breech presentation management ppt

Breech presentation: diagnosis and management

Key messages.

• All women with a breech presentation should be offered an external cephalic version (ECV) from 37 weeks, if there are no contraindications.
• Elective caesarean section (ELCS) for a singleton breech at term has been shown to reduce perinatal and neonatal mortality rates.
• Planning for vaginal breech birth requires careful assessment of suitability criteria, contraindications and the ability of the service to provide experienced personnel.

In June 2023, we commenced a project to review and update the Maternity and Neonatal eHandbook guidelines, with a view to targeting completion in 2024. Please be aware that pending this review, some of the current guidelines may be out of date. In the meantime, we recommend that you also refer to more contemporaneous evidence.

Breech and external cephalic version

Breech presentation is when the fetus is lying longitudinally and its buttocks, foot or feet are presenting instead of its head.

Figure 1. Breech presentations

• Breech presentation occurs in three to four per cent of term deliveries and is more common in nulliparous women.
• External cephalic version (ECV) from 37 weeks has been shown to decrease the incidence of breech presentation at term and the subsequent elective caesarean section (ELCS) rate.
• Vaginal breech birth increases the risk of low Apgar scores and more serious short-term complications, but evidence has not shown an increase in long-term morbidity.
• Emergency caesarean section (EMCS) is needed in approximately 40 per cent of women planning a vaginal breech birth.
• 0.5/1000 with ELCS for breech >39 weeks gestation
• 2.0/1000 planned vaginal breech birth >39/40
• 1.0/1000 with planned cephalic birth.
• A reduction in planned vaginal breech birth followed publication of the Term Breech Trial (TBT) in 2001.
• Acquisition of skills necessary to manage breech presentation (for example, ECV) is important to optimise outcomes.

Clinical suspicion of breech presentation

• Abdominal palpation: if the presenting part is irregular and not ballotable or if the fetal head is ballotable at the fundus
• Pelvic examination: head not felt in the pelvis
• Cord prolapse
• Very thick meconium after rupture of membranes
• Fetal heart heard higher in the abdomen

In cases of extended breech, the breech may not be ballotable and the fetal heart may be heard in the same location as expected for a cephalic presentation.

If breech presentation is suspected, an ultrasound examination will confirm diagnosis.

Cord prolapse is an obstetric emergency. Urgent delivery is indicated after confirming gestation and fetal viability.

Diagnosis: preterm ≤36+6 weeks

• Breech presentation is a normal finding in preterm pregnancy.
• If diagnosed at the 35-36 week antenatal visit, refer the woman for ultrasound scan to enable assessment prior to ECV.
• Mode of birth in a breech preterm delivery depends on the clinical circumstances.

Diagnosis: ≥37+0 weeks

• determine type of breech presentation
• determine extension/flexion of fetal head
• locate position of placenta and exclude placenta praevia
• exclude fetal congenital abnormality
• calculate amniotic fluid index
• estimate fetal weight.

Practice points

• Offer ECV if there are no contraindications.
• If ECV is declined or unsuccessful, provide counselling on risks and benefits of a planned vaginal birth versus an ELCS.
• Inform the woman that there are fewer maternal complications with a successful vaginal birth, however the risk to the woman increases significantly if there is a need for an EMCS.
• Inform the woman that caesarean section increases the risk of complication in future pregnancies, including the risk of a repeat caesarean section and the risk of invasive placentation.
• If the woman chooses an ELCS, document consent and organise booking for 39 weeks gestation.

Information and decision making

Women with a breech presentation should have the opportunity to make informed decisions about their care and treatment, in partnership with the clinicians providing care.

Planning for birth requires careful assessment for risk of poor outcomes relating to planned vaginal breech birth. If any risk factors are identified, inform the woman that an ELCS is recommended due to increased perinatal risk.

Good communication between clinicians and women is essential. Treatment, care and information provided should:

• take into account women's individual needs and preferences
• be supported by evidence-based, written information tailored to the needs of the individual woman
• be culturally appropriate
• be accessible to women, their partners, support people and families
• take into account any specific needs, such as physical or cognitive disabilities or limitations to their ability to understand spoken or written English.

Documentation

The following should be documented in the woman's hospital medical record and (where applicable) in her hand-held medical record:

• discussion of risks and benefits of vaginal breech birth and ELCS
• discussion of the woman's questions about planned vaginal breech birth and ELCS
• discussion of ECV, if applicable
• consultation, referral and escalation

External cephalic version (ECV)

• ECV can be offered from 37 weeks gestation
• The woman must provide written consent prior to the procedure
• The success rate of ECV is 40-60 per cent
• Approximately one in 200 ECV attempts will lead to EMCS
• ECV should only be performed by a suitably trained, experienced clinician
• continuous electronic fetal monitoring (EFM)
• capability to perform an EMCS.

Contraindications

Table 1. Contraindications to ECV

Precautions

• Hypertension
• Oligohydramnios
• Nuchal cord

Escalate care to a consultant obstetrician if considering ECV in these circumstances.

• Perform a CTG prior to the procedure - continue until  RANZCOG criteria  for a normal antenatal CTG are met.
• 250 microg s/c, 30 minutes prior to the procedure.
• Administer Anti-D immunoglobulin if the woman is rhesus negative.
• Do not make more than four attempts at ECV, for a suggested maximum time of ten minutes in total.
• Undertake CTG monitoring post-procedure until  RANZCOG criteria  for a normal antenatal CTG are met.

Emergency management

Urgent delivery is indicated in the event of the following complications:

• abnormal CTG
• vaginal bleeding
• unexplained pain.

Initiate emergency response as per local guidelines.

Alternatives to ECV

There is a lack of evidence to support the use of moxibustion, acupuncture or postural techniques to achieve a vertex presentation after 35 weeks gestation.

Criteria for a planned vaginal breech birth

• Documented evidence of counselling regarding mode of birth
• Documentation of informed consent, including written consent from the woman
• Estimated fetal weight of 2500-4000g
• Flexed fetal head
• Emergency theatre facilities available on site
• Availability of suitably skilled healthcare professional
• Frank or complete breech presentation
• No previous caesarean section.
• Cord presentation
• Fetal growth restriction or macrosomia
• Any presentation other than a frank or complete breech
• Extension of the fetal head
• Fetal anomaly incompatible with vaginal delivery
• Clinically inadequate maternal pelvis
• Previous caesarean section
• Inability of the service to provide experienced personnel.

If an ELCS is booked

• Confirm presentation by ultrasound scan when a woman presents for ELCS.
• If fetal presentation is cephalic on admission for ELCS, plan ongoing management with the woman.

Intrapartum management

Fetal monitoring.

• Advise the woman that continuous EFM may lead to improved neonatal outcomes.
• Where continuous EFM is declined, perform intermittent EFM or intermittent auscultation, with conversion to EFM if an abnormality is detected.
• A fetal scalp electrode can be applied to the breech.

Position of the woman

• The optimal maternal position for birth is upright.
• Lithotomy may be appropriate, depending on the accoucheur's training and experience.

Pain relief

• Epidural analgesia may increase the risk of intervention with a vaginal breech birth.
• Epidural analgesia may impact on the woman's ability to push spontaneously in the second stage of labour.

Induction of labour (IOL)

See the  IOL eHandbook page  for more detail.

• IOL may be offered if clinical circumstances are favourable and the woman wishes to have a vaginal birth.
• Augmentation (in the absence of an epidural) should be avoided as adequate progress in the absence of augmentation may be the best indicator of feto-pelvic proportions.

The capacity to offer IOL will depend on clinician experience and availability and service capability.

First stage

• Manage with the same principles as a cephalic presentation.
• Labour should be expected to progress as for a cephalic presentation.
• If progress in the first stage is slow, consider a caesarean section.
• If an epidural is in situ and contractions are less than 4:10, consult with a senior obstetrician.
• Avoid routine amniotomy to avoid the risk of cord prolapse or cord compression.

Second stage

• Allow passive descent of the breech to the perineum prior to active pushing.
• If breech is not visible within one hour of passive descent, a caesarean section is normally recommended.
• Active second stage should be ½ hour for a multigravida and one hour for a primipara.
• All midwives and obstetricians should be familiar with the techniques and manoeuvres required to assist a vaginal breech birth.
• Ensure a consultant obstetrician is present for birth.
• Ensure a senior paediatric clinician is present for birth.

VIDEO:  Maternity Training International - Vaginal Breech Birth

• Encouragement of maternal pushing (if at all) should not begin until the presenting part is visible.
• A hands-off approach is recommended.
• Significant cord compression is common once buttocks have passed the perineum.
• Timely intervention is recommended if there is slow progress once the umbilicus has delivered.
• Allow spontaneous birth of the trunk and limbs by maternal effort as breech extraction can cause extension of the arms and head.
• Grasp the fetus around the bony pelvic girdle, not soft tissue, to avoid trauma.
• Assist birth if there is a delay of more than five minutes from delivery of the buttocks to the head, or of more than three minutes from the umbilicus to the head.
• Signs that delivery should be expedited also include lack of tone or colour or sign of poor fetal condition.
• Ensure fetal back remains in the anterior position.
• Routine episiotomy not recommended.
• Lovset's manoeuvre for extended arms.
• Reverse Lovset's manoeuvre may be used to reduce nuchal arms.
• Supra-pubic pressure may aide flexion of the fetal head.
• Maricueau-Smellie-Veit manoeuvre or forceps may be used to deliver the after coming head.

Undiagnosed breech in labour

• This occurs in approximately 25 per cent of breech presentations.
• Management depends on the stage of labour when presenting.
• Assessment is required around increased complications, informed consent and suitability of skilled expertise.
• Do not routinely offer caesarean section to women in active second stage.
• If there is no senior obstetrician skilled in breech delivery, an EMCS is the preferred option.
• If time permits, a detailed ultrasound scan to estimate position of fetal neck and legs and estimated fetal weight should be made and the woman counselled.

Entrapment of the fetal head

This is an extreme emergency

This complication is often due to poor selection for vaginal breech birth.

• A vaginal examination (VE) should be performed to ensure that the cervix is fully dilated.
• If a lip of cervix is still evident try to push the cervix over the fetal head.
• If the fetal head has entered the pelvis, perform the Mauriceau-Smellie-Veit manoeuvre combined with suprapubic pressure from a second attendant in a direction that maintains flexion and descent of the fetal head.
• Rotate fetal body to a lateral position and apply suprapubic pressure to flex the fetal head; if unsuccessful consider alternative manoeuvres.
• Reassess cervical dilatation; if not fully dilated consider Duhrssen incision at 2, 10 and 6 o'clock.
• A caesarean section may be performed if the baby is still alive.

Neonatal management

• Paediatric review.
• Routine observations as per your local guidelines, recorded on a track and trigger chart.
• Observe for signs of jaundice.
• Observe for signs of tissue or nerve damage.
• Hip ultrasound scan to be performed at 6-12 weeks post birth to monitor for developmental dysplasia of the hip (DDH). See Neonatal eHandbook -  Developmental dysplasia of the hip .

More information

Audit and performance improvement.

All maternity services should have processes in place for:

• auditing clinical practice and outcomes
• providing feedback to clinicians on audit results
• addressing risks, if identified
• implementing change, if indicated.

Potential auditable standards are:

• number of women with a breech presentation offered ECV
• success rate of ECV
• ECV complications
• rate of planned vaginal breech birth
• breech birth outcomes for vaginal and caesarean birth.

For more information or assistance with auditing, please contact us via  [email protected]

• Bue and Lauszus 2016, Moxibustion did not have an effect in a randomised clinical trial for version of breech position.  Danish Medical Journal  63(2), A599
• Coulon et.al. 2014,  Version of breech fetuses by moxibustion with acupuncture.  Obstetrics and Gynecology  124(1), 32-39. DOI: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000000303
• Coyle ME, Smith CA, Peat B 2012, Cephalic version by moxibustion for breech presentation.  Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews  2012, Issue 5. Art. No.: CD003928. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003928.pub3
• Evans J 2012,  Essentially MIDIRS Understanding Physiological Breech Birth  Volume 3. Number 2. February 2012
• Hoffmann J, Thomassen K, Stumpp P, Grothoff M, Engel C, Kahn T, et al. 2016, New MRI Criteria for Successful Vaginal Breech Delivery in Primiparae.  PLoS ONE  11(8): e0161028. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0161028
• Hofmeyr GJ, Kulier R 2012, Cephalic version by postural management for breech presentation.  Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews  2012, Issue 10. Art. No.: CD000051. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD000051.pub2
• New South Wales Department of Health 2013,  Maternity: Management of Breech Presentation  HNELHD CG 13_01, NSW Government; 2013
• Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists 2017, External Cephalic Version and Reducing the Incidence of Term Breech Presentation.  Green-top Guideline No. 20a . London: RCOG; 2017
• The Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (RANZCOG) 2016,  Management of breech presentation at term , July 2016 C-Obs-11:
• The Royal Women's Hospital 2015,  Management of Breech - Clinical Guideline
• Women's and Newborn Health Service, King Edward Memorial Hospital 2015, Complications of Pregnancy Breech Presentation

Abbreviations

Get in touch, version history.

First published:  November 2018 Due for review:  November 2021

Uncontrolled when downloaded

Related links.

Learn how UpToDate can help you.

Select the option that best describes you

• Medical Professional
• Resident, Fellow, or Student
• Hospital or Institution
• Group Practice
• Patient or Caregiver
• Find in topic

RELATED TOPICS

INTRODUCTION

This topic will provide an overview of major issues related to breech presentation, including choosing the best route for delivery. Techniques for breech delivery, with a focus on the technique for vaginal breech delivery, are discussed separately. (See "Delivery of the singleton fetus in breech presentation" .)

TYPES OF BREECH PRESENTATION

● Frank breech – Both hips are flexed and both knees are extended so that the feet are adjacent to the head ( figure 1 ); accounts for 50 to 70 percent of breech fetuses at term.

● Complete breech – Both hips and both knees are flexed ( figure 2 ); accounts for 5 to 10 percent of breech fetuses at term.

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.

• Management of breech presentation

Evidence review M

NICE Guideline, No. 201

National Guideline Alliance (UK) .

• Copyright and Permissions

Review question

What is the most effective way of managing a longitudinal lie fetal malpresentation (breech presentation) in late pregnancy?

Introduction

Breech presentation of the fetus in late pregnancy may result in prolonged or obstructed labour with resulting risks to both woman and fetus. Interventions to correct breech presentation (to cephalic) before labour and birth are important for the woman’s and the baby’s health. The aim of this review is to determine the most effective way of managing 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.

Thirty-six randomised controlled trials (RCTs) were identified for this review.

The included studies are summarised in Table 2 .

Three studies reported on external cephalic version (ECV) versus no intervention ( Dafallah 2004 , Hofmeyr 1983 , Rita 2011 ). One study reported on a 4-arm trial comparing acupuncture, sweeping of fetal membranes, acupuncture plus sweeping, and no intervention ( Andersen 2013 ). Two studies reported on postural management versus no intervention ( Chenia 1987 , Smith 1999 ).

Seven studies reported on ECV plus anaesthesia ( Chalifoux 2017 , Dugoff 1999 , Khaw 2015 , Mancuso 2000 , Schorr 1997 , Sullivan 2009 , Weiniger 2010 ). Of these studies, 1 study compared ECV plus anaesthesia to ECV plus other dosages of the same anaesthetic ( Chalifoux 2017 ); 4 studies compared ECV plus anaesthesia to ECV only ( Dugoff 1999 , Mancuso 2000 , Schorr 1997 , Weiniger 2010 ); and 2 studies compared ECV plus anaesthesia to ECV plus a different anaesthetic ( Khaw 2015 , Sullivan 2009 ).

Ten studies reported ECV plus a β2 receptor agonist ( Brocks 1984 , Fernandez 1997 , Hindawi 2005 , Impey 2005 , Mahomed 1991 , Marquette 1996 , Nor Azlin 2005 , Robertson 1987 , Van Dorsten 1981 , Vani 2009 ). Of these studies, 5 studies compared ECV plus a β2 receptor agonist to ECV plus placebo ( Fernandez 1997 , Impey 2005 , Marquette 1996 , Nor Azlin 2005 , Vani 2009 ); 1 study compared ECV plus a β2 receptor agonist to ECV alone ( Robertson 1987 ); and 4 studies compared ECV plus a β2 receptor agonist to no intervention ( Brocks 1984 , Hindawi 2005 , Mahomed 1991 , Van Dorsten 1981 ).

One study reported on ECV plus Ca 2+ channel blocker versus ECV plus placebo ( Kok 2008 ). Two studies reported on ECV plus β2 receptor agonist versus ECV plus Ca 2+ channel blocker ( Collaris 2009 , Mohamed Ismail 2008 ). Four studies reported on ECV plus a µ-receptor agonist ( Burgos 2016 , Liu 2016 , Munoz 2014 , Wang 2017 ), of which 3 compared against ECV plus placebo ( Liu 2016 , Munoz 2014 , Wang 2017 ) and 1 compared to ECV plus nitrous oxide ( Burgos 2016 ).

Four studies reported on ECV plus nitroglycerin ( Bujold 2003a , Bujold 2003b , El-Sayed 2004 , Hilton 2009 ), of which 2 compared it to ECV plus β2 receptor agonist ( Bujold 2003b , El-Sayed 2004 ) and compared it to ECV plus placebo ( Bujold 2003a , Hilton 2009 ). One study compared ECV plus amnioinfusion versus ECV alone ( Diguisto 2018 ) and 1 study compared ECV plus talcum powder to ECV plus gel ( Vallikkannu 2014 ).

One study was conducted in Australia ( Smith 1999 ); 4 studies in Canada ( Bujold 2003a , Bujold 2003b , Hilton 2009 , Marquette 1996 ); 2 studies in China ( Liu 2016 , Wang 2017 ); 2 studies in Denmark ( Andersen 2013 , Brocks 1984 ); 1 study in France ( Diguisto 2018 ); 1 study in Hong Kong ( Khaw 2015 ); 1 study in India ( Rita 2011 ); 1 study in Israel ( Weiniger 2010 ); 1 study in Jordan ( Hindawi 2005 ); 5 studies in Malaysia ( Collaris 2009 , Mohamed Ismail 2008 , Nor Azlin 2005 , Vallikkannu 2014 , Vani 2009 ); 1 study in South Africa ( Hofmeyr 1983 ); 2 studies in Spain ( Burgos 2016 , Munoz 2014 ); 1 study in Sudan ( Dafallah 2004 ); 1 study in The Netherlands ( Kok 2008 ); 2 studies in the UK ( Impey 2005 , Chenia 1987 ); 9 studies in US ( Chalifoux 2017 , Dugoff 1999 , El-Sayed 2004 , Fernandez 1997 , Mancuso 2000 , Robertson 1987 , Schorr 1997 , Sullivan 2009 , Van Dorsten 1981 ); and 1 study in Zimbabwe ( Mahomed 1991 ).

The majority of studies were 2-arm trials, but there was one 3-arm trial ( Khaw 2015 ) and two 4-arm trials ( Andersen 2013 , Chalifoux 2017 ). All studies were conducted in a hospital or an outpatient ward connected to a hospital.

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

Excluded studies

Studies not included in this review with reasons for their exclusions 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 and the forest plots in appendix E .

Quality assessment of clinical outcomes included in the evidence review

See the evidence profiles in appendix F .

Economic evidence

A systematic review of the economic literature was conducted but no economic studies were identified which were applicable to this review question.

A single economic search was undertaken for all topics included in the scope of this guideline. See supplementary material 2 for details.

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

Summary of studies included in the economic evidence review

No economic studies were identified which were applicable to this review question.

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. complementary therapy versus control (no intervention), critical outcomes, cephalic presentation in labour.

No evidence was identified to inform this outcome.

Method of birth

Caesarean section.

• Very low quality evidence from 1 RCT (N=204) showed that there is no clinically important difference between acupuncture and control (no intervention) on the number of caesarean sections in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 0.74 (95% CI 0.38 to 1.43).
• Very low quality evidence from 1 RCT (N=200) showed that there is no clinically important difference between acupuncture plus membrane sweeping and control (no intervention) on the number of caesarean sections in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 1.29 (95% CI 0.73 to 2.29).

Admission to SCBU/NICU

• Very low quality evidence from 1 RCT (N=204) showed that there is no clinically important difference between acupuncture and control (no intervention) on admission to SCBU/NICU in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 0.19 (95% CI 0.02 to 1.62).
• Very low quality evidence from 1 RCT (N=200) showed that there is no clinically important difference between acupuncture plus membrane sweeping and control (no intervention) on admission to SCBU/NICU in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 0.40 (0.08 to 2.01).

Fetal death after 36 +0 weeks gestation

Infant death up to 4 weeks chronological age, important outcomes, apgar score <7 at 5 minutes.

• Very low quality evidence from 1 RCT (N=204) showed that there is no clinically important difference between acupuncture and control (no intervention) on Apgar score <7 at 5 minutes in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 0.32 (95% CI 0.01 to 7.78).
• Very low quality evidence from 1 RCT (N=200) showed that there is no clinically important difference between acupuncture plus membrane sweeping and control (no intervention) on Apgar score <7 at 5 minutes in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 0.33 (0.01 to 8.09).

Birth before 39 +0 weeks of gestation

Comparison 2. complementary therapy versus other treatment.

• Low quality evidence from 1 RCT (N=207) showed that there is no clinically important difference between acupuncture and membrane sweeping on the number of caesarean sections in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 0.64 (95% CI 0.34 to 1.22).
• Low quality evidence from 1 RCT (N=204) showed that there is no clinically important difference between acupuncture and acupuncture plus membrane sweeping on the number of caesarean sections in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 0.57 (95% CI 0.30 to 1.07).
• Very low quality evidence from 1 RCT (N=203) showed that there is no clinically important difference between acupuncture plus membrane sweeping and membrane sweeping on the number of caesarean sections in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 1.13 (95% CI 0.66 to 1.94).
• Very low quality evidence from 1 RCT (N=207) showed that there is no clinically important difference between acupuncture and membrane sweeping on admission to SCBU/NICU in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 0.33 (95% CI 0.03 to 3.12).
• Very low quality evidence from 1 RCT (N=204) showed that there is no clinically important difference between acupuncture and acupuncture plus membrane sweeping on admission to SCBU/NICU in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 0.48 (95% CI 0.04 to 5.22).
• Very low quality evidence from 1 RCT (N=203) showed that there is no clinically important difference between acupuncture plus membrane sweeping and membrane sweeping on admission to SCBU/NICU in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 0.69 (95% CI 0.12 to 4.02).
• Low quality evidence from 1 RCT (N=207) showed that there is no clinically important difference between acupuncture and membrane sweeping on Apgar score <7 at 5 minutes in pregnant women with breech presentation: RD 0.00 (95% CI −0.02 to 0.02).
• Low quality evidence from 1 RCT (N=204) showed that there is no clinically important difference between acupuncture and acupuncture plus membrane sweeping on Apgar score <7 at 5 minutes in pregnant women with breech presentation: RD 0.00 (95% CI −0.02 to 0.02).
• Low quality evidence from 1 RCT (N=203) showed that there is no clinically important difference between acupuncture plus membrane sweeping and membrane sweeping on Apgar score <7 at 5 minutes in pregnant women with breech presentation: RD 0.00 (95% CI −0.02 to 0.02).

Comparison 3. ECV versus no ECV

• Moderate quality evidence from 2 RCTs (N=680) showed that there is clinically important difference favouring ECV over no ECV on cephalic presentation in labour in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 1.83 (95% CI 1.53 to 2.18).

Cephalic vaginal birth

• Very low quality evidence from 3 RCTs (N=740) showed that there is a clinically important difference favouring ECV over no ECV on cephalic vaginal birth in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 1.67 (95% CI 1.20 to 2.31).

Breech vaginal birth

• Very low quality evidence from 2 RCTs (N=680) showed that there is no clinically important difference between ECV and no ECV on breech vaginal birth in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 0.29 (95% CI 0.03 to 2.84).
• Very low quality evidence from 3 RCTs (N=740) showed that there is no clinically important difference between ECV and no ECV on the number of caesarean sections in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 0.52 (95% CI 0.23 to 1.20).
• Very low quality evidence from 1 RCT (N=60) showed that there is no clinically important difference between ECV and no ECV on admission to SCBU//NICU in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 0.50 (95% CI 0.14 to 1.82).
• Very low evidence from 3 RCTs (N=740) showed that there is no statistically significant difference between ECV and no ECV on fetal death after 36 +0 weeks gestation in pregnant women with breech presentation: Peto OR 0.29 (95% CI 0.05 to 1.73) p=0.18.
• Very low quality evidence from 2 RCTs (N=120) showed that there is no clinically important difference between ECV and no ECV on Apgar score <7 at 5 minutes in pregnant women with breech presentation: Peto OR 0.28 (95% CI 0.04 to 1.70).

Comparison 4. ECV + Amnioinfusion versus ECV only

• Very low quality evidence from 1 RCT (N=109) showed that there is no clinically important difference between ECV plus amnioinfusion and ECV alone on cephalic presentation in labour in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 1.74 (95% CI 0.74 to 4.12).
• Low quality evidence from 1 RCT (N=109) showed that there is no clinically important difference between ECV plus amnioinfusion and ECV alone on the number of caesarean sections in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 0.95 (95% CI 0.75 to 1.19).

Comparison 5. ECV + Anaesthesia versus ECV only

• Very low quality evidence from 2 RCTs (N=210) showed that there is no clinically important difference between ECV plus anaesthesia and ECV alone on cephalic presentation in labour in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 1.16 (95% CI 0.56 to 2.41).
• Very low quality evidence from 5 RCTs (N=435) showed that there is no clinically important difference between ECV plus anaesthesia and ECV alone on cephalic vaginal birth in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 1.16 (95% CI 0.77 to 1.74).
• Very low quality evidence from 1 RCT (N=108) showed that there is no clinically important difference between ECV plus anaesthesia and ECV alone on breech vaginal birth in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 0.33 (95% CI 0.04 to 3.10).
• Very low quality evidence from 3 RCTs (N=263) showed that there is no clinically important difference between ECV plus anaesthesia and ECV alone on the number of caesarean sections in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 0.76 (95% CI 0.42 to 1.38).
• Moderate quality evidence from 1 RCT (N=69) showed that there is a clinically important difference favouring ECV plus anaesthesia over ECV alone on admission to SCBU/NICU in pregnant women with breech presentation: MD −1.80 (95% CI −2.53 to −1.07).
• Low quality evidence from 1 RCT (N=126) showed that there is no clinically important difference between ECV plus anaesthesia and ECV alone on Apgar score <7 at 5 minutes in pregnant women with breech presentation: RD 0.00 (95% CI −0.03 to 0.03).

Comparison 6. ECV + Anaesthesia versus ECV + Anaesthesia

• Very low quality evidence from 1 RCT (N=120) showed that there is no clinically important difference between ECV plus 2.5mg Bupivacaine plus 0.015mg Fentanyl and ECV plus 5mg Bupivacaine plus 0.015mg Fentanyl on cephalic vaginal birth in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 1.13 (95% CI 0.73 to 1.74).
• Low quality evidence from 1 RCT (N=119) showed that there is no clinically important difference between ECV plus 2.5mg Bupivacaine plus 0.015mg Fentanyl and ECV plus 7.5mg Bupivacaine plus 0.015mg Fentanyl on cephalic vaginal birth in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 0.81 (95% CI 0.53 to 1.23).
• Very low quality evidence from 1 RCT (N=120) showed that there is no clinically important difference between ECV plus 2.5mg Bupivacaine plus 0.015mg Fentanyl and ECV plus 10mg Bupivacaine plus 0.015mg Fentanyl on cephalic vaginal birth in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 0.96 (95% CI 0.61 to 1.50).
• Very low quality evidence from 1 RCT (N=95) showed that there is no clinically important difference between ECV plus 2.5mg Bupivacaine plus 0.015mg Fentanyl and ECV plus 0.05mg Fentanyl on cephalic vaginal birth in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 0.69 (95% CI 0.37 to 1.28).
• Low quality evidence from 1 RCT (N=119) showed that there is no clinically important difference between ECV plus 5mg Bupivacaine plus 0.015mg Fentanyl and ECV plus 7.5mg Bupivacaine plus 0.015mg Fentanyl on cephalic vaginal birth in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 0.81 (95% CI 0.53 to 1.23).
• Very low quality evidence from 1 RCT (N=120) showed that there is no clinically important difference between ECV plus 5mg Bupivacaine plus 0.015mg Fentanyl and ECV plus 10mg Bupivacaine plus 0.015mg Fentanyl on cephalic vaginal birth in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 0.96 (95% CI 0.61 to 1.50).
• Very low evidence from 1 RCT (N=119) showed that there is no clinically important difference between ECV plus 7.5mg Bupivacaine plus 0.015mg Fentanyl and ECV plus 10mg Bupivacaine plus 0.015mg Fentanyl on cephalic vaginal birth in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 1.19 (95% CI 0.79 to 1.79).
• Low quality evidence from 1 RCT (N=120) showed that there is no clinically important difference between ECV plus 2.5mg Bupivacaine plus 0.015mg Fentanyl and ECV plus 5mg Bupivacaine plus 0.015mg Fentanyl on the number of caesarean sections in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 0.92 (95% CI 0.68 to 1.24).
• Very low evidence from 1 RCT (N=119) showed that there is no clinically important difference between ECV plus 2.5mg Bupivacaine plus 0.015mg Fentanyl and ECV plus 7.5mg Bupivacaine plus 0.015mg Fentanyl on the number of caesarean sections in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 1.08 (95% CI 0.78 to 1.50).
• Very low evidence from 1 RCT (N=120) showed that there is no clinically important difference between ECV plus 2.5mg Bupivacaine plus 0.015mg Fentanyl and ECV plus 10mg Bupivacaine plus 0.015mg Fentanyl on the number of caesarean sections in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 0.94 (95% CI 0.70 to 1.28).
• Low quality evidence from 1 RCT (N=119) showed that there is no clinically important difference between ECV plus 5mg Bupivacaine plus 0.015mg Fentanyl and ECV plus 7.5mg Bupivacaine plus 0.015mg Fentanyl on the number of caesarean sections in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 1.17 (95% CI 0.86 to 1.61).
• Very low quality evidence from 1 RCT (N=120) showed that there is no clinically important difference between ECV plus 5mg Bupivacaine plus 0.015mg Fentanyl and ECV plus 10mg Bupivacaine plus 0.015mg Fentanyl on the number of caesarean sections in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 1.03 (95% CI 0.77 to 1.37).
• Low quality evidence from 1 RCT (N=119) showed that there is no clinically important difference between ECV plus 7.5mg Bupivacaine plus 0.015mg Fentanyl and ECV plus 10mg Bupivacaine plus 0.015mg Fentanyl on the number of caesarean sections in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 0.88 (95% CI 0.64 to 1.20).

Comparison 7. ECV + β2 agonist versus Control (no intervention)

• Moderate quality evidence from 2 RCTs (N=256) showed that there is a clinically important difference favouring ECV plus β2 agonist over control (no intervention) on cephalic presentation in labour in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 4.83 (95% CI 3.27 to 7.11).
• Very low quality evidence from 3 RCTs (N=265) showed that there no clinically important difference between ECV plus β2 agonist and control (no intervention) on cephalic vaginal birth in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 2.03 (95% CI 0.22 to 19.01).
• Very low quality evidence from 4 RCTs (N=513) showed that there is a clinically important difference favouring ECV plus β2 agonist over control (no intervention) on breech vaginal birth in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 0.38 (95% CI 0.20 to 0.69).
• Low quality evidence from 4 RCTs (N=513) showed that there is a clinically important difference favouring ECV plus β2 agonist over control (no intervention) on the number of caesarean sections in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 0.53 (95% CI 0.41 to 0.67).
• Very low quality evidence from 1 RCT (N=48) showed that there is no clinically important difference between ECV plus β2 agonist and control (no intervention) on admission to SCBU/NICU in pregnant women with breech presentation: RD 0.00 (95% CI −0.08 to 0.08).
• Very low quality evidence from 3 RCTs (N=208) showed that there is no statistically significant difference between ECV plus β2 agonist and control (no intervention) on fetal death after 36 +0 weeks gestation in pregnant women with breech presentation: RD −0.01 (95% CI −0.03 to 0.01) p=0.66.
• Very low quality evidence from 2 RCTs (N=208) showed that there is no clinically important difference between ECV plus β2 agonist and control (no intervention) on Apgar score <7 at 5 minutes in pregnant women with breech presentation: Peto OR 0.80 (95% CI 0.31 to 2.10).

Comparison 8. ECV + β2 agonist versus ECV only

• Very low quality evidence from 2 RCTs (N=172) showed that there is no clinically important difference between ECV plus β2 agonist and ECV only on cephalic vaginal birth in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 1.32 (95% CI 0.67 to 2.62).
• Very low quality evidence from 1 RCT (N=58) showed that there is no clinically important difference between ECV plus β2 agonist and ECV only on breech vaginal birth in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 0.75 (95% CI 0.22 to 2.50).
• Very low quality evidence from 2 RCTs (N=172) showed that there is no clinically important difference between ECV plus β2 agonist and ECV only on the number of caesarean sections in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 0.79 (95% CI 0.27 to 2.28).
• Very low quality evidence from 1 RCT (N=114) showed that there is no clinically important difference between ECV plus β2 agonist and ECV only on admission to SCBU/NICU in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 1.00 (95% CI 0.21 to 4.75).

Comparison 9. ECV + β2 agonist versus ECV + Placebo

• Very low quality evidence from 2 RCTs (N=146) showed that there is no clinically important difference between ECV plus β2 agonist and ECV plus placebo on cephalic presentation in labour in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 1.54 (95% CI 0.24 to 9.76).
• Very low quality evidence from 2 RCTs (N=125) showed that there is no clinically important difference between ECV plus β2 agonist and ECV plus placebo on cephalic vaginal birth in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 1.27 (95% CI 0.41 to 3.89).
• Very low quality evidence from 2 RCTs (N=227) showed that there is no clinically important difference between ECV plus β2 agonist and ECV plus placebo on breech vaginal birth in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 1.00 (95% CI 0.33 to 2.97).
• Low quality evidence from 4 RCTs (N=532) showed that there is no clinically important difference between ECV plus β2 agonist and ECV plus placebo on the number of caesarean sections in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 0.81 (95% CI 0.72 to 0.92)
• Very low quality evidence from 2 RCTs (N=146) showed that there is no clinically important difference between ECV plus β2 agonist and ECV plus placebo on admission to SCBU/NICU in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 0.78 (95% CI 0.17 to 3.63).
• Very low quality evidence from 1 RCT (N=124) showed that there is no clinically important difference between ECV plus β2 agonist and ECV plus placebo on Apgar score <7 at 5 minutes in pregnant women with breech presentation: RD 0.00 (95% CI −0.03 to 0.03).

Comparison 10. ECV + Ca 2+ channel blocker versus ECV + Placebo

• Moderate quality evidence from 1 RCT (N=310) showed that there is no clinically important difference between ECV plus Ca 2+ channel blocker and ECV plus placebo on cephalic presentation in labour in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 1.13 (95% CI 0.87 to 1.48).
• Moderate quality evidence from 1 RCT (N=310) showed that there is no clinically important difference between ECV plus Ca 2+ channel blocker and ECV plus placebo on cephalic vaginal birth in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 0.90 (95% CI 0.73 to 1.12).
• Moderate quality evidence from 1 RCT (N=310) showed that there is no clinically important difference between ECV plus Ca 2+ channel blocker and ECV plus placebo on the number of caesarean sections in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 1.11 (95% CI 0.88 to 1.40).
• High quality evidence from 1 RCT (N=310) showed that there is no clinically important difference between ECV plus Ca 2+ channel blocker and ECV plus placebo on admission to SCBU/NICU in pregnant women with breech presentation: MD −0.20 (95% CI −0.70 to 0.30).
• Moderate quality evidence from 1 RCT (N=310) showed that there is no statistically significant difference between ECV plus Ca 2+ channel blocker and ECV plus placebo on fetal death after 36 +0 weeks gestation in pregnant women with breech presentation: RD 0.00 (95% CI −0.01 to 0.01) p=1.00.
• Low quality evidence from 1 RCT (N=310) showed that there is no clinically important difference between ECV plus Ca 2+ channel blocker and ECV plus placebo on Apgar score <7 at 5 minutes in pregnant women with breech presentation: Peto OR 0.52 (95% 0.05 to 5.02).

Comparison 11. ECV + Ca2+ channel blocker versus ECV + β2 agonist

• Low quality evidence from 1 RCT (N=90) showed that there is a clinically important difference favouring ECV plus β2 agonist over ECV plus Ca 2+ channel blocker on cephalic presentation in labour in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 0.62 (95% CI 0.39 to 0.98).
• Very low quality evidence from 2 RCTs (N=126) showed that there is no clinically important difference between ECV plus Ca 2+ channel blocker and ECV plus β2 agonist on cephalic vaginal birth in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 1.26 (95% CI 0.55 to 2.89).
• Very low quality evidence from 2 RCTs (N=132) showed that there is a clinically important difference favouring ECV plus β2 agonist over ECV plus Ca 2+ channel blocker on the number of caesarean sections in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 1.42 (95% CI 1.06 to 1.91).
• Very low quality evidence from 2 RCTs (N=176) showed that there is no clinically important difference between ECV plus Ca 2+ channel blocker and ECV plus β2 agonist on admission to SCBU/NICU in pregnant women with breech presentation: Peto OR 0.53 (95% CI 0.05 to 5.22).
• Very low quality evidence from 2 RCTs (N=176) showed that there is no clinically important difference between ECV plus Ca 2+ channel blocker and ECV plus β2 agonist on Apgar score <7 at 5 minutes in pregnant women with breech presentation: RD 0.00 (95% CI −0.03 to 0.03).

Comparison 12. ECV + µ-receptor agonist versus ECV only

• High quality evidence from 1 RCT (N=80) showed that there is no clinically important difference between ECV plus µ-receptor agonist and ECV alone on cephalic vaginal birth in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 1.00 (95% CI 0.80 to 1.24).
• Low quality evidence from 1 RCT (N=80) showed that there is no clinically important difference between ECV plus µ-receptor agonist and ECV alone on the number of caesarean sections in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 1.00 (95% CI 0.42 to 2.40).
• Low quality evidence from 1 RCT (N=126) showed that there is no clinically important difference between ECV plus µ-receptor agonist and ECV alone on Apgar score <7 at 5 minutes in pregnant women with breech presentation: RD 0.00 (95% CI −0.03 to 0.03).

Comparison 13. ECV + µ-receptor agonist versus ECV + Placebo

Cephalic vaginal birth after successful ecv.

• High quality evidence from 2 RCTs (N=98) showed that there is no clinically important difference between ECV plus µ-receptor agonist and ECV plus placebo on cephalic vaginal birth after successful ECV in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 1.00 (95% CI 0.86 to 1.17).

Caesarean section after successful ECV

• Low quality evidence from 2 RCTs (N=98) showed that there is no clinically important difference between ECV plus µ-receptor agonist and ECV plus placebo on caesarean section after successful ECV in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 0.97 (95% CI 0.33 to 2.84).

Breech vaginal birth after unsuccessful ECV

• High quality evidence from 3 RCTs (N=186) showed that there is a clinically important difference favouring ECV plus µ-receptor agonist over ECV plus placebo on breech vaginal birth after unsuccessful ECV in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 0.10 (95% CI 0.02 to 0.53).

Caesarean section after unsuccessful ECV

• Moderate quality evidence from 3 RCTs (N=186) showed that there is no clinically important difference between ECV plus µ-receptor agonist and ECV plus placebo on caesarean section after unsuccessful ECV in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 1.19 (95% CI 1.09 to 1.31).
• Low quality evidence from 1 RCT (N=137) showed that there is no statistically significant difference between ECV plus µ-receptor agonist and ECV plus placebo on fetal death after 36 +0 weeks gestation in pregnant women with breech presentation: RD 0.00 (95% CI −0.03 to 0.03) p=1.00.

Comparison 14. ECV + µ-receptor agonist versus ECV + Anaesthesia

• Moderate quality evidence from 1 RCT (N=92) showed that there is no clinically important difference between ECV plus µ-receptor agonist and ECV plus anaesthesia on cephalic vaginal birth in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 1.04 (95% CI 0.84 to 1.29).
• Very low quality evidence from 2 RCTs (N=212) showed that there is no clinically important difference between ECV plus µ-receptor agonist and ECV plus anaesthesia on the number of caesarean sections in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 0.90 (95% CI 0.61 to 1.34).
• Very low quality evidence from 1 RCT (N=129) showed that there is no clinically important difference between ECV plus µ-receptor agonist and ECV plus anaesthesia on admission to SCBU/NICU in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 2.30 (95% CI 0.21 to 24.74).
• Low quality evidence from 2 RCTs (N=255) showed that there is no clinically important difference between ECV plus µ-receptor agonist and ECV plus anaesthesia on Apgar score <7 at 5 minutes in pregnant women with breech presentation: RD 0.00 (95% CI −0.02 to 0.02).

Comparison 15. ECV + Nitric oxide donor versus ECV + Placebo

• Very low quality evidence from 3 RCTs (N=224) showed that there is no clinically important difference between ECV plus nitric oxide donor and ECV plus placebo on cephalic presentation in labour in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 1.13 (95% CI 0.59 to 2.16).
• Low quality evidence from 1 RCT (N=99) showed that there is no clinically important difference between ECV plus nitric oxide donor and ECV plus placebo on cephalic vaginal birth in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 0.78 (95% CI 0.49 to 1.22).
• Low quality evidence from 2 RCTs (N=125) showed that there is no clinically important difference between ECV plus nitric oxide donor and ECV plus placebo on the number of caesarean sections in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 0.83 (95% CI 0.68 to 1.01).

Comparison 16. ECV + Nitric oxide donor versus ECV + β2 agonist

• Low quality evidence from 1 RCT (N=74) showed that there is no clinically important difference between ECV plus β2 agonist and ECV plus nitric oxide donor on cephalic presentation in labour in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 0.56 (95% CI 0.29 to 1.09).
• Very low quality evidence from 2 RCTs (N=97) showed that there is no clinically important difference between ECV plus nitric oxide donor and ECV plus β2 agonist on cephalic vaginal birth in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 0.98 (95% CI 0.47 to 2.05).
• Very low quality evidence from 1 RCT (N=59) showed that there is no clinically important difference between ECV plus nitric oxide donor and ECV plus β2 agonist on the number of caesarean sections in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 1.07 (95% CI 0.73 to 1.57).

Comparison 17. ECV + Talcum powder versus ECV + Gel

• Low quality evidence from 1 RCT (N=95) showed that there is no clinically important difference between ECV plus talcum powder and ECV plus gel on cephalic presentation in labour in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 1.02 (95% CI 0.68 to 1.53).
• Low quality evidence from 1 RCT (N=95) showed that there is no clinically important difference between ECV plus talcum powder and ECV plus gel on cephalic vaginal birth in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 1.08 (95% CI 0.67 to 1.74).
• Low quality evidence from 1 RCT (N=95) showed that there is no clinically important difference between ECV plus talcum powder and ECV plus gel on the number of caesarean sections in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 0.94 (95% CI 0.67 to 1.33).
• Low quality evidence from 1 RCT (N=95) showed that there is no clinically important difference between ECV plus talcum powder and ECV plus gel on admission to SCBU/NICU in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 1.96 (95% CI 0.38 to 10.19).

Comparison 18. Postural management versus No postural management

• Low quality evidence from 1 RCT (N=76) showed that there is no clinically important difference between postural management and no postural management on cephalic presentation in labour in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 1.26 (95% CI 0.70 to 2.30).
• Low quality evidence from 1 RCT (N=76) showed that there is no clinically important difference between postural management and no postural management on cephalic vaginal birth in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 1.11 (95% CI 0.59 to 2.07).

Breech vaginal delivery

• Low quality evidence from 1 RCT (N=76) showed that there is no clinically important difference between postural management and no postural management on breech vaginal delivery in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 1.15 (95% CI 0.67 to 1.99).
• Low quality evidence from 1 RCT (N=76) showed that there is no clinically important difference between postural management and no postural management on the number of caesarean sections in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 0.69 (95% CI 0.31 to 1.52).
• Low quality evidence from 1 RCT (N=76) showed that there is no clinically important difference between postural management and no postural management on Apgar score <7 at 5 minutes in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 0.24 (95% CI 0.03 to 2.03).

Comparison 19. Postural management + ECV versus ECV only

• Moderate quality evidence from 1 RCT (N=100) showed that there is no clinically important difference between postural management plus ECV and ECV only on the number of caesarean sections in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 1.05 (95% CI 0.80 to 1.38).
• Low quality evidence from 1 RCT (N=100) showed that there is no clinically important difference between postural management plus ECV and ECV only on Apgar score <7 at 5 minutes in pregnant women with breech presentation: Peto OR 0.13 (95% CI 0.00 to 6.55).

Economic evidence statements

No economic evidence was identified which was applicable to this review question.

The committee’s discussion of the evidence

Interpreting the evidence, the outcomes that matter most.

Provision of antenatal care is important for the health and wellbeing of both mother and baby with the aim of avoiding adverse pregnancy outcomes and enhancing maternal satisfaction and wellbeing. Breech presentation in labour may be associated with adverse outcomes for the fetus, which has contributed to an increased likelihood of caesarean birth. The committee therefore agreed that cephalic presentation in labour and method of birth were critical outcomes for the woman, and admission to SCBU/NICU, fetal death after 36 +0 weeks gestation, and infant death up to 4 weeks chronological age were critical outcomes for the baby. Apgar score <7 at 5 minutes and birth before 39 +0 weeks of gestation were important outcomes for the baby.

The quality of the evidence

The quality of the evidence for interventions for managing a longitudinal lie fetal malpresentation (that is breech presentation) in late pregnancy ranged from very low to high, with most of the evidence being of a very low or low quality.

This was predominately due to serious overall risk of bias in some outcomes; imprecision around the effect estimate in some outcomes; indirect population in some outcomes; and the presence of serious heterogeneity in some outcomes, which was unresolved by subgroup analysis. The majority of included studies had a small sample size, which contributed to imprecision around the effect estimate.

No evidence was identified to inform the outcomes of infant death up to 4 weeks chronological age and birth before 39 +0 weeks of gestation.

There was no publication bias identified in the evidence. However, the committee noted the influence pharmacological developers may have in these trials as funders, and took this into account in their decision making.

Benefits and harms

The committee discussed that in the case of breech presentation, a discussion with the woman about the different options and their potential benefits, harms and implications is needed to ensure an informed decision. The committee discussed that some women may prefer a breech vaginal birth or choose an elective caesarean birth, and that her preferences should be supported, in line with shared decision making.

The committee discussed that external cephalic version is standard practice for managing breech presentation in uncomplicated singleton pregnancies at or after 36+0 weeks. The committee discussed that there could be variation in the success rates of ECV based on the experience of the healthcare professional providing the ECV. There was some evidence supporting the use of ECV for managing a breech presentation in late pregnancy. The evidence showed ECV had a clinically important benefit in terms of cephalic presentations in labour and cephalic vaginal deliveries, when compared to no intervention. The committee noted that the evidence suggested that ECV was not harmful to the baby, although the effect estimate was imprecise relating to the relative rarity of the fetal death as an outcome.

Cephalic (head-down) vaginal birth is preferred by many women and the evidence suggests that external cephalic version is an effective way to achieve this. The evidence suggested ECV increased the chance for a cephalic vaginal birth and the committee agreed that it was important to explain this to the woman during her consultation.

The committee discussed the optimum timing for ECV. Timing of ECV must take into account the likelihood of the baby turning naturally before a woman commences labour and the possibility of the baby turning back to a breech presentation after ECV if it is done too early. The committee noted that in their experience, current practice was to perform ECV at 37 gestational weeks. The majority of the evidence demonstrating a benefit of ECV in this review involved ECV performed around 37 gestational weeks, although the review did not look for studies directly comparing different timings of ECV and their relative success rates.

The evidence in this review excluded women with previous complicated pregnancies, such as those with previous caesarean section or uterine surgery. The committee discussed that a previous caesarean section indicates a complicated pregnancy and that this population of women are not the focus of this guideline, which concentrates on women with uncomplicated pregnancies.

The committee’s recommendations align with other NICE guidance and cross references to the NICE guideline on caesarean birth and the section on breech presenting in labour in the NICE guideline on intrapartum care for women with existing medical conditions or obstetric complications and their babies were made.

ECV combined with pharmacological agents

There were some small studies comparing a variety of pharmacological agents (including β2 agonists, Ca 2+ channel blockers, µ-receptor agonists and nitric oxide donors) given alongside ECV. Overall the evidence typically showed no clinically important benefit of adding any pharmacological agent to ECV except in comparisons with a control arm with no ECV where it was not possible to isolate the effect of the ECV versus the pharmacological agent. The evidence tended toward benefit most for β2 agonists and µ-receptor agonists however there was no consistent or high quality evidence of benefit even for these agents. The committee agreed that although these pharmacological agents are used in practice, there was insufficient evidence to make a recommendation supporting or refuting their use or on which pharmacological agent should be used.

The committee discussed that the evidence suggesting µ-receptor agonist, remifentanil, had a clinically important benefit in terms reducing breech vaginal births after unsuccessful ECV was biologically implausible. The committee noted that this pharmacological agent has strong sedative effects, depending on the dosage, and therefore studies comparing it to a placebo had possible design flaws as it would be obvious to all parties whether placebo or active drug had been received. The committee discussed that the risks associated with using remifentanil such as respiratory depression, likely outweigh any potential added benefit it may have on managing breech presentation.

There was some evidence comparing different anaesthetics together with ECV. Although there was little consistent evidence of benefit overall, one small study of low quality showed a combination of 2% lidocaine and epinephrine via epidural catheter (anaesthesia) with ECV showed a clinically important benefit in terms of cephalic presentations in labour and the method of birth. The committee discussed the evidence and agreed the use of anaesthesia via epidural catheter during ECV was uncommon practice in the UK and could be expensive, overall they agreed the strength of the evidence available was insufficient to support a change in practice.

Postural management

There was limited evidence on postural management as an intervention for managing breech presentation in late pregnancy, which showed no difference in effectiveness. Postural management was defined as ‘knee-chest position for 15 minutes, 3 times a day’. The committee agreed that in their experience women valued trying interventions at home first which might make postural management an attractive option for some women, however, there was no evidence that postural management was beneficial. The committee also noted that in their experience postural management can cause notable discomfort so it is not an intervention without disadvantages.

Cost effectiveness and resource use

A systematic review of the economic literature was conducted but no relevant studies were identified which were applicable to this review question.

The committee’s recommendations to offer external cephalic version reinforces current practice. The committee noted that, compared to no intervention, external cephalic version results in clinically important benefits and that there would also be overall downstream cost savings from lower adverse events. It was therefore the committee’s view that offering external cephalic version is cost effective and would not entail any resource impact.

Andersen 2013

Brocks 1984

Bujold 2003

Burgos 2016

Chalifoux 2017

Chenia 1987

Collaris 2009

Dafallah 2004

Diguisto 2018

Dugoff 1999

El-Sayed 2004

Fernandez 1997

Hindawi 2005

Hilton 2009

Hofmeyr 1983

Mahomed 1991

Mancuso 2000

Marquette 1996

Mohamed Ismail 2008

NorAzlin 2005

Robertson 1987

Schorr 1997

Sullivan 2009

VanDorsten 1981

Vallikkannu 2014

Weiniger 2010

Appendix A. Review protocols

Review protocol for review question: What is the most effective way of managing a longitudinal lie fetal malpresentation (breech presentation) in late pregnancy? (PDF, 260K)

Appendix B. Literature search strategies

Literature search strategies for review question: What is the most effective way of managing a longitudinal lie fetal malpresentation (breech presentation) in late pregnancy? (PDF, 281K)

Appendix C. Clinical evidence study selection

Clinical study selection for: What is the most effective way of managing a longitudinal lie fetal malpresentation (breech presentation) in late pregnancy? (PDF, 113K)

Appendix D. Clinical evidence tables

Clinical evidence tables for review question: What is the most effective way of managing a longitudinal lie fetal malpresentation (breech presentation) in late pregnancy? (PDF, 1.2M)

Appendix E. Forest plots

Forest plots for review question: What is the most effective way of managing a longitudinal lie fetal malpresentation (breech presentation) in late pregnancy? (PDF, 678K)

Appendix F. GRADE tables

GRADE tables for review question: What is the most effective way of managing a longitudinal lie fetal malpresentation (breech presentation) in late pregnancy? (PDF, 1.0M)

Appendix G. Economic evidence study selection

Economic evidence study selection for review question: what is the most effective way of managing a longitudinal lie fetal malpresentation (breech presentation) in late pregnancy, appendix h. economic evidence tables, economic evidence tables for review question: what is the most effective way of managing a longitudinal lie fetal malpresentation (breech presentation) in late pregnancy, appendix i. economic evidence profiles, economic evidence profiles for review question: what is the most effective way of managing a longitudinal lie fetal malpresentation (breech presentation) in late pregnancy, appendix j. economic analysis, economic evidence analysis for review question: what is the most effective way of managing a longitudinal lie fetal malpresentation (breech presentation) in late pregnancy.

No economic analysis was conducted for this review question.

Appendix K. Excluded studies

Excluded clinical and economic studies for review question: what is the most effective way of managing a longitudinal lie fetal malpresentation (breech presentation) in late pregnancy, clinical studies, table 24 excluded studies.

View in own window

Economic studies

No economic evidence was identified for this review.

Appendix L. Research recommendations

Research recommendations for review question: what is the most effective way of managing a longitudinal lie fetal malpresentation (breech presentation) in late pregnancy.

No research recommendations were made for this review question.

Evidence reviews underpinning recommendation 1.2.38

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). Management of breech presentation: Antenatal care: Evidence review M. London: National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE); 2021 Aug. (NICE Guideline, No. 201.)
• PDF version of this title (2.2M)

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 Identification of breech presentation: Antenatal care: Evidence review L [ 2021] Review Identification of breech presentation: Antenatal care: Evidence review L 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.
• 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.
• [Fetal expulsion: Which interventions for perineal prevention? CNGOF Perineal Prevention and Protection in Obstetrics Guidelines]. [Gynecol Obstet Fertil Senol. 2...] [Fetal expulsion: Which interventions for perineal prevention? CNGOF Perineal Prevention and Protection in Obstetrics Guidelines]. Riethmuller D, Ramanah R, Mottet N. Gynecol Obstet Fertil Senol. 2018 Dec; 46(12):937-947. Epub 2018 Oct 28.
• Foetal weight, presentaion and the progress of labour. II. Breech and occipito-posterior presentation related to the baby's weight and the length of the first stage of labour. [J Obstet Gynaecol Br Emp. 1961] Foetal weight, presentaion and the progress of labour. II. Breech and occipito-posterior presentation related to the baby's weight and the length of the first stage of labour. BAINBRIDGE MN, NIXON WC, SMYTH CN. J Obstet Gynaecol Br Emp. 1961 Oct; 68:748-54.

Recent Activity

• Management of breech presentation Management 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

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

Here’s how you know

Official websites use .gov A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS A lock ( Lock Locked padlock icon ) or https:// means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

• Health Topics
• Drugs & Supplements
• Medical Tests
• Medical Encyclopedia
• About MedlinePlus
• Customer Support

Breech - series—Types of breech presentation

• Go to slide 1 out of 7
• Go to slide 2 out of 7
• Go to slide 3 out of 7
• Go to slide 4 out of 7
• Go to slide 5 out of 7
• Go to slide 6 out of 7
• Go to slide 7 out of 7

There are three types of breech presentation: complete, incomplete, and frank.

Complete breech is when both of the baby's knees are bent and his feet and bottom are closest to the birth canal.

Incomplete breech is when one of the baby's knees is bent and his foot and bottom are closest to the birth canal.

Frank breech is when the baby's legs are folded flat up against his head and his bottom is closest to the birth canal.

There is also footling breech where one or both feet are presenting.

Review Date 11/21/2022

Updated by: LaQuita Martinez, MD, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Emory Johns Creek Hospital, Alpharetta, GA. Also reviewed by David C. Dugdale, MD, Medical Director, Brenda Conaway, Editorial Director, and the A.D.A.M. Editorial team.

Related MedlinePlus Health Topics

• Childbirth Problems

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.

Management of breech presentation: Antenatal care

• PMID: 34524741
• Bookshelf ID: NBK573937

Breech presentation of the fetus in late pregnancy may result in prolonged or obstructed labour with resulting risks to both woman and fetus. Interventions to correct breech presentation (to cephalic) before labour and birth are important for the woman’s and the baby’s health. The aim of this review is to determine the most effective way of managing a breech presentation in late pregnancy.

Copyright © NICE 2021.

Publication types