Matched cohort study of external cephalic version in women with previous cesarean delivery

Objective To evaluate the efficacy and safety of external cephalic version (ECV) among women with previous cesarean delivery. Methods A retrospective study was conducted using data for women with previous cesarean delivery and breech presentation who underwent ECV at or after 36 weeks of pregnancy d...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:International journal of gynecology and obstetrics 2017-07, Vol.138 (1), p.79-83
Main Authors: Keepanasseril, Anish, Anand, Keerthana, Soundara Raghavan, Subrahmanian
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Adult
Breech presentation
Breech Presentation - therapy
Cesarean Section
Cohort Studies
External cephalic version
Female
Humans
Pregnancy
Pregnancy Outcome
Previous cesarean delivery
Retrospective Studies
Vaginal Birth after Cesarean - methods
Version, Fetal
Young Adult
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Objective To evaluate the efficacy and safety of external cephalic version (ECV) among women with previous cesarean delivery. Methods A retrospective study was conducted using data for women with previous cesarean delivery and breech presentation who underwent ECV at or after 36 weeks of pregnancy during 2011–2016. For every case, two multiparous women without previous cesarean delivery who underwent ECV and were matched for age and pregnancy duration were included. Characteristics and outcomes were compared between groups. Results ECV was successful for 32 (84.2%) of 38 women with previous cesarean delivery and 62 (81.6%) in the control group (P=0.728). Multivariate regression analysis confirmed that previous cesarean was not associated with ECV success (odds ratio 1.89, 95% confidence interval 0.19–18.47; P=0.244). Successful vaginal delivery after successful ECV was reported for 19 (59.4%) women in the previous cesarean delivery group and 52 (83.9%) in the control group (P
ISSN:0020-7292
1879-3479
DOI:10.1002/ijgo.12169