Table of Contents Author Guidelines Submit a Manuscript
Obstetrics and Gynecology International
Volume 2009 (2009), Article ID 718981, 8 pages
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2009/718981
Review Article

Central Neuraxial Blockade-Assisted External Cephalic Version in Reducing Caesarean Section Rate: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

1Family Services Division, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Hull York Medical School (HYMS), Diana Princess of Wales Hospital, Northern Lincolnshire and Goole Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Scartho Road, Grimsby DN33 2BA, UK
2Clinical Research Fellow, Division of Surgery, Oncology, Reproductive Biology and Anaesthetics, Imperial College, Hammersmith Campus, Du cane Road, London W120NN, UK

Received 14 September 2009; Accepted 18 November 2009

Academic Editor: Anthony O. Odibo

Copyright © 2009 Ibrahim Bolaji and Lillian Alabi-Isama. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Linked References

  1. I. I. Bolaji and F. P. Meehan, “Caesarean section survey in Galway—1973 through 1987,” European Journal of Obstetrics Gynecology and Reproductive Biology, vol. 48, no. 1, pp. 1–8, 1993. View at Google Scholar
  2. I. I. Bolaji and F. P. Meehan, “Post caesarean section delivery,” European Journal of Obstetrics Gynecology and Reproductive Biology, vol. 51, no. 3, pp. 181–192, 1993. View at Google Scholar
  3. I. I. Bolaji, N. M. Rafla, and M. J. Mylotte, “Classical caesarean section through the posterior uterine wall,” Irish Journal of Medical Science, vol. 161, no. 2, pp. 46–47, 1992. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  4. S. Paterson-Brown, “Should doctors perform an elective caesarean section on request? Yes, as long as the woman is fully informed,” British Medical Journal, vol. 317, no. 7156, pp. 462–463, 1998. View at Google Scholar
  5. O. Amu, S. Rajendran, and I. I. Bolaji, “Should doctors perform an elective caesarean section on request? Maternal choice alone should not determine method of delivery,” British Medical Journal, vol. 317, no. 7156, pp. 463–465, 1998. View at Google Scholar
  6. R. Walker, D. Turnbull, and C. Wilkinson, “Strategies to address global cesarean section rates: a review of the evidence,” Birth, vol. 29, no. 1, pp. 28–39, 2002. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  7. RCOG guideline No. 20a, “External cephalic version and reducing the incidence of breech presentation,” December 2006.
  8. F. P. Meehan, N. M. Rafla, and I. I. Bolaji, “Delivery following previous caesarean section,” in Progress in Obstetrics and Gynaecology, J. Studd, Ed., vol. 10, chapter 12, pp. 213–228, Churchill Livingstone, London, UK, 1993. View at Google Scholar
  9. D. P. Cruikshank, “Breech presentation,” Clinical Obstetrics and Gynecology, vol. 29, no. 2, pp. 255–263, 1986. View at Google Scholar
  10. M. E. Hannah, W. J. Hannah, S. A. Hewson et al., “Planned caesarean section versus planned vaginal birth for breech presentation at term: a randomised multicentre trial,” Lancet, vol. 356, no. 9239, pp. 1375–1383, 2000. View at Google Scholar
  11. I. Hildingsson, I. Rådestad, C. Rubertsson, and U. Waldenström, “Few women wish to be delivered by caesarean section,” British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, vol. 109, no. 6, pp. 618–623, 2002. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  12. J. A. Gamble and D. K. Creedy, “Women's request for a cesarean section: a critique of the literature,” Birth, vol. 27, no. 4, pp. 256–263, 2000. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  13. G. J. Hofmeyr and M. E. Hannah, “Planned caesarean section for term breech delivery (Cochrane review),” in Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, no. 3, The Cochrane Library, Oxford, UK, 2003. View at Google Scholar
  14. E. K. Hutton, M. E. Hannah, and J. Barrett, “Use of external cephalic version for breech pregnancy and mode of delivery for breech and twin pregnancy: a survey of Canadian practitioners,” Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Canada, vol. 24, no. 10, pp. 804–810, 2002. View at Google Scholar
  15. H. Minkoff and F. A. Chervenak, “Elective primary caesarean delivery,” The New England Journal of Medicine, vol. 384, no. 10, pp. 946–950, 2003. View at Google Scholar
  16. M. H. Hall and S. Bewley, “Maternal mortality and mode of delivery,” Lancet, vol. 354, no. 9180, p. 776, 1999. View at Google Scholar
  17. M. Waterstone, S. Bewley, and C. Wolfe, “Incidence and predictors of severe obstetric morbidity: case-control study,” British Medical Journal, vol. 322, no. 7294, pp. 1089–1094, 2001. View at Google Scholar
  18. G. M. Cooper, G. Lewis, and J. Neilson, “Editorial I: confidential enquiries into maternal deaths, 1997–1999,” British Journal of Anaesthesia, vol. 89, no. 3, pp. 369–372, 2002. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  19. E. Saling and W. Mueller-Holve, “External cephalic version under tocolysis,” Journal of Perinatal Medicine, vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 115–122, 1975. View at Google Scholar
  20. J. DeRosa and L. J. Anderle, “External cephalic version of term singleton breech presentations with tocolysis: a retrospective study in a community hospital,” Journal of the American Osteopathic Association, vol. 91, no. 4, pp. 351–357, 1991. View at Google Scholar
  21. G. J. Hofmeyr, “Interventions to help external cephalic version for breech presentation at term,” Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, no. 1, Article ID CD000184, 2004. View at Google Scholar
  22. F. Chenia and C. A. Crowther, “Does advice to assume the knee-chest position reduce the incidence of breech presentation at delivery? A randomized clinical trial,” Birth, vol. 14, no. 2, pp. 75–78, 1987. View at Google Scholar
  23. P. Bung, R. Huch, and A. Huch, “Is Indian version a successful method of lowering the frequency of breech presentations?” Geburtshilfe und Frauenheilkunde, vol. 47, no. 3, pp. 202–205, 1987. View at Google Scholar
  24. R. L. Johnson and J. P. Elliott, “Fetal acoustic stimulation, an adjunct to external cephalic version: a blinded, randomized crossover study,” American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, vol. 173, no. 5, pp. 1369–1372, 1995. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  25. J.-L. Benifla, F. Goffinet, V. Bascou, E. Darai, A. Proust, and P. Madelenat, “Transabdominal amnio-infusion facilitates external version manouver after initial failure,” Journal de Gynecologie Obstetrique et Biologie de la Reproduction, vol. 24, no. 3, pp. 319–322, 1995. View at Google Scholar
  26. Z. West, Acupuncture in Pregnancy and Childbirth, Churchill Livingstone, Edinburgh, UK, 2001.
  27. F. Cardini, V. Basevi, A. Valentini, and A. Martellato, “Moxibustion and breech presentation: preliminary results,” American Journal of Chinese Medicine, vol. 19, no. 2, pp. 105–114, 1991. View at Google Scholar
  28. K. M. Mancuso, M. K. Yancey, J. A. Murphy, and G. R. Markenson, “Epidural analgesia for cephalic version: a randomized trial,” Obstetrics and Gynecology, vol. 95, no. 5, pp. 648–651, 2000. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  29. S. J. Schorr, S. E. Speights, E. L. Ross et al., “A randomized trial of epidural anesthesia to improve external cephalic version success,” American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, vol. 177, no. 5, pp. 1133–1137, 1997. View at Google Scholar
  30. C. F. Weiniger, Y. Ginosar, U. Elchalal, E. Sharon, M. Nokrian, and Y. Ezra, “External cephalic version for breech presentation with or without spinal analgesia in nulliparous women at term: a randomized controlled trial,” Obstetrics and Gynecology, vol. 110, no. 6, pp. 1343–1350, 2007. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at PubMed
  31. L. Dugoff, C. A. Stamm, O. W. Jones III, S. I. Mohling, and J. L. Hawkins, “The effect of spinal anesthesia on the success rate of external cephalic version: a randomized trial,” Obstetrics and Gynecology, vol. 93, no. 3, pp. 345–349, 1999. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  32. M. F. Delisle, A. Kamani, J. Douglas, and M. Bebbington, “Antepartum external cephalic version under spinal anesthesia: a randomized controlled trial,” American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, vol. 185, supplement 1, no. 6, p. S115, 2001. View at Google Scholar
  33. A. Hollard, C. Lyons, P. Rumney, M. Hunter, E. Reed, and M. Nageotte, “The effect of intrathecal anaesthesia on the success of external cephalic version (ECV),” American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, vol. 189, no. 6, p. S140, 2003. View at Google Scholar
  34. J. T. Sullivan, W. A. Grobman, J. R. Bauchat et al., “A randomized controlled trial of the effect of combined spinal-epidural analgesia on the success of external cephalic version for breech presentation,” International Journal of Obstetric Anesthesia, vol. 18, no. 4, pp. 328–334, 2009. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at PubMed
  35. T. M. Cook, D. Counsell, J. A. W. Wildsmith, and on behalf of The Royal College of Anaesthetists Third National Audit Project , “Major complications of central neuraxial block: report on the Third National Audit Project of the Royal College of Anaesthetists,” British Journal of Anaesthesia, vol. 102, no. 2, pp. 179–190, 2009. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at PubMed
  36. “Early External Cephalic Version 2 (ECV2) Trial,” http://www.utoronto.ca/miru/trials.html.
  37. G. J. Hofmeyr, “Effect of external cephalic version in late pregnancy on breech presentation and caesarean section rate: a controlled trial,” British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, vol. 90, no. 5, pp. 392–399, 1983. View at Google Scholar
  38. S. J. Carlan, J. M. Dent, T. Huckaby, E. C. Whittington, and D. Shaefer, “The effect of epidural anesthesia on safety and success of external cephalic version at term,” Anesthesia and Analgesia, vol. 79, no. 3, pp. 525–528, 1994. View at Google Scholar
  39. R. Neiger, M. Hennessy, and M. Patel, “Reattempting failed external cephalic version under epidural anaesthesia,” American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, vol. 178, no. 1, p. S71, 1998. View at Google Scholar
  40. R. Neiger, M. D. Hennessy, and M. Patel, “Reattempting failed external cephalic version under epidural anesthesia,” American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, vol. 179, no. 5, pp. 1136–1139, 1998. View at Google Scholar
  41. A. J. MacArthur, S. Gagnon, L. M. Tureanu, and K. N. Downey, “Anesthesia facilitation of external cephalic version: a meta-analysis,” American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, vol. 191, no. 4, pp. 1219–1224, 2004. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at PubMed
  42. G. Cherayil, B. Feinberg, J. Robinson, and L. C. Tsen, “Central neuraxial blockade promotes external cephalic version success after a failed attempt,” Anesthesia and Analgesia, vol. 94, no. 6, pp. 1589–1592, 2002. View at Google Scholar
  43. D. J. Birnbach, J. Matut, D. J. Stein et al., “The effect of intrathecal analgesia on the success of external cephalic version,” Anesthesia and Analgesia, vol. 93, no. 2, pp. 410–413, 2001. View at Google Scholar
  44. S. D. Pratt, “Anesthesia for breech presentation and multiple gestation,” Clinical Obstetrics and Gynecology, vol. 46, no. 3, pp. 711–729, 2003. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  45. S. D. Pratt, “External Cephalic Version under epidural anaesthesia: PRO,” Society for Obstetric Anaesthesia and Perinatology (SOAP) Newsletter Highlights, 2001, http://www.soap.org/newsletters/01-winter-spring.pdf.
  46. Health Resource Groups (HRG), The NHS Information Centre for Health and Social care, http://www.ic.nhs.uk/casemix.
  47. Health Resource Group 4 (HRG 4), The NHS Information Centre for Health and Social care, http://www.ic.nhs.uk/casemix.
  48. “Confirmation of Payment by Results (PbR) arrangements for 2009-10,” Department of Health, February 2009, http://www.dh.gov.uk/publications.
  49. J. G. Mauldin, P. D. Mauldin, T. I. Feng, E. K. Adams, and V. L. Durkalski, “Determining the clinical efficacy and cost savings of successful external cephalic version,” American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, vol. 175, no. 6, pp. 1639–1644, 1996. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  50. “Support and assurance using the Commissioning for Quality and Innovation (CQUIN) payment framework for the NHS in England 2009/10,” Produced by COI for the Department of Health, http://www.dh.gov.uk/publications.
  51. T. K. Lau, K. W. Lo, and M. Rogers, “Pregnancy outcome after successful external cephalic version for breech presentation at term,” American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, vol. 176, no. 1, pp. 218–223, 1997. View at Google Scholar