Subscribe to RSS
DOI: 10.1055/a-1127-8646
Current Approach for External Cephalic Version in Germany
Article in several languages: English | deutschAbstract
Introduction Fetal breech presentation at terms occurs in 3 – 6% of pregnancies. External cephalic version can reduce the number of cesarean sections and vaginal breech deliveries. Different approaches are used to carry out external cephalic version. This study looked at the different approaches used in Germany and compared the approach used with the recommendations given in German and international guidelines.
Material and Methods An anonymized online survey of 234 hospitals in Germany was carried out in 2018. In addition to asking about hospital structures, questions also focused on how external version was carried out in practice (preparations, tocolysis, anesthetics, etc.), on relative and absolute contraindications and on the success rate.
Results 37.2% of the hospitals approached for the survey participated in the study. Of these, 98.8% performed external version procedures. The majority of participating hospitals were university hospitals (26.4%) and maximum care hospitals (35.6%) with an average number of more than 2000 births per year (60.9%). External cephalic version is the preferred (61.7%) obstetrical procedure to deal with breech presentation, rather than vaginal breech birth or primary cesarean section. 45.8% of respondents carry out external version procedures on an outpatient basis, and 42.1% of hospitals perform the procedure as an inpatient intervention, especially from the 37th week of gestation. Prior to performing an external version procedure, 21.6% of surveyed institutions carry out a vaginal examination to evaluate possible fixation of the fetal rump. 95.5% of institutions used fenoterol for tocolytic therapy; the majority using it for continuous tocolysis (70.2%). 1 – 3 attempts at external version (8.4%) were usually carried out by a specific senior physician. In most cases, no analgesics were administered. The reported rate of emergency cesarean sections was very low. The most common indication for emergency C-section was pathological CTG (56,7%). The assessment of relative and absolute contraindications varied, depending on the surveyed hospital. 67.5% asked patients to empty their bladders before carrying out external version, while 10.8% carried out external version when the bladder was filled. The reported success rate was more than 45%. After successful version, only 14.8% of hospitals arranged for patients to wear an abdominal binder. For 32.4%, the decision to apply an abdominal binder was taken on a case-by-case basis.
Conclusion The approach used in Germany to carry out external cephalic version is based on the (expired) German guideline on breech presentation. Based on the evidence obtained, a number of individual recommendations should be re-evaluated. More recent international guidelines could be useful to update the standard procedure.
Publication History
Received: 15 June 2020
Accepted after revision: 02 August 2020
Article published online:
25 September 2020
© 2020. The Author(s). This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commecial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)
Georg Thieme Verlag KG
Stuttgart · New York
-
References/Literatur
- 1 Statistisches Bundesamt. Krankenhausentbindungen in Deutschland. Online (last access: 17.05.2020): https://www.destatis.de/DE/Themen/Gesellschaft-Umwelt/Gesundheit/Krankenhaeuser/Tabellen/krankenhausentbindungen-kaiserschnitt.html
- 2 Institut für angewandte Qualitätsförderung und Forschung im Gesundheitswesen. Bundesauswertung zum Erfassungsjahr 2013, 16/1 – Geburtshilfe. Basisauswertung. 2014. Online (Stand: 17.05.2020): http://www.sqg.de/downloads/Bundesauswertungen/2013/bu_Gesamt_16N1-GEBH_2013.pdf
- 3 Dudenhausen JW, Obladen M, Grab D. Praktische Geburtshilfe: mit geburtshilflichen Operationen. 21. erweiterte Aufl.. Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter; 2011
- 4 Hickok DE, Gordon DC, Milberg JA. et al. The frequency of breech presentation by gestational age at birth: A large population-based study. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1992; 166: 851-852 doi:10.1016/0002-9378(92)91347-D
- 5 Breckwoldt M, Kaufmann M, Pfleiderer A. Gynäkologie und Geburtshilfe. 5. Aufl.. Stuttgart, New York: Georg Thieme Verlag; 2008
- 6 Hannah ME, Hannah WJ, Hewson SA. et al. Planned caesarean section versus planned vaginal birth for breech presentation at term: A randomised multicentre trial. Lancet 2000; 356: 1375-1383 doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(00)02840-3
- 7 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; 191: 864-871 doi:10.1016/j.ajog.2004.06.056
- 8 Keag OE, Norman JE, Stock SJ. Long-term risks and benefits associated with cesarean delivery for mother, baby, and subsequent pregnancies: Systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS Med 2018; 15: e1002494 doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1002494
- 9 Coltart TM. Management of Breech Presentation. BJOG 2017; 124: e151 doi:10.1111/1471-0528.14465
- 10 McParland P, Farine D. External cephalic version. Does it have a role in modern obstetric practice?. Can Fam Physician 1996; 42: 693
- 11 Vetter K, Nierhaus M. Die äußere Wendung des Kindes in Schädellage. In: Feige A, Krause M. Hrsg. Beckenendlage. München: Urban & Schwarzenberg; 1998: 107-121
- 12 Regalia AL, Curiel P, Natale N. et al. Routine use of external cephalic version in three hospitals. Birth 2000; 27: 19-24 doi:10.1046/j.1523-536x.2000.00019.x
- 13 ACOG Committee Opinion No. 745: Mode of Term Singleton Breech Delivery. Obstet Gynecol 2018; 132: e60 doi:10.1097/AOG.0000000000002755
- 14 External Cephalic Version and Reducing the Incidence of Term Breech Presentation: Green-top Guideline No. 20a. BJOG 2017; 124: e178-e192 doi:10.1111/1471-0528.14466
- 15 Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gynäkologie und Geburtshilfe (DGGG), Board für Pränatal- und Geburtsmedizin, Arbeitsgemeinschaft Materno-fetale Medizin (AGMFM). Geburt bei Beckenendlage. AWMF 015/051 (S1). Online (last access: 23.05.2020): https://www.dggg.de/fileadmin/documents/leitlinien/archiviert/federfuehrend/015051_Geburt_bei_Beckenendlage/015051_2010.pdf
- 16 Kainer F, Pertl B, Netzbandt P. et al. Influence of sonographic examinations during external version in breech presentation. Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd 1994; 54: 108-110 doi:10.1055/s-2007-1023563
- 17 Hebammen-Initiative - HebNews. Milupa Geburtenliste 2019. Online (last access: 04.06.2020): https://www.hebnews.de/hebammen-initiative?p_p_id=101&p_p_lifecycle=0&p_p_state=maximized&p_p_mode=view&_101_struts_action=%252Fasset_publisher%252Fview_content&_101_assetEntryId=607065&_101_type=document
- 18 Cluver C, Gyte GML, 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; (02) CD000184
- 19 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; 114: 325-333 doi:10.1111/j.1471-0528.2006.01206.x
- 20 American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologistsʼ Committee on Practice Bulletins–Obstetrics. Practice Bulletin No. 161: External Cephalic Version. Obstet Gynecol 2016; 127: e54-e61 doi:10.1097/AOG.0000000000001312
- 21 Hutton EK, Hofmeyr GJ, Dowswell T. External cephalic version for breech presentation before term. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2015; (07) CD000084
- 22 Hofmeyr GJ, Kulier R, West HM. External cephalic version for breech presentation at term. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2015; 2015 (04) CD000083
- 23 Impey ORE, Greenwood CEL, Impey LWM. External cephalic version after previous cesarean section: A cohort study of 100 consecutive attempts. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2018; 231: 210-213 doi:10.1016/j.ejogrb.2018.10.036
- 24 Weill Y, Pollack RN. The efficacy and safety of external cephalic version after a previous caesarean delivery. Aust New Zeal J Obstet Gynaecol 2017; 57: 323-326 doi:10.1111/ajo.12527
- 25 Magro-Malosso ER, Saccone G, Di Tommaso M. et al. Neuraxial analgesia to increase the success rate of external cephalic version: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2016; 215: 276-286 doi:10.1016/j.ajog.2016.04.036
- 26 Weiniger CF, Ginosar Y, Elchalal U. et al. External cephalic version for breech presentation with or without spinal analgesia in nulliparous women at term: A randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol 2007; 110: 1343-1350 doi:10.1097/01.AOG.0000295605.38175.7b
- 27 Isakov O, Reicher L, Lavie A. et al. Prediction of Success in external cephalic Version for Breech Presentation at Term. Obstet Gynecol 2019; 133: 857-866 doi:10.1097/AOG.0000000000003196
- 28 Kok M, Grootscholten K, Oei SG. et al. External cephalic version-related risks: A meta-analysis. Obstet Gynecol 2008; 112: 1143-1151 doi:10.1097/AOG.0b013e31818b4ade