Breech birth at term: vaginal delivery or elective cesarean section? A systematic review of the literature by a Norwegian review team

References

• Gimovsky ML, Wallace RL, Schifrin BS, Paul RH. Randomized management of the nonfrank breech presentation at term: a preliminary report. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1983; 146: 34–40.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Collea JV, Chein C, Quilligan EJ. The randomized management of term frank breech presentation: a study of 208 cases. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1980; 137: 235–44.
   Google Scholar
• Hannah ME, Hannah WJ, Hewson SA, Hodnett ED, Saigal S, Willan AR. Planned caesarean section versus planned vaginal birth for breech presentation at term: a randomised multicentre trial. Lancet 2000; 356: 1375–83.
   Google Scholar
• Hannah ME, Hannah WJ, Hodnett ED, Chalmers B, Kung R, Willan A et al. Outcomes at 3 months after planned cesarean vs planned vaginal delivery for breech presentation at term: the international randomised Term Breech Trial. J Am Med Assoc 2002; 287: 1822–31.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Øian P, Albrectsen S, Berge LN, Børdal PE, Egeland T, Henriksen T et al. Fødsel av barn i seteleie til termin: Assistert vaginal fodsel eller keisersnitt. [Planned cesarean section for breech birth at term – systematic review.] SMM report no. 3, 2003.
   Google Scholar
• Krebs L, Topp M, Langhoff-Roos J. The relation of breech presentation at term to cerebral palsy. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1999; 106: 943–7.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Roman J, Bakos O, Cnattingius S. Pregnancy outcomes by mode of delivery among term breech births: Swedish experience 1987–1993. Obstet Gynecol 1998; 92: 945–50.
   Google Scholar
• Lindqvist A, Norden-Lindeberg S, Hanson U. Perinatal mortality and route of delivery in term breech presentations. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1997; 104: 1288–91.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Krebs L, Langhoff-Roos J, Weber T. Breech at term – mode of delivery? A register-based study. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 1995; 74: 702–6.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Luterkort M, Marsal K. Umbilical cord acid–base state and Apgar score in term breech neonates. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 1987; 66: 57–60.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Krebs L, Langhoff-Roos J. Breech delivery at term in Denmark, 1982–92: a population-based case-control study. Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol 1999; 13: 431–41.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Albrechtsen S, Rasmussen S, Reigstad H, Markestad T, Irgens LM, Dalaker K. Evaluation of a protocol for selecting fetuses in breech presentation for vaginal delivery or cesarean section. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1997; 177: 586–92.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Belfrage P, Gjessing L. The term breech presentation. A retrospective study with regard to the planned mode of delivery. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2002; 81: 544–50.
   Google Scholar
• Hofmeyr GJ, Kulier R. External cephalic version for breech presentation at term (Cochrane Review). In: The Cochrane Library, Issue 2. Oxford: Update Software, 2002.
   Google Scholar
• Hofmeyr GJ. Effect of external cephalic version in late pregnancy on breech presentation and caesarean section rate: a controlled trial. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1983; 90: 392–9.
   Google Scholar
• Mahomed K, Seeras R, Coulson R. External cephalic version at term. A randomized controlled trial using tocolysis. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1991; 98: 8–13.
   Google Scholar
• Lau TK, Lo KW, Rogers M. Pregnancy outcome after successful external cephalic version for breech presentation at term. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1997; 176: 218–23.
   Google Scholar
• Impey L, Lissoni D. Outcome of external cephalic version after 36 weeks gestation without tocolysis. J Matern Fetal Med 1999; 8: 203–7.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Morrison JC, Myatt RE, Martin JN, Meeks GR, Martin RW, Bucovaz ET et al. External cephalic version of the breech presentation under tocolysis. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1986; 154: 900–3.
   Google Scholar
• Stine LE, Phelan JP, Wallace R, Eglington GS, Van Dorsten JP, Schifrin BA. Update on external cephalic version performed at term. Obstet Gynecol 1985; 65: 642–6.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mauldin JG, Mauldin PD, Feng TI, Adams EK, Durkalski VL. Determining the clinical efficacy and cost savings of successful external cephalic version. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1996; 175: 1639–44.
   Google Scholar
• Mashiach R, Hod M, Kaplan B, Friedman S, Ovadia J, Schoenfeld A. External cephalic version at term using broad criteria: effect on mode of delivery. Clin Exp Obstet Gynecol 1995; 22: 279–84.
   Google Scholar
• Regalia AL, Curiel P, Natale N, Galluzzi A, Spinelli G, Ghezzi GV et al. Routine use of external cephalic version in three hospitals. Birth 2000; 27: 19–24.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Albrechtsen S, Nesheim B-I, Sande HA, Jenssen TA. Kapittel 39. Seteleie J: Dalaker K og medarbeidere (red). Norsk gynekologisk foreningVeileder i fødselshjelp 1998: Setefødsel. Oslo. Dennorske lægeforening. (In Norwegian; English version is available).
   Google Scholar
• A new System for grading recommendations in evidence based guidelines. http://www.sintef.no/SMM/Publikasjoner/Frameset Publikasjoner.htm.
   Google Scholar
• Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network. Br Med J 2001; 323: 334–6.
   Google Scholar