Height of elevated fetal buttock for prediction of successful external cephalic version
- PMID: 31970123
- PMCID: PMC6962591
- DOI: 10.5468/ogs.2020.63.1.13
Height of elevated fetal buttock for prediction of successful external cephalic version
Abstract
Objective: To increase the rate of successful external cephalic version (ECV) and to minimize the complications, it is important to identify the predictors of success. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to investigate whether the height of the elevated fetal buttock (HOB) is a valuable predictor of successful ECV or not.
Methods: This prospective study was conducted from August 2016 to June 2018. A total of 139 pregnant women with breech presentation were enrolled in the study. HOB from the maternal pubic symphysis was measured on ultrasonography. The predictability and cut-off value of HOB for successful ECV were evaluated.
Results: Among the 139 patients, 114 (82%) had successful ECV. The adjusted odds ratio for multiparity, amniotic fluid index (AFI) >14 cm, and HOB >7.8 cm were 10.80 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.57-74.94), 5.26 (95% CI, 1.06-26.19), and 10.50 (95% CI, 1.03-107.12), respectively. Areas under the curve (AUCs) for AFI, HOB, and parity were 0.66 (95% CI, 0.54-0.78), 0.74 (95% CI, 0.64-0.85), and 0.69 (95% CI, 0.62-0.76), respectively. HOB had the largest AUC, but there were no significant differences among the AUCs of other factors. The cut-off value of HOB was 6 cm.
Conclusion: This study showed that the AUC of HOB was greater than that of parity and AFI, although it was not statistically significant. As HOB is a noninvasive and comprehensive marker to predict successful ECV, consideration of HOB would be helpful before conducting ECV. Further studies are needed.
Keywords: Breech presentation; External cephalic version; Predictive value.
Copyright © 2020 Korean Society of Obstetrics and Gynecology.
Conflict of interest statement
Conflict of interest: No potential conflict of interest relevant to this article was reported.
Figures


Similar articles
-
Predictors of successful external cephalic version in an Australian maternity hospital.Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 2014 Feb;54(1):59-63. doi: 10.1111/ajo.12152. Epub 2013 Dec 23. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 2014. PMID: 24359099
-
Predictive Factors for Successful Vaginal Delivery after a Trial of External Cephalic Version: A Retrospective Cohort Study of 946 Women.Am J Perinatol. 2023 Nov;40(15):1679-1686. doi: 10.1055/s-0041-1739505. Epub 2021 Nov 14. Am J Perinatol. 2023. PMID: 34775580
-
The relationship between amniotic fluid index and successful external cephalic version: a 14-year experience.Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2003 Sep;189(3):751-4. doi: 10.1067/s0002-9378(03)00846-9. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2003. PMID: 14526307
-
[Breech Presentation: CNGOF Guidelines for Clinical Practice - External Cephalic Version and other Interventions to turn Breech Babies to Cephalic Presentation].Gynecol Obstet Fertil Senol. 2020 Jan;48(1):81-94. doi: 10.1016/j.gofs.2019.10.024. Epub 2019 Oct 31. Gynecol Obstet Fertil Senol. 2020. PMID: 31678503 Review. French.
-
Improving external cephalic version for foetal breech presentation.Facts Views Vis Obgyn. 2013;5(2):85-90. Facts Views Vis Obgyn. 2013. PMID: 24753933 Free PMC article. Review.
Cited by
-
Ritodrine in external cephalic version: is it effective and safe?Obstet Gynecol Sci. 2022 Sep;65(5):420-429. doi: 10.5468/ogs.22106. Epub 2022 Jul 29. Obstet Gynecol Sci. 2022. PMID: 35908652 Free PMC article.
References
-
- Hannah ME, Hannah WJ, Hewson SA, Hodnett ED, Saigal S, Willan AR. Planned caesarean section versus planned vaginal birth for breech presentation at term: a randomised multicentre trial. Term Breech Trial Collaborative Group. Lancet. 2000;356:1375–1383. - PubMed
-
- Morgan ER, Hu AE, Brezak AMV, Rowley SS, Littman AJ, Hawes SE. Predictors of a successful external cephalic version: a population-based study of Washington state births. Women Birth. 2019;32:e421–6. - PubMed
-
- ACOG Committee opinion No. 745: mode of term singleton breech delivery. Obstet Gynecol. 2018;132:e60–e63. - PubMed
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Research Materials