Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

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.

Https

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.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Meta-Analysis
. 2015 Jul 21;2015(7):CD000166.
doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD000166.pub2.

Planned caesarean section for term breech delivery

G Justus Hofmeyr  1 , Mary Hannah, Theresa A Lawrie
Affiliations
Meta-Analysis

Planned caesarean section for term breech delivery

G Justus Hofmeyr et al. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. .

Abstract

Background: Poor outcomes after breech birth might be the result of underlying conditions causing breech presentation or due to factors associated with the delivery.

Objectives: To assess the effects of planned caesarean section for singleton breech presentation at term on measures of pregnancy outcome.

Search methods: We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (31 March 2015).

Selection criteria: Randomised trials comparing planned caesarean section for singleton breech presentation at term with planned vaginal birth.

Data collection and analysis: Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and risk of bias, extracted data and checked them for accuracy.

Main results: Three trials (2396 participants) were included in the review. Caesarean delivery occurred in 550/1227 (45%) of those women allocated to a vaginal delivery protocol and 1060/1169 (91%) of those women allocated to planned caesarean section (average risk ratio (RR) random-effects, 1.88, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.60 to 2.20; three studies, 2396 women, evidence graded low quality). Perinatal or neonatal death (excluding fatal anomalies) or severe neonatal morbidity was reduced with a policy of planned caesarean section in settings with a low national perinatal mortality rate (RR 0.07, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.29, one study, 1025 women, evidence graded moderate quality), but not in settings with a high national perinatal mortality rate (RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.35 to 1.24, one study, 1053 women, evidence graded low quality). The difference between subgroups was significant (Test for subgroup differences: Chi² = 8.01, df = 1 (P = 0.005), I² = 87.5%). Due to this significant heterogeneity, a random-effects analysis was performed. The average overall effect was not statistically significant (RR 0.23, 95% CI 0.02 to 2.44, one study, 2078 infants). Perinatal or neonatal death (excluding fatal anomalies) was reduced with planned caesarean section (RR 0.29, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.86, three studies, 2388 women). The proportional reductions were similar for countries with low and high national perinatal mortality rates.The numbers studied were too small to satisfactorily address reductions in birth trauma and brachial plexus injury with planned caesarean section. Neither of these outcomes reached statistical significance (birth trauma: RR 0.42, 95% CI 0.16 to 1.10, one study, 2062 infants (20 events),evidence graded low quality; brachial plexus injury: RR 0.35, 95% CI 0.08 to 1.47, three studies, 2375 infants (nine events)).Planned caesarean section was associated with modestly increased short-term maternal morbidity (RR 1.29, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.61, three studies, 2396 women,low quality evidence). At three months after delivery, women allocated to the planned caesarean section group reported less urinary incontinence (RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.41 to 0.93, one study, 1595 women); no difference in 'any pain' (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.29, one study, 1593 women,low quality evidence); more abdominal pain (RR 1.89, 95% CI 1.29 to 2.79, one study, 1593 women); and less perineal pain (RR 0.32, 95% CI 0.18 to 0.58, one study, 1593 women).At two years, there were no differences in the combined outcome 'death or neurodevelopmental delay' (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.52 to 2.30, one study, 920 children,evidence graded low quality); more infants who had been allocated to planned caesarean delivery had medical problems at two years (RR 1.41, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.89, one study, 843 children). Maternal outcomes at two years were also similar. In countries with low perinatal mortality rates, the protocol of planned caesarean section was associated with lower healthcare costs, expressed in 2002 Canadian dollars (mean difference -$877.00, 95% CI -894.89 to -859.11, one study, 1027 women).All of the trials included in this review had design limitations, and the GRADE level of evidence was mostly low. No studies attempted to blind the intervention, and the process of random allocation was suboptimal in two studies. Two of the three trials had serious design limitations, however these studies contributed to fewer outcomes than the large multi-centre trial with lower risk of bias.

Authors' conclusions: Planned caesarean section compared with planned vaginal birth reduced perinatal or neonatal death as well as the composite outcome death or serious neonatal morbidity, at the expense of somewhat increased maternal morbidity. In a subset with 2-year follow up, infant medical problems were increased following planned caesarean section and no difference in long-term neurodevelopmental delay or the outcome "death or neurodevelopmental delay" was found, though the numbers were too small to exclude the possibility of an important difference in either direction.The benefits need to be weighed against factors such as the mother's preference for vaginal birth and risks such as future pregnancy complications in the woman's specific healthcare setting. The option of external cephalic version is dealt with in separate reviews. The data from this review cannot be generalised to settings where caesarean section is not readily available, or to methods of breech delivery that differ materially from the clinical delivery protocols used in the trials reviewed. The review will help to inform individualised decision-making regarding breech delivery. Research on strategies to improve the safety of breech delivery and to further investigate the possible association of caesarean section with infant medical problems is needed.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Mary Hannah is principal investigator and Justus Hofmeyr a collaborator of the Term Breech Trial (Hannah 2000), which is included in this review. Tess Lawrie undertook assessment and data extraction for this trial. Justus Hofmeyr receives royalties from UpToDate for chapters related to breech pregnancy, delivery of a baby in breech presentation and external cephalic version. UpToDate is an electronic publication by Wolters Kluwer to disseminate evidence‐based medicine (such as Cochrane reviews).

Figures

1
1
'Risk of bias. graph: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item presented as percentages across all included studies.
2
2
.Risk of bias. summary: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item for each included study.
1.1
1.1. Analysis
Comparison 1 Planned caesarean section for term breech presentation, Outcome 1 Perinatal/neonatal death or severe neonatal morbidity.
1.2
1.2. Analysis
Comparison 1 Planned caesarean section for term breech presentation, Outcome 2 Death or neurodevelopmental delay at age 2 years.
1.3
1.3. Analysis
Comparison 1 Planned caesarean section for term breech presentation, Outcome 3 Perinatal/neonatal mortality (excluding fatal malformations).
1.4
1.4. Analysis
Comparison 1 Planned caesarean section for term breech presentation, Outcome 4 5 minute Apgar < 7.
1.5
1.5. Analysis
Comparison 1 Planned caesarean section for term breech presentation, Outcome 5 5 minute Apgar < 4.
1.6
1.6. Analysis
Comparison 1 Planned caesarean section for term breech presentation, Outcome 6 Cord blood pH < 7.0.
1.7
1.7. Analysis
Comparison 1 Planned caesarean section for term breech presentation, Outcome 7 Cord blood base deficit =/> 15.
1.8
1.8. Analysis
Comparison 1 Planned caesarean section for term breech presentation, Outcome 8 Birth trauma, as defined by trial authors.
1.9
1.9. Analysis
Comparison 1 Planned caesarean section for term breech presentation, Outcome 9 Brachial plexus injury.
1.10
1.10. Analysis
Comparison 1 Planned caesarean section for term breech presentation, Outcome 10 Infant medical problems at 2 years.
1.11
1.11. Analysis
Comparison 1 Planned caesarean section for term breech presentation, Outcome 11 Neurodevelopmental delay at age 2 years.
1.12
1.12. Analysis
Comparison 1 Planned caesarean section for term breech presentation, Outcome 12 Caesarean section.
1.13
1.13. Analysis
Comparison 1 Planned caesarean section for term breech presentation, Outcome 13 Short‐term maternal morbidity.
1.14
1.14. Analysis
Comparison 1 Planned caesarean section for term breech presentation, Outcome 14 Woman not satisfied.
1.15
1.15. Analysis
Comparison 1 Planned caesarean section for term breech presentation, Outcome 15 Postnatal depression at 3 months, as defined by trial authors.
1.16
1.16. Analysis
Comparison 1 Planned caesarean section for term breech presentation, Outcome 16 Not breastfeeding at 3 months.
1.17
1.17. Analysis
Comparison 1 Planned caesarean section for term breech presentation, Outcome 17 Perineal pain at 3 months.
1.18
1.18. Analysis
Comparison 1 Planned caesarean section for term breech presentation, Outcome 18 Abdominal pain at 3 months.
1.19
1.19. Analysis
Comparison 1 Planned caesarean section for term breech presentation, Outcome 19 Backache after at 3 months.
1.20
1.20. Analysis
Comparison 1 Planned caesarean section for term breech presentation, Outcome 20 Any pain after at 3 months.
1.21
1.21. Analysis
Comparison 1 Planned caesarean section for term breech presentation, Outcome 21 Dyspareunia at 3 months.
1.22
1.22. Analysis
Comparison 1 Planned caesarean section for term breech presentation, Outcome 22 Urinary incontinence at 3 months.
1.23
1.23. Analysis
Comparison 1 Planned caesarean section for term breech presentation, Outcome 23 Flatus incontinence at 3 months.
1.24
1.24. Analysis
Comparison 1 Planned caesarean section for term breech presentation, Outcome 24 Faecal incontinence at 3 months.
1.25
1.25. Analysis
Comparison 1 Planned caesarean section for term breech presentation, Outcome 25 Headache at 2 years.
1.26
1.26. Analysis
Comparison 1 Planned caesarean section for term breech presentation, Outcome 26 Perineal pain at 2 years.
1.27
1.27. Analysis
Comparison 1 Planned caesarean section for term breech presentation, Outcome 27 Back pain at 2 years.
1.28
1.28. Analysis
Comparison 1 Planned caesarean section for term breech presentation, Outcome 28 Sexual problems at 2 years.
1.29
1.29. Analysis
Comparison 1 Planned caesarean section for term breech presentation, Outcome 29 Painful intercourse at 2 years.
1.30
1.30. Analysis
Comparison 1 Planned caesarean section for term breech presentation, Outcome 30 Urinary incontinence at 2 years.
1.31
1.31. Analysis
Comparison 1 Planned caesarean section for term breech presentation, Outcome 31 Flatus incontinence at 2 years.
1.32
1.32. Analysis
Comparison 1 Planned caesarean section for term breech presentation, Outcome 32 Faecal incontinence at 2 years.
1.33
1.33. Analysis
Comparison 1 Planned caesarean section for term breech presentation, Outcome 33 Constipation at 2 years.
1.34
1.34. Analysis
Comparison 1 Planned caesarean section for term breech presentation, Outcome 34 Haemorrhoids at 2 years.
1.35
1.35. Analysis
Comparison 1 Planned caesarean section for term breech presentation, Outcome 35 Subsequent birth or pregnant at 2 years.
1.36
1.36. Analysis
Comparison 1 Planned caesarean section for term breech presentation, Outcome 36 Subsequent caesarean section at 2 years.
1.37
1.37. Analysis
Comparison 1 Planned caesarean section for term breech presentation, Outcome 37 Painful menstrual periods at 2 years.
1.38
1.38. Analysis
Comparison 1 Planned caesarean section for term breech presentation, Outcome 38 Heavy menstrual periods at 2 years.
1.39
1.39. Analysis
Comparison 1 Planned caesarean section for term breech presentation, Outcome 39 Depression at 2 years.
1.40
1.40. Analysis
Comparison 1 Planned caesarean section for term breech presentation, Outcome 40 Difficulty caring for child at 2 years.
1.41
1.41. Analysis
Comparison 1 Planned caesarean section for term breech presentation, Outcome 41 Relationship with partner unhappy at 2 years.
1.42
1.42. Analysis
Comparison 1 Planned caesarean section for term breech presentation, Outcome 42 Unhappy with sexual relations at 2 years.
1.43
1.43. Analysis
Comparison 1 Planned caesarean section for term breech presentation, Outcome 43 Estimated cost of intervention (in Canadian dollars).
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Update of

References

References to studies included in this review

Collea 1980 {published data only}
    1. Collea JV, Chein C, Quilligan EJ. A randomized management of term frank breech presentation: a study of 208 cases. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 1980;137:235‐44. - PubMed
    1. Collea JV, Rabin SC, Weghorst GR, Quilligan EJ. The randomized management of term frank breech presentation: vaginal delivery vs caesarean section. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 1978;131:186‐95. - PubMed
Gimovsky 1983 {published data only}
    1. Gimovsky ML, Wallace RL, Schifrin BS, Paul RH. Randomized management of the nonfrank breech presentation at term: a preliminary report. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 1983;146:34‐40. - PubMed
Hannah 2000 {published data only}
    1. Hannah M, Amankwah K, Chalmers B, Cheng M, Foster G, Guselle P, et al. Term Breech Trial (TBT): a RCT of planned caesarean section vs planned vaginal birth for breech at term. 12th EAGO Conference; 1997 June 25‐28; Dublin, Ireland. 1997.
    1. Hannah M, Amankwah K, Chalmers B, Cheng M, Foster G, Guselle P, et al. Term Breech Trial (TBT): a RCT of planned caesarean section vs planned vaginal birth for breech at term. Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada; 1997; Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada. 1997.
    1. Hannah M, Hannah W for the TBT Group. Term Breech Trial (TBT): a RCT of planned caesarean section vs planned vaginal birth for breech at term. XV FIGO World Congress; 1997 August 3‐8; Copenhagen, Denmark. 1997.
    1. Hannah M, Hannah W for the Term Breech Trial Group. Term Breech Trial: a RCT of planned CS vs planned vaginal birth for breech at term. XVI FIGO World Congress of Obstetrics & Gynecology (Book 1); 2000 Sept 3‐8; Washington DC, USA. 2000:51.
    1. Hannah M, Hannah W, Hodnett E, Chalmers B, Kung R, Willan A, et al. Outcomes at three months postpartum for women enrolled in the multicentre international term breech trial of planned caesarean section and planned vaginal birth for breech presentation at term [abstract]. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 2001;185(6 Suppl):S114.

References to studies excluded from this review

Confino 1985 {published data only}
    1. Confino E, Ismajovich B, Sherzer A, Peyser RM, David MP. Vaginal versus caesarean section oriented approaches in the management of breech delivery. International Journal of Gynaecology & Obstetrics 1985;23:1‐16. - PubMed
Stiglbauer 1989 {published data only}
    1. Stiglbauer M, Sevelda P, Vavra N, Weninger M, Sterniste W, Wagenbichler P. Cesarean section versus vaginal delivery of breech presentation in primiparous patients [Sectio versus vaginale Entbindung der Beckenendlage bei Primiparae]. Gynakologische Rundschau 1989;29 Suppl 2:319‐20. - PubMed

Additional references

Cheng 1993
    1. Cheng M, Hannah ME. Breech delivery at term ‐ a critical review of the literature. Obstetrics & Gynecology 1993;82:605‐18. - PubMed
Conde‐Agudelo 2000
    1. Conde‐Agudelo A, Belizan JM, Diaz‐Rossello JL. Epidemiology of fetal death in Latin America. Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica 2000;79:371‐8. - PubMed
Danielian 1996
    1. Danielian PJ, Wang J, Hall MH. Long term outcome by method of delivery of fetuses in breech presentation at term: population based follow up. BMJ 1996;312:1451‐3. - PMC - PubMed
Gifford 1995
    1. Gifford DS, Morton SC, Kahn K. A meta‐analysis of infant outcomes after breech delivery. Obstetrics & Gynecology 1995;85:1047‐54. - PubMed
Goffinet 2006
    1. Goffinet F, Carayol M, Foidart JM, Alexander S, Uzan S, Subtil D, et al. Is planned vaginal delivery for breech presentation at term still an option? Results of an observational prospective survey in France and Belgium. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 2006;194(4):1002‐11. - PubMed
Grade 2014 [Computer program]
    1. McMaster University. GRADEpro. [Computer program on www.gradepro.org]. Version 2015. McMaster University, 2014.
Higgins 2011
    1. Higgins JPT, Green S, editors. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 [updated March 2011]. The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011. Available from www.cochrane‐handbook.org.
Hodnett 2005
    1. Hodnett ED, Hannah ME, Hewson S, Whyte H, Amankwah K, Cheng M, et al. Mothers' views of their childbirth experiences 2 years after planned caesarean versus planned vaginal birth for breech presentation at term, in the international randomized term breech trial. Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology Canada 2005;27(3):224‐31. - PubMed
Hofmeyr 1996
    1. Hofmeyr GJ, Kulier R. External cephalic version for breech presentation at term. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 1996, Issue 1. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD000083] - DOI - PubMed
Hofmeyr 2001
    1. Hofmeyr GJ. Commentary on "caesarean delivery of breech babies is beneficial for infant health but has no impact on maternal health". Evidence‐Based Healthcare 2001;5:75‐6.
Hofmeyr 2004
    1. Hofmeyr GJ, Gyte GML. Interventions to help external cephalic version for breech presentation at term. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2004, Issue 1. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD000184.pub2] - DOI - PubMed
Hofmeyr 2010
    1. Hofmeyr GJ, Shweni PM. Symphysiotomy for feto‐pelvic disproportion. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2010, Issue 10. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD005299.pub2] - DOI - PubMed
Hutton 2006
    1. Hutton EK, Hofmeyr GJ. External cephalic version for breech presentation before term. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2006, Issue 1. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD000084.pub2] - DOI - PubMed
Lawson 2012
    1. Lawson GW. The Term Breech Trial ten years on: Primum non nocere?. Birth 2012;39(1):3‐9. - PubMed
Lyons 2015
    1. Lyons J, Pressey T, Bartholomew S, Liu S, Liston RM, Joseph KS, for the Canadian Perinatal Surveillance System (Public Health Agency of Canada. Delivery of Breech Presentation at Term Gestation in Canada, 2003‐2011. Obstet Gynecol. 2015;125(5):1153‐1161. - PubMed
Palencia 2005
    1. Palencia R, Gafni A, Ross S, Willan A, Hewson S, McKay D, et al. The costs of planned cesarean versus planned vaginal birth in the term breech trial. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 2005;193(6 Suppl):S124.
Palencia 2006
    1. Palencia R, Gafni A, Hannah ME, Ross S, Willan AR, Hewson S, et al. The costs of planned cesarean versus planned vaginal birth in the term breech trial. CMAJ Canadian Medical Association Journal 2006;174(8):1109‐13. - PMC - PubMed
RevMan 2014 [Computer program]
    1. The Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration. Review Manager (RevMan). Version 5.3. Copenhagen: The Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration, 2014.
Schunemann 2009
    1. Schunemann HJ. GRADE: from grading the evidence to developing recommendations. A description of the system and a proposal regarding the transferability of the results of clinical research to clinical practice [GRADE: Von der Evidenz zur Empfehlung. Beschreibung des Systems und Losungsbeitrag zur Ubertragbarkeit von Studienergebnissen]. Zeitschrift fur Evidenz, Fortbildung und Qualitat im Gesundheitswesen 2009;103(6):391‐400. - PubMed
Su 2003
    1. Su M, McLeod L, Ross S, Willan A, Hannah WJ, Hutton E, et al. Factors associated with adverse perinatal outcome in the Term Breech Trial. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 2003;189:740‐5. - PubMed
Su 2007
    1. Su M, McLeod L, Ross S, Willan A, Hannah WJ, Hutton EK, et al. Factors associated with maternal morbidity in the term breech trial. Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology Canada: JOGC 2007;29(4):324‐30. - PubMed
Whyte 2004
    1. Whyte H, Hannah ME, Saigal S, Hannah WJ, Hewson S, Amankwah K, 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. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 2004;191:864‐71. - PubMed
Wykes 2003
    1. Wykes CB, Johnston TA, Paterson‐Brown S, Johanson RB. Symphysiotomy: a life‐saving procedure. BJOG: an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology 2003;110:219‐21. - PubMed

References to other published versions of this review

Hofmeyer 2001b
    1. Hofmeyr GJ, Hannah M, Lawrie TA. Planned caesarean section for term breech delivery. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2001, Issue 1. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD000166] - DOI - PMC - PubMed
Hofmeyr 2003
    1. Hofmeyr GJ, Hannah ME. Planned caesarean section for term breech delivery. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2003, Issue 2. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD000166] - DOI - PubMed

Publication types

MeSH terms