breech presentation guidelines pdf

Management of Breech Presentation (Green-top Guideline No. 20b)

Summary: The aim of this guideline is to aid decision making regarding the route of delivery and choice of various techniques used during delivery. It does not include antenatal or postnatal care. 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 nulliparous women. Breech presentation is associated with uterine and congenital abnormalities, and has a significant recurrence risk. Term babies presenting by the breech have worse outcomes than cephalic presenting babies, irrespective of the mode of delivery.

A large reduction in the incidence of planned vaginal breech birth followed publication of the Term Breech Trial. Nevertheless, due to various circumstances vaginal breech births will continue. Lack of experience has led to a loss of skills essential for these deliveries. Conversely, caesarean section can has serious long-term consequences.

COVID disclaimer: This guideline was developed as part of the regular updates to programme of Green-top Guidelines, as outlined in our document  Developing a Green-top Guideline: Guidance for developers , and prior to the emergence of COVID-19.

Version history: This is the fourth edition of this guideline.

Please note that the RCOG Guidelines Committee regularly assesses the need to update the information provided in this publication. Further information on this review is available on request.

Developer declaration of interests:

Mr M Griffiths  is a member of Doctors for a Woman's right to Choose on Abortion. He is an unpaid member of a Quality Standards Advisory Committee at NICE, for which he does receive expenses for related travel, accommodation and meals.

Mr LWM Impey  is Director of Oxford Fetal Medicine Ltd. and a member of the International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology. He also holds patents related to ultrasound processing, which are of no relevance to the Breech guidelines.

Professor DJ Murphy  provides medicolegal expert opinions in Scotland and Ireland for which she is remunerated.

Dr LK Penna:  None declared.

• Access the PDF version of this guideline on Wiley
• Access the web version of this guideline on Wiley

This page was last reviewed 16 March 2017.

An official website of the United States government

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

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

• Publications
• Account settings
• Browse Titles

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

• Identification of breech presentation

Evidence review L

NICE Guideline, No. 201

National Guideline Alliance (UK) .

• Copyright and Permissions

Review question

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

Introduction

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

Summary of the protocol

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

Summary of the protocol (PICO table).

For further details see the review protocol in appendix A .

Methods and process

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

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

Clinical evidence

Included studies.

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

The included study is summarised in Table 2 .

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

Excluded studies

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

Summary of clinical studies included in the evidence review

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

Summary of included studies.

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

Quality assessment of clinical outcomes included in the evidence review

See the evidence profiles in appendix F .

Economic evidence

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

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

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

Summary of studies included in the economic evidence review

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

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

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

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

Economic model

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

Evidence statements

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

No evidence was identified to inform this outcome.

Mode of birth

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

Important outcomes

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

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

Admission to neonatal unit

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

Economic evidence statements

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

The committee’s discussion of the evidence

Interpreting the evidence, the outcomes that matter most.

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

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

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

The quality of the evidence

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

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

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

Benefits and harms

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

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

Cost effectiveness and resource use

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

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

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

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

McKenna 2003

Wastlund 2019

Appendix A. Review protocols

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

Appendix B. Literature search strategies

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

Appendix C. Clinical evidence study selection

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

Appendix D. Clinical evidence tables

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

Appendix E. Forest plots

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

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

Appendix F. GRADE tables

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

Appendix G. Economic evidence study selection

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

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

Appendix H. Economic evidence tables

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

Appendix I. Economic evidence profiles

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

Appendix J. Economic analysis

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

No economic analysis was conducted for this review question.

Appendix K. Excluded studies

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

View in own window

Economic studies

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

Appendix L. Research recommendations

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

Evidence reviews underpinning recommendations 1.2.36 to 1.2.37

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

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

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

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

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

In this Page

Other titles in this collection.

• NICE Evidence Reviews Collection

Related NICE guidance and evidence

• NICE Guideline 201: Antenatal care

Supplemental NICE documents

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

Related information

• PMC PubMed Central citations
• PubMed Links to PubMed

Similar articles in PubMed

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

Recent Activity

• Identification of breech presentation Identification of breech presentation

Your browsing activity is empty.

Activity recording is turned off.

Turn recording back on

Connect with NLM

National Library of Medicine 8600 Rockville Pike Bethesda, MD 20894

Web Policies FOIA HHS Vulnerability Disclosure

Help Accessibility Careers

6.1 Breech presentation

Presentation of the feet or buttocks of the foetus.

6.1.1 The different breech presentations

• In a complete breech presentation, the legs are tucked, and the foetus is in a crouching position (Figure 6.1a).
• In a frank breech presentation, the legs are extended, raised in front of the torso, with the feet near the head (Figure 6.1b).
• In a footling breech presentation (rare), one or both feet present first, with the buttocks higher up and the lower limbs extended or half-bent (Figure 6.1c).

6.1.2 Diagnosis

• The cephalic pole is palpable in the uterine fundus; round, hard, and mobile; the indentation of the neck can be felt.
• The inferior pole is voluminous, irregular, less hard, and less mobile than the head.
• During labour, vaginal examination reveals a “soft mass” divided by the cleft between the buttocks, with a hard projection at end of the cleft (the coccyx and sacrum).
• After rupture of the membranes: the anus can be felt in the middle of the cleft; a foot may also be felt.
• The clinical diagnosis may be difficult: a hand may be mistaken for a foot, a face for a breech.

6.1.3 Management

Route of delivery.

Before labour, external version (Chapter 7, Section 7.7 ) may be attempted to avoid breech delivery.

If external version is contra-indicated or unsuccessful, the breech position alone – in the absence of any other anomaly – is not, strictly speaking, a dystocic presentation, and does not automatically require a caesarean section. Deliver vaginally, if possible – even if the woman is primiparous.

Breech deliveries must be done in a CEmONC facility, especially for primiparous women.

Favourable factors for vaginal delivery are:

• Frank breech presentation;
• A history of vaginal delivery (whatever the presentation);
• Normally progressing dilation during labour.

The footling breech presentation is a very unfavourable position for vaginal delivery (risk of foot or cord prolapse). In this situation, the route of delivery depends on the number of previous births, the state of the membranes and how far advanced the labour is.

During labour

• Monitor dilation every 2 to 4 hours. 
• If contractions are of good quality, dilation is progressing, and the foetal heart rate is regular, an expectant approach is best. Do not rupture the membranes unless dilation stops.
• If the uterine contractions are inadequate, labour can be actively managed with oxytocin.

Note : if the dilation stales, transfer the mother to a CEmONC facility unless already done, to ensure access to surgical facility for potential caesarean section.

At delivery

• Insert an IV line before expulsion starts.
• Consider episiotomy at expulsion. Episiotomy is performed when the perineum is sufficiently distended by the foetus's buttocks.
• Presence of meconium or meconium-stained amniotic fluid is common during breech delivery and is not necessarily a sign of foetal distress.
• The infant delivers unaided , as a result of the mother's pushing, simply supported by the birth attendant who gently holds the infant by the bony parts (hips and sacrum), with no traction. Do not pull on the legs.

Once the umbilicus is out, the rest of the delivery must be completed within 3 minutes, otherwise compression of the cord will deprive the infant of oxygen. Do not touch the infant until the shoulder blades appear to avoid triggering the respiratory reflex before the head is delivered.

• Monitor the position of the infant's back; impede rotation into posterior position.

Figures 6.2 - Breech delivery

6.1.4 Breech delivery problems

Posterior orientation.

If the infant’s back is posterior during expulsion, take hold of the hips and turn into an anterior position (this is a rare occurrence).

Obstructed shoulders

The shoulders can become stuck and hold back the infant's upper chest and head. This can occur when the arms are raised as the shoulders pass through the mother's pelvis. There are 2 methods for lowering the arms so that the shoulders can descend:

1 - Lovset's manoeuvre

• With thumbs on the infant's sacrum, take hold of the hips and pelvis with the other fingers.
• Turn the infant 90° (back to the left or to the right), to bring the anterior shoulder underneath the symphysis and engage the arm. Deliver the anterior arm.
• Then do a 180° counter-rotation (back to the right or to the left); this engages the posterior arm, which is then delivered.

Figures 6.3 - Lovset's manoeuvre

6.3c  - Delivering the anterior arm and shoulder

2 - Suzor’s manoeuvre

In case the previous method fails:

• Turn the infant 90° (its back to the right or to the left).
• Pull the infant downward: insert one hand along the back to look for the anterior arm. With the operator thumb in the infant armpit and middle finger along the arm, bring down the arm (Figure 6.4a).
• Lift infant upward by the feet in order to deliver the posterior shoulder (Figure 6.4b).

Figures 6.4 - Suzor's manoeuvre

6.4b  - Delivering the posterior shoulder

Head entrapment

The infant's head is bulkier than the body, and can get trapped in the mother's pelvis or soft tissue.

There are various manoeuvres for delivering the head by flexing it, so that it descends properly, and then pivoting it up and around the mother's symphysis. These manoeuvres must be done without delay, since the infant must be allowed to breathe as soon as possible. All these manoeuvres must be performed smoothly, without traction on the infant.

1 - Bracht's manoeuvre

• After the arms are delivered, the infant is grasped by the hips and lifted with two hands toward the mother's stomach, without any traction, the neck pivoting around the symphysis.
• Having an assistant apply suprapubic pressure facilitates delivery of the aftercoming head.

2 - Modified Mauriceau manoeuvre

• Infant's head occiput anterior.
• Kneel to get a good traction angle: 45° downward.
• Support the infant on the hand and forearm, then insert the index and middle fingers, placing them on the infant’s maxilla. Placing the index and middle fingers into the infant’s mouth is not recommended, as this can fracture the mandible.
• Place the index and middle fingers of the other hand on either side of the infant's neck and lower the infant's head to bring the sub-occiput under the symphysis (Figure 6.6a).
• Tip the infant’s head and with a sweeping motion bring the back up toward the mother's abdomen, pivoting the occiput around her symphysis pubis (Figure 6.6b).
• Suprapubic pressure on the infant's head along the pelvic axis helps delivery of the head.
• As a last resort, symphysiotomy (Chapter 5, Section 5.7 ) can be combined with this manoeuvre.

Figures 6.6 - Modified Mauriceau manoeuvre

6.6a - Step 1 Infant straddles the birth attendant's forearm; the head, occiput anterior, is lowered to bring the occiput in contact with the symphysis.

6.6b  - Step 2 The infant's back is tipped up toward the mother's abdomen.

3 - Forceps on aftercoming head 

This procedure can only be performed by an operator experienced in using forceps.