ArticleArchives of gynecology and obstetrics2025
Safety of vaginal breech delivery following an unsuccessful external cephalic version: a comparative study.
Article in Archives of gynecology and obstetrics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo determine whether patients undergoing a trial of labor with a breech presentation following a failed attempt of external cephalic version (ECV) are at increased risk of adverse maternal and neonatal outcomes.
methodsThis retrospective cohort study was conducted at a single university-affiliated medical center. The study group comprised women with singleton pregnancies at term, categorized into three groups: those who underwent a failed external cephalic version (ECV) and subsequently attempted a trial of breech delivery (Breech-failed-ECV group), those who attempted an assisted vaginal breech delivery without a prior ECV attempt (Breech-no-ECV group), and those with vertex presentation following a successful ECV (Vertex-ECV). The primary outcome measured was the mode of delivery. Secondary outcomes included adverse maternal and neonatal outcomes.
resultsThe study group consisted of 229 patients who attempted a vaginal delivery during the study period following a diagnosis of non-cephalic presentation at term. There were 42 women in the Breech failed-ECV group, 102 in the Breech-no-ECV group, and 85 in the Vertex-ECV group. Among patients undergoing a trial of labor with a breech presentation, there were no significant differences in successful vaginal delivery rates between those who had an attempted ECV and those who did not (80.39% vs. 80.95%, p > 0.05), nor in the rate of adverse maternal or neonatal outcomes between the groups. However, the Vertex-ECV were more likely to have a vaginal delivery (91.78 vs 80.56%, p = 0.03) and less likely to experience adverse neonatal outcomes, including meconium-stained amniotic fluid, non-reassuring fetal heart rate (NRFHR), compared to those who underwent labor with a breech presentation (p < 0.05).
conclusionsA failed external cephalic version does not adversely affect maternal or neonatal outcomes in patients undergoing a trial of labor with a breech presentation and meet the criteria of our study.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.