't bent, and the feet are close to the baby's head. This is the most common type of breech presentation.

If you are more than 36 weeks into your pregnancy and your baby is in a frank breech presentation, your health care professional may try to move the baby into a head-down position. This is done using a procedure called external cephalic version. It involves one or two members of the health care team putting pressure on your belly with their hands to get the baby to roll into a head-down position.

If the procedure isn't successful, or if the baby moves back into a breech position, talk with a member of your health care team about the choices you have for delivery. Most babies in a frank breech position are born by planned C-section.

Illustration of the frank breech position

Complete and incomplete breech

A complete breech presentation, as shown below, is when the baby has both knees bent and both legs pulled close to the body. In an incomplete breech, one or both of the legs are not pulled close to the body, and one or both of the feet or knees are below the baby's buttocks. If a baby is in either of these positions, you might feel kicking in the lower part of your belly.

If you are more than 36 weeks into your pregnancy and your baby is in a complete or incomplete breech presentation, your health care professional may try to move the baby into a head-down position. This is done using a procedure called external cephalic version. It involves one or two members of the health care team putting pressure on your belly with their hands to get the baby to roll into a head-down position.

If the procedure isn't successful, or if the baby moves back into a breech position, talk with a member of your health care team about the choices you have for delivery. Many babies in a complete or incomplete breech position are born by planned C-section.

Illustration of a complete breech presentation

When a baby is sideways — lying horizontal across the uterus, rather than vertical — it's called a transverse lie. In this position, the baby's back might be:

Down, with the back facing the birth canal.
Sideways, with one shoulder pointing toward the birth canal.
Up, with the hands and feet facing the birth canal.

Although many babies are sideways early in pregnancy, few stay this way when labor begins.

If your baby is in a transverse lie during week 37 of your pregnancy, your health care professional may try to move the baby into a head-down position. This is done using a procedure called external cephalic version. External cephalic version involves one or two members of your health care team putting pressure on your belly with their hands to get the baby to roll into a head-down position.

If the procedure isn't successful, or if the baby moves back into a transverse lie, talk with a member of your health care team about the choices you have for delivery. Many babies who are in a transverse lie are born by C-section.

If you're pregnant with twins and only the twin that's lower in the uterus is head down, as shown below, your health care provider may first deliver that baby vaginally.

Then, in some cases, your health care team may suggest delivering the second twin in the breech position. Or they may try to move the second twin into a head-down position. This is done using a procedure called external cephalic version. External cephalic version involves one or two members of the health care team putting pressure on your belly with their hands to get the baby to roll into a head-down position.

Your health care team may suggest delivery by C-section for the second twin if:

An attempt to deliver the baby in the breech position is not successful.
You do not want to try to have the baby delivered vaginally in the breech position.
An attempt to move the baby into a head-down position is not successful.
You do not want to try to move the baby to a head-down position.

In some cases, your health care team may advise that you have both twins delivered by C-section. That might happen if the lower twin is not head down, the second twin has low or high birth weight as compared to the first twin, or if preterm labor starts.

Landon MB, et al., eds. Normal labor and delivery. In: Gabbe's Obstetrics: Normal and Problem Pregnancies. 8th ed. Elsevier; 2021. https://www.clinicalkey.com. Accessed May 19, 2023.
Holcroft Argani C, et al. Occiput posterior position. https://www.updtodate.com/contents/search. Accessed May 19, 2023.
Frequently asked questions: If your baby is breech. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists https://www.acog.org/womens-health/faqs/if-your-baby-is-breech. Accessed May 22, 2023.
Hofmeyr GJ. Overview of breech presentation. https://www.updtodate.com/contents/search. Accessed May 22, 2023.
Strauss RA, et al. Transverse fetal lie. https://www.updtodate.com/contents/search. Accessed May 22, 2023.
Chasen ST, et al. Twin pregnancy: Labor and delivery. https://www.updtodate.com/contents/search. Accessed May 22, 2023.
Cohen R, et al. Is vaginal delivery of a breech second twin safe? A comparison between delivery of vertex and non-vertex second twins. The Journal of Maternal-Fetal & Neonatal Medicine. 2021; doi:10.1080/14767058.2021.2005569.
Marnach ML (expert opinion). Mayo Clinic. May 31, 2023.

Products and Services

A Book: Obstetricks
A Book: Mayo Clinic Guide to a Healthy Pregnancy
3rd trimester pregnancy
Fetal development: The 3rd trimester
Overdue pregnancy
Pregnancy due date calculator
Prenatal care: 3rd trimester

Mayo Clinic does not endorse companies or products. Advertising revenue supports our not-for-profit mission.

Opportunities

Mayo Clinic Press

Check out these best-sellers and special offers on books and newsletters from Mayo Clinic Press .

Mayo Clinic on Incontinence - Mayo Clinic Press Mayo Clinic on Incontinence
The Essential Diabetes Book - Mayo Clinic Press The Essential Diabetes Book
Mayo Clinic on Hearing and Balance - Mayo Clinic Press Mayo Clinic on Hearing and Balance
FREE Mayo Clinic Diet Assessment - Mayo Clinic Press FREE Mayo Clinic Diet Assessment
Mayo Clinic Health Letter - FREE book - Mayo Clinic Press Mayo Clinic Health Letter - FREE book
Healthy Lifestyle

Your gift holds great power – donate today!

Make your tax-deductible gift and be a part of the cutting-edge research and care that's changing medicine.

Type 2 Diabetes
Heart Disease
Digestive Health
Multiple Sclerosis
Diet & Nutrition
Supplements
Health Insurance
Public Health
Patient Rights
Caregivers & Loved Ones
End of Life Concerns
Health News
Thyroid Test Analyzer
Doctor Discussion Guides
Hemoglobin A1c Test Analyzer
Lipid Test Analyzer
Complete Blood Count (CBC) Analyzer
What to Buy
Editorial Process
Meet Our Medical Expert Board

What Is Breech?

When a fetus is delivered buttocks or feet first

Types of Presentation

Risk Factors

Complications.

Breech concerns the position of the fetus before labor . Typically, the fetus comes out headfirst, but in a breech delivery, the buttocks or feet come out first. This type of delivery is risky for both the pregnant person and the fetus.

This article discusses the different types of breech presentations, risk factors that might make a breech presentation more likely, treatment options, and complications associated with a breech delivery.

Verywell / Jessica Olah

Types of Breech Presentation

During the last few weeks of pregnancy, a fetus usually rotates so that the head is positioned downward to come out of the vagina first. This is called the vertex position.

In a breech presentation, the fetus does not turn to lie in the correct position. Instead, the fetus’s buttocks or feet are positioned to come out of the vagina first.

At 28 weeks of gestation, approximately 20% of fetuses are in a breech position. However, the majority of these rotate to the proper vertex position. At full term, around 3%–4% of births are breech.

The different types of breech presentations include:

Complete : The fetus’s knees are bent, and the buttocks are presenting first.
Frank : The fetus’s legs are stretched upward toward the head, and the buttocks are presenting first.
Footling : The fetus’s foot is showing first.

Signs of Breech

There are no specific symptoms associated with a breech presentation.

Diagnosing breech before the last few weeks of pregnancy is not helpful, since the fetus is likely to turn to the proper vertex position before 35 weeks gestation.

A healthcare provider may be able to tell which direction the fetus is facing by touching a pregnant person’s abdomen. However, an ultrasound examination is the best way to determine how the fetus is lying in the uterus.

Most breech presentations are not related to any specific risk factor. However, certain circumstances can increase the risk for breech presentation.

These can include:

Previous pregnancies
Multiple fetuses in the uterus
An abnormally shaped uterus
Uterine fibroids , which are noncancerous growths of the uterus that usually appear during the childbearing years
Placenta previa, a condition in which the placenta covers the opening to the uterus
Preterm labor or prematurity of the fetus
Too much or too little amniotic fluid (the liquid that surrounds the fetus during pregnancy)
Fetal congenital abnormalities

Most fetuses that are breech are born by cesarean delivery (cesarean section or C-section), a surgical procedure in which the baby is born through an incision in the pregnant person’s abdomen.

In rare instances, a healthcare provider may plan a vaginal birth of a breech fetus. However, there are more risks associated with this type of delivery than there are with cesarean delivery.

Before cesarean delivery, a healthcare provider might utilize the external cephalic version (ECV) procedure to turn the fetus so that the head is down and in the vertex position. This procedure involves pushing on the pregnant person’s belly to turn the fetus while viewing the maneuvers on an ultrasound. This can be an uncomfortable procedure, and it is usually done around 37 weeks gestation.

ECV reduces the risks associated with having a cesarean delivery. It is successful approximately 40%–60% of the time. The procedure cannot be done once a pregnant person is in active labor.

Complications related to ECV are low and include the placenta tearing away from the uterine lining, changes in the fetus’s heart rate, and preterm labor.

ECV is usually not recommended if the:

Pregnant person is carrying more than one fetus
Placenta is in the wrong place
Healthcare provider has concerns about the health of the fetus
Pregnant person has specific abnormalities of the reproductive system

Recommendations for Previous C-Sections

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) says that ECV can be considered if a person has had a previous cesarean delivery.

During a breech delivery, the umbilical cord might come out first and be pinched by the exiting fetus. This is called cord prolapse and puts the fetus at risk for decreased oxygen and blood flow. There’s also a risk that the fetus’s head or shoulders will get stuck inside the mother’s pelvis, leading to suffocation.

Complications associated with cesarean delivery include infection, bleeding, injury to other internal organs, and problems with future pregnancies.

A healthcare provider needs to weigh the risks and benefits of ECV, delivering a breech fetus vaginally, and cesarean delivery.

In a breech delivery, the fetus comes out buttocks or feet first rather than headfirst (vertex), the preferred and usual method. This type of delivery can be more dangerous than a vertex delivery and lead to complications. If your baby is in breech, your healthcare provider will likely recommend a C-section.

A Word From Verywell

Knowing that your baby is in the wrong position and that you may be facing a breech delivery can be extremely stressful. However, most fetuses turn to have their head down before a person goes into labor. It is not a cause for concern if your fetus is breech before 36 weeks. It is common for the fetus to move around in many different positions before that time.

At the end of your pregnancy, if your fetus is in a breech position, your healthcare provider can perform maneuvers to turn the fetus around. If these maneuvers are unsuccessful or not appropriate for your situation, cesarean delivery is most often recommended. Discussing all of these options in advance can help you feel prepared should you be faced with a breech delivery.

American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. If your baby is breech .

TeachMeObGyn. Breech presentation .

MedlinePlus. Breech birth .

Hofmeyr GJ, Kulier R, West HM. External cephalic version for breech presentation at term . Cochrane Database Syst Rev . 2015 Apr 1;2015(4):CD000083. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD000083.pub3

By Christine Zink, MD Dr. Zink is a board-certified emergency medicine physician with expertise in the wilderness and global medicine.

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

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 ]

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 ]

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

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

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

Breech Presentation: What It Is and How It Can Affect Your Baby's Delivery

As you get close to your due date, your baby might sense she’s approaching her grand entrance and move into a head-down position in your uterus, ready to be born. However, in some cases, she might choose another position instead, such as bottom or feet down. When this happens, it’s called a breech presentation. Read on to learn how your healthcare provider checks the position of your baby, what delivery options you may have if your baby is breech, and what can cause a breech presentation.

What Is Breech?

During your pregnancy, your baby has likely taken every opportunity to let you know she means business by kicking up a storm and doing countless somersaults. It's natural for your baby to move and shift positions within the uterus. Then, usually between 32 and 36 weeks of pregnancy, your baby will likely get into a head-down position in preparation for being born.

There is a small chance — just 3 to 4 percent — that your baby may not move into this head-down position by the time your pregnancy is full term. This is called a breech presentation. The chance of a breech presentation is higher if your pregnancy is not yet full term or if you go into preterm labor .

Types of Birth Positions

There are many different types of positions, including a number of breech presentations, that your baby may take on before birth:

Frank breech presentation. Your baby's bottom is positioned downward. This is the most common type of breech presentation.

Complete breech presentation. Your baby's feet are positioned downward with her hips and knees flexed, almost cross-legged.

Incomplete breech presentation. Your baby's feet are positioned downward with only one hip or one knee flexed.

Shoulder presentation or transverse lie. This is a form of breech in which your baby is positioned horizontally in the uterus. Few babies remain this way at the time of delivery.

Footling breech. One or both of your baby's feet are pointed downward.

Cephalic or vertex presentation (occiput). Your baby is in the normal position for delivery. Her head is down and she’s facing toward your back.

Cephalic or vertex presentation (occiput posterior). In some cases, your baby may be in a downward position but with her face toward your front. If this happens in early labor, your baby may naturally turn to face your back on her own, or, later in labor, your provider may decide to manually assist the baby in getting into this position. If this doesn't work, your baby can still be delivered vaginally, but delivery may be prolonged and more painful.

The causes of your baby being in breech position aren't always clear, but it can be more common if any of the following apply to you:

You've been pregnant before

You are pregnant with twins (read on to learn more about twin breech)

The uterus has more or less amniotic fluid than usual

The uterus has an abnormal shape or has abnormal growths, such as fibroids.

You have a condition called placenta previa , which is when the placenta covers the cervix.

Your healthcare provider likely already knows whether any of these factors affect your situation, but you might want to mention it just to be sure.

Diagnosis of a Breech Presentation

At one of your prenatal visits in the lead up to your due date, your provider will check that everything is progressing as planned , and will examine your abdomen to try to find out whether your baby is in the correct head-down position. If your provider thinks there may be a breech presentation, she or he may recommend an ultrasound exam to confirm it.

Can a Breech Baby Be Turned?

If your baby is breech, your provider may consider turning your baby so that a vaginal delivery can proceed, if that’s in the cards for you anyway. Alternatively, your provider may recommend that a cesarean delivery is the safer option.

Keep in mind, your baby's position might change at some point before delivery day, so your provider may recommend waiting and seeing.

If you are 37 weeks pregnant or more, your provider may recommend turning your baby through a process called external cephalic version or ECV.

ECV involves your provider placing hands on your abdomen and applying firm pressure in order to turn the baby. This procedure will most likely be done near a delivery room. Your provider may offer an epidural block to help with any pain this procedure causes.

An ECV is about 50 percent effective and there is a small risk of complications. You and your baby will be monitored closely before, during, and after the procedure to ensure that both of you are doing well.

If the ECV procedure is successful, your baby can be delivered vaginally , if there’s no other impediment.

Delivery Options for a Breech Baby

If your baby is in a breech position, the risks associated with a vaginal delivery are much higher than with a cesarean section. Risks include the umbilical cord cutting off his blood supply or his head or shoulders becoming stuck. That’s why, in some cases, your provider may recommend a cesarean delivery .

It could be that your provider’s level of experience in delivering breech babies might also inform the discussion you have with your provider about what’s right for your situation. Ultimately, your provider will recommend the best course of action for you and your baby based on your personal situation.

Twins and Breech Presentation

It's possible for twins to be delivered vaginally if the first baby — the lower-positioned twin — is correctly positioned with the head facing down. Of course, that's if the twin pregnancy is otherwise progressing well and there are no complications. If the second twin is in a breech position, the provider may do an ECV procedure to get this baby in the correct head-down position for a vaginal delivery, too.

If the first twin baby (the one lower down) is in a breech position, the provider may recommend a cesarean section. Triplets or more will most likely require a cesarean section.

Although you might feel like the added stress of a breech baby is the last thing you need as you approach your due date, remember that your healthcare provider has seen this situation before and will know what to do to ensure your baby is delivered safely. Next thing you know, you'll be bringing your brand-new baby home , stocking up on diapers, waking up for late-night feedings, and reveling in your baby's growth .

See all sources

Cleveland clinic: Cesarean Birth (C-Section)
Cleveland Clinic: Fetal Positions for Birth
Mayo Clinic: Fetal presentation before birth
Mayo Clinic: Prenatal care: 3rd trimester visits
Mayo Clinic: Third Trimester
Book: Your Pregnancy and Childbirth: Month to Month, Sixth Edition Paperback – January 1, 2016 by American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (Author)

Review this article:

Join a World of Support

through Pregnancy and Parenthood.

TRACK WITH TOOLS

LEARN WITH EXPERTS

GET REWARDED

Where You Already Belong

What happens if your baby is breech?

Babies often twist and turn during pregnancy, but most will have moved into the head-down (also known as head-first) position by the time labour begins. However, that does not always happen, and a baby may be:

bottom first or feet first (breech position)
lying sideways (transverse position)

Bottom first or feet first (breech baby)

If your baby is lying bottom or feet first, they are in the breech position. If they're still breech at around 36 weeks' gestation, the obstetrician and midwife will discuss your options for a safe delivery.

Turning a breech baby

If your baby is in a breech position at 36 weeks, you'll usually be offered an external cephalic version (ECV). This is when a healthcare professional, such as an obstetrician, tries to turn the baby into a head-down position by applying pressure on your abdomen. It's a safe procedure, although it can be a bit uncomfortable.

Giving birth to a breech baby

If an ECV does not work, you'll need to discuss your options for a vaginal birth or caesarean section with your midwife and obstetrician.

If you plan a caesarean and then go into labour before the operation, your obstetrician will assess whether it's safe to proceed with the caesarean delivery. If the baby is close to being born, it may be safer for you to have a vaginal breech birth.

The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (RCOG) website has more information on what to expect if your baby is still breech at the end of pregnancy .

The RCOG advises against a vaginal breech delivery if:

your baby's feet are below its bottom – known as a "footling breech"
your baby is larger or smaller than average – your healthcare team will discuss this with you
your baby is in a certain position – for example, their neck is very tilted back, which can make delivery of the head more difficult
you have a low-lying placenta (placenta praevia)
you have pre-eclampsia

Lying sideways (transverse baby)

If your baby is lying sideways across the womb, they are in the transverse position. Although many babies lie sideways early on in pregnancy, most turn themselves into the head-down position by the final trimester.

Giving birth to a transverse baby

Depending on how many weeks pregnant you are when your baby is in a transverse position, you may be admitted to hospital. This is because of the very small risk of the umbilical cord coming out of your womb before your baby is born (cord prolapse). If this happens, it's a medical emergency and the baby must be delivered very quickly.

Sometimes, it's possible to manually turn the baby to a head-down position, and you may be offered this.

But, if your baby is still in the transverse position when you approach your due date or by the time labour begins, you'll most likely be advised to have a caesarean section.

Video: My baby is breech. What help will I get?

In this video, a midwife describes what a breech position is and what can be done if your baby is breech.

Page last reviewed: 1 November 2023 Next review due: 1 November 2026

Breech baby at the end of pregnancy

Published: July 2017

Please note that this information will be reviewed every 3 years after publication.

This patient information page provides advice if your baby is breech towards the end of pregnancy and the options available to you.

It may also be helpful if you are a partner, relative or friend of someone who is in this situation.

The information here aims to help you better understand your health and your options for treatment and care. Your healthcare team is there to support you in making decisions that are right for you. They can help by discussing your situation with you and answering your questions.

This information is for you if your baby remains in the breech position after 36 weeks of pregnancy. Babies lying bottom first or feet first in the uterus (womb) instead of in the usual head-first position are called breech babies.

This information includes:

What breech is and why your baby may be breech
The different types of breech
The options if your baby is breech towards the end of your pregnancy
What turning a breech baby in the uterus involves (external cephalic version or ECV)
How safe ECV is for you and your baby
Options for birth if your baby remains breech
Other information and support available

Within this information, we may use the terms ‘woman’ and ‘women’. However, it is not only people who identify as women who may want to access this information. Your care should be personalised, inclusive and sensitive to your needs, whatever your gender identity.

A glossary of medical terms is available at A-Z of medical terms .

Breech is very common in early pregnancy, and by 36–37 weeks of pregnancy most babies will turn into the head-first position. If your baby remains breech, it does not usually mean that you or your baby have any problems.
Turning your baby into the head-first position so that you can have a vaginal delivery is a safe option.
The alternative to turning your baby into the head-first position is to have a planned caesarean section or a planned vaginal breech birth.

Babies lying bottom first or feet first in the uterus (womb) instead of in the usual head-first position are called breech babies. Breech is very common in early pregnancy, and by 36-37 weeks of pregnancy, most babies turn naturally into the head-first position.

Towards the end of pregnancy, only 3-4 in every 100 (3-4%) babies are in the breech position.

A breech baby may be lying in one of the following positions:

It may just be a matter of chance that your baby has not turned into the head-first position. However, there are certain factors that make it more difficult for your baby to turn during pregnancy and therefore more likely to stay in the breech position. These include:

if this is your first pregnancy
if your placenta is in a low-lying position (also known as placenta praevia); see the RCOG patient information Placenta praevia, placenta accreta and vasa praevia
if you have too much or too little fluid ( amniotic fluid ) around your baby
if you are having more than one baby.

Very rarely, breech may be a sign of a problem with the baby. If this is the case, such problems may be picked up during the scan you are offered at around 20 weeks of pregnancy.

If your baby is breech at 36 weeks of pregnancy, your healthcare professional will discuss the following options with you:

trying to turn your baby in the uterus into the head-first position by external cephalic version (ECV)
planned caesarean section
planned vaginal breech birth.

What does ECV involve?

ECV involves applying gentle but firm pressure on your abdomen to help your baby turn in the uterus to lie head-first.

Relaxing the muscle of your uterus with medication has been shown to improve the chances of turning your baby. This medication is given by injection before the ECV and is safe for both you and your baby. It may make you feel flushed and you may become aware of your heart beating faster than usual but this will only be for a short time.

Before the ECV you will have an ultrasound scan to confirm your baby is breech, and your pulse and blood pressure will be checked. After the ECV, the ultrasound scan will be repeated to see whether your baby has turned. Your baby’s heart rate will also be monitored before and after the procedure. You will be advised to contact the hospital if you have any bleeding, abdominal pain, contractions or reduced fetal movements after ECV.

ECV is usually performed after 36 or 37 weeks of pregnancy. However, it can be performed right up until the early stages of labour. You do not need to make any preparations for your ECV.

ECV can be uncomfortable and occasionally painful but your healthcare professional will stop if you are experiencing pain and the procedure will only last for a few minutes. If your healthcare professional is unsuccessful at their first attempt in turning your baby then, with your consent, they may try again on another day.

If your blood type is rhesus D negative, you will be advised to have an anti-D injection after the ECV and to have a blood test. See the NICE patient information Routine antenatal anti-D prophylaxis for women who are rhesus D negative , which is available at: www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ta156/informationforpublic .

Why turn my baby head-first?

If your ECV is successful and your baby is turned into the head-first position you are more likely to have a vaginal birth. Successful ECV lowers your chances of requiring a caesarean section and its associated risks.

Is ECV safe for me and my baby?

ECV is generally safe with a very low complication rate. Overall, there does not appear to be an increased risk to your baby from having ECV. After ECV has been performed, you will normally be able to go home on the same day.

When you do go into labour, your chances of needing an emergency caesarean section, forceps or vacuum (suction cup) birth is slightly higher than if your baby had always been in a head-down position.

Immediately after ECV, there is a 1 in 200 chance of you needing an emergency caesarean section because of bleeding from the placenta and/or changes in your baby’s heartbeat.

ECV should be carried out by a doctor or a midwife trained in ECV. It should be carried out in a hospital where you can have an emergency caesarean section if needed.

ECV can be carried out on most women, even if they have had one caesarean section before.

ECV should not be carried out if:

you need a caesarean section for other reasons, such as placenta praevia; see the RCOG patient information Placenta praevia, placenta accreta and vasa praevia
you have had recent vaginal bleeding
your baby’s heart rate tracing (also known as CTG) is abnormal
your waters have broken
you are pregnant with more than one baby; see the RCOG patient information Multiple pregnancy: having more than one baby .

Is ECV always successful?

ECV is successful for about 50% of women. It is more likely to work if you have had a vaginal birth before. Your healthcare team should give you information about the chances of your baby turning based on their assessment of your pregnancy.

If your baby does not turn then your healthcare professional will discuss your options for birth (see below). It is possible to have another attempt at ECV on a different day.

If ECV is successful, there is still a small chance that your baby will turn back to the breech position. However, this happens to less than 5 in 100 (5%) women who have had a successful ECV.

There is no scientific evidence that lying down or sitting in a particular position can help your baby to turn. There is some evidence that the use of moxibustion (burning a Chinese herb called mugwort) at 33–35 weeks of pregnancy may help your baby to turn into the head-first position, possibly by encouraging your baby’s movements. This should be performed under the direction of a registered healthcare practitioner.

Depending on your situation, your choices are:

There are benefits and risks associated with both caesarean section and vaginal breech birth, and these should be discussed with you so that you can choose what is best for you and your baby.

Caesarean section

If your baby remains breech towards the end of pregnancy, you should be given the option of a caesarean section. Research has shown that planned caesarean section is safer for your baby than a vaginal breech birth. Caesarean section carries slightly more risk for you than a vaginal birth.

Caesarean section can increase your chances of problems in future pregnancies. These may include placental problems, difficulty with repeat caesarean section surgery and a small increase in stillbirth in subsequent pregnancies. See the RCOG patient information Choosing to have a caesarean section .

If you choose to have a caesarean section but then go into labour before your planned operation, your healthcare professional will examine you to assess whether it is safe to go ahead. If the baby is close to being born, it may be safer for you to have a vaginal breech birth.

Vaginal breech birth

After discussion with your healthcare professional about you and your baby’s suitability for a breech delivery, you may choose to have a vaginal breech birth. If you choose this option, you will need to be cared for by a team trained in helping women to have breech babies vaginally. You should plan a hospital birth where you can have an emergency caesarean section if needed, as 4 in 10 (40%) women planning a vaginal breech birth do need a caesarean section. Induction of labour is not usually recommended.

While a successful vaginal birth carries the least risks for you, it carries a small increased risk of your baby dying around the time of delivery. A vaginal breech birth may also cause serious short-term complications for your baby. However, these complications do not seem to have any long-term effects on your baby. Your individual risks should be discussed with you by your healthcare team.

Before choosing a vaginal breech birth, it is advised that you and your baby are assessed by your healthcare professional. They may advise against a vaginal birth if:

your baby is a footling breech (one or both of the baby’s feet are below its bottom)
your baby is larger or smaller than average (your healthcare team will discuss this with you)
your baby is in a certain position, for example, if its neck is very tilted back (hyper extended)
you have a low-lying placenta (placenta praevia); see the RCOG patient information Placenta Praevia, placenta accreta and vasa praevia
you have pre-eclampsia or any other pregnancy problems; see the RCOG patient information Pre-eclampsia .

With a breech baby you have the same choices for pain relief as with a baby who is in the head-first position. If you choose to have an epidural, there is an increased chance of a caesarean section. However, whatever you choose, a calm atmosphere with continuous support should be provided.

If you have a vaginal breech birth, your baby’s heart rate will usually be monitored continuously as this has been shown to improve your baby’s chance of a good outcome.

In some circumstances, for example, if there are concerns about your baby’s heart rate or if your labour is not progressing, you may need an emergency caesarean section during labour. A paediatrician (a doctor who specialises in the care of babies, children and teenagers) will attend the birth to check your baby is doing well.

If you go into labour before 37 weeks of pregnancy, the balance of the benefits and risks of having a caesarean section or vaginal birth changes and will be discussed with you.

If you are having twins and the first baby is breech, your healthcare professional will usually recommend a planned caesarean section.

If, however, the first baby is head-first, the position of the second baby is less important. This is because, after the birth of the first baby, the second baby has lots more room to move. It may turn naturally into a head-first position or a doctor may be able to help the baby to turn. See the RCOG patient information Multiple pregnancy: having more than one baby .

If you would like further information on breech babies and breech birth, you should speak with your healthcare professional.

Further information

NHS information on breech babies
NCT information on breech babies

If you are asked to make a choice, you may have lots of questions that you want to ask. You may also want to talk over your options with your family or friends. It can help to write a list of the questions you want answered and take it to your appointment.

Ask 3 Questions

To begin with, try to make sure you get the answers to 3 key questions , if you are asked to make a choice about your healthcare:

What are my options?
What are the pros and cons of each option for me?
How do I get support to help me make a decision that is right for me?

*Ask 3 Questions is based on Shepherd et al. Three questions that patients can ask to improve the quality of information physicians give about treatment options: A cross-over trial. Patient Education and Counselling, 2011;84:379-85

https://aqua.nhs.uk/resources/shared-decision-making-case-studies/

Sources and acknowledgements

This information has been developed by the RCOG Patient Information Committee. It is based on the RCOG Green-top Clinical Guidelines No. 20a External Cephalic Version and Reducing Incidence of Term Breech Presentation and No. 20b Management of Breech Presentation . The guidelines contain a full list of the sources of evidence we have used.

This information was reviewed before publication by women attending clinics in Nottingham, Essex, Inverness, Manchester, London, Sussex, Bristol, Basildon and Oxford, by the RCOG Women’s Network and by the RCOG Women’s Voices Involvement Panel.

Please give us feedback by completing our feedback survey:

Members of the public – patient information feedback
Healthcare professionals – patient information feedback

External Cephalic Version and Reducing the Incidence of Term Breech Presentation Green-top Guideline

Management of Breech Presentation Green-top Guideline

Warning notification: Warning

Unfortunately, you are using an outdated browser. Please, upgrade your browser to improve your experience with HSE. The list of supported browsers:

Breech position - Breech presentation

If your baby is breech it means their bottom or feet are facing downwards in your uterus (womb) instead of the usual head-down (also known as head-first) position.

Breech presentation is very common in the early stages of pregnancy (first and second trimesters). Most babies turn to the head-down position as the pregnancy progresses.

After around 37 weeks most babies are in the head first position ready for birth.

About 3% of babies (3 in 100) remain in the breech position after 37 weeks. This may make the birth more challenging.

What causes a baby to be in the breech position?

Most of the time it is simply because the baby has not turned and remains in the breech position.

Sometimes a baby can be breech if:

the placenta is in an unusual position
there is a multiple pregnancy (like twins or triplets)
there is too little or too much fluid in the womb

Most breech babies are born with no health problems. Occasionally a breech presentation can be a sign of a health problem.

Your baby will have a full newborn clinical examination at birth like all babies. They may need some extra tests of their hips.

Ultrasound scan of hips

If your baby is still breech after 36 weeks, he or she may need an ultrasound scan of their hips. Ask your paediatrician or GP about this.

Page last reviewed: 20 April 2023 Next review due: 20 April 2026

Open access
Published: 06 May 2024

The influence of uterine fibroids on adverse outcomes in pregnant women: a meta-analysis

Hong Li 1 ,
Zhonghua Hu 1 ,
Yuyan Fan 1 &
Yingying Hao 2

BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth volume 24 , Article number: 345 ( 2024 ) Cite this article

148 Accesses

Metrics details

The objective of the meta-analysis was to determine the influence of uterine fibroids on adverse outcomes, with specific emphasis on multiple or large (≥ 5 cm in diameter) fibroids.

Materials and methods

We searched PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, ClinicalTrials.gov, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), and SinoMed databases for eligible studies that investigated the influence of uterine fibroids on adverse outcomes in pregnancy. The pooled risk ratio (RR) of the variables was estimated with fixed effect or random effect models.

Twenty-four studies with 237 509 participants were included. The pooled results showed that fibroids elevated the risk of adverse outcomes, including preterm birth, cesarean delivery, placenta previa, miscarriage, preterm premature rupture of membranes (PPROM), placental abruption, postpartum hemorrhage (PPH), fetal distress, malposition, intrauterine fetal death, low birth weight, breech presentation, and preeclampsia. However, after adjusting for the potential factors, negative effects were only seen for preterm birth, cesarean delivery, placenta previa, placental abruption, PPH, intrauterine fetal death, breech presentation, and preeclampsia. Subgroup analysis showed an association between larger fibroids and significantly elevated risks of breech presentation, PPH, and placenta previa in comparison with small fibroids. Multiple fibroids did not increase the risk of breech presentation, placental abruption, cesarean delivery, PPH, placenta previa, PPROM, preterm birth, and intrauterine growth restriction. Meta-regression analyses indicated that maternal age only affected the relationship between uterine fibroids and preterm birth, and BMI influenced the relationship between uterine fibroids and intrauterine fetal death. Other potential confounding factors had no impact on malposition, fetal distress, PPROM, miscarriage, placenta previa, placental abruption, and PPH.

The presence of uterine fibroids poses increased risks of adverse pregnancy and obstetric outcomes. Fibroid size influenced the risk of breech presentation, PPH, and placenta previa, while fibroid numbers had no impact on the risk of these outcomes.

Peer Review reports

Introduction

Uterine fibroids are benign tumors that affect 1–10% of women of reproductive age [ 1 , 2 , 3 ]. As fibroids are usually asymptomatic, it is difficult to quantify the exact prevalence in the population. The prevalence in pregnant women, however, has been found to range from 1 to 10.7% [ 2 , 3 , 4 ] and as increasing numbers of women are delaying childbearing, these figures are likely to increase. Despite extensive investigation into ways of preventing and treating uterine fibroids, their underlying etiology is still unclear [ 5 , 6 ].

Several studies have assessed the effects of uterine fibroids on pregnancy and obstetric outcomes. However, there are many inconsistencies in their findings on the relationships between fibroids and cesarean delivery, preterm delivery, breech presentation, placenta previa, preterm premature rupture of membrane (PPROM), postpartum hemorrhage (PPH), and intrauterine growth retardation (IUGR) [ 1 , 4 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 ] with some investigations suggesting associations between fibroids and these complications and others reporting no elevated risks linked to the presence of fibroids [ 12 , 13 ]. The aim of this meta-analysis was to determine the influence of uterine fibroids on pregnancy and obstetric outcomes, specifically examining the effects of multiple or larger (≥ 5 cm in diameter) uterine fibroids on these adverse outcomes.

Search strategy

This study was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines [ 14 ]. We searched several used electronic databases, including PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, ClinicalTrials.gov, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), and SinoMed, from their incept to January 15, 2023. The search strategy details are presented in the supplementary file 1 . The search was not restricted in terms of language or publication type. In addition, the reference lists of the included studies were manually searched to identify additional eligible articles that may have been omitted from the initial search.

Study inclusion criteria

According to the prespecified protocol, all studies that examined the associations between uterine fibroids and pregnancy/obstetric outcomes in pregnant women were included. Eligible studies were randomized controlled trials (RCTs), cohort studies, case-control studies, or comparative trials, and had to provide the pregnancy/obstetric outcomes. Reviews, letters, case reports, editorials, and comments were not included. If a clinical trial had been published in several journals, only the most informative study or the study with the longest follow-up was included to prevent duplication.

Data extraction

The extracted data included the following: (1) study information: name of first author, year of publication, country, sample size; (2) subjects’ information: sociodemographic and clinical characteristics, including maternal age, gestational age at delivery, gravidity, parity, body mass index (BMI), history of smoking, alcohol consumption, gestational diabetes mellitus, and hypertensive disorders; (3) outcome measures: cesarean delivery, fetal distress, breech presentation, intrauterine fetal death, IUGR, low birth weight, malposition, miscarriage, placenta previa, placental abruption, PPH, preeclampsia, preterm birth, and PPROM. Two independent investigators extracted the data and disagreements were addressed by discussion to reach a consensus.

Quality assessment

Two independent investigators were responsible for the assessment of methodological quality. For RCTs, methodological quality was evaluated using the Risk of Bias 2.0 tool [ 15 ] while the Risk of Bias in Non-Randomized Studies of Interventions (ROBINS-I) was used for interventional non-RCTs [ 16 ]. For cross-sectional studies, the Newcastle-Ottawa (NOS) scale with specific adaptations was used [ 17 ].

Statistical analysis

STATA software version 12.0 (Stata Corporation, College Station, TX, USA) was used for meta-analysis. Risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (95%CI) were used for dichotomous outcomes. Statistical heterogeneity among the included studies was assessed using the Cochrane Q and I 2 statistics [ 18 ], in which P < 0.1 or I 2 > 50% were considered to be significant. In the event of significant heterogeneity, a random-effects model [ 19 ] was used for pooling the estimate or a fixed-effects model [ 20 ] was used. Sensitivity analyses were used to determine the effect of single-trial exclusions on the overall estimate. Publication bias was assessed by Begg’s [ 21 ] and Egger’s [ 22 ] tests. A P -value less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant, except where otherwise specified.

Subgroup analysis and data analysis after controlling for confounding factors

Subgroup analysis was performed to analyze the effects of uterine fibroid size (small [< 5 cm in diameter] vs. large [≥ 5 cm in diameter]) and number (single fibroids VS multiple fibroids). The size of leiomyomas was quantified by measuring the largest diameter. Consistent with previous research, we classified a fibroid as large when its diameter reached or exceeded 5 cm, as determined through ultrasonography [ 23 ].

Several of the included studies used univariate and multivariate logistic regression to assess relationships between uterine fibroids and pregnancy/obstetric outcomes. In these studies, the authors provided the adjusted odds ratio (OR) or RR after controlling for potential confounders, such as maternal age, race, BMI, parity, diabetes, hypertension, alcohol, and smoking. Thus, we extracted the adjusted values for data analysis.

Meta-regression analysis

We hypothesized that various factors might have affected the results of the included studies; these included demographic (maternal age and BMI) and clinical (gravidity, parity, smoking status, diabetes mellitus, and hypertension) variables. We, therefore, conducted a meta-regression analysis to determine the possible effects of these variables on the reported results. In the regression model, the outcome was regarded as the dependent variable (y) and the covariates described above as the independent variables (χ).

Study identification

A total of 2512 potentially relevant articles were identified from the database searches together with six additional articles from other sources. Of these, 1542 were duplicates and were removed, leaving 976 articles for article/abstract review. Of these, 935 were excluded because of various reasons. The full texts of the 41 remaining articles were reviewed, resulting in the exclusion of 17 articles. Finally, 24 studies [ 1 , 4 , 7 , 12 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 ] were considered to meet the inclusion criteria and were included for qualitative synthesis (Fig. 1 ).

Eligibility of studies for inclusion in meta-analysis

Characteristics of included studies and quality assessment

The baseline features of the included studies are shown in supplementary file 2 . All the studies had a retrospective cohort design, with seventeen carried out in China [ 26 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 ], five in the USA [ 1 , 4 , 7 , 27 ], one in Italy [ 25 ], and one in France [ 24 ]. Sample sizes ranged from 127 to 112 403 participants. These studies included a total of 237 509 participants, of whom 10 560 were cases (women with uterine fibroids) and 226 949 were controls (women without uterine fibroids). As a consequence of family planning and the one-child policy, women from China tended to be primigravidae. In some of the included studies, women with uterine fibroids tended to be older, smokers, and drinkers, and to have higher BMI, or histories of diabetes mellitus and chronic hypertension, compared with those without fibroids.

Overall, the risk of bias in the cohort studies ranged from serious to low. Low bias risk was associated with intervention classification and analysis, deviations from intended interventions, and missing data. The risk of bias in confounding was deemed serious in four studies, with no information in three studies, critical in two studies, and low in the other studies. Bias risk in participant selection was found to be moderate in three studies, with no information in one study, and low in the other studies. Bias risk outcome measurement was moderate in one study and low in other studies while the risk in the selection of result reporting was deemed serious in two studies, moderate in three studies, and low in other studies. Overall, the risk of bias was critical in two studies [ 36 , 37 ], serious in six studies [ 35 , 38 , 39 , 41 , 42 , 43 ], moderate in five studies [ 27 , 28 , 30 , 31 , 33 ], and low in eleven studies [ 1 , 4 , 7 , 12 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 29 , 32 , 34 , 40 ] (Supplementary file 3 ).

Preterm birth

Twenty-one studies [ 1 , 4 , 7 , 12 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 ] reported data on preterm birth. The preterm birth rate for pregnant women with uterine fibroids was 12.85% compared with 9.43% for the no-fibroid group. Pooled data showed that the presence of uterine fibroids posed a higher risk for preterm birth (RR = 1.72, 95%CI: 1.41, 2.10; P < 0.001). Significant heterogeneity was observed in the included studies (I 2 = 74.5%, P < 0.001). Sensitivity analysis was conducted by the exclusion of an outlier trial [ 29 ] resulting in a slight alteration in the overall estimate (RR = 1.82, 95%CI: 1.49, 2.22; P < 0.001) with the heterogeneity still present (I 2 = 73.6%, P < 0.001). Sensitivity analysis using the exclusion of a trial with a small sample size [ 39 ] also resulted in a small alteration in the pooled data (RR = 1.69, 95%CI: 1.39, 2.05; P < 0.001), with the heterogeneity remaining (I 2 = 74.8%, P < 0.001). Further successive exclusion of the remaining single studies did not change the overall estimates and heterogeneity (data not shown).

Cesarean delivery

Eighteen studies [ 1 , 4 , 7 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 33 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 42 , 43 ] reported data on cesarean delivery. The cesarean delivery rate in the fibroid group was 60.72% compared with 39.03% for the no-fibroid group. The aggregated data showed that fibroid presence led to an elevated risk of cesarean delivery (RR = 1.95, 95%CI: 1.67, 2.28; P < 0.001). The test for heterogeneity was significant (I 2 = 96.8%, P < 0.001). The exclusion of an outlying trial [ 40 ] resulted in a slight change in the overall estimate slightly (RR = 1.86, 95%CI: 1.59, 2.17; P < 0.001) while heterogeneity was still present (I 2 = 96.7%, P < 0.001). The exclusion of a trial with a small sample size [ 39 ] produced a similar effect, with no alteration in the overall estimate (RR = 1.92, 95%CI: 1.64, 2.25; P < 0.001) and the continued presence of heterogeneity (I 2 = 96.9%, P < 0.001).

Placenta previa

Sixteen studies [ 1 , 4 , 7 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 28 , 29 , 31 , 32 , 34 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 ] reported data on placenta previa. The placenta previa rate for pregnant women with uterine fibroids was 2.48% compared with 0.98% for the no-fibroid group. The aggregated data showed that the presence of uterine fibroids significantly raised the risk of placenta previa (RR = 2.99, 95%CI: 2.06, 4.35; P < 0.001). There was significant heterogeneity (I 2 = 65.6%, P < 0.001). The exclusion of an outlying trial [ 32 ] did not alter the overall estimate (RR = 2.86, 95%CI: 1.97, 4.15; P < 0.001) or the heterogeneity (I 2 = 65.7%, P < 0.001). Similarly, the exclusion of a trial with a small sample size [ 39 ] did not affect the overall estimate (RR = 2.92, 95%CI: 1.99, 4.30; P < 0.001) or the heterogeneity (I 2 = 67.1%, P < 0.001).

Miscarriage

Fifteen studies [ 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 41 , 42 , 43 ] reported data on miscarriage. The miscarriage rate for pregnant women with uterine fibroids was 13.42% compared with 2.84% for the no-fibroid group. The pooled data indicated a significantly elevated risk of miscarriage associated with the presence of fibroids (RR = 4.51, 95%CI: 2.80, 7.26; P < 0.001). Significant heterogeneity was observed (I 2 = 51.3%, P = 0.011). The exclusion of an outlying trial [ 38 ] did not alter the overall estimate (RR = 4.28, 95%CI: 2.64, 6.94; P < 0.001) or heterogeneity (I 2 = 51.8%, P = 0.012) significantly, while the exclusion of the trial with a small sample size [ 39 ] also did not affect the overall estimate (RR = 4.47, 95%CI: 2.70, 7.40; P < 0.001) or the heterogeneity (I 2 = 54.3%, P = 0.008).

Preterm premature rupture of membranes

Fifteen studies [ 1 , 4 , 7 , 12 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 29 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 40 , 42 , 43 ] reported data on PPROM. The PPROM rates in the fibroid and no-fibroid groups were 9.65% and 9.53%, respectively. As shown by the pooled estimate, fibroid presence was associated with a significantly higher risk of PPROM in comparison with no fibroids (RR = 1.37, 95%CI: 1.09, 1.72; P < 0.001). Significant heterogeneity was observed (I 2 = 74.7%, P < 0.001). However, sensitivity analysis involving the exclusion of single studies did not identify the source of the heterogeneity.

Placental abruption

Fourteen studies [ 4 , 12 , 24 , 27 , 30 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 39 , 43 ] reported data om placental abruption. The rate of placental abruption for pregnant women with uterine fibroids was 6.28% compared with 5.51% for the no-fibroid group. The pooled data indicated that fibroids significantly raised the risk of placental abruption (RR = 1.85, 95%CI: 1.48, 2.32; P < 0.001). No significant heterogeneity among the studies was observed (I 2 = 36.3%, P = 0.086).

Postpartum hemorrhage

Thirteen studies [ 26 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 35 , 38 , 40 , 41 , 42 ] reported data on PPH. The rate of PPH for pregnant women with uterine fibroids was 10.10% compared with 3.96% for the no-fibroid group. As shown by the pooled data, the presence of fibroids raised the risk of PPH significantly (RR = 3.52, 95%CI: 2.16, 5.73; P < 0.001). Significant heterogeneity was observed among the studies (I 2 = 80.8%, P < 0.001) while sensitivity analysis was unable to identify the source of the heterogeneity.

Fetal distress

Sixteen studies [ 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 ] reported data on fetal distress. The rates of fetal distress were 11.47% and 4.68% for the fibroid and no-fibroid groups, respectively and the pooled data indicated that the risk was significantly increased by the presence of fibroids (RR = 3.61, 95%CI: 2.08, 6.27; P < 0.001). Significant heterogeneity was observed (I 2 = 72.8%, P < 0.001) while the source of the heterogeneity was not identified by sensitivity analysis.

Malposition

Sixteen studies [ 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 ] reported data on malposition. The malposition rate for the fibroid group was 14.41% compared with 14.38% for the no-fibroid group with the pooled data showing a significant risk for malposition in the fibroid group (RR = 2.54, 95%CI: 1.75, 3.69; P < 0.001). Significant heterogeneity was observed (I 2 = 64.7%, P < 0.001) which remained unaffected by sensitivity analysis.

Intrauterine fetal death

Ten studies [ 1 , 12 , 29 , 30 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 43 ] reported data on intrauterine fetal death. The rate of intrauterine fetal death in the fibroid group was 3.07% compared with 0.69% for the no-fibroid group, with pooled data showing a significant risk for intrauterine fetal death resulting from the presence of fibroids (RR = 2.34, 95%CI: 1.42, 3.84; P < 0.001). Significant heterogeneity was seen (I 2 = 50.5%, P = 0.0033). Exclusion of an outlying trial [ 34 ] altered the overall estimate slightly (RR = 2.57, 95%CI: 1.95, 3.39; P < 0.001) and also eliminated the heterogeneity (I 2 = 0.0%, P = 0.706), indicating that the trial of Xu JZ [ 34 ] was responsible for the heterogeneity among the included studies.

Low birth weight

Eight studies [ 12 , 29 , 31 , 32 , 34 , 39 , 40 , 42 ] reported data on low birth weight. The rates for the fibroid and no-fibroid groups were 11.53% and 10.40%, respectively, with the pooled data showing a significant increase in the risk of low birth rate in the fibroid group (RR = 1.72, 95%CI: 1.03, 2.85; P < 0.001). Although significant heterogeneity was observed (I 2 = 73.0%, P = 0.001), this remained unaffected by sensitivity analysis.

Breech presentation

Six studies [ 1 , 4 , 7 , 25 , 26 , 34 ] reported data on breech presentation. The rate of breech presentation for pregnant women with uterine fibroids was 8.30% compared with 3.70% for the no-fibroid group. Pooled data showed that the presence of uterine fibroids significantly elevated the risk of breech presentation (RR = 2.26, 95%CI: 1.56, 3.29; P < 0.001). Significant heterogeneity among the studies was observed (I 2 = 91.2%, P < 0.001) but its source was not identified by sensitivity analysis.

Intrauterine growth retardation

Six studies [ 1 , 25 , 29 , 31 , 32 , 34 ] reported data on IUGR. The rate of IUGR was 10.69% in the fibroid group compared with 12.97% in the no-fibroid group. The pooled data did not show any increased risk of IUGR associated with fibroids (RR = 1.25, 95%CI: 0.61, 2.55; P = 0.543). No significant heterogeneity was observed (I 2 = 47.7%, P = 0.088).

Preeclampsia

Five studies [ 1 , 4 , 24 , 29 , 42 ] reported data on preeclampsia. The preeclampsia rates were 5.93% and 5.94% for the fibroid and no-fibroid groups, respectively, with pooled data indicating a significantly elevated risk in the fibroid group (RR = 1.48, 95%CI: 1.10, 2.00; P = 0.009). Significant heterogeneity among the studies was observed (I 2 = 52.3%, P = 0.079).

Data analysis after adjusting for potential confounder factors

Nine studies [ 1 , 4 , 7 , 12 , 24 , 26 , 30 , 33 , 42 ] provided the adjusted values for controlling the potential confounder factors. The pooled data indicated that the presence of fibroids significantly elevated the risks of breech presentation (RR = 1.88, 95%CI: 1.18, 2.99; P = 0.008), placental abruption (RR = 1.94, 95%CI: 1.19, 3.16; P = 0.008), PPH (RR = 2.29, 95%CI: 1.78, 2.94; P < 0.001), preeclampsia (RR = 1.20, 95%CI: 1.02, 1.42; P = 0.031), intrauterine fetal death (RR = 1.82, 95%CI: 1.01, 3.28; P = 0.046), preterm birth (RR = 1.48, 95%CI: 1.12, 1.96; P = 0.006), cesarean delivery (RR = 2.13, 95%CI: 1.12, 4.04; P = 0.021), and placenta previa (RR = 1.62, 95%CI: 1.03, 2.53; P = 0.037). No significant associations were seen between fibroid presence and PPROM (RR = 1.30, 95%CI: 0.98, 1.72; P = 0.073) and low birth weight (RR = 1.36, 95%CI: 0.87, 2.13; P = 0.172) (Table 1 ).

Subgroup analysis of uterine fibroid size and number

Five studies [ 1 , 7 , 25 , 26 , 27 ] reported data that evaluated the effects of fibroid size and number on outcomes. The subgroup analysis analyzing fibroid size showed that the presence of large fibroids significantly elevated the risk of breech presentation (RR = 1.50, 95%CI: 1.03, 2.19; P = 0.036), placenta previa (RR = 5.04, 95%CI: 2.12, 12.01; P < 0.001), and PPH (RR = 1.62, 95%CI: 1.16, 2.25; P = 0.004), compared with small fibroids. Small fibroids, however, significantly raised the risk of breech presentation (RR = 1.40, 95%CI: 1.10, 1.79; P = 0.006), placental abruption (RR = 3.75, 95%CI: 2.83, 4.97; P < 0.001), cesarean delivery (RR = 1.48, 95%CI: 1.33, 1.65; P < 0.001), PPH (RR = 1.65, 95%CI: 1.41, 1.92; P < 0.001), and IUGR (RR = 1.15, 95%CI: 1.01, 1.30; P = 0.029), compared with an absence of fibroids (Table 2 ).

Subgroup analysis of the effects of fibroid number showed that the presence of multiple fibroids did not increase the risk of PPROM (RR = 1.31, 95%CI: 0.55, 3.13; P = 0.545), placental abruption (RR = 1.22, 95%CI: 0.51, 2.94; P = 0.651), placenta previa (RR = 1.50, 95%CI: 0.90, 2.51; P = 0.122), preterm birth (RR = 0.87, 95%CI: 0.51, 1.50; P = 0.627), cesarean delivery (RR = 0.85, 95%CI: 0.50, 1.44; P = 0.539), and PPH (RR = 1.45, 95%CI: 0.53, 3.95; P = 0.464), compared with a single fibroid (Table 2 ).

To further evaluate the influence of potential confounding factors (maternal age, BMI, parity, gravidity, smoking status, diabetes mellitus, and hypertension) on the outcomes, we conducted meta-regression analyses. While maternal age affected the difference in preterm birth between the fibroid and no-fibroid groups (t = 2.87, P = 0.012), other factors did not (Table 3 ). BMI influenced the difference in intrauterine fetal death (t = 3.13, P = 0.04) while other factors did not. None of these factors influenced malposition, fetal distress, PPROM, miscarriage, placenta previa, placental abruption, and PPH (Table 3 ).

Publication bias

The determination of potential publication bias using Egger’s and Begg’s tests indicated an absence of publication bias in the included studies (Egger’s test: t = 0.68, P = 0.533; Begg’s test: Z = 1.13, P = 0.260).

This meta-analysis was performed to investigate the impact of uterine fibroids on adverse pregnancy outcomes, specifically evaluating the effects of multiple or large (≥ 5 cm in diameter) uterine fibroids on the adverse outcomes. Our findings indicated that fibroids elevated the risk of certain pregnancy and obstetric outcomes, including preterm birth, cesarean delivery, placenta previa, miscarriage, PPROM, placental abruption, PPH, fetal distress, malposition, intrauterine fetal death, low birth weight, breech presentation, and preeclampsia. However, after adjustment, these negative effects were confined to preterm birth, cesarean delivery, placenta previa, placental abruption, PPH, intrauterine fetal demise, breech presentation, and preeclampsia.

Moreover, results from subgroup analysis showed a relationship between the presence of larger fibroids and significantly higher risks of breech presentation, PPH, and placenta previa compared with small fibroids. The presence of multiple fibroids did not increase the risk of breech presentation, placental abruption, cesarean delivery, PPH, placenta previa, PPROM, preterm birth, or IUGR.

In the meta-regression analysis, we also found that only maternal age affected the relationship between uterine fibroids and preterm birth, while BMI influenced the relationship between uterine fibroids and intrauterine fetal death. Other potential confounding factors had no impact on malposition, fetal distress, PPROM, miscarriage, placenta previa, placental abruption, and PPH.

The biological basis for the associations between fibroids and adverse outcomes is not clear. Several studies, however, have suggested that reduced uterine distension resulting from physical interference by the fibroids may be one of the reasons [ 44 ]. Moreover, women with fibroids have been found to have lower oxytocinase activity, leading to higher levels of oxytocin which, in turn, would lead to preterm contractions [ 45 ]. It is also possible that degraded submucosal fibroids may lead to chronic inflammation or infection, with the consequent production of cytokines potentially resulting in elevated risks for preterm delivery [ 13 ].

In this study, we screened the recent literature with the objective of evaluating the influence of uterine fibroids on adverse outcomes. Twenty-four studies were finally included in the analysis. All these studies used a retrospective cohort design and the ROBINS-1 method was, therefore, used to evaluate their quality. Eleven of the studies were considered to have a low risk of bias, with five showing moderate risk, six serious risk, and two showing a critical bias risk. Bias in cofounding factors and the selection of reported results can result in a low quality of evidence. Our research highlighted that several adverse outcomes were strongly associated with the presence of uterine fibroids. However, when we pooled data from studies that provided the adjusted RR estimate for confounding factors, we found that the risks of PPROM and low birth weight were not significantly raised by the presence of fibroids.

In the meta-regression, we noticed that maternal age was positively related to preterm birth (Coefficient = 21.05, P = 0.01). This finding agrees with previous evidence that the preterm birth risk increased with increasing maternal age [ 46 , 47 , 48 ]. Leader J, et al. [ 46 ] in a meta-analysis of 15 studies found that women with very advanced maternal ages (≥ 45 years old) had a 1.96-times greater likelihood of preterm birth. Similarly, in another meta-analysis [ 47 ] including 10 studies, the authors found that women of advanced maternal age (≥ 35 years old) were more likely to have preterm deliveries than younger women [35–40 years old (OR = 1.21, 95%CI: 1.16, 1.27) and those > 40 years old (OR = 1.18, 95%CI: 1.10, 1.27)]. Besides maternal age, the meta-regression found that BMI was significantly related to intrauterine fetal death. Aune D, et al. [ 49 ] in a systematic review and meta-analysis comprising 38 cohort studies investigating whether specific levels of BMI increased the likelihood of fetal or infant death found that the pooled RR per five-unit increase in BMI for fetal death was 1.21 (95%CI: 1.09, 1.35) and was 1.24 (95%CI: 1.18, 1.30) for stillbirth.

In this meta-analysis, we not only investigated the effects of uterine fibroids on major outcomes, such as preterm birth, cesarean delivery, breech presentation, malposition, fetal distress, PPROM, miscarriage, IUGR, placenta previa, and placental abruption but have also analyzed the outcomes in terms of fibroid size and number. Although several studies have investigated these aspects, the results were inconsistent due to small sample sizes. Here, we found that women with fibroids greater than 5 cm in diameter had an increased risk of breech presentation, PPH, or placenta previa, compared with women with fibroids less than 5 cm. However, in terms of fibroid numbers, we observed that the presence of multiple fibroids did not increase the risk of placental abruption, cesarean delivery, PPH, placenta previa, PPROM, and preterm birth, compared with single fibroids. These results suggested that only the size of the fibroids influenced the risk of breech presentation, PPH, and placenta previa, while fibroid numbers did not affect these outcomes. There are very few studies on the associations between fibroid size and number on adverse outcomes. Our results provide valuable information for the identification of the risks of breech presentation, PPH, and placenta previa.

This meta-analysis has several potential limitations. First, the meta-analysis pooled data from 24 studies with 237 509 participants; while this increased the statistical power for determining the influence of uterine fibroids on adverse outcomes, it also led to heterogeneity. Some heterogeneity might be explained by differences in geographical locations and participants’ characteristics. We conducted sensitivity analyses to identify the potential sources of this heterogeneity; unfortunately, this was unable to identify the sources. Second, several of the included studies did not adjust for potential confounding factors, and the factors selected for adjustment differed across the studies. This might have influenced the overall estimate. Third, the meta-analysis was based on retrospective cohort studies. Such studies are subject to selection bias as they rely on care utilization and imaging data and recruit subjects only from academic medical centers. Fourth, most of the included studies were conducted in China, which may prevent the broad generalizability of our results. Finally, it is important to note that due to the limitations of the available data, we were unable to conduct subgroup analyses based on fibroid size, specifically for those with a diameter exceeding 10 cm, and fibroid location. This limitation restricted our ability to fully explore the impact of these variables on the outcomes.

Despite these weaknesses, our meta-analysis has some notable strengths. First, the large sample size of 237 509 participants from 24 included studies resulted in increased statistical power and, consequently, more reliable and accurate findings. Second, our study provided more comprehensive information compared with previous meta-analyses. Other meta-analyses have only focused on one pregnancy or obstetric outcomes, such as placenta abruption, placenta previa, or preterm birth [ 50 , 51 , 52 ]. Third, to minimize the effect of confounding factors on our results, we corrected our analyses for multiple confounders using meta-regression analysis and pooled data. Fourth, we developed a complete and comprehensive search strategy, as well as accessing articles from multiple databases and the gray literature, to minimize missing potential studies. We also used stringent screening criteria in the literature selection and strict statistical methods in the data analysis to improve the accuracy of our results. Last, we included recently published studies, which ensures that our results are more applicable to present clinical settings.

In conclusion, this meta-analysis suggested that women with uterine fibroids have elevated risks of pregnancy and obstetric outcomes. Specifically, fibroid size was found to influence the risk of breech presentation, PPH, and placenta previa, while the number of fibroids did not affect the risk of these outcomes.

Data availability

The datasets generated and analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Stout MJ, Odibo AO, Graseck AS, et al. Leiomyomas at routine second-trimester ultrasound examination and adverse obstetric outcomes. Obstet Gynecol. 2010;116:1056–63.

Article PubMed Google Scholar

Laughlin SK, Baird DD, Savitz DA, et al. Prevalence of uterine leiomyomas in the first trimester of pregnancy: an ultrasound-screening study. Obstet Gynecol. 2009;113:630–5.

Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar

Okolo S. Incidence, aetiology and epidemiology of uterine fibroids. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynecol. 2008;22:571–88.

Article Google Scholar

Coronado GD, Marshall LM, Schwartz SM. Complications in pregnancy, labor, and delivery with uterine leiomyomas: a population-based study. Obstet Gynecol. 2000;95:764–9.

CAS PubMed Google Scholar

Islam MS, Greco S, Janjusevic M, et al. Growth factors and pathogenesis. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynecol. 2016;34:25–36.

Medikare V, Kandukuri LR, Ananthapur V, et al. The genetic bases of uterine fibroids; a review. J Reprod Infertility. 2011;12:181–91.

CAS Google Scholar

Qidwai GI, Caughey AB, Jacoby AF. Obstetric outcomes in women with sonographically identified uterine leiomyomata. Obstet Gynecol. 2006;107:376–82.

Ciavattini A, Di Giuseppe J, Stortoni P, et al. Uterine fibroids: pathogenesis and interactions with endometrium and endomyometrial junction. Obstet Gynecol Int. 2013;2013:173184.

Chen YH, Lin HC, Chen SF, Lin HC. Increased risk of preterm births among women with uterine leiomyoma: a nationwide population-based study. Hum Reprod (Oxford England). 2009;24:3049–56.

Davis JL, Ray-Mazumder S, Hobel CJ, et al. Uterine leiomyomas in pregnancy: a prospective study. Obstet Gynecol. 1990;75:41–4.

Vannuccini S, Clifton VL, Fraser IS, et al. Infertility and reproductive disorders: impact of hormonal and inflammatory mechanisms on pregnancy outcome. Hum Reprod Update. 2016;22:104–15.

Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar

Lai J, Caughey AB, Qidwai GI, Jacoby AF. Neonatal outcomes in women with sonographically identified uterine leiomyomata. The journal of maternal-fetal & neonatal medicine: the official journal of the European Association of Perinatal Medicine, the Federation of Asia and Oceania Perinatal Societies, the International Society of. Perinat Obstet. 2012;25:710–3.

Google Scholar

Bulun SE, Lin Z, Imir G, et al. Regulation of aromatase expression in estrogen-responsive breast and uterine disease: from bench to treatment. Pharmacol Rev. 2005;57:359–83.

Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. BMJ (Clinical Res ed). 2009;339:b2535.

Sterne JAC, Savović J, Page MJ, et al. RoB 2: a revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ (Clinical Res ed. 2019;366:l4898.

Sterne JA, Hernán MA, Reeves BC, et al. ROBINS-I: a tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions. BMJ (Clinical Res ed). 2016;355:i4919.

Wells G, Shea B, O’connell D et al. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for assessing the quality of nonrandomized studies in meta-analyses. 3rd Symposium on Systematic Reviews: Beyond the Basics 2000:3–5.

Higgins JP, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ, Altman DG. Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ (Clinical Res ed). 2003;327:557–60.

Cochran W. The combination of estimates from different experiments. Biometrics 1954;10.

DerSimonian R, Laird N. Meta-analysis in clinical trials. Control Clin Trials. 1986;7:177–88.

Begg CB, Mazumdar M. Operating characteristics of a rank correlation test for publication bias. Biometrics. 1994;50:1088–101.

Egger M, Davey Smith G, Schneider M, Minder C. Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. BMJ (Clinical Res ed). 1997;315:629–34.

Article CAS Google Scholar

Vergani P, Locatelli A, Ghidini A, et al. Large uterine leiomyomata and risk of cesarean delivery. Obstet Gynecol. 2007;109:410–4.

Girault A, Le Ray C, Chapron C et al. Leiomyomatous uterus and preterm birth: an exposed/unexposed monocentric cohort study. American journal of obstetrics and gynecology. : 2018;219:410.e411-410.e417.

Ciavattini A, Clemente N, Delli Carpini G, et al. Number and size of uterine fibroids and obstetric outcomes. The journal of maternal-fetal & neonatal medicine: the official journal of the European Association of Perinatal Medicine, the Federation of Asia and Oceania Perinatal Societies. Int Soc Perinat Obstet. 2015;28:484–8.

Zhao R, Wang X, Zou L, et al. Adverse obstetric outcomes in pregnant women with uterine fibroids in China: a multicenter survey involving 112,403 deliveries. PLoS ONE. 2017;12:e0187821.

Shavell VI, Thakur M, Sawant A, et al. Adverse obstetric outcomes associated with sonographically identified large uterine fibroids. Fertil Steril. 2012;97:107–10.

Xie HX. Pregnancy outcomes in 112 women with uterine fibroids. Maternal Child Health Care China. 2005;20:562–3.

Zhu LR, Zhang Y, Hong Y. Maternal and obstetric outcomes in 183 pregnant women with uterine fibroids. Maternal Child Health Care China. 2008;23:481–2.

Wang H, Gong Y, Wei M, et al. Delivery mode and pregnancy outcomes in pregnancy women with uterine fibroids. Maternal Child Health Care China. 2016;31:3269–70.

Feng XP, Wu XR, Chen MY, Weng F. The gynecology and obstetrics outcomes associated with uterine firboids. Chin J Practical Gynecol Obstet. 2003;19:695–6.

Han LQ. Analysis of maternal and infant outcomes in pregnancy with uterine fibroids. Chin J Clin Ration Drug Use. 2014;7:104–5.

Lv ZH, Zhou QL, Yang ZJ. Effects of uterine fibroids on pregnancy and delivery outcomes. Chin J Clin Oncol Rehabil. 2015;22:595–7.

Xu JZ. Effect of uterine fibroids on pregnancy outcomes. Jiangsu Med J. 2016;42:1492–3.

Zhang Y. Comparison of pregnancy outcomes between pregnant women with and without uterine fibroids. Lab Med Clin. 2018;5:1284–6.

Wu AP. Analysis on the choice of delivery modes and the effect on delivery outcomes in preg- nant women with uterine fibroids. Maternal Child Health Care China. 2017;32:30–1.

Wu CZ. Effect of pregnancy combined with hysteromyoma on pregnancy and delivery outcomes. Maternal Child Health Care China. 2012;27:982–3.

Zhou LN. The maternal and infant outcomes in pregnancy women complicated with uterine fibroids. Guide China Med. 2013;11:108–9.

Wu LP, Shen MR, Guo HJ, Jiang J. The Effect of Pregnancy Associated with Uterine fibroids on pregnancy outcomes. Practical J Cancer. 2018;33:1458–60.

Yang NN, Sun LZ. Analysis of pregnancy outcome during third trimester in women with uterine myoma. Jiangsu Med J. 2011;37:807–8.

Wang LH, Zhang JQ. Uterine fibroids and pregnant outcomes in 65 women in Xining Area. J High Altitude Med. 2007;17:40–1.

Wang Y. The maternal and infant outcomes in 168 pregnancy women with uterine fibroids. Guide China Med. 2013;11:266–7.

Xue HZ. The choice of delivery mode and the observation of delivery outcome in pregnancy complicated with uterine fibroids. Chin Remedies Clin. 2021;21:3732–4.

Gordon BR, McDowell CP, Hallgren M, et al. Association of Efficacy of Resistance Exercise Training with depressive symptoms: Meta-analysis and Meta-regression analysis of Randomized clinical trials. JAMA Psychiatry. 2018;75:566–76.

Mueller A, Siemer J, Schreiner S, et al. Role of estrogen and progesterone in the regulation of uterine peristalsis: results from perfused non-pregnant swine uteri. Hum Reprod (Oxford England). 2006;21:1863–8.

Leader J, Bajwa A, Lanes A, et al. The Effect of Very Advanced Maternal Age on Maternal and Neonatal Outcomes: A Systematic Review. Journal of obstetrics and gynaecology Canada: JOGC = Journal d’obstetrique et gynecologie du Canada. Volume 40. JOGC; 2018. pp. 1208–18.

Pinheiro RL, Areia AL, Mota Pinto A, Donato H. Advanced maternal age: adverse outcomes of pregnancy, a Meta-analysis. Acta Med Port. 2019;32:219–26.

Newburn-Cook CV, Onyskiw JE. Is older maternal age a risk factor for preterm birth and fetal growth restriction? A systematic review. Health Care Women Int. 2005;26:852–75.

Aune D, Saugstad OD, Henriksen T, Tonstad S. Maternal body mass index and the risk of fetal death, stillbirth, and infant death: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA. 2014;311:1536–46.

Jenabi E, Fereidooni B. The uterine leiomyoma and placenta previa: a meta-analysis. The journal of maternal-fetal & neonatal medicine: the official journal of the European Association of Perinatal Medicine, the Federation of Asia and Oceania Perinatal Societies. Int Soc Perinat Obstet. 2019;32:1200–4.

Pérez-Roncero GR, López-Baena MT, Ornat L, et al. Uterine fibroids and preterm birth risk: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Obstet Gynaecol Res. 2020;46:1711–27.

Jenabi E, Ebrahimzadeh Zagami S. The association between uterine leiomyoma and placenta abruption: a meta-analysis. The journal of maternal-fetal & neonatal medicine: the official journal of the European Association of Perinatal Medicine, the Federation of Asia and Oceania Perinatal Societies. Int Soc Perinat Obstet. 2017;30:2742–6.

Download references

Acknowledgements

Not applicable.

This study was funded by Liaoning Provincial Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 2023-MS-155), and Liaoning Provincial Public Welfare Research Fund for Science (Soft Science Research Program) (No. 2023JH4/10600030).

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Cardiology, Shengjing Hospital of China Medical University, Shenyang, Liaoning, China

Hong Li, Zhonghua Hu & Yuyan Fan

Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Shengjing Hospital of China Medical University, No. 36 Sanhao Street, Heping District, Shenyang, 110004, China

Yingying Hao

You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

H.L., Z.H., Y.F. and Y.H. have made substantial contributions to conception and design of the study, searching literature, extracting data and analyzing data. Y.H. wrote the manuscript; H.L., Z.H., and Y.F. critically revised the manuscript; All authors approved the final version of the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Yingying Hao .

Ethics declarations

Ethics and consent to participate.

Ethics approval can consent to participate were waived because this study does not involve any participants or animals.

Consent for publication

Competing interests.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

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

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary Material 1

Supplementary material 2, supplementary material 3, 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.

Li, H., Hu, Z., Fan, Y. et al. The influence of uterine fibroids on adverse outcomes in pregnant women: a meta-analysis. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 24 , 345 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12884-024-06545-5

Download citation

Received : 13 April 2023

Accepted : 25 April 2024

Published : 06 May 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s12884-024-06545-5

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

Uterine fibroids
Obstetric outcome
Meta-analysis

BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth

ISSN: 1471-2393

Submission enquiries: [email protected]
General enquiries: [email protected]

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.

Cover of Management of breech presentation

Management of breech presentation

Evidence review M

NICE Guideline, No. 201

National Guideline Alliance (UK) .

Review question

What is the most effective way of managing a longitudinal lie fetal malpresentation (breech presentation) in late pregnancy?

Introduction

Breech presentation of the fetus in late pregnancy may result in prolonged or obstructed labour with resulting risks to both woman and fetus. Interventions to correct breech presentation (to cephalic) before labour and birth are important for the woman’s and the baby’s health. The aim of this review is to determine the most effective way of managing 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.

Thirty-six randomised controlled trials (RCTs) were identified for this review.

The included studies are summarised in Table 2 .

Three studies reported on external cephalic version (ECV) versus no intervention ( Dafallah 2004 , Hofmeyr 1983 , Rita 2011 ). One study reported on a 4-arm trial comparing acupuncture, sweeping of fetal membranes, acupuncture plus sweeping, and no intervention ( Andersen 2013 ). Two studies reported on postural management versus no intervention ( Chenia 1987 , Smith 1999 ).

Seven studies reported on ECV plus anaesthesia ( Chalifoux 2017 , Dugoff 1999 , Khaw 2015 , Mancuso 2000 , Schorr 1997 , Sullivan 2009 , Weiniger 2010 ). Of these studies, 1 study compared ECV plus anaesthesia to ECV plus other dosages of the same anaesthetic ( Chalifoux 2017 ); 4 studies compared ECV plus anaesthesia to ECV only ( Dugoff 1999 , Mancuso 2000 , Schorr 1997 , Weiniger 2010 ); and 2 studies compared ECV plus anaesthesia to ECV plus a different anaesthetic ( Khaw 2015 , Sullivan 2009 ).

Ten studies reported ECV plus a β2 receptor agonist ( Brocks 1984 , Fernandez 1997 , Hindawi 2005 , Impey 2005 , Mahomed 1991 , Marquette 1996 , Nor Azlin 2005 , Robertson 1987 , Van Dorsten 1981 , Vani 2009 ). Of these studies, 5 studies compared ECV plus a β2 receptor agonist to ECV plus placebo ( Fernandez 1997 , Impey 2005 , Marquette 1996 , Nor Azlin 2005 , Vani 2009 ); 1 study compared ECV plus a β2 receptor agonist to ECV alone ( Robertson 1987 ); and 4 studies compared ECV plus a β2 receptor agonist to no intervention ( Brocks 1984 , Hindawi 2005 , Mahomed 1991 , Van Dorsten 1981 ).

One study reported on ECV plus Ca 2+ channel blocker versus ECV plus placebo ( Kok 2008 ). Two studies reported on ECV plus β2 receptor agonist versus ECV plus Ca 2+ channel blocker ( Collaris 2009 , Mohamed Ismail 2008 ). Four studies reported on ECV plus a µ-receptor agonist ( Burgos 2016 , Liu 2016 , Munoz 2014 , Wang 2017 ), of which 3 compared against ECV plus placebo ( Liu 2016 , Munoz 2014 , Wang 2017 ) and 1 compared to ECV plus nitrous oxide ( Burgos 2016 ).

Four studies reported on ECV plus nitroglycerin ( Bujold 2003a , Bujold 2003b , El-Sayed 2004 , Hilton 2009 ), of which 2 compared it to ECV plus β2 receptor agonist ( Bujold 2003b , El-Sayed 2004 ) and compared it to ECV plus placebo ( Bujold 2003a , Hilton 2009 ). One study compared ECV plus amnioinfusion versus ECV alone ( Diguisto 2018 ) and 1 study compared ECV plus talcum powder to ECV plus gel ( Vallikkannu 2014 ).

One study was conducted in Australia ( Smith 1999 ); 4 studies in Canada ( Bujold 2003a , Bujold 2003b , Hilton 2009 , Marquette 1996 ); 2 studies in China ( Liu 2016 , Wang 2017 ); 2 studies in Denmark ( Andersen 2013 , Brocks 1984 ); 1 study in France ( Diguisto 2018 ); 1 study in Hong Kong ( Khaw 2015 ); 1 study in India ( Rita 2011 ); 1 study in Israel ( Weiniger 2010 ); 1 study in Jordan ( Hindawi 2005 ); 5 studies in Malaysia ( Collaris 2009 , Mohamed Ismail 2008 , Nor Azlin 2005 , Vallikkannu 2014 , Vani 2009 ); 1 study in South Africa ( Hofmeyr 1983 ); 2 studies in Spain ( Burgos 2016 , Munoz 2014 ); 1 study in Sudan ( Dafallah 2004 ); 1 study in The Netherlands ( Kok 2008 ); 2 studies in the UK ( Impey 2005 , Chenia 1987 ); 9 studies in US ( Chalifoux 2017 , Dugoff 1999 , El-Sayed 2004 , Fernandez 1997 , Mancuso 2000 , Robertson 1987 , Schorr 1997 , Sullivan 2009 , Van Dorsten 1981 ); and 1 study in Zimbabwe ( Mahomed 1991 ).

The majority of studies were 2-arm trials, but there was one 3-arm trial ( Khaw 2015 ) and two 4-arm trials ( Andersen 2013 , Chalifoux 2017 ). All studies were conducted in a hospital or an outpatient ward connected to a hospital.

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

Excluded studies

Studies not included in this review with reasons for their exclusions 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 and the forest plots in appendix E .

Quality assessment of clinical outcomes included in the evidence review

See the evidence profiles in appendix F .

Economic evidence

A systematic review of the economic literature was conducted but no economic studies were identified which were applicable to this review question.

A single economic search was undertaken for all topics included in the scope of this guideline. See supplementary material 2 for details.

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

Summary of studies included in the economic evidence review

No economic studies were identified which were applicable to this review question.

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. complementary therapy versus control (no intervention), critical outcomes, cephalic presentation in labour.

No evidence was identified to inform this outcome.

Method of birth

Caesarean section.

Very low quality evidence from 1 RCT (N=204) showed that there is no clinically important difference between acupuncture and control (no intervention) on the number of caesarean sections in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 0.74 (95% CI 0.38 to 1.43).
Very low quality evidence from 1 RCT (N=200) showed that there is no clinically important difference between acupuncture plus membrane sweeping and control (no intervention) on the number of caesarean sections in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 1.29 (95% CI 0.73 to 2.29).

Admission to SCBU/NICU

Very low quality evidence from 1 RCT (N=204) showed that there is no clinically important difference between acupuncture and control (no intervention) on admission to SCBU/NICU in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 0.19 (95% CI 0.02 to 1.62).
Very low quality evidence from 1 RCT (N=200) showed that there is no clinically important difference between acupuncture plus membrane sweeping and control (no intervention) on admission to SCBU/NICU in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 0.40 (0.08 to 2.01).

Fetal death after 36 +0 weeks gestation

Infant death up to 4 weeks chronological age, important outcomes, apgar score <7 at 5 minutes.

Very low quality evidence from 1 RCT (N=204) showed that there is no clinically important difference between acupuncture and control (no intervention) on Apgar score <7 at 5 minutes in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 0.32 (95% CI 0.01 to 7.78).
Very low quality evidence from 1 RCT (N=200) showed that there is no clinically important difference between acupuncture plus membrane sweeping and control (no intervention) on Apgar score <7 at 5 minutes in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 0.33 (0.01 to 8.09).

Birth before 39 +0 weeks of gestation

Comparison 2. complementary therapy versus other treatment.

Low quality evidence from 1 RCT (N=207) showed that there is no clinically important difference between acupuncture and membrane sweeping on the number of caesarean sections in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 0.64 (95% CI 0.34 to 1.22).
Low quality evidence from 1 RCT (N=204) showed that there is no clinically important difference between acupuncture and acupuncture plus membrane sweeping on the number of caesarean sections in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 0.57 (95% CI 0.30 to 1.07).
Very low quality evidence from 1 RCT (N=203) showed that there is no clinically important difference between acupuncture plus membrane sweeping and membrane sweeping on the number of caesarean sections in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 1.13 (95% CI 0.66 to 1.94).
Very low quality evidence from 1 RCT (N=207) showed that there is no clinically important difference between acupuncture and membrane sweeping on admission to SCBU/NICU in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 0.33 (95% CI 0.03 to 3.12).
Very low quality evidence from 1 RCT (N=204) showed that there is no clinically important difference between acupuncture and acupuncture plus membrane sweeping on admission to SCBU/NICU in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 0.48 (95% CI 0.04 to 5.22).
Very low quality evidence from 1 RCT (N=203) showed that there is no clinically important difference between acupuncture plus membrane sweeping and membrane sweeping on admission to SCBU/NICU in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 0.69 (95% CI 0.12 to 4.02).
Low quality evidence from 1 RCT (N=207) showed that there is no clinically important difference between acupuncture and membrane sweeping on Apgar score <7 at 5 minutes in pregnant women with breech presentation: RD 0.00 (95% CI −0.02 to 0.02).
Low quality evidence from 1 RCT (N=204) showed that there is no clinically important difference between acupuncture and acupuncture plus membrane sweeping on Apgar score <7 at 5 minutes in pregnant women with breech presentation: RD 0.00 (95% CI −0.02 to 0.02).
Low quality evidence from 1 RCT (N=203) showed that there is no clinically important difference between acupuncture plus membrane sweeping and membrane sweeping on Apgar score <7 at 5 minutes in pregnant women with breech presentation: RD 0.00 (95% CI −0.02 to 0.02).

Comparison 3. ECV versus no ECV

Moderate quality evidence from 2 RCTs (N=680) showed that there is clinically important difference favouring ECV over no ECV on cephalic presentation in labour in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 1.83 (95% CI 1.53 to 2.18).

Cephalic vaginal birth

Very low quality evidence from 3 RCTs (N=740) showed that there is a clinically important difference favouring ECV over no ECV on cephalic vaginal birth in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 1.67 (95% CI 1.20 to 2.31).

Breech vaginal birth

Very low quality evidence from 2 RCTs (N=680) showed that there is no clinically important difference between ECV and no ECV on breech vaginal birth in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 0.29 (95% CI 0.03 to 2.84).
Very low quality evidence from 3 RCTs (N=740) showed that there is no clinically important difference between ECV and no ECV on the number of caesarean sections in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 0.52 (95% CI 0.23 to 1.20).
Very low quality evidence from 1 RCT (N=60) showed that there is no clinically important difference between ECV and no ECV on admission to SCBU//NICU in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 0.50 (95% CI 0.14 to 1.82).
Very low evidence from 3 RCTs (N=740) showed that there is no statistically significant difference between ECV and no ECV on fetal death after 36 +0 weeks gestation in pregnant women with breech presentation: Peto OR 0.29 (95% CI 0.05 to 1.73) p=0.18.
Very low quality evidence from 2 RCTs (N=120) showed that there is no clinically important difference between ECV and no ECV on Apgar score <7 at 5 minutes in pregnant women with breech presentation: Peto OR 0.28 (95% CI 0.04 to 1.70).

Comparison 4. ECV + Amnioinfusion versus ECV only

Very low quality evidence from 1 RCT (N=109) showed that there is no clinically important difference between ECV plus amnioinfusion and ECV alone on cephalic presentation in labour in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 1.74 (95% CI 0.74 to 4.12).
Low quality evidence from 1 RCT (N=109) showed that there is no clinically important difference between ECV plus amnioinfusion and ECV alone on the number of caesarean sections in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 0.95 (95% CI 0.75 to 1.19).

Comparison 5. ECV + Anaesthesia versus ECV only

Very low quality evidence from 2 RCTs (N=210) showed that there is no clinically important difference between ECV plus anaesthesia and ECV alone on cephalic presentation in labour in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 1.16 (95% CI 0.56 to 2.41).
Very low quality evidence from 5 RCTs (N=435) showed that there is no clinically important difference between ECV plus anaesthesia and ECV alone on cephalic vaginal birth in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 1.16 (95% CI 0.77 to 1.74).
Very low quality evidence from 1 RCT (N=108) showed that there is no clinically important difference between ECV plus anaesthesia and ECV alone on breech vaginal birth in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 0.33 (95% CI 0.04 to 3.10).
Very low quality evidence from 3 RCTs (N=263) showed that there is no clinically important difference between ECV plus anaesthesia and ECV alone on the number of caesarean sections in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 0.76 (95% CI 0.42 to 1.38).
Moderate quality evidence from 1 RCT (N=69) showed that there is a clinically important difference favouring ECV plus anaesthesia over ECV alone on admission to SCBU/NICU in pregnant women with breech presentation: MD −1.80 (95% CI −2.53 to −1.07).
Low quality evidence from 1 RCT (N=126) showed that there is no clinically important difference between ECV plus anaesthesia and ECV alone on Apgar score <7 at 5 minutes in pregnant women with breech presentation: RD 0.00 (95% CI −0.03 to 0.03).

Comparison 6. ECV + Anaesthesia versus ECV + Anaesthesia

Very low quality evidence from 1 RCT (N=120) showed that there is no clinically important difference between ECV plus 2.5mg Bupivacaine plus 0.015mg Fentanyl and ECV plus 5mg Bupivacaine plus 0.015mg Fentanyl on cephalic vaginal birth in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 1.13 (95% CI 0.73 to 1.74).
Low quality evidence from 1 RCT (N=119) showed that there is no clinically important difference between ECV plus 2.5mg Bupivacaine plus 0.015mg Fentanyl and ECV plus 7.5mg Bupivacaine plus 0.015mg Fentanyl on cephalic vaginal birth in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 0.81 (95% CI 0.53 to 1.23).
Very low quality evidence from 1 RCT (N=120) showed that there is no clinically important difference between ECV plus 2.5mg Bupivacaine plus 0.015mg Fentanyl and ECV plus 10mg Bupivacaine plus 0.015mg Fentanyl on cephalic vaginal birth in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 0.96 (95% CI 0.61 to 1.50).
Very low quality evidence from 1 RCT (N=95) showed that there is no clinically important difference between ECV plus 2.5mg Bupivacaine plus 0.015mg Fentanyl and ECV plus 0.05mg Fentanyl on cephalic vaginal birth in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 0.69 (95% CI 0.37 to 1.28).
Low quality evidence from 1 RCT (N=119) showed that there is no clinically important difference between ECV plus 5mg Bupivacaine plus 0.015mg Fentanyl and ECV plus 7.5mg Bupivacaine plus 0.015mg Fentanyl on cephalic vaginal birth in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 0.81 (95% CI 0.53 to 1.23).
Very low quality evidence from 1 RCT (N=120) showed that there is no clinically important difference between ECV plus 5mg Bupivacaine plus 0.015mg Fentanyl and ECV plus 10mg Bupivacaine plus 0.015mg Fentanyl on cephalic vaginal birth in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 0.96 (95% CI 0.61 to 1.50).
Very low evidence from 1 RCT (N=119) showed that there is no clinically important difference between ECV plus 7.5mg Bupivacaine plus 0.015mg Fentanyl and ECV plus 10mg Bupivacaine plus 0.015mg Fentanyl on cephalic vaginal birth in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 1.19 (95% CI 0.79 to 1.79).
Low quality evidence from 1 RCT (N=120) showed that there is no clinically important difference between ECV plus 2.5mg Bupivacaine plus 0.015mg Fentanyl and ECV plus 5mg Bupivacaine plus 0.015mg Fentanyl on the number of caesarean sections in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 0.92 (95% CI 0.68 to 1.24).
Very low evidence from 1 RCT (N=119) showed that there is no clinically important difference between ECV plus 2.5mg Bupivacaine plus 0.015mg Fentanyl and ECV plus 7.5mg Bupivacaine plus 0.015mg Fentanyl on the number of caesarean sections in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 1.08 (95% CI 0.78 to 1.50).
Very low evidence from 1 RCT (N=120) showed that there is no clinically important difference between ECV plus 2.5mg Bupivacaine plus 0.015mg Fentanyl and ECV plus 10mg Bupivacaine plus 0.015mg Fentanyl on the number of caesarean sections in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 0.94 (95% CI 0.70 to 1.28).
Low quality evidence from 1 RCT (N=119) showed that there is no clinically important difference between ECV plus 5mg Bupivacaine plus 0.015mg Fentanyl and ECV plus 7.5mg Bupivacaine plus 0.015mg Fentanyl on the number of caesarean sections in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 1.17 (95% CI 0.86 to 1.61).
Very low quality evidence from 1 RCT (N=120) showed that there is no clinically important difference between ECV plus 5mg Bupivacaine plus 0.015mg Fentanyl and ECV plus 10mg Bupivacaine plus 0.015mg Fentanyl on the number of caesarean sections in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 1.03 (95% CI 0.77 to 1.37).
Low quality evidence from 1 RCT (N=119) showed that there is no clinically important difference between ECV plus 7.5mg Bupivacaine plus 0.015mg Fentanyl and ECV plus 10mg Bupivacaine plus 0.015mg Fentanyl on the number of caesarean sections in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 0.88 (95% CI 0.64 to 1.20).

Comparison 7. ECV + β2 agonist versus Control (no intervention)

Moderate quality evidence from 2 RCTs (N=256) showed that there is a clinically important difference favouring ECV plus β2 agonist over control (no intervention) on cephalic presentation in labour in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 4.83 (95% CI 3.27 to 7.11).
Very low quality evidence from 3 RCTs (N=265) showed that there no clinically important difference between ECV plus β2 agonist and control (no intervention) on cephalic vaginal birth in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 2.03 (95% CI 0.22 to 19.01).
Very low quality evidence from 4 RCTs (N=513) showed that there is a clinically important difference favouring ECV plus β2 agonist over control (no intervention) on breech vaginal birth in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 0.38 (95% CI 0.20 to 0.69).
Low quality evidence from 4 RCTs (N=513) showed that there is a clinically important difference favouring ECV plus β2 agonist over control (no intervention) on the number of caesarean sections in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 0.53 (95% CI 0.41 to 0.67).
Very low quality evidence from 1 RCT (N=48) showed that there is no clinically important difference between ECV plus β2 agonist and control (no intervention) on admission to SCBU/NICU in pregnant women with breech presentation: RD 0.00 (95% CI −0.08 to 0.08).
Very low quality evidence from 3 RCTs (N=208) showed that there is no statistically significant difference between ECV plus β2 agonist and control (no intervention) on fetal death after 36 +0 weeks gestation in pregnant women with breech presentation: RD −0.01 (95% CI −0.03 to 0.01) p=0.66.
Very low quality evidence from 2 RCTs (N=208) showed that there is no clinically important difference between ECV plus β2 agonist and control (no intervention) on Apgar score <7 at 5 minutes in pregnant women with breech presentation: Peto OR 0.80 (95% CI 0.31 to 2.10).

Comparison 8. ECV + β2 agonist versus ECV only

Very low quality evidence from 2 RCTs (N=172) showed that there is no clinically important difference between ECV plus β2 agonist and ECV only on cephalic vaginal birth in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 1.32 (95% CI 0.67 to 2.62).
Very low quality evidence from 1 RCT (N=58) showed that there is no clinically important difference between ECV plus β2 agonist and ECV only on breech vaginal birth in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 0.75 (95% CI 0.22 to 2.50).
Very low quality evidence from 2 RCTs (N=172) showed that there is no clinically important difference between ECV plus β2 agonist and ECV only on the number of caesarean sections in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 0.79 (95% CI 0.27 to 2.28).
Very low quality evidence from 1 RCT (N=114) showed that there is no clinically important difference between ECV plus β2 agonist and ECV only on admission to SCBU/NICU in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 1.00 (95% CI 0.21 to 4.75).

Comparison 9. ECV + β2 agonist versus ECV + Placebo

Very low quality evidence from 2 RCTs (N=146) showed that there is no clinically important difference between ECV plus β2 agonist and ECV plus placebo on cephalic presentation in labour in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 1.54 (95% CI 0.24 to 9.76).
Very low quality evidence from 2 RCTs (N=125) showed that there is no clinically important difference between ECV plus β2 agonist and ECV plus placebo on cephalic vaginal birth in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 1.27 (95% CI 0.41 to 3.89).
Very low quality evidence from 2 RCTs (N=227) showed that there is no clinically important difference between ECV plus β2 agonist and ECV plus placebo on breech vaginal birth in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 1.00 (95% CI 0.33 to 2.97).
Low quality evidence from 4 RCTs (N=532) showed that there is no clinically important difference between ECV plus β2 agonist and ECV plus placebo on the number of caesarean sections in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 0.81 (95% CI 0.72 to 0.92)
Very low quality evidence from 2 RCTs (N=146) showed that there is no clinically important difference between ECV plus β2 agonist and ECV plus placebo on admission to SCBU/NICU in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 0.78 (95% CI 0.17 to 3.63).
Very low quality evidence from 1 RCT (N=124) showed that there is no clinically important difference between ECV plus β2 agonist and ECV plus placebo on Apgar score <7 at 5 minutes in pregnant women with breech presentation: RD 0.00 (95% CI −0.03 to 0.03).

Comparison 10. ECV + Ca 2+ channel blocker versus ECV + Placebo

Moderate quality evidence from 1 RCT (N=310) showed that there is no clinically important difference between ECV plus Ca 2+ channel blocker and ECV plus placebo on cephalic presentation in labour in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 1.13 (95% CI 0.87 to 1.48).
Moderate quality evidence from 1 RCT (N=310) showed that there is no clinically important difference between ECV plus Ca 2+ channel blocker and ECV plus placebo on cephalic vaginal birth in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 0.90 (95% CI 0.73 to 1.12).
Moderate quality evidence from 1 RCT (N=310) showed that there is no clinically important difference between ECV plus Ca 2+ channel blocker and ECV plus placebo on the number of caesarean sections in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 1.11 (95% CI 0.88 to 1.40).
High quality evidence from 1 RCT (N=310) showed that there is no clinically important difference between ECV plus Ca 2+ channel blocker and ECV plus placebo on admission to SCBU/NICU in pregnant women with breech presentation: MD −0.20 (95% CI −0.70 to 0.30).
Moderate quality evidence from 1 RCT (N=310) showed that there is no statistically significant difference between ECV plus Ca 2+ channel blocker and ECV plus placebo on fetal death after 36 +0 weeks gestation in pregnant women with breech presentation: RD 0.00 (95% CI −0.01 to 0.01) p=1.00.
Low quality evidence from 1 RCT (N=310) showed that there is no clinically important difference between ECV plus Ca 2+ channel blocker and ECV plus placebo on Apgar score <7 at 5 minutes in pregnant women with breech presentation: Peto OR 0.52 (95% 0.05 to 5.02).

Comparison 11. ECV + Ca2+ channel blocker versus ECV + β2 agonist

Low quality evidence from 1 RCT (N=90) showed that there is a clinically important difference favouring ECV plus β2 agonist over ECV plus Ca 2+ channel blocker on cephalic presentation in labour in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 0.62 (95% CI 0.39 to 0.98).
Very low quality evidence from 2 RCTs (N=126) showed that there is no clinically important difference between ECV plus Ca 2+ channel blocker and ECV plus β2 agonist on cephalic vaginal birth in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 1.26 (95% CI 0.55 to 2.89).
Very low quality evidence from 2 RCTs (N=132) showed that there is a clinically important difference favouring ECV plus β2 agonist over ECV plus Ca 2+ channel blocker on the number of caesarean sections in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 1.42 (95% CI 1.06 to 1.91).
Very low quality evidence from 2 RCTs (N=176) showed that there is no clinically important difference between ECV plus Ca 2+ channel blocker and ECV plus β2 agonist on admission to SCBU/NICU in pregnant women with breech presentation: Peto OR 0.53 (95% CI 0.05 to 5.22).
Very low quality evidence from 2 RCTs (N=176) showed that there is no clinically important difference between ECV plus Ca 2+ channel blocker and ECV plus β2 agonist on Apgar score <7 at 5 minutes in pregnant women with breech presentation: RD 0.00 (95% CI −0.03 to 0.03).

Comparison 12. ECV + µ-receptor agonist versus ECV only

High quality evidence from 1 RCT (N=80) showed that there is no clinically important difference between ECV plus µ-receptor agonist and ECV alone on cephalic vaginal birth in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 1.00 (95% CI 0.80 to 1.24).
Low quality evidence from 1 RCT (N=80) showed that there is no clinically important difference between ECV plus µ-receptor agonist and ECV alone on the number of caesarean sections in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 1.00 (95% CI 0.42 to 2.40).
Low quality evidence from 1 RCT (N=126) showed that there is no clinically important difference between ECV plus µ-receptor agonist and ECV alone on Apgar score <7 at 5 minutes in pregnant women with breech presentation: RD 0.00 (95% CI −0.03 to 0.03).

Comparison 13. ECV + µ-receptor agonist versus ECV + Placebo

Cephalic vaginal birth after successful ecv.

High quality evidence from 2 RCTs (N=98) showed that there is no clinically important difference between ECV plus µ-receptor agonist and ECV plus placebo on cephalic vaginal birth after successful ECV in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 1.00 (95% CI 0.86 to 1.17).

Caesarean section after successful ECV

Low quality evidence from 2 RCTs (N=98) showed that there is no clinically important difference between ECV plus µ-receptor agonist and ECV plus placebo on caesarean section after successful ECV in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 0.97 (95% CI 0.33 to 2.84).

Breech vaginal birth after unsuccessful ECV

High quality evidence from 3 RCTs (N=186) showed that there is a clinically important difference favouring ECV plus µ-receptor agonist over ECV plus placebo on breech vaginal birth after unsuccessful ECV in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 0.10 (95% CI 0.02 to 0.53).

Caesarean section after unsuccessful ECV

Moderate quality evidence from 3 RCTs (N=186) showed that there is no clinically important difference between ECV plus µ-receptor agonist and ECV plus placebo on caesarean section after unsuccessful ECV in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 1.19 (95% CI 1.09 to 1.31).
Low quality evidence from 1 RCT (N=137) showed that there is no statistically significant difference between ECV plus µ-receptor agonist and ECV plus placebo on fetal death after 36 +0 weeks gestation in pregnant women with breech presentation: RD 0.00 (95% CI −0.03 to 0.03) p=1.00.

Comparison 14. ECV + µ-receptor agonist versus ECV + Anaesthesia

Moderate quality evidence from 1 RCT (N=92) showed that there is no clinically important difference between ECV plus µ-receptor agonist and ECV plus anaesthesia on cephalic vaginal birth in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 1.04 (95% CI 0.84 to 1.29).
Very low quality evidence from 2 RCTs (N=212) showed that there is no clinically important difference between ECV plus µ-receptor agonist and ECV plus anaesthesia on the number of caesarean sections in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 0.90 (95% CI 0.61 to 1.34).
Very low quality evidence from 1 RCT (N=129) showed that there is no clinically important difference between ECV plus µ-receptor agonist and ECV plus anaesthesia on admission to SCBU/NICU in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 2.30 (95% CI 0.21 to 24.74).
Low quality evidence from 2 RCTs (N=255) showed that there is no clinically important difference between ECV plus µ-receptor agonist and ECV plus anaesthesia on Apgar score <7 at 5 minutes in pregnant women with breech presentation: RD 0.00 (95% CI −0.02 to 0.02).

Comparison 15. ECV + Nitric oxide donor versus ECV + Placebo

Very low quality evidence from 3 RCTs (N=224) showed that there is no clinically important difference between ECV plus nitric oxide donor and ECV plus placebo on cephalic presentation in labour in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 1.13 (95% CI 0.59 to 2.16).
Low quality evidence from 1 RCT (N=99) showed that there is no clinically important difference between ECV plus nitric oxide donor and ECV plus placebo on cephalic vaginal birth in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 0.78 (95% CI 0.49 to 1.22).
Low quality evidence from 2 RCTs (N=125) showed that there is no clinically important difference between ECV plus nitric oxide donor and ECV plus placebo on the number of caesarean sections in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 0.83 (95% CI 0.68 to 1.01).

Comparison 16. ECV + Nitric oxide donor versus ECV + β2 agonist

Low quality evidence from 1 RCT (N=74) showed that there is no clinically important difference between ECV plus β2 agonist and ECV plus nitric oxide donor on cephalic presentation in labour in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 0.56 (95% CI 0.29 to 1.09).
Very low quality evidence from 2 RCTs (N=97) showed that there is no clinically important difference between ECV plus nitric oxide donor and ECV plus β2 agonist on cephalic vaginal birth in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 0.98 (95% CI 0.47 to 2.05).
Very low quality evidence from 1 RCT (N=59) showed that there is no clinically important difference between ECV plus nitric oxide donor and ECV plus β2 agonist on the number of caesarean sections in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 1.07 (95% CI 0.73 to 1.57).

Comparison 17. ECV + Talcum powder versus ECV + Gel

Low quality evidence from 1 RCT (N=95) showed that there is no clinically important difference between ECV plus talcum powder and ECV plus gel on cephalic presentation in labour in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 1.02 (95% CI 0.68 to 1.53).
Low quality evidence from 1 RCT (N=95) showed that there is no clinically important difference between ECV plus talcum powder and ECV plus gel on cephalic vaginal birth in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 1.08 (95% CI 0.67 to 1.74).
Low quality evidence from 1 RCT (N=95) showed that there is no clinically important difference between ECV plus talcum powder and ECV plus gel on the number of caesarean sections in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 0.94 (95% CI 0.67 to 1.33).
Low quality evidence from 1 RCT (N=95) showed that there is no clinically important difference between ECV plus talcum powder and ECV plus gel on admission to SCBU/NICU in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 1.96 (95% CI 0.38 to 10.19).

Comparison 18. Postural management versus No postural management

Low quality evidence from 1 RCT (N=76) showed that there is no clinically important difference between postural management and no postural management on cephalic presentation in labour in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 1.26 (95% CI 0.70 to 2.30).
Low quality evidence from 1 RCT (N=76) showed that there is no clinically important difference between postural management and no postural management on cephalic vaginal birth in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 1.11 (95% CI 0.59 to 2.07).

Breech vaginal delivery

Low quality evidence from 1 RCT (N=76) showed that there is no clinically important difference between postural management and no postural management on breech vaginal delivery in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 1.15 (95% CI 0.67 to 1.99).
Low quality evidence from 1 RCT (N=76) showed that there is no clinically important difference between postural management and no postural management on the number of caesarean sections in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 0.69 (95% CI 0.31 to 1.52).
Low quality evidence from 1 RCT (N=76) showed that there is no clinically important difference between postural management and no postural management on Apgar score <7 at 5 minutes in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 0.24 (95% CI 0.03 to 2.03).

Comparison 19. Postural management + ECV versus ECV only

Moderate quality evidence from 1 RCT (N=100) showed that there is no clinically important difference between postural management plus ECV and ECV only on the number of caesarean sections in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 1.05 (95% CI 0.80 to 1.38).
Low quality evidence from 1 RCT (N=100) showed that there is no clinically important difference between postural management plus ECV and ECV only on Apgar score <7 at 5 minutes in pregnant women with breech presentation: Peto OR 0.13 (95% CI 0.00 to 6.55).

Economic evidence statements

No economic evidence was identified which was applicable to this review question.

The committee’s discussion of the evidence

Interpreting the evidence, the outcomes that matter most.

Provision of antenatal care is important for the health and wellbeing of both mother and baby with the aim of avoiding adverse pregnancy outcomes and enhancing maternal satisfaction and wellbeing. Breech presentation in labour may be associated with adverse outcomes for the fetus, which has contributed to an increased likelihood of caesarean birth. The committee therefore agreed that cephalic presentation in labour and method of birth were critical outcomes for the woman, and admission to SCBU/NICU, fetal death after 36 +0 weeks gestation, and infant death up to 4 weeks chronological age were critical outcomes for the baby. Apgar score <7 at 5 minutes and birth before 39 +0 weeks of gestation were important outcomes for the baby.

The quality of the evidence

The quality of the evidence for interventions for managing a longitudinal lie fetal malpresentation (that is breech presentation) in late pregnancy ranged from very low to high, with most of the evidence being of a very low or low quality.

This was predominately due to serious overall risk of bias in some outcomes; imprecision around the effect estimate in some outcomes; indirect population in some outcomes; and the presence of serious heterogeneity in some outcomes, which was unresolved by subgroup analysis. The majority of included studies had a small sample size, which contributed to imprecision around the effect estimate.

No evidence was identified to inform the outcomes of infant death up to 4 weeks chronological age and birth before 39 +0 weeks of gestation.

There was no publication bias identified in the evidence. However, the committee noted the influence pharmacological developers may have in these trials as funders, and took this into account in their decision making.

Benefits and harms

The committee discussed that in the case of breech presentation, a discussion with the woman about the different options and their potential benefits, harms and implications is needed to ensure an informed decision. The committee discussed that some women may prefer a breech vaginal birth or choose an elective caesarean birth, and that her preferences should be supported, in line with shared decision making.

The committee discussed that external cephalic version is standard practice for managing breech presentation in uncomplicated singleton pregnancies at or after 36+0 weeks. The committee discussed that there could be variation in the success rates of ECV based on the experience of the healthcare professional providing the ECV. There was some evidence supporting the use of ECV for managing a breech presentation in late pregnancy. The evidence showed ECV had a clinically important benefit in terms of cephalic presentations in labour and cephalic vaginal deliveries, when compared to no intervention. The committee noted that the evidence suggested that ECV was not harmful to the baby, although the effect estimate was imprecise relating to the relative rarity of the fetal death as an outcome.

Cephalic (head-down) vaginal birth is preferred by many women and the evidence suggests that external cephalic version is an effective way to achieve this. The evidence suggested ECV increased the chance for a cephalic vaginal birth and the committee agreed that it was important to explain this to the woman during her consultation.

The committee discussed the optimum timing for ECV. Timing of ECV must take into account the likelihood of the baby turning naturally before a woman commences labour and the possibility of the baby turning back to a breech presentation after ECV if it is done too early. The committee noted that in their experience, current practice was to perform ECV at 37 gestational weeks. The majority of the evidence demonstrating a benefit of ECV in this review involved ECV performed around 37 gestational weeks, although the review did not look for studies directly comparing different timings of ECV and their relative success rates.

The evidence in this review excluded women with previous complicated pregnancies, such as those with previous caesarean section or uterine surgery. The committee discussed that a previous caesarean section indicates a complicated pregnancy and that this population of women are not the focus of this guideline, which concentrates on women with uncomplicated pregnancies.

The committee’s recommendations align with other NICE guidance and cross references to the NICE guideline on caesarean birth and the section on breech presenting in labour in the NICE guideline on intrapartum care for women with existing medical conditions or obstetric complications and their babies were made.

ECV combined with pharmacological agents

There were some small studies comparing a variety of pharmacological agents (including β2 agonists, Ca 2+ channel blockers, µ-receptor agonists and nitric oxide donors) given alongside ECV. Overall the evidence typically showed no clinically important benefit of adding any pharmacological agent to ECV except in comparisons with a control arm with no ECV where it was not possible to isolate the effect of the ECV versus the pharmacological agent. The evidence tended toward benefit most for β2 agonists and µ-receptor agonists however there was no consistent or high quality evidence of benefit even for these agents. The committee agreed that although these pharmacological agents are used in practice, there was insufficient evidence to make a recommendation supporting or refuting their use or on which pharmacological agent should be used.

The committee discussed that the evidence suggesting µ-receptor agonist, remifentanil, had a clinically important benefit in terms reducing breech vaginal births after unsuccessful ECV was biologically implausible. The committee noted that this pharmacological agent has strong sedative effects, depending on the dosage, and therefore studies comparing it to a placebo had possible design flaws as it would be obvious to all parties whether placebo or active drug had been received. The committee discussed that the risks associated with using remifentanil such as respiratory depression, likely outweigh any potential added benefit it may have on managing breech presentation.

There was some evidence comparing different anaesthetics together with ECV. Although there was little consistent evidence of benefit overall, one small study of low quality showed a combination of 2% lidocaine and epinephrine via epidural catheter (anaesthesia) with ECV showed a clinically important benefit in terms of cephalic presentations in labour and the method of birth. The committee discussed the evidence and agreed the use of anaesthesia via epidural catheter during ECV was uncommon practice in the UK and could be expensive, overall they agreed the strength of the evidence available was insufficient to support a change in practice.

Postural management

There was limited evidence on postural management as an intervention for managing breech presentation in late pregnancy, which showed no difference in effectiveness. Postural management was defined as ‘knee-chest position for 15 minutes, 3 times a day’. The committee agreed that in their experience women valued trying interventions at home first which might make postural management an attractive option for some women, however, there was no evidence that postural management was beneficial. The committee also noted that in their experience postural management can cause notable discomfort so it is not an intervention without disadvantages.

Cost effectiveness and resource use

A systematic review of the economic literature was conducted but no relevant studies were identified which were applicable to this review question.

The committee’s recommendations to offer external cephalic version reinforces current practice. The committee noted that, compared to no intervention, external cephalic version results in clinically important benefits and that there would also be overall downstream cost savings from lower adverse events. It was therefore the committee’s view that offering external cephalic version is cost effective and would not entail any resource impact.

Andersen 2013

Brocks 1984

Bujold 2003

Burgos 2016

Chalifoux 2017

Chenia 1987

Collaris 2009

Dafallah 2004

Diguisto 2018

Dugoff 1999

El-Sayed 2004

Fernandez 1997

Hindawi 2005

Hilton 2009

Hofmeyr 1983

Mahomed 1991

Mancuso 2000

Marquette 1996

Mohamed Ismail 2008

NorAzlin 2005

Robertson 1987

Schorr 1997

Sullivan 2009

VanDorsten 1981

Vallikkannu 2014

Weiniger 2010

Appendix A. Review protocols

Review protocol for review question: What is the most effective way of managing a longitudinal lie fetal malpresentation (breech presentation) in late pregnancy? (PDF, 260K)

Appendix B. Literature search strategies

Literature search strategies for review question: What is the most effective way of managing a longitudinal lie fetal malpresentation (breech presentation) in late pregnancy? (PDF, 281K)

Appendix C. Clinical evidence study selection

Clinical study selection for: What is the most effective way of managing a longitudinal lie fetal malpresentation (breech presentation) in late pregnancy? (PDF, 113K)

Appendix D. Clinical evidence tables

Clinical evidence tables for review question: What is the most effective way of managing a longitudinal lie fetal malpresentation (breech presentation) in late pregnancy? (PDF, 1.2M)

Appendix E. Forest plots

Forest plots for review question: What is the most effective way of managing a longitudinal lie fetal malpresentation (breech presentation) in late pregnancy? (PDF, 678K)

Appendix F. GRADE tables

GRADE tables for review question: What is the most effective way of managing a longitudinal lie fetal malpresentation (breech presentation) in late pregnancy? (PDF, 1.0M)

Appendix G. Economic evidence study selection

Economic evidence study selection for review question: what is the most effective way of managing a longitudinal lie fetal malpresentation (breech presentation) in late pregnancy, appendix h. economic evidence tables, economic evidence tables for review question: what is the most effective way of managing a longitudinal lie fetal malpresentation (breech presentation) in late pregnancy, appendix i. economic evidence profiles, economic evidence profiles for review question: what is the most effective way of managing a longitudinal lie fetal malpresentation (breech presentation) in late pregnancy, appendix j. economic analysis, economic evidence analysis for review question: what is the most effective way of managing a longitudinal lie fetal malpresentation (breech presentation) in late pregnancy.

No economic analysis was conducted for this review question.

Appendix K. Excluded studies

Excluded clinical and economic studies for review question: what is the most effective way of managing a longitudinal lie fetal malpresentation (breech presentation) in late pregnancy, clinical studies, table 24 excluded studies.

View in own window

Economic studies

No economic evidence was identified for this review.

Appendix L. Research recommendations

Research recommendations for review question: what is the most effective way of managing a longitudinal lie fetal malpresentation (breech presentation) in late pregnancy.

No research recommendations were made for this review question.

Evidence reviews underpinning recommendation 1.2.38

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). Management of breech presentation: Antenatal care: Evidence review M. London: National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE); 2021 Aug. (NICE Guideline, No. 201.)
PDF version of this title (2.2M)

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

Recent Activity

Management of breech presentation Management 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

IMAGES

Breech Pregnancy: 8 Important Questions, Answered!
Breech Presentation
Breech baby causes, what does it mean and how to turn a breech baby
Breech Definition
Breech Pregnancy: What It Is and How You Can Help Your Baby Turn Around
What is Breech Presentation?

VIDEO

Webster Technique Part 2
Early pregnancy scan presentation
Breech Baby Position #pregnancy
प्रेग्नेंसी में कितनी बार अल्ट्रासाउंड करवाना चाहिए/Ultrasoundin pregnancy /Dr ShikhaAgarwal
Malpresentation
Breech Delivery I Breech Presentation I उल्टे बच्चे की डिलीवरी

COMMENTS

Breech Baby: Causes, Complications, Turning & Delivery
Breech is common in early pregnancy, but most fetuses will move to a head down position by 36 weeks of pregnancy. ... Most children who were breech at delivery are healthy without health complications due to their presentation at birth. Pediatricians will examine your breech baby's hips after delivery and make follow-up recommendations if needed.
Breech Presentation
Breech Births. In the last weeks of pregnancy, a baby usually moves so his or her head is positioned to come out of the vagina first during birth. This is called a vertex presentation. A breech presentation occurs when the baby's buttocks, feet, or both are positioned to come out first during birth. This happens in 3-4% of full-term births.
Breech Position: What It Means if Your Baby Is Breech
Very rarely, a problem with the baby's muscular or central nervous system can cause a breech presentation. Having an abnormally short umbilical cord may also limit your baby's movement. Smoking. Data shows that smoking during pregnancy may up the risk of a breech baby.
Breech Presentation
Epidemiology. Breech presentation occurs in 3% to 4% of all term pregnancies. A higher percentage of breech presentations occurs with less advanced gestational age. At 32 weeks, 7% of fetuses are breech, and 28 weeks or less, 25% are breech. Specifically, following one breech delivery, the recurrence rate for the second pregnancy was nearly 10% ...
Fetal Presentation, Position, and Lie (Including Breech Presentation
Toward the end of pregnancy, the fetus moves into position for delivery. Normally, the presentation is vertex (head first), and the position is occiput anterior (facing toward the pregnant patient's spine) with the face and body angled to one side and the neck flexed. ... In breech presentation, the presenting part is a poor dilating wedge ...
Breech position baby: How to turn a breech baby
Babies are often active in early pregnancy, moving into different positions. ... At 28 weeks or less, about a quarter of babies are breech, and at 32 weeks, 7 percent are breech. By the end of pregnancy, only 3 to 4 percent of babies are in breech position. ... Turning foetal breech presentation at 32-35 weeks of gestational age by acupuncture ...
Fetal Presentation, Position, and Lie (Including Breech Presentation
Toward the end of pregnancy, the fetus moves into position for delivery. Normally, the presentation is vertex (head first), and the position is occiput anterior (facing toward the pregnant person's spine) and with the face and body angled to one side and the neck flexed. Variations in fetal presentations include face, brow, breech, and shoulder.
Fetal presentation before birth
Frank breech. When a baby's feet or buttocks are in place to come out first during birth, it's called a breech presentation. This happens in about 3% to 4% of babies close to the time of birth. The baby shown below is in a frank breech presentation. That's when the knees aren't bent, and the feet are close to the baby's head.
What to Know About a Breech Baby
It is very common for a baby to be breech in early pregnancy. But by 36 to 37 weeks, most babies have turned naturally into the head-down position. About 3% to 4% remain in the breech position ...
PDF Breech baby at the end of pregnancy
Breech are is very breech common in early pregnancy, and by 36-37 weeks of pregnancy, most babies A breech turn naturally baby into the may head-first position. be lying 100 in one of Towards the end of pregnancy, only 3-4 in every (3-4%) babies are the in the breech position. A breech baby may be lying in one of the following positions:
Breech: Types, Risk Factors, Treatment, Complications
At full term, around 3%-4% of births are breech. The different types of breech presentations include: Complete: The fetus's knees are bent, and the buttocks are presenting first. Frank: The fetus's legs are stretched upward toward the head, and the buttocks are presenting first. Footling: The fetus's foot is showing first.
Breech presentation
Breech presentation is common in early pregnancy and decreases with advancing gestational age, as most babies turn spontaneously to a cephalic presentation before birth. The prevalence at term in singleton pregnancies is 3% to 4% of all births. The prevalence prior to term at various gestations is as follows:
PDF Breech Presentation Fact Sheet
- Early in pregnancy about half of all babies are breech presentation.4 Babies continue to turn to ... Other Research on Breech Presentation Outcomes by Delivery Method - Meta analysis 1: 24 studies published between 1966-199220 Findings: Higher perinatal mortality, traumatic morbidity, short-term morbidity, and long-term ...
A comparison of risk factors for breech presentation in preterm and
The incidence of breech presentation at delivery decreased from 23.5% in pregnancy weeks 24-27 to 2.5% in term pregnancies. In gestational weeks 24-27, preterm premature rupture of membranes was associated with breech presentation. ... breech presentation is a high-risk state and some obstetric risk factors are yet visible in early preterm ...
Breech Baby
Then, usually between 32 and 36 weeks of pregnancy, your baby will likely get into a head-down position in preparation for being born. There is a small chance — just 3 to 4 percent — that your baby may not move into this head-down position by the time your pregnancy is full term. This is called a breech presentation.
What happens if your baby is breech?
Turning a breech baby. If your baby is in a breech position at 36 weeks, you'll usually be offered an external cephalic version (ECV). This is when a healthcare professional, such as an obstetrician, tries to turn the baby into a head-down position by applying pressure on your abdomen. It's a safe procedure, although it can be a bit uncomfortable.
Management of Breech Presentation (Green-top Guideline No. 20b)
Information regarding external cephalic version is the topic of the separate Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists Green-top Guideline No. 20a, External Cephalic Version and Reducing the Incidence of Term Breech Presentation. Breech presentation occurs in 3-4% of term deliveries and is more common in preterm deliveries and ...
Identification of breech presentation
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. ... The committee had hoped to find evidence that would inform whether early identification of breech presentation ...
Breech baby at the end of pregnancy
Babies lying bottom first or feet first in the uterus (womb) instead of in the usual head-first position are called breech babies. Breech is very common in early pregnancy, and by 36-37 weeks of pregnancy, most babies turn naturally into the head-first position. Towards the end of pregnancy, only 3-4 in every 100 (3-4%) babies are in the breech ...
Breech presentation
Breech presentation is very common in the early stages of pregnancy (first and second trimesters). Most babies turn to the head-down position as the pregnancy progresses. After around 37 weeks most babies are in the head first position ready for birth. About 3% of babies (3 in 100) remain in the breech position after 37 weeks.
The influence of uterine fibroids on adverse outcomes in pregnant women
Multiple fibroids did not increase the risk of breech presentation, placental abruption, cesarean delivery, PPH, placenta previa, PPROM, preterm birth, and intrauterine growth restriction. Meta-regression analyses indicated that maternal age only affected the relationship between uterine fibroids and preterm birth, and BMI influenced the ...
Management of breech presentation
Introduction. Breech presentation of the fetus in late pregnancy may result in prolonged or obstructed labour with resulting risks to both woman and fetus. Interventions to correct breech presentation (to cephalic) before labour and birth are important for the woman's and the baby's health. The aim of this review is to determine the most ...
PDF Breech presentation at the end of your pregnancy
Breech presentation occurs when your baby is lying bottom first or feet first in the uterus (womb) rather than the usual head first position. In early pregnancy, a breech position is very common. As pregnancy continues, usually a baby turns into the head first position. Near the due date, only about three babies in every hundred are breech.

Breech Births

What are the different types of breech birth presentations?

What causes a breech presentation?

How is a breech presentation diagnosed?

Can a breech presentation mean something is wrong?

Can a breech presentation be changed?

Medical Techniques

ECV will not be tried if:

Complications of EVC include:

Vaginal delivery versus cesarean for breech birth?

What are the risks and complications of a vaginal delivery?

When is a cesarean delivery used with a breech presentation?

Want to Know More?

Compiled using information from the following sources:

BLOG CATEGORIES

Share this post:

Episiotomy: Advantages & Complications

Retained Placenta

What is Dilation in Pregnancy?

Pregnancy Tools

Pregnancy Journeys

What does it mean when a baby is breech?

Breech, posterior, transverse lie: What position is my baby in?

Raspberry leaf tea is popular during pregnancy – but possible benefits aren't proven

Too much amniotic fluid (polyhydramnios)

C-section recovery: Timeline, aftercare tips, and expectations

Where to go next

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

Position and Presentation of the Fetus

Occiput posterior position

Breech presentation

Other presentations

Appointments at Mayo Clinic

Head down, face down

Head down, face up

Frank breech

Complete and incomplete breech

Products and Services

Mayo Clinic Press

Your gift holds great power – donate today!

What Is Breech?

Risk Factors

Types of Breech Presentation

Signs of Breech

Recommendations for Previous C-Sections

A Word From Verywell

Breech presentation

Emerging Tx

Patient Instructions

Quick Reference

buttocks or feet as the presenting part

subcostal tenderness

transabdominal/transvaginal ultrasound

<37 weeks' gestation

≥37 weeks' gestation not in labor

Classifications

Epidemiology

Pathophysiology

Clinical exam

Ultrasound examination

small for gestational age fetus

nulliparity

fetal congenital anomalies

previous breech delivery

uterine abnormalities

female fetus

abnormal amniotic fluid volume

placental abnormalities

Transverse lie

Treatment Approach

Breech presentation from 37 weeks' gestation, before labor

Breech presentation from 37 weeks' gestation, during labor

≥37 weeks' gestation in labor: no imminent delivery

≥37 weeks' gestation in labor: imminent delivery

External cephalic version before term

complications of cesarean section

Key Articles

Referenced Articles

Peer Reviewers

Breech Presentation: What It Is and How It Can Affect Your Baby's Delivery