Download PDF
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · AJP Rep 2020; 10(03): e324-e329
DOI: 10.1055/s-0040-1715173
Case Report

Correlation of Obesity with External Cephalic Version Success among Women with One Previous Cesarean Delivery

Rodney McLaren Jr.
1   Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Maimonides Medical Center, Brooklyn, New York
,
Fouad Atallah
1   Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Maimonides Medical Center, Brooklyn, New York
,
Nelli Fisher
1   Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Maimonides Medical Center, Brooklyn, New York
,
Howard Minkoff
1   Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Maimonides Medical Center, Brooklyn, New York
› Author Affiliations
› Further Information
Also available at
   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Objective Our aim was to assess the correlation of body mass index (BMI) with the success rate of external cephalic version (ECV) among women with one prior cesarean delivery.

Study Design A cross-sectional study of pregnant women with one previous cesarean delivery who underwent ECV. The relationship between BMI and success rate of ECV was assessed. Adverse outcomes were also compared between women with an ECV attempt, and women who had a repeat cesarean delivery. Data were extracted from the U.S. Natality Database from 2014 to 2017. Pearson's correlation coefficient was performed to assess the relationship between BMI and success rate of ECV.

Results There were 2,329 women with prior cesarean delivery underwent an ECV attempt. The success rate of ECV among the entire cohort was 68.3%. There was no correlation between BMI and success rate of ECV (r = 0.024, p = 0.239). Risks of adverse maternal and neonatal outcomes were similar between the ECV attempt group and the repeat cesarean delivery group.

Conclusion There was no correlation of BMI with the rate of successful ECV among women with one prior cesarean delivery. Given the similar success rates of ECV and adverse outcomes, obese women with one prior cesarean delivery should be offered ECV.

Keywords

external cephalic version - prior cesarean delivery - obesity - vaginal birth after cesarean

Note

This study was presented as a poster presentation at SMFM 40th Annual Meeting, The Pregnancy Meeting; Grapevine, TX on February 6, 2020.




Publication History

Received: 06 March 2020

Accepted: 13 May 2020

Article published online:
23 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 commercial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

Thieme Medical Publishers
333 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10001, USA.

 

  • References

  • 1 Martin JA, Hamilton BE, Osterman MJK. Births in the United States, 2018. NCHS Data Brief 2019; (346) 1-8
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 World Health Organization Human Reproduction Programme, 10 April 2015. WHO statement on caesarean section rates. Reprod Health Matters 2015; 23 (45) 149-150
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Molina G, Weiser TG, Lipsitz SR. , et al. Relationship between cesarean delivery rate and maternal and neonatal mortality. JAMA 2015; 314 (21) 2263-2270
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Safe prevention of the primary cesarean delivery. Obstetric care consensus no. 1. Obstet Gynecol 2014; 123: 693-711
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. External cephalic version. practice bulletin no. 161. Obstet Gynecol 2016; 127: e54-e61
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Vaginal birth after cesarean delivery. ACOG practice bulletin no. 205. Obstet Gynecol 2019; 133: e110-e127
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Attanasio LB, Kozhimannil KB, Kjerulff KH. Women's preference for vaginal birth after a first delivery by cesarean. Birth 2019; 46 (01) 51-60
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Hamilton BE, Martin JA, Osterman MJK, Rossen LM. Births: Provisional data for 2018. Vital Statistics Rapid Release; no 7. Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health Statistics; 2019
    Google Scholar
  • 9 Morton R, Burton AE, Kumar P. , et al. Cesarean delivery: trend in indications over three decades within a major city hospital network. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2020
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Brocks V, Philipsen T, Secher NJ. A randomized trial of external cephalic version with tocolysis in late pregnancy. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1984; 91 (07) 653-656
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Mahomed K, Seeras R, Coulson R. External cephalic version at term. A randomized controlled trial using tocolysis. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1991; 98 (01) 8-13
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Flamm BL, Fried MW, Lonky NM, Giles WS. External cephalic version after previous cesarean section. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1991; 165 (02) 370-372
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Schachter M, Kogan S, Blickstein I. External cephalic version after previous cesarean section--a clinical dilemma. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 1994; 45 (01) 17-20
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 de Meeus JB, Ellia F, Magnin G. External cephalic version after previous cesarean section: a series of 38 cases. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 1998; 81 (01) 65-68
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Abenhaim HA, Varin J, Boucher M. External cephalic version among women with a previous cesarean delivery: report on 36 cases and review of the literature. J Perinat Med 2009; 37 (02) 156-160
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Weill Y, Pollack RN. The efficacy and safety of external cephalic version after a previous caesarean delivery. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol 2017; 57 (03) 323-326
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Sela HY, Fiegenberg T, Ben-Meir A, Elchalal U, Ezra Y. Safety and efficacy of external cephalic version for women with a previous cesarean delivery. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2009; 142 (02) 111-114
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Regalia AL, Curiel P, Natale N. , et al. Routine use of external cephalic version in three hospitals. Birth 2000; 27 (01) 19-24
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Keepanasseril A, Anand K, Soundara Raghavan S. Matched cohort study of external cephalic version in women with previous cesarean delivery. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2017; 138 (01) 79-83
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 McLaren Jr RA, Atallah F, Fisher N, Minkoff H. Maternal and neonatal outcomes after attempted external cephalic version among women with one previous cesarean delivery. AJP Rep 2018; 8 (04) e349-e354
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Obesity in pregnancy. Practice bulletin no. 156. Obstet Gynecol 2015; 126: e112-e126
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Available at: www.marchofdimes.org/peristats . Accessed February 24, 2020
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Chaudhary S, Contag S, Yao R. The impact of maternal body mass index on external cephalic version success. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 2019; 32 (13) 2159-2165
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Datta S, Cloke B, Harding K, Treharne I. What is the impact of body mass index on external cephalic version. BJOG 2014; 121 (03) 374
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Ben-Meir A, Erez Y, Sela HY, Shveiky D, Tsafrir A, Ezra Y. Prognostic parameters for successful external cephalic version. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 2008; 21 (09) 660-662
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Mauldin JG, Mauldin PD, Feng TI, Adams EK, Durkalski VL. Determining the clinical efficacy and cost savings of successful external cephalic version. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1996; 175 (06) 1639-1644
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Hellström AC, Nilsson B, Stånge L, Nylund L. When does external cephalic version succeed?. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 1990; 69 (04) 281-285
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Shalev E, Battino S, Giladi Y, Edelstein S. External cephalic version at term--using tocolysis. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 1993; 72 (06) 455-457
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Newman RB, Peacock BS, VanDorsten JP, Hunt HH. Predicting success of external cephalic version. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1993; 169 (2 Pt 1): 245-249, discussion 249–250
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Tan GW, Jen SW, Tan SL, Salmon YM. A prospective randomised controlled trial of external cephalic version comparing two methods of uterine tocolysis with a non-tocolysis group. Singapore Med J 1989; 30 (02) 155-158
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Yao R, Crimmins SD, Contag SA, Kopelman JN, Goetzinger KR. Adverse perinatal outcomes associated with trial of labor after cesarean section at term in pregnancies complicated by maternal obesity. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 2019; 32 (08) 1256-1261
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Grasch JL, Thompson JL, Newton JM, Zhai AW, Osmundson SS. Trial of labor compared with cesarean delivery in superobese women. Obstet Gynecol 2017; 130 (05) 994-1000
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Hibbard JU, Gilbert S, Landon MB. , et al; National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Maternal-Fetal Medicine Units Network. Trial of labor or repeat cesarean delivery in women with morbid obesity and previous cesarean delivery. Obstet Gynecol 2006; 108 (01) 125-133
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Bin YS, Roberts CL, Nicholl MC, Ford JB. Uptake of external cephalic version for term breech presentation: an Australian population study, 2002-2012. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 2017; 17 (01) 244
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar