Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-7c8c6479df-nwzlb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-03-28T20:01:14.791Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Chapter 11 - Breech and Twin Delivery

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 January 2017

Sir Sabaratnam Arulkumaran
Affiliation:
St George's Hospital Medical School, University of London
Get access

Summary

Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Chapter
Information
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2016

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Hannah, ME, Hannah, WJ, Hewson, SA, et al. Planned caesarean section versus planned vaginal birth for breech presentation at term: a randomised multicentre trial. Lancet. 2000; 356: 1375–83.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Viemmix, F, Bergenhenegouwen, L, Schaaf, JM, et al. Term breech deliveries in the Netherlands: did the increased caesarean section rate affect neonatal outcome? A population-based cohort study. Acta Obstet Gynaecol Scand. 2014; 93: 888–96.Google Scholar
Swedish Collaborative Breech Study Group. Term breech delivery in Sweden: mortality relative to fetal presentation and planned mode of delivery. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2005; 84: 593601.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hartnack Tharin, JE, Rasmussen, S, Krebs, L. Consequences of the Term Breech Trial in Denmark. Acta Obstet Gynaecol Scand. 2011; 90: 767–71.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Goffinet, F, Carayol, M, Foidart, JM, et al. Is planned vaginal delivery for breech presentation at term still an option? Results of an observational prospective survey in France and Belgium. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2006; 194: 1002–11.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vendittelli, F, Pons, JC, Lennery, D, Mamelle, N. The term breech presentation: neonatal results and obstetric practices in France. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2006; 125: 176–84.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vistad, I, Cvancarova, M, Hustad, BL, Henriksen, T. Vaginal breech delivery: results of a prospective registration study. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2013; 13, 153.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Michel, S, Drain, A, Closset, E, et al. Evaluation of a decision protocol for type of delivery of infants in breech presentation at term. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2011; 158, 194–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rietberg, CC, Elferink-Stinkens, PM, Visser, GHA. The effect of the Term Breech Trial on medical intervention behaviour and neonatal outcome in The Netherlands: an analysis of 35,453 term breech infants. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 2005; 112: 205–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Villar, J, Carroli, G, Zavaleta, N, et al. Maternal and neonatal individual risks and benefits associated with caesarean delivery: multicentre prospective study. Br Med J. 2007; 335: 1025–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hofmeyr, GJ, Impey, L. The Management of Breech Presentation. London: RCOG Press; 2006.Google Scholar
ACOG. Committee opinion no. 340: mode of term singleton breech delivery. Obstet Gynecol. 2006; 108: 235–7.Google Scholar
Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. Breech deliveries at term: College Statement No. C-Obs 11; 2005. www.ranzcog.edu.au/component/docman/doc_view/945-c-obs-11-management-of-term-breech-presentation-.html (accessed 16 May 2016).Google Scholar
SOGC. Vaginal delivery of breech presentation: Clinical Practice Guideline No. 226; 2009. www.sogc.org/guidelines/vaginal-delivery-of-breech-presentation (accessed 16 May 2016).Google Scholar
Hofmeyr, GJ, Kulier, R. External cephalic version for breech presentation at term. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 1996; 2: CD000083. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD000083.Google Scholar
Impey, L, Hofmeyr, GJ. External Cephalic Version and Reducing the Incidence of Breech Presentation. London: RCOG Press; 2006.Google Scholar
Cluver, C, Gyte, GM, Sinclair, M, Dowswell, T, Hofmeyr, GJ. Interventions for helping to turn term breech babies to head first presentation when using external cephalic version. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015; 9: CD000184.Google Scholar
Hutton, EK, Hannah, ME, Ross, SJ, et al. The Early External Cephalic Version (ECV) 2 Trial: an international multicentre randomised controlled trial of timing of ECV for breech pregnancies. BJOG. 2011; 118: 564–77.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Collaris, RJ, Guid Oei, S. External cephalic version: a safe procedure? A systematic review of version-related risks. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2004; 83: 511–18.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Burr, R, Helyer, P, Robson, SC. A training model for external cephalic version. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2001; 99: 199200.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Azria, E, Le Meaux, JP, Khoshnood, B, et al. Factors associated with advserse perinatal outcomes for term breech fetuses with planned vaginal delivery. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2012; 207: e19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Confidential Enquiry into Stillbirths and Deaths in Infancy. Breech Presentation at the Onset of Labour: 7th Annual Report. London: Maternal and Child Health Consortium; 2000.Google Scholar
Vranjes, M, Habek, D. Perinatal outcome in breech presentation depending on the mode of vaginal delivery. Fetal Diagn Ther. 2008; 23: 54–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kunzel, W, Kirschbaum, M. Management of vaginal delivery in breech presentation at term. In: European Practice in Gynaecology and Obstetrics: Breech Delivery (pp. 99126). Paris: Elsevier; 2002.Google Scholar
Baskett, TF, Calder, A, Arulkumaran, S. Breech delivery In: Munro Kerr's Operative Obstetrics (pp. 181–94). London: Saunders Elsevier; 2007.Google Scholar
Bogner, G, Strobl, M, Schausberger, C, et al. Breech delivery in the all fours position: a prospective observational comparative study with classic assistance. J Perinat Med. 2014; 43: 707–13.Google Scholar
Keily, JL. The epidemiology of perinatal mortality in multiple births. Bull NY Acad Med. 1990; 66: 618–37.Google Scholar
Hogle, KL, Hutton, EK, McBrien, KA, Barrett, JFR, Hannah, ME. Cesarean delivery for twins: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2003; 188: 220–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Smith, GC, Fleming, KM, White, IR. Birth order of twins and risk of perinatal death related to delivery in England, Northern Ireland, and Wales, 1994–2003: retrospective cohort study. Br Med J. 2007; 334: 576–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wen, SW, Fung, KFF, Oppenheimer, L, et al. Neonatal mortality in second twin according to cause of death, gestational age, and mode of delivery. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2004; 191: 778–83.Google ScholarPubMed
Sheay, W, Ananth, CV, Kinzler, WL. Perinatal mortality in first- and second-born twins in the United States. Obstet Gynecol. 2004; 103: 6370.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Armson, BA, O'Connell, C, Persad, V, et al. Determinants of perinatal mortality and serious neonatal morbidity in the second twin. Obstet Gynecol. 2006; 108 : 556–64.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wenckus, DJ, Gao, W, Kominiarek, MA, Wilkins, I. The effects of labor and delivery on maternal and neonatal outcomes in term twins: a retrospective cohort study. BJOG. 2014; 121: 1137–44.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Herbst, A, Källén, K. Influence of mode of delivery on neonatal mortality in the second twin, at and before term. BJOG. 2008 115: 1512–17.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vogel, JP, Holloway, E, Cuesta, C, et al. Outcomes of non-vertex second twins, following vertex vaginal delivery of first twin: a secondary analysis of the WHO Global Survey on maternal and perinatal health. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2014; 14: 55.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rossi, AC, Mullin, PM, Chmait, RH. Neonatal outcomes of twins according to birth order, presentation and mode of delivery: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BJOG. 2011; 118: 523–32.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Barrett, JF, Hannah, ME, Hutton, EK, et al. A randomized trial of planned cesarean or vaginal delivery for twin pregnancy. N Engl J Med. 2013; 369: 1295–305.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Steins Bisschop, CN, Vogelvang, TE, May, AM, Schuitemaker NW. Mode of delivery in non-cephalic presenting twins: a systematic review. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2012; 286: 237–47.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vayssière, C, Benoist, G, Blondel, B, et al. Twin pregnancies: guidelines for clinical practice from the French College of Gynecologists and Obstetricians (CNGOF). Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2011; 156: 1217.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Visintin, C, Mugglestone, MA, James, D, Kilby, MD. Antenatal care for twin and triplet pregnancies: summary of NICE guidance. BMJ. 2011; 343: d5714.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stein, W, Misselwitz, B, Schmidt, S. Twin-to-twin delivery time interval: influencing factors and effect on short-term outcome of the second twin. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2008; 87: 346–53.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Algert, CS, Morris, JM, Bowen, JR, Giles, W, Roberts, CL Twin deliveries and place of birth in NSW 2001–2005. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 2009; 49: 461–6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Leftwich, HK, Zaki, MN, Wilkins, I, Hibbard, JU. Labor patterns in twin gestations. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2013; 209: e15.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Turton, P, Arrowsmith, S, Prescott, J, et al. A comparison of the contractile properties of myometrium from singleton and twin pregnancies. PLoS One. 2013; 8: e63800.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fox, NS, Silverstein, M, Bender, S, et al. Active second-stage management in twin pregnancies undergoing planned vaginal delivery in a U.S. population. Obstet Gynecol. 2010; 115: 229–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cruikshank, DP. Intrapartum management of twin gestations. Obstet Gynecol. 2007; 109: 1167–76.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jonsdottir, F, Henriksen, L, Secher, NJ, Maaløe, N. Does internal podalic version of the non-vertex second twin still have a place in obstetrics? A Danish national retrospective cohort study. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2015; 94: 5964.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Baskett, TF, Calder, A, Arulkumaran, S. Procedures and techniques: acute tocolysis. In: Munro Kerr's Operative Obstetrics (pp. 285–8). London: Saunders Elsevier; 2007.Google Scholar
Rabinovici, J, Barkai, G, Reichman, B, Serr, DM, Mashiach, S. Internal podalic version with unruptured membranes for the second twin in transverse lie. Obstet Gynecol. 1988; 71: 428–30.Google ScholarPubMed
Leung, TY, Tam, WH, Leung, TN, Lok, IH, Lau, TK. Effect of twin-to-twin delivery interval on umbilical cord blood gas in the second twins. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 2002; 109: 63–7.Google ScholarPubMed
Confidential Enquiry into Stillbirths and Deaths in Infancy. Survival Rates of Babies Born Between 27 and 28 Weeks’ Gestation in England, Wales and Northern Ireland 1998–2000: 8th Annual Report. London: Maternal and Child Health Consortium; 2002.Google Scholar
Reddy, UM, Zhang, J, Sun, L, et al. Neonatal mortality by attempted route of delivery in early preterm birth. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2012; 207: e18.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bergenhenegouwen, LA, Meertens, LJ, Schaaf, J, et al. Vaginal delivery versus caesarean section in preterm breech delivery: a systematic review. Eur J Obstet Gynaecol Reprod Biol. 2014; 172: 16.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rydhstrom, H. Prognosis for twins with birth weight less than 1500 g: the impact of caesarean section in relation to fetal presentation. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1999; 163: 528–33.Google Scholar
Zhang, J, Bowes, WA, Grey, TW, McMahon, MJ. Twin delivery and neonatal and infant mortality: a population-based study. Obstet Gynecol. 1996; 88: 593–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×