breech presentation and longitudinal lie

Enter search terms to find related medical topics, multimedia and more.

Advanced Search:

  • Use “ “ for exact phrases.
  • For example: “pediatric abdominal pain”
  • Use – to remove results with certain keywords.
  • For example: abdominal pain -pediatric
  • Use OR to account for alternate keywords.
  • For example: teenager OR adolescent

Fetal Presentation, Position, and Lie (Including Breech Presentation)

, MD, Children's Hospital of Philadelphia

Variations in Fetal Position and Presentation

  • 3D Models (0)
  • Calculators (0)
  • Lab Test (0)

breech presentation and longitudinal lie

Presentation refers to the part of the fetus’s body that leads the way out through the birth canal (called the presenting part). Usually, the head leads the way, but sometimes the buttocks (breech presentation), shoulder, or face leads the way.

Position refers to whether the fetus is facing backward (occiput anterior) or forward (occiput posterior). The occiput is a bone at the back of the baby's head. Therefore, facing backward is called occiput anterior (facing the mother’s back and facing down when the mother lies on her back). Facing forward is called occiput posterior (facing toward the mother's pubic bone and facing up when the mother lies on her back).

Lie refers to the angle of the fetus in relation to the mother and the uterus. Up-and-down (with the baby's spine parallel to mother's spine, called longitudinal) is normal, but sometimes the lie is sideways (transverse) or at an angle (oblique).

For these aspects of fetal positioning, the combination that is the most common, safest, and easiest for the mother to deliver is the following:

Head first (called vertex or cephalic presentation)

Facing backward (occiput anterior position)

Spine parallel to mother's spine (longitudinal lie)

Neck bent forward with chin tucked

Arms folded across the chest

If the fetus is in a different position, lie, or presentation, labor may be more difficult, and a normal vaginal delivery may not be possible.

Variations in fetal presentation, position, or lie may occur when

The fetus is too large for the mother's pelvis (fetopelvic disproportion).

Uterine Fibroids

The fetus has a birth defect Overview of Birth Defects Birth defects, also called congenital anomalies, are physical abnormalities that occur before a baby is born. They are usually obvious within the first year of life. The cause of many birth... read more .

There is more than one fetus (multiple gestation).

breech presentation and longitudinal lie

Position and Presentation of the Fetus

Some variations in position and presentation that make delivery difficult occur frequently.

Occiput posterior position

In occiput posterior position (sometimes called sunny-side up), the fetus is head first (vertex presentation) but is facing forward (toward the mother's pubic bone—that is, facing up when the mother lies on her back). This is a very common position that is not abnormal, but it makes delivery more difficult than when the fetus is in the occiput anterior position (facing toward the mother's spine—that is facing down when the mother lies on her back).

Breech presentation

In breech presentation, the baby's buttocks or sometimes the feet are positioned to deliver first (before the head).

When delivered vaginally, babies that present buttocks first are more at risk of injury or even death than those that present head first.

The reason for the risks to babies in breech presentation is that the baby's hips and buttocks are not as wide as the head. Therefore, when the hips and buttocks pass through the cervix first, the passageway may not be wide enough for the head to pass through. In addition, when the head follows the buttocks, the neck may be bent slightly backwards. The neck being bent backward increases the width required for delivery as compared to when the head is angled forward with the chin tucked, which is the position that is easiest for delivery. Thus, the baby’s body may be delivered and then the head may get caught and not be able to pass through the birth canal. When the baby’s head is caught, this puts pressure on the umbilical cord in the birth canal, so that very little oxygen can reach the baby. Brain damage due to lack of oxygen is more common among breech babies than among those presenting head first.

Breech presentation is more likely to occur in the following circumstances:

Labor starts too soon (preterm labor).

Sometimes the doctor can turn the fetus to be head first before labor begins by doing a procedure that involves pressing on the pregnant woman’s abdomen and trying to turn the baby around. Trying to turn the baby is called an external cephalic version and is usually done at 37 or 38 weeks of pregnancy. Sometimes women are given a medication (such as terbutaline ) during the procedure to prevent contractions.

Other presentations

In face presentation, the baby's neck arches back so that the face presents first rather than the top of the head.

In brow presentation, the neck is moderately arched so that the brow presents first.

Usually, fetuses do not stay in a face or brow presentation. These presentations often change to a vertex (top of the head) presentation before or during labor. If they do not, a cesarean delivery is usually recommended.

In transverse lie, the fetus lies horizontally across the birth canal and presents shoulder first. A cesarean delivery is done, unless the fetus is the second in a set of twins. In such a case, the fetus may be turned to be delivered through the vagina.

Drugs Mentioned In This Article

breech presentation and longitudinal lie

Was This Page Helpful?

quiz link

Test your knowledge

Brought to you by Merck & Co, Inc., Rahway, NJ, USA (known as MSD outside the US and Canada)—dedicated to using leading-edge science to save and improve lives around the world. Learn more about the Merck Manuals and our commitment to Global Medical Knowledge .

  • Permissions
  • Cookie Settings
  • Terms of use
  • Veterinary Edition

This icon serves as a link to download the eSSENTIAL Accessibility assistive technology app for individuals with physical disabilities. It is featured as part of our commitment to diversity and inclusion. M

  • IN THIS TOPIC

U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it's official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you're on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

  • Publications
  • Account settings
  • Browse Titles

NCBI Bookshelf. A service of the National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health.

Cover of Management of breech presentation

  • Management of breech presentation

Evidence review M

NICE Guideline, No. 201

National Guideline Alliance (UK) .

  • Copyright and Permissions

Review question

What is the most effective way of managing a longitudinal lie fetal malpresentation (breech presentation) in late pregnancy?

Introduction

Breech presentation of the fetus in late pregnancy may result in prolonged or obstructed labour with resulting risks to both woman and fetus. Interventions to correct breech presentation (to cephalic) before labour and birth are important for the woman’s and the baby’s health. The aim of this review is to determine the most effective way of managing a breech presentation in late pregnancy.

Summary of the protocol

Please see Table 1 for a summary of the Population, Intervention, Comparison and Outcome (PICO) characteristics of this review.

Table 1. Summary of the protocol (PICO table).

Summary of the protocol (PICO table).

For further details see the review protocol in appendix A .

Methods and process

This evidence review was developed using the methods and process described in Developing NICE guidelines: the manual 2014 . Methods specific to this review question are described in the review protocol in appendix A .

Declarations of interest were recorded according to NICE’s conflicts of interest policy .

Clinical evidence

Included studies.

Thirty-six randomised controlled trials (RCTs) were identified for this review.

The included studies are summarised in Table 2 .

Three studies reported on external cephalic version (ECV) versus no intervention ( Dafallah 2004 , Hofmeyr 1983 , Rita 2011 ). One study reported on a 4-arm trial comparing acupuncture, sweeping of fetal membranes, acupuncture plus sweeping, and no intervention ( Andersen 2013 ). Two studies reported on postural management versus no intervention ( Chenia 1987 , Smith 1999 ).

Seven studies reported on ECV plus anaesthesia ( Chalifoux 2017 , Dugoff 1999 , Khaw 2015 , Mancuso 2000 , Schorr 1997 , Sullivan 2009 , Weiniger 2010 ). Of these studies, 1 study compared ECV plus anaesthesia to ECV plus other dosages of the same anaesthetic ( Chalifoux 2017 ); 4 studies compared ECV plus anaesthesia to ECV only ( Dugoff 1999 , Mancuso 2000 , Schorr 1997 , Weiniger 2010 ); and 2 studies compared ECV plus anaesthesia to ECV plus a different anaesthetic ( Khaw 2015 , Sullivan 2009 ).

Ten studies reported ECV plus a β2 receptor agonist ( Brocks 1984 , Fernandez 1997 , Hindawi 2005 , Impey 2005 , Mahomed 1991 , Marquette 1996 , Nor Azlin 2005 , Robertson 1987 , Van Dorsten 1981 , Vani 2009 ). Of these studies, 5 studies compared ECV plus a β2 receptor agonist to ECV plus placebo ( Fernandez 1997 , Impey 2005 , Marquette 1996 , Nor Azlin 2005 , Vani 2009 ); 1 study compared ECV plus a β2 receptor agonist to ECV alone ( Robertson 1987 ); and 4 studies compared ECV plus a β2 receptor agonist to no intervention ( Brocks 1984 , Hindawi 2005 , Mahomed 1991 , Van Dorsten 1981 ).

One study reported on ECV plus Ca 2+ channel blocker versus ECV plus placebo ( Kok 2008 ). Two studies reported on ECV plus β2 receptor agonist versus ECV plus Ca 2+ channel blocker ( Collaris 2009 , Mohamed Ismail 2008 ). Four studies reported on ECV plus a µ-receptor agonist ( Burgos 2016 , Liu 2016 , Munoz 2014 , Wang 2017 ), of which 3 compared against ECV plus placebo ( Liu 2016 , Munoz 2014 , Wang 2017 ) and 1 compared to ECV plus nitrous oxide ( Burgos 2016 ).

Four studies reported on ECV plus nitroglycerin ( Bujold 2003a , Bujold 2003b , El-Sayed 2004 , Hilton 2009 ), of which 2 compared it to ECV plus β2 receptor agonist ( Bujold 2003b , El-Sayed 2004 ) and compared it to ECV plus placebo ( Bujold 2003a , Hilton 2009 ). One study compared ECV plus amnioinfusion versus ECV alone ( Diguisto 2018 ) and 1 study compared ECV plus talcum powder to ECV plus gel ( Vallikkannu 2014 ).

One study was conducted in Australia ( Smith 1999 ); 4 studies in Canada ( Bujold 2003a , Bujold 2003b , Hilton 2009 , Marquette 1996 ); 2 studies in China ( Liu 2016 , Wang 2017 ); 2 studies in Denmark ( Andersen 2013 , Brocks 1984 ); 1 study in France ( Diguisto 2018 ); 1 study in Hong Kong ( Khaw 2015 ); 1 study in India ( Rita 2011 ); 1 study in Israel ( Weiniger 2010 ); 1 study in Jordan ( Hindawi 2005 ); 5 studies in Malaysia ( Collaris 2009 , Mohamed Ismail 2008 , Nor Azlin 2005 , Vallikkannu 2014 , Vani 2009 ); 1 study in South Africa ( Hofmeyr 1983 ); 2 studies in Spain ( Burgos 2016 , Munoz 2014 ); 1 study in Sudan ( Dafallah 2004 ); 1 study in The Netherlands ( Kok 2008 ); 2 studies in the UK ( Impey 2005 , Chenia 1987 ); 9 studies in US ( Chalifoux 2017 , Dugoff 1999 , El-Sayed 2004 , Fernandez 1997 , Mancuso 2000 , Robertson 1987 , Schorr 1997 , Sullivan 2009 , Van Dorsten 1981 ); and 1 study in Zimbabwe ( Mahomed 1991 ).

The majority of studies were 2-arm trials, but there was one 3-arm trial ( Khaw 2015 ) and two 4-arm trials ( Andersen 2013 , Chalifoux 2017 ). All studies were conducted in a hospital or an outpatient ward connected to a hospital.

See the literature search strategy in appendix B and study selection flow chart in appendix C .

Excluded studies

Studies not included in this review with reasons for their exclusions are provided in appendix K .

Summary of clinical studies included in the evidence review

Summaries of the studies that were included in this review are presented in Table 2 .

Table 2. Summary of included studies.

Summary of included studies.

See the full evidence tables in appendix D and the forest plots in appendix E .

Quality assessment of clinical outcomes included in the evidence review

See the evidence profiles in appendix F .

Economic evidence

A systematic review of the economic literature was conducted but no economic studies were identified which were applicable to this review question.

A single economic search was undertaken for all topics included in the scope of this guideline. See supplementary material 2 for details.

Economic studies not included in this review are listed, and reasons for their exclusion are provided in appendix K .

Summary of studies included in the economic evidence review

No economic studies were identified which were applicable to this review question.

Economic model

No economic modelling was undertaken for this review because the committee agreed that other topics were higher priorities for economic evaluation.

Evidence statements

Clinical evidence statements, comparison 1. complementary therapy versus control (no intervention), critical outcomes, cephalic presentation in labour.

No evidence was identified to inform this outcome.

Method of birth

Caesarean section.

  • Very low quality evidence from 1 RCT (N=204) showed that there is no clinically important difference between acupuncture and control (no intervention) on the number of caesarean sections in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 0.74 (95% CI 0.38 to 1.43).
  • Very low quality evidence from 1 RCT (N=200) showed that there is no clinically important difference between acupuncture plus membrane sweeping and control (no intervention) on the number of caesarean sections in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 1.29 (95% CI 0.73 to 2.29).

Admission to SCBU/NICU

  • Very low quality evidence from 1 RCT (N=204) showed that there is no clinically important difference between acupuncture and control (no intervention) on admission to SCBU/NICU in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 0.19 (95% CI 0.02 to 1.62).
  • Very low quality evidence from 1 RCT (N=200) showed that there is no clinically important difference between acupuncture plus membrane sweeping and control (no intervention) on admission to SCBU/NICU in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 0.40 (0.08 to 2.01).

Fetal death after 36 +0 weeks gestation

Infant death up to 4 weeks chronological age, important outcomes, apgar score <7 at 5 minutes.

  • Very low quality evidence from 1 RCT (N=204) showed that there is no clinically important difference between acupuncture and control (no intervention) on Apgar score <7 at 5 minutes in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 0.32 (95% CI 0.01 to 7.78).
  • Very low quality evidence from 1 RCT (N=200) showed that there is no clinically important difference between acupuncture plus membrane sweeping and control (no intervention) on Apgar score <7 at 5 minutes in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 0.33 (0.01 to 8.09).

Birth before 39 +0 weeks of gestation

Comparison 2. complementary therapy versus other treatment.

  • Low quality evidence from 1 RCT (N=207) showed that there is no clinically important difference between acupuncture and membrane sweeping on the number of caesarean sections in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 0.64 (95% CI 0.34 to 1.22).
  • Low quality evidence from 1 RCT (N=204) showed that there is no clinically important difference between acupuncture and acupuncture plus membrane sweeping on the number of caesarean sections in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 0.57 (95% CI 0.30 to 1.07).
  • Very low quality evidence from 1 RCT (N=203) showed that there is no clinically important difference between acupuncture plus membrane sweeping and membrane sweeping on the number of caesarean sections in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 1.13 (95% CI 0.66 to 1.94).
  • Very low quality evidence from 1 RCT (N=207) showed that there is no clinically important difference between acupuncture and membrane sweeping on admission to SCBU/NICU in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 0.33 (95% CI 0.03 to 3.12).
  • Very low quality evidence from 1 RCT (N=204) showed that there is no clinically important difference between acupuncture and acupuncture plus membrane sweeping on admission to SCBU/NICU in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 0.48 (95% CI 0.04 to 5.22).
  • Very low quality evidence from 1 RCT (N=203) showed that there is no clinically important difference between acupuncture plus membrane sweeping and membrane sweeping on admission to SCBU/NICU in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 0.69 (95% CI 0.12 to 4.02).
  • Low quality evidence from 1 RCT (N=207) showed that there is no clinically important difference between acupuncture and membrane sweeping on Apgar score <7 at 5 minutes in pregnant women with breech presentation: RD 0.00 (95% CI −0.02 to 0.02).
  • Low quality evidence from 1 RCT (N=204) showed that there is no clinically important difference between acupuncture and acupuncture plus membrane sweeping on Apgar score <7 at 5 minutes in pregnant women with breech presentation: RD 0.00 (95% CI −0.02 to 0.02).
  • Low quality evidence from 1 RCT (N=203) showed that there is no clinically important difference between acupuncture plus membrane sweeping and membrane sweeping on Apgar score <7 at 5 minutes in pregnant women with breech presentation: RD 0.00 (95% CI −0.02 to 0.02).

Comparison 3. ECV versus no ECV

  • Moderate quality evidence from 2 RCTs (N=680) showed that there is clinically important difference favouring ECV over no ECV on cephalic presentation in labour in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 1.83 (95% CI 1.53 to 2.18).

Cephalic vaginal birth

  • Very low quality evidence from 3 RCTs (N=740) showed that there is a clinically important difference favouring ECV over no ECV on cephalic vaginal birth in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 1.67 (95% CI 1.20 to 2.31).

Breech vaginal birth

  • Very low quality evidence from 2 RCTs (N=680) showed that there is no clinically important difference between ECV and no ECV on breech vaginal birth in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 0.29 (95% CI 0.03 to 2.84).
  • Very low quality evidence from 3 RCTs (N=740) showed that there is no clinically important difference between ECV and no ECV on the number of caesarean sections in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 0.52 (95% CI 0.23 to 1.20).
  • Very low quality evidence from 1 RCT (N=60) showed that there is no clinically important difference between ECV and no ECV on admission to SCBU//NICU in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 0.50 (95% CI 0.14 to 1.82).
  • Very low evidence from 3 RCTs (N=740) showed that there is no statistically significant difference between ECV and no ECV on fetal death after 36 +0 weeks gestation in pregnant women with breech presentation: Peto OR 0.29 (95% CI 0.05 to 1.73) p=0.18.
  • Very low quality evidence from 2 RCTs (N=120) showed that there is no clinically important difference between ECV and no ECV on Apgar score <7 at 5 minutes in pregnant women with breech presentation: Peto OR 0.28 (95% CI 0.04 to 1.70).

Comparison 4. ECV + Amnioinfusion versus ECV only

  • Very low quality evidence from 1 RCT (N=109) showed that there is no clinically important difference between ECV plus amnioinfusion and ECV alone on cephalic presentation in labour in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 1.74 (95% CI 0.74 to 4.12).
  • Low quality evidence from 1 RCT (N=109) showed that there is no clinically important difference between ECV plus amnioinfusion and ECV alone on the number of caesarean sections in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 0.95 (95% CI 0.75 to 1.19).

Comparison 5. ECV + Anaesthesia versus ECV only

  • Very low quality evidence from 2 RCTs (N=210) showed that there is no clinically important difference between ECV plus anaesthesia and ECV alone on cephalic presentation in labour in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 1.16 (95% CI 0.56 to 2.41).
  • Very low quality evidence from 5 RCTs (N=435) showed that there is no clinically important difference between ECV plus anaesthesia and ECV alone on cephalic vaginal birth in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 1.16 (95% CI 0.77 to 1.74).
  • Very low quality evidence from 1 RCT (N=108) showed that there is no clinically important difference between ECV plus anaesthesia and ECV alone on breech vaginal birth in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 0.33 (95% CI 0.04 to 3.10).
  • Very low quality evidence from 3 RCTs (N=263) showed that there is no clinically important difference between ECV plus anaesthesia and ECV alone on the number of caesarean sections in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 0.76 (95% CI 0.42 to 1.38).
  • Moderate quality evidence from 1 RCT (N=69) showed that there is a clinically important difference favouring ECV plus anaesthesia over ECV alone on admission to SCBU/NICU in pregnant women with breech presentation: MD −1.80 (95% CI −2.53 to −1.07).
  • Low quality evidence from 1 RCT (N=126) showed that there is no clinically important difference between ECV plus anaesthesia and ECV alone on Apgar score <7 at 5 minutes in pregnant women with breech presentation: RD 0.00 (95% CI −0.03 to 0.03).

Comparison 6. ECV + Anaesthesia versus ECV + Anaesthesia

  • Very low quality evidence from 1 RCT (N=120) showed that there is no clinically important difference between ECV plus 2.5mg Bupivacaine plus 0.015mg Fentanyl and ECV plus 5mg Bupivacaine plus 0.015mg Fentanyl on cephalic vaginal birth in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 1.13 (95% CI 0.73 to 1.74).
  • Low quality evidence from 1 RCT (N=119) showed that there is no clinically important difference between ECV plus 2.5mg Bupivacaine plus 0.015mg Fentanyl and ECV plus 7.5mg Bupivacaine plus 0.015mg Fentanyl on cephalic vaginal birth in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 0.81 (95% CI 0.53 to 1.23).
  • Very low quality evidence from 1 RCT (N=120) showed that there is no clinically important difference between ECV plus 2.5mg Bupivacaine plus 0.015mg Fentanyl and ECV plus 10mg Bupivacaine plus 0.015mg Fentanyl on cephalic vaginal birth in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 0.96 (95% CI 0.61 to 1.50).
  • Very low quality evidence from 1 RCT (N=95) showed that there is no clinically important difference between ECV plus 2.5mg Bupivacaine plus 0.015mg Fentanyl and ECV plus 0.05mg Fentanyl on cephalic vaginal birth in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 0.69 (95% CI 0.37 to 1.28).
  • Low quality evidence from 1 RCT (N=119) showed that there is no clinically important difference between ECV plus 5mg Bupivacaine plus 0.015mg Fentanyl and ECV plus 7.5mg Bupivacaine plus 0.015mg Fentanyl on cephalic vaginal birth in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 0.81 (95% CI 0.53 to 1.23).
  • Very low quality evidence from 1 RCT (N=120) showed that there is no clinically important difference between ECV plus 5mg Bupivacaine plus 0.015mg Fentanyl and ECV plus 10mg Bupivacaine plus 0.015mg Fentanyl on cephalic vaginal birth in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 0.96 (95% CI 0.61 to 1.50).
  • Very low evidence from 1 RCT (N=119) showed that there is no clinically important difference between ECV plus 7.5mg Bupivacaine plus 0.015mg Fentanyl and ECV plus 10mg Bupivacaine plus 0.015mg Fentanyl on cephalic vaginal birth in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 1.19 (95% CI 0.79 to 1.79).
  • Low quality evidence from 1 RCT (N=120) showed that there is no clinically important difference between ECV plus 2.5mg Bupivacaine plus 0.015mg Fentanyl and ECV plus 5mg Bupivacaine plus 0.015mg Fentanyl on the number of caesarean sections in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 0.92 (95% CI 0.68 to 1.24).
  • Very low evidence from 1 RCT (N=119) showed that there is no clinically important difference between ECV plus 2.5mg Bupivacaine plus 0.015mg Fentanyl and ECV plus 7.5mg Bupivacaine plus 0.015mg Fentanyl on the number of caesarean sections in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 1.08 (95% CI 0.78 to 1.50).
  • Very low evidence from 1 RCT (N=120) showed that there is no clinically important difference between ECV plus 2.5mg Bupivacaine plus 0.015mg Fentanyl and ECV plus 10mg Bupivacaine plus 0.015mg Fentanyl on the number of caesarean sections in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 0.94 (95% CI 0.70 to 1.28).
  • Low quality evidence from 1 RCT (N=119) showed that there is no clinically important difference between ECV plus 5mg Bupivacaine plus 0.015mg Fentanyl and ECV plus 7.5mg Bupivacaine plus 0.015mg Fentanyl on the number of caesarean sections in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 1.17 (95% CI 0.86 to 1.61).
  • Very low quality evidence from 1 RCT (N=120) showed that there is no clinically important difference between ECV plus 5mg Bupivacaine plus 0.015mg Fentanyl and ECV plus 10mg Bupivacaine plus 0.015mg Fentanyl on the number of caesarean sections in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 1.03 (95% CI 0.77 to 1.37).
  • Low quality evidence from 1 RCT (N=119) showed that there is no clinically important difference between ECV plus 7.5mg Bupivacaine plus 0.015mg Fentanyl and ECV plus 10mg Bupivacaine plus 0.015mg Fentanyl on the number of caesarean sections in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 0.88 (95% CI 0.64 to 1.20).

Comparison 7. ECV + β2 agonist versus Control (no intervention)

  • Moderate quality evidence from 2 RCTs (N=256) showed that there is a clinically important difference favouring ECV plus β2 agonist over control (no intervention) on cephalic presentation in labour in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 4.83 (95% CI 3.27 to 7.11).
  • Very low quality evidence from 3 RCTs (N=265) showed that there no clinically important difference between ECV plus β2 agonist and control (no intervention) on cephalic vaginal birth in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 2.03 (95% CI 0.22 to 19.01).
  • Very low quality evidence from 4 RCTs (N=513) showed that there is a clinically important difference favouring ECV plus β2 agonist over control (no intervention) on breech vaginal birth in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 0.38 (95% CI 0.20 to 0.69).
  • Low quality evidence from 4 RCTs (N=513) showed that there is a clinically important difference favouring ECV plus β2 agonist over control (no intervention) on the number of caesarean sections in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 0.53 (95% CI 0.41 to 0.67).
  • Very low quality evidence from 1 RCT (N=48) showed that there is no clinically important difference between ECV plus β2 agonist and control (no intervention) on admission to SCBU/NICU in pregnant women with breech presentation: RD 0.00 (95% CI −0.08 to 0.08).
  • Very low quality evidence from 3 RCTs (N=208) showed that there is no statistically significant difference between ECV plus β2 agonist and control (no intervention) on fetal death after 36 +0 weeks gestation in pregnant women with breech presentation: RD −0.01 (95% CI −0.03 to 0.01) p=0.66.
  • Very low quality evidence from 2 RCTs (N=208) showed that there is no clinically important difference between ECV plus β2 agonist and control (no intervention) on Apgar score <7 at 5 minutes in pregnant women with breech presentation: Peto OR 0.80 (95% CI 0.31 to 2.10).

Comparison 8. ECV + β2 agonist versus ECV only

  • Very low quality evidence from 2 RCTs (N=172) showed that there is no clinically important difference between ECV plus β2 agonist and ECV only on cephalic vaginal birth in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 1.32 (95% CI 0.67 to 2.62).
  • Very low quality evidence from 1 RCT (N=58) showed that there is no clinically important difference between ECV plus β2 agonist and ECV only on breech vaginal birth in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 0.75 (95% CI 0.22 to 2.50).
  • Very low quality evidence from 2 RCTs (N=172) showed that there is no clinically important difference between ECV plus β2 agonist and ECV only on the number of caesarean sections in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 0.79 (95% CI 0.27 to 2.28).
  • Very low quality evidence from 1 RCT (N=114) showed that there is no clinically important difference between ECV plus β2 agonist and ECV only on admission to SCBU/NICU in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 1.00 (95% CI 0.21 to 4.75).

Comparison 9. ECV + β2 agonist versus ECV + Placebo

  • Very low quality evidence from 2 RCTs (N=146) showed that there is no clinically important difference between ECV plus β2 agonist and ECV plus placebo on cephalic presentation in labour in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 1.54 (95% CI 0.24 to 9.76).
  • Very low quality evidence from 2 RCTs (N=125) showed that there is no clinically important difference between ECV plus β2 agonist and ECV plus placebo on cephalic vaginal birth in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 1.27 (95% CI 0.41 to 3.89).
  • Very low quality evidence from 2 RCTs (N=227) showed that there is no clinically important difference between ECV plus β2 agonist and ECV plus placebo on breech vaginal birth in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 1.00 (95% CI 0.33 to 2.97).
  • Low quality evidence from 4 RCTs (N=532) showed that there is no clinically important difference between ECV plus β2 agonist and ECV plus placebo on the number of caesarean sections in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 0.81 (95% CI 0.72 to 0.92)
  • Very low quality evidence from 2 RCTs (N=146) showed that there is no clinically important difference between ECV plus β2 agonist and ECV plus placebo on admission to SCBU/NICU in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 0.78 (95% CI 0.17 to 3.63).
  • Very low quality evidence from 1 RCT (N=124) showed that there is no clinically important difference between ECV plus β2 agonist and ECV plus placebo on Apgar score <7 at 5 minutes in pregnant women with breech presentation: RD 0.00 (95% CI −0.03 to 0.03).

Comparison 10. ECV + Ca 2+ channel blocker versus ECV + Placebo

  • Moderate quality evidence from 1 RCT (N=310) showed that there is no clinically important difference between ECV plus Ca 2+ channel blocker and ECV plus placebo on cephalic presentation in labour in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 1.13 (95% CI 0.87 to 1.48).
  • Moderate quality evidence from 1 RCT (N=310) showed that there is no clinically important difference between ECV plus Ca 2+ channel blocker and ECV plus placebo on cephalic vaginal birth in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 0.90 (95% CI 0.73 to 1.12).
  • Moderate quality evidence from 1 RCT (N=310) showed that there is no clinically important difference between ECV plus Ca 2+ channel blocker and ECV plus placebo on the number of caesarean sections in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 1.11 (95% CI 0.88 to 1.40).
  • High quality evidence from 1 RCT (N=310) showed that there is no clinically important difference between ECV plus Ca 2+ channel blocker and ECV plus placebo on admission to SCBU/NICU in pregnant women with breech presentation: MD −0.20 (95% CI −0.70 to 0.30).
  • Moderate quality evidence from 1 RCT (N=310) showed that there is no statistically significant difference between ECV plus Ca 2+ channel blocker and ECV plus placebo on fetal death after 36 +0 weeks gestation in pregnant women with breech presentation: RD 0.00 (95% CI −0.01 to 0.01) p=1.00.
  • Low quality evidence from 1 RCT (N=310) showed that there is no clinically important difference between ECV plus Ca 2+ channel blocker and ECV plus placebo on Apgar score <7 at 5 minutes in pregnant women with breech presentation: Peto OR 0.52 (95% 0.05 to 5.02).

Comparison 11. ECV + Ca2+ channel blocker versus ECV + β2 agonist

  • Low quality evidence from 1 RCT (N=90) showed that there is a clinically important difference favouring ECV plus β2 agonist over ECV plus Ca 2+ channel blocker on cephalic presentation in labour in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 0.62 (95% CI 0.39 to 0.98).
  • Very low quality evidence from 2 RCTs (N=126) showed that there is no clinically important difference between ECV plus Ca 2+ channel blocker and ECV plus β2 agonist on cephalic vaginal birth in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 1.26 (95% CI 0.55 to 2.89).
  • Very low quality evidence from 2 RCTs (N=132) showed that there is a clinically important difference favouring ECV plus β2 agonist over ECV plus Ca 2+ channel blocker on the number of caesarean sections in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 1.42 (95% CI 1.06 to 1.91).
  • Very low quality evidence from 2 RCTs (N=176) showed that there is no clinically important difference between ECV plus Ca 2+ channel blocker and ECV plus β2 agonist on admission to SCBU/NICU in pregnant women with breech presentation: Peto OR 0.53 (95% CI 0.05 to 5.22).
  • Very low quality evidence from 2 RCTs (N=176) showed that there is no clinically important difference between ECV plus Ca 2+ channel blocker and ECV plus β2 agonist on Apgar score <7 at 5 minutes in pregnant women with breech presentation: RD 0.00 (95% CI −0.03 to 0.03).

Comparison 12. ECV + µ-receptor agonist versus ECV only

  • High quality evidence from 1 RCT (N=80) showed that there is no clinically important difference between ECV plus µ-receptor agonist and ECV alone on cephalic vaginal birth in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 1.00 (95% CI 0.80 to 1.24).
  • Low quality evidence from 1 RCT (N=80) showed that there is no clinically important difference between ECV plus µ-receptor agonist and ECV alone on the number of caesarean sections in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 1.00 (95% CI 0.42 to 2.40).
  • Low quality evidence from 1 RCT (N=126) showed that there is no clinically important difference between ECV plus µ-receptor agonist and ECV alone on Apgar score <7 at 5 minutes in pregnant women with breech presentation: RD 0.00 (95% CI −0.03 to 0.03).

Comparison 13. ECV + µ-receptor agonist versus ECV + Placebo

Cephalic vaginal birth after successful ecv.

  • High quality evidence from 2 RCTs (N=98) showed that there is no clinically important difference between ECV plus µ-receptor agonist and ECV plus placebo on cephalic vaginal birth after successful ECV in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 1.00 (95% CI 0.86 to 1.17).

Caesarean section after successful ECV

  • Low quality evidence from 2 RCTs (N=98) showed that there is no clinically important difference between ECV plus µ-receptor agonist and ECV plus placebo on caesarean section after successful ECV in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 0.97 (95% CI 0.33 to 2.84).

Breech vaginal birth after unsuccessful ECV

  • High quality evidence from 3 RCTs (N=186) showed that there is a clinically important difference favouring ECV plus µ-receptor agonist over ECV plus placebo on breech vaginal birth after unsuccessful ECV in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 0.10 (95% CI 0.02 to 0.53).

Caesarean section after unsuccessful ECV

  • Moderate quality evidence from 3 RCTs (N=186) showed that there is no clinically important difference between ECV plus µ-receptor agonist and ECV plus placebo on caesarean section after unsuccessful ECV in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 1.19 (95% CI 1.09 to 1.31).
  • Low quality evidence from 1 RCT (N=137) showed that there is no statistically significant difference between ECV plus µ-receptor agonist and ECV plus placebo on fetal death after 36 +0 weeks gestation in pregnant women with breech presentation: RD 0.00 (95% CI −0.03 to 0.03) p=1.00.

Comparison 14. ECV + µ-receptor agonist versus ECV + Anaesthesia

  • Moderate quality evidence from 1 RCT (N=92) showed that there is no clinically important difference between ECV plus µ-receptor agonist and ECV plus anaesthesia on cephalic vaginal birth in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 1.04 (95% CI 0.84 to 1.29).
  • Very low quality evidence from 2 RCTs (N=212) showed that there is no clinically important difference between ECV plus µ-receptor agonist and ECV plus anaesthesia on the number of caesarean sections in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 0.90 (95% CI 0.61 to 1.34).
  • Very low quality evidence from 1 RCT (N=129) showed that there is no clinically important difference between ECV plus µ-receptor agonist and ECV plus anaesthesia on admission to SCBU/NICU in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 2.30 (95% CI 0.21 to 24.74).
  • Low quality evidence from 2 RCTs (N=255) showed that there is no clinically important difference between ECV plus µ-receptor agonist and ECV plus anaesthesia on Apgar score <7 at 5 minutes in pregnant women with breech presentation: RD 0.00 (95% CI −0.02 to 0.02).

Comparison 15. ECV + Nitric oxide donor versus ECV + Placebo

  • Very low quality evidence from 3 RCTs (N=224) showed that there is no clinically important difference between ECV plus nitric oxide donor and ECV plus placebo on cephalic presentation in labour in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 1.13 (95% CI 0.59 to 2.16).
  • Low quality evidence from 1 RCT (N=99) showed that there is no clinically important difference between ECV plus nitric oxide donor and ECV plus placebo on cephalic vaginal birth in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 0.78 (95% CI 0.49 to 1.22).
  • Low quality evidence from 2 RCTs (N=125) showed that there is no clinically important difference between ECV plus nitric oxide donor and ECV plus placebo on the number of caesarean sections in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 0.83 (95% CI 0.68 to 1.01).

Comparison 16. ECV + Nitric oxide donor versus ECV + β2 agonist

  • Low quality evidence from 1 RCT (N=74) showed that there is no clinically important difference between ECV plus β2 agonist and ECV plus nitric oxide donor on cephalic presentation in labour in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 0.56 (95% CI 0.29 to 1.09).
  • Very low quality evidence from 2 RCTs (N=97) showed that there is no clinically important difference between ECV plus nitric oxide donor and ECV plus β2 agonist on cephalic vaginal birth in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 0.98 (95% CI 0.47 to 2.05).
  • Very low quality evidence from 1 RCT (N=59) showed that there is no clinically important difference between ECV plus nitric oxide donor and ECV plus β2 agonist on the number of caesarean sections in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 1.07 (95% CI 0.73 to 1.57).

Comparison 17. ECV + Talcum powder versus ECV + Gel

  • Low quality evidence from 1 RCT (N=95) showed that there is no clinically important difference between ECV plus talcum powder and ECV plus gel on cephalic presentation in labour in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 1.02 (95% CI 0.68 to 1.53).
  • Low quality evidence from 1 RCT (N=95) showed that there is no clinically important difference between ECV plus talcum powder and ECV plus gel on cephalic vaginal birth in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 1.08 (95% CI 0.67 to 1.74).
  • Low quality evidence from 1 RCT (N=95) showed that there is no clinically important difference between ECV plus talcum powder and ECV plus gel on the number of caesarean sections in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 0.94 (95% CI 0.67 to 1.33).
  • Low quality evidence from 1 RCT (N=95) showed that there is no clinically important difference between ECV plus talcum powder and ECV plus gel on admission to SCBU/NICU in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 1.96 (95% CI 0.38 to 10.19).

Comparison 18. Postural management versus No postural management

  • Low quality evidence from 1 RCT (N=76) showed that there is no clinically important difference between postural management and no postural management on cephalic presentation in labour in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 1.26 (95% CI 0.70 to 2.30).
  • Low quality evidence from 1 RCT (N=76) showed that there is no clinically important difference between postural management and no postural management on cephalic vaginal birth in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 1.11 (95% CI 0.59 to 2.07).

Breech vaginal delivery

  • Low quality evidence from 1 RCT (N=76) showed that there is no clinically important difference between postural management and no postural management on breech vaginal delivery in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 1.15 (95% CI 0.67 to 1.99).
  • Low quality evidence from 1 RCT (N=76) showed that there is no clinically important difference between postural management and no postural management on the number of caesarean sections in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 0.69 (95% CI 0.31 to 1.52).
  • Low quality evidence from 1 RCT (N=76) showed that there is no clinically important difference between postural management and no postural management on Apgar score <7 at 5 minutes in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 0.24 (95% CI 0.03 to 2.03).

Comparison 19. Postural management + ECV versus ECV only

  • Moderate quality evidence from 1 RCT (N=100) showed that there is no clinically important difference between postural management plus ECV and ECV only on the number of caesarean sections in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 1.05 (95% CI 0.80 to 1.38).
  • Low quality evidence from 1 RCT (N=100) showed that there is no clinically important difference between postural management plus ECV and ECV only on Apgar score <7 at 5 minutes in pregnant women with breech presentation: Peto OR 0.13 (95% CI 0.00 to 6.55).

Economic evidence statements

No economic evidence was identified which was applicable to this review question.

The committee’s discussion of the evidence

Interpreting the evidence, the outcomes that matter most.

Provision of antenatal care is important for the health and wellbeing of both mother and baby with the aim of avoiding adverse pregnancy outcomes and enhancing maternal satisfaction and wellbeing. Breech presentation in labour may be associated with adverse outcomes for the fetus, which has contributed to an increased likelihood of caesarean birth. The committee therefore agreed that cephalic presentation in labour and method of birth were critical outcomes for the woman, and admission to SCBU/NICU, fetal death after 36 +0 weeks gestation, and infant death up to 4 weeks chronological age were critical outcomes for the baby. Apgar score <7 at 5 minutes and birth before 39 +0 weeks of gestation were important outcomes for the baby.

The quality of the evidence

The quality of the evidence for interventions for managing a longitudinal lie fetal malpresentation (that is breech presentation) in late pregnancy ranged from very low to high, with most of the evidence being of a very low or low quality.

This was predominately due to serious overall risk of bias in some outcomes; imprecision around the effect estimate in some outcomes; indirect population in some outcomes; and the presence of serious heterogeneity in some outcomes, which was unresolved by subgroup analysis. The majority of included studies had a small sample size, which contributed to imprecision around the effect estimate.

No evidence was identified to inform the outcomes of infant death up to 4 weeks chronological age and birth before 39 +0 weeks of gestation.

There was no publication bias identified in the evidence. However, the committee noted the influence pharmacological developers may have in these trials as funders, and took this into account in their decision making.

Benefits and harms

The committee discussed that in the case of breech presentation, a discussion with the woman about the different options and their potential benefits, harms and implications is needed to ensure an informed decision. The committee discussed that some women may prefer a breech vaginal birth or choose an elective caesarean birth, and that her preferences should be supported, in line with shared decision making.

The committee discussed that external cephalic version is standard practice for managing breech presentation in uncomplicated singleton pregnancies at or after 36+0 weeks. The committee discussed that there could be variation in the success rates of ECV based on the experience of the healthcare professional providing the ECV. There was some evidence supporting the use of ECV for managing a breech presentation in late pregnancy. The evidence showed ECV had a clinically important benefit in terms of cephalic presentations in labour and cephalic vaginal deliveries, when compared to no intervention. The committee noted that the evidence suggested that ECV was not harmful to the baby, although the effect estimate was imprecise relating to the relative rarity of the fetal death as an outcome.

Cephalic (head-down) vaginal birth is preferred by many women and the evidence suggests that external cephalic version is an effective way to achieve this. The evidence suggested ECV increased the chance for a cephalic vaginal birth and the committee agreed that it was important to explain this to the woman during her consultation.

The committee discussed the optimum timing for ECV. Timing of ECV must take into account the likelihood of the baby turning naturally before a woman commences labour and the possibility of the baby turning back to a breech presentation after ECV if it is done too early. The committee noted that in their experience, current practice was to perform ECV at 37 gestational weeks. The majority of the evidence demonstrating a benefit of ECV in this review involved ECV performed around 37 gestational weeks, although the review did not look for studies directly comparing different timings of ECV and their relative success rates.

The evidence in this review excluded women with previous complicated pregnancies, such as those with previous caesarean section or uterine surgery. The committee discussed that a previous caesarean section indicates a complicated pregnancy and that this population of women are not the focus of this guideline, which concentrates on women with uncomplicated pregnancies.

The committee’s recommendations align with other NICE guidance and cross references to the NICE guideline on caesarean birth and the section on breech presenting in labour in the NICE guideline on intrapartum care for women with existing medical conditions or obstetric complications and their babies were made.

ECV combined with pharmacological agents

There were some small studies comparing a variety of pharmacological agents (including β2 agonists, Ca 2+ channel blockers, µ-receptor agonists and nitric oxide donors) given alongside ECV. Overall the evidence typically showed no clinically important benefit of adding any pharmacological agent to ECV except in comparisons with a control arm with no ECV where it was not possible to isolate the effect of the ECV versus the pharmacological agent. The evidence tended toward benefit most for β2 agonists and µ-receptor agonists however there was no consistent or high quality evidence of benefit even for these agents. The committee agreed that although these pharmacological agents are used in practice, there was insufficient evidence to make a recommendation supporting or refuting their use or on which pharmacological agent should be used.

The committee discussed that the evidence suggesting µ-receptor agonist, remifentanil, had a clinically important benefit in terms reducing breech vaginal births after unsuccessful ECV was biologically implausible. The committee noted that this pharmacological agent has strong sedative effects, depending on the dosage, and therefore studies comparing it to a placebo had possible design flaws as it would be obvious to all parties whether placebo or active drug had been received. The committee discussed that the risks associated with using remifentanil such as respiratory depression, likely outweigh any potential added benefit it may have on managing breech presentation.

There was some evidence comparing different anaesthetics together with ECV. Although there was little consistent evidence of benefit overall, one small study of low quality showed a combination of 2% lidocaine and epinephrine via epidural catheter (anaesthesia) with ECV showed a clinically important benefit in terms of cephalic presentations in labour and the method of birth. The committee discussed the evidence and agreed the use of anaesthesia via epidural catheter during ECV was uncommon practice in the UK and could be expensive, overall they agreed the strength of the evidence available was insufficient to support a change in practice.

Postural management

There was limited evidence on postural management as an intervention for managing breech presentation in late pregnancy, which showed no difference in effectiveness. Postural management was defined as ‘knee-chest position for 15 minutes, 3 times a day’. The committee agreed that in their experience women valued trying interventions at home first which might make postural management an attractive option for some women, however, there was no evidence that postural management was beneficial. The committee also noted that in their experience postural management can cause notable discomfort so it is not an intervention without disadvantages.

Cost effectiveness and resource use

A systematic review of the economic literature was conducted but no relevant studies were identified which were applicable to this review question.

The committee’s recommendations to offer external cephalic version reinforces current practice. The committee noted that, compared to no intervention, external cephalic version results in clinically important benefits and that there would also be overall downstream cost savings from lower adverse events. It was therefore the committee’s view that offering external cephalic version is cost effective and would not entail any resource impact.

Andersen 2013

Brocks 1984

Bujold 2003

Burgos 2016

Chalifoux 2017

Chenia 1987

Collaris 2009

Dafallah 2004

Diguisto 2018

Dugoff 1999

El-Sayed 2004

Fernandez 1997

Hindawi 2005

Hilton 2009

Hofmeyr 1983

Mahomed 1991

Mancuso 2000

Marquette 1996

Mohamed Ismail 2008

NorAzlin 2005

Robertson 1987

Schorr 1997

Sullivan 2009

VanDorsten 1981

Vallikkannu 2014

Weiniger 2010

Appendix A. Review protocols

Review protocol for review question: What is the most effective way of managing a longitudinal lie fetal malpresentation (breech presentation) in late pregnancy? (PDF, 260K)

Appendix B. Literature search strategies

Literature search strategies for review question: What is the most effective way of managing a longitudinal lie fetal malpresentation (breech presentation) in late pregnancy? (PDF, 281K)

Appendix C. Clinical evidence study selection

Clinical study selection for: What is the most effective way of managing a longitudinal lie fetal malpresentation (breech presentation) in late pregnancy? (PDF, 113K)

Appendix D. Clinical evidence tables

Clinical evidence tables for review question: What is the most effective way of managing a longitudinal lie fetal malpresentation (breech presentation) in late pregnancy? (PDF, 1.2M)

Appendix E. Forest plots

Forest plots for review question: What is the most effective way of managing a longitudinal lie fetal malpresentation (breech presentation) in late pregnancy? (PDF, 678K)

Appendix F. GRADE tables

GRADE tables for review question: What is the most effective way of managing a longitudinal lie fetal malpresentation (breech presentation) in late pregnancy? (PDF, 1.0M)

Appendix G. Economic evidence study selection

Economic evidence study selection for review question: what is the most effective way of managing a longitudinal lie fetal malpresentation (breech presentation) in late pregnancy, appendix h. economic evidence tables, economic evidence tables for review question: what is the most effective way of managing a longitudinal lie fetal malpresentation (breech presentation) in late pregnancy, appendix i. economic evidence profiles, economic evidence profiles for review question: what is the most effective way of managing a longitudinal lie fetal malpresentation (breech presentation) in late pregnancy, appendix j. economic analysis, economic evidence analysis for review question: what is the most effective way of managing a longitudinal lie fetal malpresentation (breech presentation) in late pregnancy.

No economic analysis was conducted for this review question.

Appendix K. Excluded studies

Excluded clinical and economic studies for review question: what is the most effective way of managing a longitudinal lie fetal malpresentation (breech presentation) in late pregnancy, clinical studies, table 24 excluded studies.

View in own window

Economic studies

No economic evidence was identified for this review.

Appendix L. Research recommendations

Research recommendations for review question: what is the most effective way of managing a longitudinal lie fetal malpresentation (breech presentation) in late pregnancy.

No research recommendations were made for this review question.

Evidence reviews underpinning recommendation 1.2.38

These evidence reviews were developed by the National Guideline Alliance, which is a part of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists

Disclaimer : The recommendations in this guideline represent the view of NICE, arrived at after careful consideration of the evidence available. When exercising their judgement, professionals are expected to take this guideline fully into account, alongside the individual needs, preferences and values of their patients or service users. The recommendations in this guideline are not mandatory and the guideline does not override the responsibility of healthcare professionals to make decisions appropriate to the circumstances of the individual patient, in consultation with the patient and/or their carer or guardian.

Local commissioners and/or providers have a responsibility to enable the guideline to be applied when individual health professionals and their patients or service users wish to use it. They should do so in the context of local and national priorities for funding and developing services, and in light of their duties to have due regard to the need to eliminate unlawful discrimination, to advance equality of opportunity and to reduce health inequalities. Nothing in this guideline should be interpreted in a way that would be inconsistent with compliance with those duties.

NICE guidelines cover health and care in England. Decisions on how they apply in other UK countries are made by ministers in the Welsh Government , Scottish Government , and Northern Ireland Executive . All NICE guidance is subject to regular review and may be updated or withdrawn.

  • Cite this Page National Guideline Alliance (UK). Management of breech presentation: Antenatal care: Evidence review M. London: National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE); 2021 Aug. (NICE Guideline, No. 201.)
  • PDF version of this title (2.2M)

In this Page

Other titles in this collection.

  • NICE Evidence Reviews Collection

Related NICE guidance and evidence

  • NICE Guideline 201: Antenatal care

Supplemental NICE documents

  • Supplement 1: Methods (PDF)
  • Supplement 2: Health economics (PDF)

Related information

  • PMC PubMed Central citations
  • PubMed Links to PubMed

Similar articles in PubMed

  • Review Identification of breech presentation: Antenatal care: Evidence review L [ 2021] Review Identification of breech presentation: Antenatal care: Evidence review L National Guideline Alliance (UK). 2021 Aug
  • Vaginal delivery of breech presentation. [J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2009] Vaginal delivery of breech presentation. Kotaska A, Menticoglou S, Gagnon R, MATERNAL FETAL MEDICINE COMMITTEE. J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2009 Jun; 31(6):557-566.
  • Review Cephalic version by moxibustion for breech presentation. [Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2005] Review Cephalic version by moxibustion for breech presentation. Coyle ME, Smith CA, Peat B. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2005 Apr 18; (2):CD003928. Epub 2005 Apr 18.
  • Review Interventions for helping to turn term breech babies to head first presentation when using external cephalic version. [Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015] Review Interventions for helping to turn term breech babies to head first presentation when using external cephalic version. Cluver C, Gyte GM, Sinclair M, Dowswell T, Hofmeyr GJ. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015 Feb 9; 2015(2):CD000184. Epub 2015 Feb 9.
  • [Fetal expulsion: Which interventions for perineal prevention? CNGOF Perineal Prevention and Protection in Obstetrics Guidelines]. [Gynecol Obstet Fertil Senol. 2...] [Fetal expulsion: Which interventions for perineal prevention? CNGOF Perineal Prevention and Protection in Obstetrics Guidelines]. Riethmuller D, Ramanah R, Mottet N. Gynecol Obstet Fertil Senol. 2018 Dec; 46(12):937-947. Epub 2018 Oct 28.

Recent Activity

  • Management of breech presentation Management of breech presentation

Your browsing activity is empty.

Activity recording is turned off.

Turn recording back on

Connect with NLM

National Library of Medicine 8600 Rockville Pike Bethesda, MD 20894

Web Policies FOIA HHS Vulnerability Disclosure

Help Accessibility Careers

statistics

We have a new app!

Take the Access library with you wherever you go—easy access to books, videos, images, podcasts, personalized features, and more.

Download the Access App here: iOS and Android . Learn more here!

  • Remote Access
  • Save figures into PowerPoint
  • Download tables as PDFs

Oxorn-Foote Human Labor &amp; Birth, 6e

Chapter 25:  Breech Presentation

Jessica Dy; Darine El-Chaar

  • Download Chapter PDF

Disclaimer: These citations have been automatically generated based on the information we have and it may not be 100% accurate. Please consult the latest official manual style if you have any questions regarding the format accuracy.

Download citation file:

  • Search Book

Jump to a Section

General considerations.

  • CLASSIFICATION
  • RIGHT SACRUM ANTERIOR
  • MECHANISMS OF LABOR: BREECH PRESENTATIONS
  • PROGNOSIS: BREECH PRESENTATIONS
  • INVESTIGATION OF BREECH PRESENTATION AT TERM
  • MANAGEMENT OF BREECH PRESENTATION DURING LATE PREGNANCY
  • MANAGEMENT OF DELIVERY OF BREECH PRESENTATION
  • ARREST IN BREECH PRESENTATION
  • BREECH EXTRACTION
  • HYPEREXTENSION OF THE FETAL HEAD
  • SELECTED READING
  • Full Chapter
  • Supplementary Content

Breech presentation is a longitudinal lie with a variation in polarity. The fetal pelvis is the leading pole. The denominator is the sacrum. A right sacrum anterior (RSA) is a breech presentation where the fetal sacrum is in the right anterior quadrant of the mother's pelvis and the bitrochanteric diameter of the fetus is in the right oblique diameter of the pelvis ( Fig. 25-1 ).

FIGURE 25-1.

Positions of breech presentation. LSA, left sacrum anterior; LSP, left sacrum posterior; LST, left sacrum transverse; RSA, right sacrum anterior; RSP, right sacrum posterior; RST, right sacrum transverse.

image

Breech presentation at delivery occurs in 3 to 4 percent of pregnancies. However, before 28 weeks of gestation, the incidence is about 25 percent. As term gestation approaches, the incidence decreases. In most cases, the fetus converts to the cephalic presentation by 34 weeks of gestation.

As term approaches, the uterine cavity, in most cases, accommodates the fetus best in a longitudinal lie with a cephalic presentation. In many cases of breech presentation, no reason for the malpresentation can be found and, by exclusion, the cause is ascribed to chance. Some women deliver all their children as breeches, suggesting that the pelvis is so shaped that the breech fits better than the head.

Breech presentation is more common at the end of the second trimester than near term; hence, fetal prematurity is associated frequently with this presentation.

Maternal Factors

Factors that influence the occurrence of breech presentation include (1) the uterine relaxation associated with high parity; (2) polyhydramnios, in which the excessive amount of amniotic fluid makes it easier for the fetus to change position; (3) oligohydramnios, in which, because of the small amount of fluid, the fetus is trapped in the position assumed in the second trimester; (4) uterine anomalies; (5) neoplasms, such as leiomyomata of the myometrium; (6) while contracted pelvis is an uncommon cause of breech presentation, anything that interferes with the entry of the fetal head into the pelvis may play a part in the etiology of breech presentation.

Placental Factors

Placental site: There is some evidence that implantation of the placenta in either cornual-fundal region tends to promote breech presentation. There is a positive association of breech with placenta previa.

Fetal Factors

Fetal factors that influence the occurrence of breech presentation include multiple pregnancy, hydrocephaly, anencephaly, chromosomal anomalies, and intrauterine fetal death.

Notes and Comments

The patient commonly feels fetal movements in the lower abdomen and may complain of painful kicking against the rectum, vagina, and bladder

Your Access profile is currently affiliated with '[InstitutionA]' and is in the process of switching affiliations to '[InstitutionB]'. Please click ‘Continue’ to continue the affiliation switch, otherwise click ‘Cancel’ to cancel signing in.

Pop-up div Successfully Displayed

This div only appears when the trigger link is hovered over. Otherwise it is hidden from view.

Please Wait

  • Getting Pregnant
  • Registry Builder
  • Baby Products
  • Birth Clubs
  • See all in Community
  • Ovulation Calculator
  • How To Get Pregnant
  • How To Get Pregnant Fast
  • Ovulation Discharge
  • Implantation Bleeding
  • Ovulation Symptoms
  • Pregnancy Symptoms
  • Am I Pregnant?
  • Pregnancy Tests
  • See all in Getting Pregnant
  • Due Date Calculator
  • Pregnancy Week by Week
  • Pregnant Sex
  • Weight Gain Tracker
  • Signs of Labor
  • Morning Sickness
  • COVID Vaccine and Pregnancy
  • Fetal Weight Chart
  • Fetal Development
  • Pregnancy Discharge
  • Find Out Baby Gender
  • Chinese Gender Predictor
  • See all in Pregnancy
  • Baby Name Generator
  • Top Baby Names 2023
  • Top Baby Names 2024
  • How to Pick a Baby Name
  • Most Popular Baby Names
  • Baby Names by Letter
  • Gender Neutral Names
  • Unique Boy Names
  • Unique Girl Names
  • Top baby names by year
  • See all in Baby Names
  • Baby Development
  • Baby Feeding Guide
  • Newborn Sleep
  • When Babies Roll Over
  • First-Year Baby Costs Calculator
  • Postpartum Health
  • Baby Poop Chart
  • See all in Baby
  • Average Weight & Height
  • Autism Signs
  • Child Growth Chart
  • Night Terrors
  • Moving from Crib to Bed
  • Toddler Feeding Guide
  • Potty Training
  • Bathing and Grooming
  • See all in Toddler
  • Height Predictor
  • Potty Training: Boys
  • Potty training: Girls
  • How Much Sleep? (Ages 3+)
  • Ready for Preschool?
  • Thumb-Sucking
  • Gross Motor Skills
  • Napping (Ages 2 to 3)
  • See all in Child
  • Photos: Rashes & Skin Conditions
  • Symptom Checker
  • Vaccine Scheduler
  • Reducing a Fever
  • Acetaminophen Dosage Chart
  • Constipation in Babies
  • Ear Infection Symptoms
  • Head Lice 101
  • See all in Health
  • Second Pregnancy
  • Daycare Costs
  • Family Finance
  • Stay-At-Home Parents
  • Breastfeeding Positions
  • See all in Family
  • Baby Sleep Training
  • Preparing For Baby
  • My Custom Checklist
  • My Registries
  • Take the Quiz
  • Best Baby Products
  • Best Breast Pump
  • Best Convertible Car Seat
  • Best Infant Car Seat
  • Best Baby Bottle
  • Best Baby Monitor
  • Best Stroller
  • Best Diapers
  • Best Baby Carrier
  • Best Diaper Bag
  • Best Highchair
  • See all in Baby Products
  • Why Pregnant Belly Feels Tight
  • Early Signs of Twins
  • Teas During Pregnancy
  • Baby Head Circumference Chart
  • How Many Months Pregnant Am I
  • What is a Rainbow Baby
  • Braxton Hicks Contractions
  • HCG Levels By Week
  • When to Take a Pregnancy Test
  • Am I Pregnant
  • Why is Poop Green
  • Can Pregnant Women Eat Shrimp
  • Insemination
  • UTI During Pregnancy
  • Vitamin D Drops
  • Best Baby Forumla
  • Postpartum Depression
  • Low Progesterone During Pregnancy
  • Baby Shower
  • Baby Shower Games

Breech, posterior, transverse lie: What position is my baby in?

Layan Alrahmani, M.D.

Fetal presentation, or how your baby is situated in your womb at birth, is determined by the body part that's positioned to come out first, and it can affect the way you deliver. At the time of delivery, 97 percent of babies are head-down (cephalic presentation). But there are several other possibilities, including feet or bottom first (breech) as well as sideways (transverse lie) and diagonal (oblique lie).

Fetal presentation and position

During the last trimester of your pregnancy, your provider will check your baby's presentation by feeling your belly to locate the head, bottom, and back. If it's unclear, your provider may do an ultrasound or an internal exam to feel what part of the baby is in your pelvis.

Fetal position refers to whether the baby is facing your spine (anterior position) or facing your belly (posterior position). Fetal position can change often: Your baby may be face up at the beginning of labor and face down at delivery.

Here are the many possibilities for fetal presentation and position in the womb.

Medical illustrations by Jonathan Dimes

Head down, facing down (anterior position)

A baby who is head down and facing your spine is in the anterior position. This is the most common fetal presentation and the easiest position for a vaginal delivery.

This position is also known as "occiput anterior" because the back of your baby's skull (occipital bone) is in the front (anterior) of your pelvis.

Head down, facing up (posterior position)

In the posterior position , your baby is head down and facing your belly. You may also hear it called "sunny-side up" because babies who stay in this position are born facing up. But many babies who are facing up during labor rotate to the easier face down (anterior) position before birth.

Posterior position is formally known as "occiput posterior" because the back of your baby's skull (occipital bone) is in the back (posterior) of your pelvis.

Frank breech

In the frank breech presentation, both the baby's legs are extended so that the feet are up near the face. This is the most common type of breech presentation. Breech babies are difficult to deliver vaginally, so most arrive by c-section .

Some providers will attempt to turn your baby manually to the head down position by applying pressure to your belly. This is called an external cephalic version , and it has a 58 percent success rate for turning breech babies. For more information, see our article on breech birth .

Complete breech

A complete breech is when your baby is bottom down with hips and knees bent in a tuck or cross-legged position. If your baby is in a complete breech, you may feel kicking in your lower abdomen.

Incomplete breech

In an incomplete breech, one of the baby's knees is bent so that the foot is tucked next to the bottom with the other leg extended, positioning that foot closer to the face.

Single footling breech

In the single footling breech presentation, one of the baby's feet is pointed toward your cervix.

Double footling breech

In the double footling breech presentation, both of the baby's feet are pointed toward your cervix.

Transverse lie

In a transverse lie, the baby is lying horizontally in your uterus and may be facing up toward your head or down toward your feet. Babies settle this way less than 1 percent of the time, but it happens more commonly if you're carrying multiples or deliver before your due date.

If your baby stays in a transverse lie until the end of your pregnancy, it can be dangerous for delivery. Your provider will likely schedule a c-section or attempt an external cephalic version , which is highly successful for turning babies in this position.

Oblique lie

In rare cases, your baby may lie diagonally in your uterus, with his rump facing the side of your body at an angle.

Like the transverse lie, this position is more common earlier in pregnancy, and it's likely your provider will intervene if your baby is still in the oblique lie at the end of your third trimester.

Was this article helpful?

What to know if your baby is breech

diagram of breech baby, facing head-up in uterus

What's a sunny-side up baby?

pregnant woman resting on birth ball

What happens to your baby right after birth

A newborn baby wrapped in a receiving blanket in the hospital.

Nesting during pregnancy

A man and pregnant woman sitting on a couch; the woman is holding a baby onesie.

BabyCenter's editorial team is committed to providing the most helpful and trustworthy pregnancy and parenting information in the world. When creating and updating content, we rely on credible sources: respected health organizations, professional groups of doctors and other experts, and published studies in peer-reviewed journals. We believe you should always know the source of the information you're seeing. Learn more about our editorial and medical review policies .

Ahmad A et al. 2014. Association of fetal position at onset of labor and mode of delivery: A prospective cohort study. Ultrasound in obstetrics & gynecology 43(2):176-182. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23929533 Opens a new window [Accessed September 2021]

Gray CJ and Shanahan MM. 2019. Breech presentation. StatPearls.  https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK448063/ Opens a new window [Accessed September 2021]

Hankins GD. 1990. Transverse lie. American Journal of Perinatology 7(1):66-70.  https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2131781 Opens a new window [Accessed September 2021]

Medline Plus. 2020. Your baby in the birth canal. U.S. National Library of Medicine. https://medlineplus.gov/ency/article/002060.htm Opens a new window [Accessed September 2021]

Kate Marple

Where to go next

Pregnant woman on the phone with doctor

Breech Presentation

Affiliations.

  • 1 Creighton University School of Medicine
  • 2 Creighton University
  • PMID: 28846227
  • Bookshelf ID: NBK448063

Breech presentation refers to the fetus in the longitudinal lie with the buttocks or lower extremity entering the pelvis first. The three types of breech presentation include frank breech, complete breech, and incomplete breech. In a frank breech, the fetus has flexion of both hips, and the legs are straight with the feet near the fetal face, in a pike position. The complete breech has the fetus sitting with flexion of both hips and both legs in a tuck position. Finally, the incomplete breech can have any combination of one or both hips extended, also known as footling (one leg extended) breech, or double footling breech (both legs extended).

Copyright © 2024, StatPearls Publishing LLC.

  • Continuing Education Activity
  • Introduction
  • Epidemiology
  • Pathophysiology
  • History and Physical
  • Treatment / Management
  • Differential Diagnosis
  • Pearls and Other Issues
  • Enhancing Healthcare Team Outcomes
  • Review Questions

Publication types

  • Study Guide

breech presentation and longitudinal lie

  • Mammary Glands
  • Fallopian Tubes
  • Supporting Ligaments
  • Reproductive System
  • Gametogenesis
  • Placental Development
  • Maternal Adaptations
  • Menstrual Cycle
  • Antenatal Care
  • Small for Gestational Age
  • Large for Gestational Age
  • RBC Isoimmunisation
  • Prematurity
  • Prolonged Pregnancy
  • Multiple Pregnancy
  • Miscarriage
  • Recurrent Miscarriage
  • Ectopic Pregnancy
  • Hyperemesis Gravidarum
  • Gestational Trophoblastic Disease
  • Breech Presentation
  • Abnormal lie, Malpresentation and Malposition
  • Oligohydramnios
  • Polyhydramnios
  • Placenta Praevia
  • Placental Abruption
  • Pre-Eclampsia
  • Gestational Diabetes
  • Headaches in Pregnancy
  • Haematological
  • Obstetric Cholestasis
  • Thyroid Disease in Pregnancy
  • Epilepsy in Pregnancy
  • Induction of Labour
  • Operative Vaginal Delivery
  • Prelabour Rupture of Membranes
  • Caesarean Section
  • Shoulder Dystocia
  • Cord Prolapse
  • Uterine Rupture
  • Amniotic Fluid Embolism
  • Primary PPH
  • Secondary PPH
  • Psychiatric Disease
  • Postpartum Contraception
  • Breastfeeding Problems
  • Primary Dysmenorrhoea
  • Amenorrhoea and Oligomenorrhoea
  • Heavy Menstrual Bleeding
  • Endometriosis
  • Endometrial Cancer
  • Adenomyosis
  • Cervical Polyps
  • Cervical Ectropion
  • Cervical Intraepithelial Neoplasia + Cervical Screening
  • Cervical Cancer
  • Polycystic Ovary Syndrome (PCOS)
  • Ovarian Cysts & Tumours
  • Urinary Incontinence
  • Genitourinary Prolapses
  • Bartholin's Cyst
  • Lichen Sclerosus
  • Vulval Carcinoma
  • Introduction to Infertility
  • Female Factor Infertility
  • Male Factor Infertility
  • Female Genital Mutilation
  • Barrier Contraception
  • Combined Hormonal
  • Progesterone Only Hormonal
  • Intrauterine System & Device
  • Emergency Contraception
  • Pelvic Inflammatory Disease
  • Genital Warts
  • Genital Herpes
  • Trichomonas Vaginalis
  • Bacterial Vaginosis
  • Vulvovaginal Candidiasis
  • Obstetric History
  • Gynaecological History
  • Sexual History
  • Obstetric Examination
  • Speculum Examination
  • Bimanual Examination
  • Amniocentesis
  • Chorionic Villus Sampling
  • Hysterectomy
  • Endometrial Ablation
  • Tension-Free Vaginal Tape
  • Contraceptive Implant
  • Fitting an IUS or IUD

Abnormal Fetal lie, Malpresentation and Malposition

Original Author(s): Anna Mcclune Last updated: 1st December 2018 Revisions: 12

  • 1 Definitions
  • 2 Risk Factors
  • 3.2 Presentation
  • 3.3 Position
  • 4 Investigations
  • 5.1 Abnormal Fetal Lie
  • 5.2 Malpresentation
  • 5.3 Malposition

The lie, presentation and position of a fetus are important during labour and delivery.

In this article, we will look at the risk factors, examination and management of abnormal fetal lie, malpresentation and malposition.

Definitions

  • Longitudinal, transverse or oblique
  • Cephalic vertex presentation is the most common and is considered the safest
  • Other presentations include breech, shoulder, face and brow
  • Usually the fetal head engages in the occipito-anterior position (the fetal occiput facing anteriorly) – this is ideal for birth
  • Other positions include occipito-posterior and occipito-transverse.

Note: Breech presentation is the most common malpresentation, and is covered in detail here .

breech presentation and longitudinal lie

Fig 1 – The two most common fetal presentations: cephalic and breech.

Risk Factors

The risk factors for abnormal fetal lie, malpresentation and malposition include:

  • Multiple pregnancy
  • Uterine abnormalities (e.g fibroids, partial septate uterus)
  • Fetal abnormalities
  • Placenta praevia
  • Primiparity

Identifying Fetal Lie, Presentation and Position

The fetal lie and presentation can usually be identified via abdominal examination. The fetal position is ascertained by vaginal examination.

For more information on the obstetric examination, see here .

  • Face the patient’s head
  • Place your hands on either side of the uterus and gently apply pressure; one side will feel fuller and firmer – this is the back, and fetal limbs may feel ‘knobbly’ on the opposite side

Presentation

  • Palpate the lower uterus (above the symphysis pubis) with the fingers of both hands; the head feels hard and round (cephalic) and the bottom feels soft and triangular (breech)
  • You may be able to gently push the fetal head from side to side

The fetal lie and presentation may not be possible to identify if the mother has a high BMI, if she has not emptied her bladder, if the fetus is small or if there is polyhydramnios .

During labour, vaginal examination is used to assess the position of the fetal head (in a cephalic vertex presentation). The landmarks of the fetal head, including the anterior and posterior fontanelles, indicate the position.

breech presentation and longitudinal lie

Fig 2 – Assessing fetal lie and presentation.

Investigations

Any suspected abnormal fetal lie or malpresentation should be confirmed by an ultrasound scan . This could also demonstrate predisposing uterine or fetal abnormalities.

Abnormal Fetal Lie

If the fetal lie is abnormal, an external cephalic version (ECV) can be attempted – ideally between 36 and 38 weeks gestation.

ECV is the manipulation of the fetus to a cephalic presentation through the maternal abdomen.

It has an approximate success rate of 50% in primiparous women and 60% in multiparous women. Only 8% of breech presentations will spontaneously revert to cephalic in primiparous women over 36 weeks gestation.

Complications of ECV are rare but include fetal distress , premature rupture of membranes, antepartum haemorrhage (APH) and placental abruption. The risk of an emergency caesarean section (C-section) within 24 hours is around 1 in 200.

ECV is contraindicated in women with a recent APH, ruptured membranes, uterine abnormalities or a previous C-section .

breech presentation and longitudinal lie

Fig 3 – External cephalic version.

Malpresentation

The management of malpresentation is dependent on the presentation.

  • Breech – attempt ECV before labour, vaginal breech delivery or C-section
  • Brow – a C-section is necessary
  • If the chin is anterior (mento-anterior) a normal labour is possible; however, it is likely to be prolonged and there is an increased risk of a C-section being required
  • If the chin is posterior (mento-posterior) then a C-section is necessary
  • Shoulder – a C-section is necessary

Malposition

90% of malpositions spontaneously rotate to occipito-anterior as labour progresses. If the fetal head does not rotate, rotation and operative vaginal delivery can be attempted. Alternatively a C-section can be performed.

  • Usually the fetal head engages in the occipito-anterior position (the fetal occiput facing anteriorly) - this is ideal for birth

If the fetal lie is abnormal, an external cephalic version (ECV) can be attempted - ideally between 36 and 38 weeks gestation.

  • Breech - attempt ECV before labour, vaginal breech delivery or C-section

Found an error? Is our article missing some key information? Make the changes yourself here!

Once you've finished editing, click 'Submit for Review', and your changes will be reviewed by our team before publishing on the site.

We use cookies to improve your experience on our site and to show you relevant advertising. To find out more, read our privacy policy .

Privacy Overview

Appointments at Mayo Clinic

  • Pregnancy week by week

The Mayo Clinic Diet: What is your weight-loss goal? 5-10 lbs, 11-25 lbs, or 25+ lbs

  • Fetal presentation before birth

The way a baby is positioned in the uterus just before birth can have a big effect on labor and delivery. This positioning is called fetal presentation.

Babies twist, stretch and tumble quite a bit during pregnancy. Before labor starts, however, they usually come to rest in a way that allows them to be delivered through the birth canal headfirst. This position is called cephalic presentation. But there are other ways a baby may settle just before labor begins.

Following are some of the possible ways a baby may be positioned at the end of pregnancy.

Head down, face down

When a baby is head down, face down, the medical term for it is the cephalic occiput anterior position. This the most common position for a baby to be born in. With the face down and turned slightly to the side, the smallest part of the baby's head leads the way through the birth canal. It is the easiest way for a baby to be born.

Illustration of the head-down, face-down position

Head down, face up

When a baby is head down, face up, the medical term for it is the cephalic occiput posterior position. In this position, it might be harder for a baby's head to go under the pubic bone during delivery. That can make labor take longer.

Most babies who begin labor in this position eventually turn to be face down. If that doesn't happen, and the second stage of labor is taking a long time, a member of the health care team may reach through the vagina to help the baby turn. This is called manual rotation.

In some cases, a baby can be born in the head-down, face-up position. Use of forceps or a vacuum device to help with delivery is more common when a baby is in this position than in the head-down, face-down position. In some cases, a C-section delivery may be needed.

Illustration of the head-down, face-up position

Frank breech

When a baby's feet or buttocks are in place to come out first during birth, it's called a breech presentation. This happens in about 3% to 4% of babies close to the time of birth. The baby shown below is in a frank breech presentation. That's when the knees aren't bent, and the feet are close to the baby's head. This is the most common type of breech presentation.

If you are more than 36 weeks into your pregnancy and your baby is in a frank breech presentation, your health care professional may try to move the baby into a head-down position. This is done using a procedure called external cephalic version. It involves one or two members of the health care team putting pressure on your belly with their hands to get the baby to roll into a head-down position.

If the procedure isn't successful, or if the baby moves back into a breech position, talk with a member of your health care team about the choices you have for delivery. Most babies in a frank breech position are born by planned C-section.

Illustration of the frank breech position

Complete and incomplete breech

A complete breech presentation, as shown below, is when the baby has both knees bent and both legs pulled close to the body. In an incomplete breech, one or both of the legs are not pulled close to the body, and one or both of the feet or knees are below the baby's buttocks. If a baby is in either of these positions, you might feel kicking in the lower part of your belly.

If you are more than 36 weeks into your pregnancy and your baby is in a complete or incomplete breech presentation, your health care professional may try to move the baby into a head-down position. This is done using a procedure called external cephalic version. It involves one or two members of the health care team putting pressure on your belly with their hands to get the baby to roll into a head-down position.

If the procedure isn't successful, or if the baby moves back into a breech position, talk with a member of your health care team about the choices you have for delivery. Many babies in a complete or incomplete breech position are born by planned C-section.

Illustration of a complete breech presentation

When a baby is sideways — lying horizontal across the uterus, rather than vertical — it's called a transverse lie. In this position, the baby's back might be:

  • Down, with the back facing the birth canal.
  • Sideways, with one shoulder pointing toward the birth canal.
  • Up, with the hands and feet facing the birth canal.

Although many babies are sideways early in pregnancy, few stay this way when labor begins.

If your baby is in a transverse lie during week 37 of your pregnancy, your health care professional may try to move the baby into a head-down position. This is done using a procedure called external cephalic version. External cephalic version involves one or two members of your health care team putting pressure on your belly with their hands to get the baby to roll into a head-down position.

If the procedure isn't successful, or if the baby moves back into a transverse lie, talk with a member of your health care team about the choices you have for delivery. Many babies who are in a transverse lie are born by C-section.

Illustration of baby lying sideways

If you're pregnant with twins and only the twin that's lower in the uterus is head down, as shown below, your health care provider may first deliver that baby vaginally.

Then, in some cases, your health care team may suggest delivering the second twin in the breech position. Or they may try to move the second twin into a head-down position. This is done using a procedure called external cephalic version. External cephalic version involves one or two members of the health care team putting pressure on your belly with their hands to get the baby to roll into a head-down position.

Your health care team may suggest delivery by C-section for the second twin if:

  • An attempt to deliver the baby in the breech position is not successful.
  • You do not want to try to have the baby delivered vaginally in the breech position.
  • An attempt to move the baby into a head-down position is not successful.
  • You do not want to try to move the baby to a head-down position.

In some cases, your health care team may advise that you have both twins delivered by C-section. That might happen if the lower twin is not head down, the second twin has low or high birth weight as compared to the first twin, or if preterm labor starts.

Illustration of twins before birth

  • Landon MB, et al., eds. Normal labor and delivery. In: Gabbe's Obstetrics: Normal and Problem Pregnancies. 8th ed. Elsevier; 2021. https://www.clinicalkey.com. Accessed May 19, 2023.
  • Holcroft Argani C, et al. Occiput posterior position. https://www.updtodate.com/contents/search. Accessed May 19, 2023.
  • Frequently asked questions: If your baby is breech. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists https://www.acog.org/womens-health/faqs/if-your-baby-is-breech. Accessed May 22, 2023.
  • Hofmeyr GJ. Overview of breech presentation. https://www.updtodate.com/contents/search. Accessed May 22, 2023.
  • Strauss RA, et al. Transverse fetal lie. https://www.updtodate.com/contents/search. Accessed May 22, 2023.
  • Chasen ST, et al. Twin pregnancy: Labor and delivery. https://www.updtodate.com/contents/search. Accessed May 22, 2023.
  • Cohen R, et al. Is vaginal delivery of a breech second twin safe? A comparison between delivery of vertex and non-vertex second twins. The Journal of Maternal-Fetal & Neonatal Medicine. 2021; doi:10.1080/14767058.2021.2005569.
  • Marnach ML (expert opinion). Mayo Clinic. May 31, 2023.

Products and Services

  • A Book: Obstetricks
  • A Book: Mayo Clinic Guide to a Healthy Pregnancy
  • 3rd trimester pregnancy
  • Fetal development: The 3rd trimester
  • Overdue pregnancy
  • Pregnancy due date calculator
  • Prenatal care: 3rd trimester

Mayo Clinic does not endorse companies or products. Advertising revenue supports our not-for-profit mission.

  • Opportunities

Mayo Clinic Press

Check out these best-sellers and special offers on books and newsletters from Mayo Clinic Press .

  • Mayo Clinic on Incontinence - Mayo Clinic Press Mayo Clinic on Incontinence
  • The Essential Diabetes Book - Mayo Clinic Press The Essential Diabetes Book
  • Mayo Clinic on Hearing and Balance - Mayo Clinic Press Mayo Clinic on Hearing and Balance
  • FREE Mayo Clinic Diet Assessment - Mayo Clinic Press FREE Mayo Clinic Diet Assessment
  • Mayo Clinic Health Letter - FREE book - Mayo Clinic Press Mayo Clinic Health Letter - FREE book
  • Healthy Lifestyle

Show the heart some love!

Help us advance cardiovascular medicine.

Book cover

Labour Room Emergencies pp 305–316 Cite as

Breech in Labor

  • Geetha Balsarkar 2 &
  • Nirmal Nitin Gujarathi 2  
  • First Online: 30 November 2019

1111 Accesses

Breech presentation is defined as a fetus in a longitudinal lie with the buttocks or feet closest to the cervix. This occurs in 3–4% of all deliveries. The percentage of breech presentation decreases with advancing gestational age from 22–25% of births prior to 28 weeks’ gestation to 7–15% of births at 32 weeks’ gestation to 3–4% of births at term.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution .

Buying options

  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Wright RC. Reduction of perinatal mortality and morbidity in breech delivery through routine use of cesarean section. Obstet Gynecol. 1959;14:758–63.

CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

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.

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Goffinet F, Carayol M, Foidart J-M, 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.

Article   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;207:117.e1–8.

Roman H, Carayol M, Watier L, et al. Planned vaginal delivery of fetuses in breech presentation at term: prenatal determinants predictive of elevated risk of cesarean delivery during labor. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2008;138:14–22.

Azria E, Le Meaux J-P, Khoshnood B, et al. Factors associated with adverse perinatal outcomes for term breech fetuses with planned vaginal delivery. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2012;207:285.e1–9.

Marzouk P, Arnaud E, Oury J-F, Sibony O. [Induction of labour and breech presentation: experience of a French maternity ward]. J Gynecol Obstet Biol Reprod. 2011;40:668–74

Google Scholar  

Zatuchni GI, Andros GJ. Prognostic index for vaginal delivery in breech presentation at term. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1967;98:854–7.

Buhimschi CS, Buhimschi IA, Wehrum MJ, et al. Ultrasonographic evaluation of myometrial thickness and prediction of a successful external cephalic version. Obstet Gynecol. 2011;118:913–20.

Fernandez CO, Bloom SL, Smulian JC, et al. A randomized placebo-controlled evaluation of terbutaline for external cephalic version. Obstet Gynecol. 1997;90:775–9.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Nowrosjee Wadia Maternity Hospital, Seth G.S. Medical College, Mumbai, Maharashtra, India

Geetha Balsarkar & Nirmal Nitin Gujarathi

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

Civil Hospital, Mandi, Himachal Pradesh, India

Alok Sharma

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.

About this chapter

Cite this chapter.

Balsarkar, G., Gujarathi, N.N. (2020). Breech in Labor. In: Sharma, A. (eds) Labour Room Emergencies. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-4953-8_32

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-4953-8_32

Published : 30 November 2019

Publisher Name : Springer, Singapore

Print ISBN : 978-981-10-4952-1

Online ISBN : 978-981-10-4953-8

eBook Packages : Medicine Medicine (R0)

Share this chapter

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

  • Publish with us

Policies and ethics

  • Find a journal
  • Track your research

Home4Birth

Indiana Home Birth Midwifery

Breech Pregnancy and Birth

By Brandi Wood, DEM, CPM, CCE, CD

Breech presentation is an absolutely normal variation of pregnancy. Since the baby is in longitudinal lie, he can be born spontaneously.

Four Major Types of Breech :

  • Frank breech: the baby’s legs are extended and touch the head, occurs in about 65% of breech births.
  • Complete breech: both knees are flexed and the feet tucked in beside the buttocks.
  • Footling breech: neither hips nor knees are fully flexed. The feet are lower than the buttocks. This is very rare.
  • Knee presentation: one or both hips are extended, with the knees flexed. This is also very rare.

Saved from inamay.com

Facts about breech presentation and birth:

  • Breech presentation at term occurs in about three to four percent of all pregnancies.
  • In births prior to 28 weeks the incidence of breech is about 25% (one-fourth of all breech babies are born = or < 30 weeks gestation).
  • As pregnancy advances the baby moves to the head down position by the 34 th week.
  • Ninety-three percent of breech babies are born with no congenital abnormalities.
  • Less than ten percent of women whose first baby was a breech presentation go on to have a second breech baby.
  • Truly diabetic moms are three times more likely to have a breech baby.
  • Maternal smoking during pregnancy is associated with a 30% higher risk of breech birth.
  • Fetal anomalies are twice as frequent with breech babies as with those presenting head down.
  • One in 50 babies who are breech at term are found to have neurological issues.
  • One in 500 babies who are born in the breech position will die regardless of the method of birth.

breech presentation and longitudinal lie

By Amanda Knowles

Transverse : A baby in the transverse position is sideways, usually with his shoulders or back over the cervix. Sometimes referred to as a shoulder or oblique position, a transverse position occurs in 1 in 2,500 births. The risk for having a baby in the transverse position increases if you go into labor prematurely, have given birth four or more times, or have placenta previa.

Types of breech birth

breech presentation and longitudinal lie

A) Complete, baby sits cross legged.

B) Incomplete  is when one of the baby’s knees is bent and his foot and bottom are closest to the birth canal.

C) Frank breech, bottom first, legs up around the ears. this is the most common type of breech presentation.

D) Footling, either foot or feet coming first. This is the most common breech presentation for premature babies.

What causes breech presentation?

  • Extended legs: the baby can’t turn head down because his/her legs are extended.
  • Prematurity: since babies turn head down usually after the 34 th week of pregnancy, breech presentation is common when preterm labor occurs.
  • Twins, multiple pregnancy limits the space available for each baby to turn and can result in one or more babies presenting breech.
  • Polyhydramnios: the mother has more amniotic fluid than average which, causes distention of the womb that can result in a breech presentation.
  • Oligohydramnios: too little amniotic fluid so, the baby doesn’t have enough space to turn head down.
  • Hydrocephaly (also known as hydrocephalus): the size of the baby’s head is increased because there is water on the brain and it might be more comfortable for him/her to be head up.
  • Uterine abnormalities: any distortion of the cavity of the womb (e.g. fibroid tumors or a deviated septum) may result breech presentation.
  • Cord entanglements/or short cord: around the baby’s neck or body.
  • Amniotic bands: the amnion ruptures and some parts of the baby can entangle in the rolls which result in decreased freedom of movement.
  • Tense, tight uterine and abdominal walls/or poor abdominal or uterine muscle tone: which prevent the baby from turning.

Risks of vaginal breech delivery:   Breech births are riskier than the birth of a head down baby . Just how risky depends on the presentation, the reason for the presentation and maternal factors.

Possible risks and complications of breech vaginal delivery:

  • Longer labors are associated with term breech babies as the weight and pressure of a head does not help dilate the cervix.
  • If full cervical dilation is not reached there is a possibility of head entrapment.
  • In a fast delivery, the head doesn’t have the opportunity to mold (as it does in head down presentation). This might result in bleeding within the baby’s skull.
  • Cord prolapse: when the cord presents prior to the baby. This can occur because the buttocks, legs or knees don’t fit as tightly against the body. Cord prolapse is more common during premature birth. It is important to keep the membranes intact because they help cushion the cord. If cord prolapse happens early in labor, a cesarean section (C-section) will be recommended. If it occurs during the second stage, the birth may be continued but with an urgency. This complication is seen in 3.7 to 7% of breech babies and in approximately 0.3 percent of head down babies.
  • The cord may become pinched between the head and the navel when the baby is born to the navel. However, cord compression is inevitable as the head passes through the pelvis.
  • All of the above can lead to an increased need for suctioning of a breech baby and for neonatal resuscitation caused by asphyxia.
  • Normal swelling and bruising of a baby’s presenting parts during labor and delivery.
  • Injuries to internal organs: this is often caused by severe manipulation or incorrect handling of the breech birth. The most common injuries are liver, kidney or adrenal gland damage from pressure on the torso; neck or spinal injuries; and dislocated arms or legs; or fractures of the humerus, clavicle, skull and femur.
  • It is possible for the placenta to separate when the baby’s head is still not born. This is called placental abruption.
  • Fetal hypoxia: the baby doesn’t get enough oxygen. This may be due to cord prolapse, cord compression or premature separation of the placenta.
  • Shoulder dystocia: extended arms over the head and behind the neck may result difficulty delivering the arms and shoulders.
  • Increased fetal morbidity and mortality (injury and death): baby is more likely to die during breech birth because of the reasons stated above. Mortality is highest for the double footling presentation. Risks of serious early perinatal morbidity and   mortality are three times higher for planned vaginal breech delivery than for an elective caesarean section.

Risks of cesarean section and benefits of vaginal birth:

  • Cesarean section is major abdominal surgery.
  • Picking up older children is discouraged for weeks or months after a cesarean section to allow proper healing after major abdominal surgery.
  • Continuous support is needed both for your recovery and care of children and the house, to allow proper healing after major abdominal surgery.
  • Risk of short term infection
  • Higher risk of maternal death
  • The scar on the uterus may complicate later pregnancies; it may decrease fertility; it can cause future miscarriages; ectopic pregnancies; premature separation of the placenta (placenta abruptio); or abnormally adherent placenta which may grow into the wall of the womb (placenta accreta); or placenta attached to lower segments of the womb (placenta previa).
  • The risk of maternal death is 2.84 times greater after an elective cesarean section with no emergency present than if the mother had a vaginal birth
  • There is the risk of morbidity with any abdominal surgery. These come from anesthetic accidents, damage to blood vessels during the procedure, an accidental extension of the uterine incision, or damage to internal organs, etc.
  • Hemorrhage, anemia, infections and thrombosis are more common with a cesarean section than with a vaginal birth.
  • There is a six percent chance for a breech baby to be accidentally cut by the surgeon during the cesarean procedure.
  • Cesarean section is a potential risk factor for respiratory distress in infants.
  • Prematurity is a related risk factor because elective cesareans are scheduled for the 38 th week of pregnancy but the calculation of the time is often false. (When cesarean section is necessary or chosen, it should be performed after labor starts on its own.)
  • There is a three to thirteen times increase in maternal mortality with cesarean section versus vaginal delivery when emergency and elective sections are included.
  • Caesarean section is three times riskier than a vaginal birth. Higher maternal mortality and morbidity.
  • Longer hospital stays.
  • Greater risk of infection.
  • Incidental and consequential morbidity from cesarean surgeries.
  • Impact on future reproduction.
  • Cesarean section is associated with higher fetal/ newborn morbidity, respiratory problems, bonding/ feeding problems, prematurity, etc. There is unequivocal data showing increased risk to the baby from cesarean section.
  • Repeat caesarean sections:    risks to the mother include: death, stroke, heart attack, pulmonary embolism, hemorrhage, infection, prolonged pain, hysterectomy, hospital readmission, adhesions (internal scar tissue), and infertility. And higher stillbirth, placenta previa, placental abruption rates in subsequent pregnancies.
  • The risks increase with each caesarean section a woman has whereas the risk of uterine rupture decreases with each VBAC. (Mercer 2008)
  • “The use of cesarean section for breech delivery in the belief that it is safer may become a self-fulfilling prophecy, as attendants become less skilled at breech delivery.” (Etkin e.t. al., 2000)

Benefits of a Vaginal  Birth :

  • Vaginal birth improves the baby’s chances of survival since the process of birth stimulates hormonal reactions in the baby.
  • During vaginal birth you are actively involved in the birth process.
  • Less risk of maternal morbidity and mortality.
  • In well-chosen women there is no greater risk to baby versus caesarean.
  • Increase in a woman’s right to choose.
  • Reduces unnecessary caesarean sections.
  • Prevents subsequent caesarean sections.
  • Decreases likelihood of placenta acreta, and percreta due to previous cesarean.
  • Because morbidity and mortality are relatively low, a large number of caesarean   sections need to be performed to avoid   a single adverse event.

You are the only one who can make the decision of whether to have a vaginal birth or elective cesarean and whether to birth at home or hospital. If you chose a vaginal birth, it is essential to have a practitioner experienced with breech deliveries — whether at home or hospital.

Can a breech presentation be changed?  

Yes, it can! Here you can find techniques self-help and some that are performed by an experienced health care provider:

  • Visualization of the baby: try to imagine your baby head down during pregnancy.
  • Emotional factors may influence the presentation of the baby. If you are too busy, you live in an unstable emotional environment or you are afraid of birth your baby is prone to turn breech. Try to slow down and solve your problems. Pay attention to your baby and pregnancy. Talk to your baby, visualize your baby and have your partner to pay attention to your child. Have him talk to the baby right above the pubic bone.
  • Breech tilt: you can start doing breech tilt exercises if you know your baby is breech from 30 to 32 weeks. Use an ironing board or other long flat surface and put one end to the height of a couch seat. Pad the board with a blanket and lay on it head down for 15 to 20 minutes, six to eight times daily. Massage your belly gently with both of your hands, put one hand above the baby’s bottom and the other above his head, move the face forward and the bottom upward in a rotating motion.
  • Put a headphone on your belly close to your pubic bone and play soft music.
  • Spinning babies has lots of exercises online and on their Daily Essentials DVD.
  • There are some other techniques that can be performed by an experienced midwife, chiropractor or doctor. These external versions involve risk factors, talk to your health care provider to make an informed decision on the use of these techniques.
  • Chiropractic care can be helpful during pregnancy especially with a chiropractor familiar with the Webster technique.
  • External Cephalic Version (ECV) can be attempted by a skilled care provider after 36 weeks of gestation.

What will you feel during pregnancy?

  • You will probably feel a hard lump under your ribs that can contribute to the discomfort of pregnancy.
  • You will feel lots of movement low in your pelvis.
  • Closer to the end of the pregnancy you can feel a hard round mass at the fundus, which is your baby’s head.

Delivery of the baby:

  • The membranes may rupture earlier than with a head down baby. Your midwife will check to verify that there is no cord prolapse.
  • The water may be stained with meconium that is the baby’s first stool because his belly is compressed.
  • You can labor in any position. You can use the tub, birth stool, your bed, anything that appeals to you. It is recommended you be in an upright position as much as possible because gravity helps baby to be seated on the cervix.
  • Eat and drink regularly and pee hourly during labor.
  • When you feel an urge to push, your midwife will ask you not to push until she checks the cervix. It is very important that the cervix is fully dilated. You can feel the urge early and it may be hard not to push. Pay attention your midwife, she will help you and coach you through this difficult part.
  • The midwife will wrap the baby in a warm blanket.
  • The baby’s weight and the contractions will help the baby to be born to his/her shoulders. Then the baby will turn in order to deliver the shoulders.  Then the body turns again and baby will be left to hang without support for one to two minutes. The baby’s weight will bring the head down. When the hairline appears, the midwife will grasp the baby’s ankle and lift the baby up until the nose and mouth are born. Then the midwife will most likely suction the mouth and nose.
  • It seems to be common for breech babies to be slower to breath after being born. Be prepared that your baby may need some form of resuscitation. It occurs in about ten percent of cases.
  • Visualize your baby during your pregnancy with the cord floating high in the womb, arms at his sides, his chin tucked to the chest, being born easily with very little blood loss, being pink, breathing right away after delivery and nursing well. Imagine your baby head down, in rare cases he may even turn during labor!

Term breech babies present their parents with a challenging decision:  

  • Should we go to the hospital and have a cesarean birth or should we attempt a vaginal breech birth at home?
  • Breech birth in a hospital setting: In Central Indiana the majority of breech birth that happens in hospitals is via C-section.
  • Ensure your providers are trained in vaginal breech birth.
  • Breech birth at home may proceed like any birth at home vaginally and un-medicated with especially close monitoring of mom and baby. Communication between the parents and midwife is crucial especially when the mom feels like pushing.
  • In addition, another midwife will be called to attend the birth for an extra set of hands.

Home4Birth Requirements for Considering a Vaginal  Breech  Birth  at Home:

  • A well informed woman and partner who are both, after learning the risks and benefits and considering their options, very committed to birth at home.
  • An ultrasound to determine position of the baby’s feet.
  • At least three sets of hands present and preferably one of them being another midwife.
  • Receiving good informed consent and a signing this form.
  • Chiropractic visits that utilize the Webster technique to encourage the baby to turn.
  • Use of spinning babies techniques to encourage the baby to turn to a vertex presentation.
  • Parents consider an external cephalic version which is a procedure that   can halve the number of breech presentations but the procedure is not risk-free.

Other Resources for Information and Research on Breech  Birth Safety/ Suggested Reading:

                Maggie Banks: Breech  Birth , Woman-Wise

                Benna Waites: Breech  Birth

                Heads Up! All about Breech Babies (turning techniques, studies, videos for sale, stories, & articles)

                 ICAN (International Cesarean Awareness Network)

                 Maggie Banks Website about Breech Birth

                Incredible detailed pictures of a great natural breech birth (hospital born)

  • Baldwin: Special Delivery
  • Anne Frye: Holistic Midwifery, Vol. I.
  • Langer; E. Boudier; G. Schlaeder: Breech Presentation after 34 Weeks-a Meta-Analysis of Corrected Perinatal Mortality/Morbidity According to the Method of Delivery
  • Myles: Textbook for Midwives
  • Enkin e.t. al.: A Guide to Effective Care in Pregnancy and Childbirth
  • Waites, Benna: Breech Birth , 2003
  • Chopra S e.t. al.: Disengagement of the Deeply Engaged Fetal Head during Cesarean Section in Advanced Labor : Conventional Method Versus Reverse Breech  Extraction, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19925377, Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica. 88.10 (Oct 2009): 1163–1166
  • Kolas e.t. al.: Planned Cesarean Versus Planned Vaginal  Delivery at Term: Comparison of Newborn  Infant Outcomes , https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16846577, American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology (2006) 195, 1538–43.
  • Rageth e.t. al.: Delivery after Previous Cesarean : a Risk Evaluation. Obstetrics & Gynecology, http://journals.lww.com/greenjournal/Abstract/1999/03000/ 3.aspx, 93.3 (March 1999): 332-337
  • Alarah, M., Regan, C., O’Connell, M.P., Keane, D.P., O’Herlihy, C., & Foley, M.E.: Singleton Vaginal Breech  Delivery at Term: Still a Safe Option. The American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) (2004), 103(3), 407-412
  • Banks, M.: Active Breech Birth : The Point Of Least Resistance, New Zealand College of Midwives Journal, (2007), 36, 6
  • Banks, M.: Breech Birth  Beyond the “Term Breech Trial” www.Birthspirit.Co.Nz, (2001) Retrieved July 22, 2011
  • Banks, M.: Term Breech New Zealand College of Midwives Midwifery News, (2000), (20), 25-26.
  • Daviss, B.A., Johnson, K.C. & Lalonde, A.B.: Evolving Evidence since the Term Breech Trial: Canadian Response, European Dissent, and Potential Solutions. (2010) Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Canada (JOGC), 217-224
  • Giuliani, A. e.t. al.: Mode of Delivery and Outcome of 699 Singleton Breech Deliveries at a Single Center. American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology, (2002) 187, 1694-1698
  • Hannah, M.E., Hannah, W.J., Hewson, S.A., Hodnett, E.D., Saigal, S. and Willan, A.R.: Planned Caesarean
  • Section versus Planned Vaginal Birth  for Breech  Presentation at Term: a Randomized Multicentre Trial. The Lancet, (2000) 356, 1375-1383, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11052579, Retrieved July 22, 2011
  • Keirse, M.J.N.C.: Evidence-Based Childbirth Only For Breech Babies ? Birth , (2004), 29(1), 55-59
  • Kotaska, A.: Breech Birth  Can Be Safe, But is it Worth the Effort? JOGC, (2009), 31(6), 553-554
  • LaLonde, A.B.: Vaginal Breech  Delivery Guideline: the Time Has Come. JOGC, (2009), 31(6), 483-484
  • SOGC Clinical Practice Guideline: Vaginal Delivery of Breech   JOGC, (2009), (226), 557-566
  • Goer, Henci: The Thinking Woman’s Guide to a Better Birth . Section 2. 1999: Perigee Books
  • Breech Babies : What Can I Do If My Baby  Is Breech? American Academy of Family Physicians Riverside Midwifery, LLC. https://familydoctor.org/breech-babies-what-can-i-do-if-my-baby-is-breech/
  • What Should I Know About Cesarean Section?, Childbirth Connection
  • Patient Choice Vaginal Delivery? Annals of Family Medicine: http://www.annfammed.org/content/4/3/265.abstract
  • If Your Baby Is Breech : American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, Http://www.drshanbourmd.com/webdocuments/ACOG-If-Your-Baby-Breech.pdf
  • Five Years to the Term Breech Trial: the Rise and Fall of a Randomized Controlled Trial, (2006-01) http://2womenshealth.com/Pregnancy /Breech-Presentation-0601.htm
  • Is Planned Vaginal Delivery for Breech  Presentation at Term Still an Option? Results of an Observational Prospective Survey in France and Belgium, (2006-02) http://2womenshealth.com/Pregnancy /Breech-Presentation-0602.htm
  • ACOG Committee Opinion No. 340. Mode of Term Singleton Breech Delivery, (2006-03) http://2womenshealth.com/Pregnancy /Breech-Presentation-0603.htm
  • 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, (2005-01) http://2womenshealth.com/Pregnancy /Breech-Presentation-0501.htm
  • Term Breech Delivery in Sweden: Mortality Relative to Fetal Presentation and Planned Mode of Delivery, (2005-02) http://2womenshealth.com/Pregnancy /Breech-Presentation-0502.htm
  • Outcomes of Children at 2 Years After Planned Cesarean  Birth  Versus Planned Vaginal  Birth  for Breech  Presentation at Term: the International Randomized Term Breech Trial, (2004-01) http://2womenshealth.com/Pregnancy /Breech-Presentation-0401.htm
  • Planned Caesarean Section for Term Breech Delivery, http://2womenshealth.com/Pregnancy /Breech-Presentation-0301.htm (2003-01)

Breech Presentation

Caron J. Gray ; Meaghan M. Shanahan .

Affiliations

Last Update: November 6, 2022 .

Continuing Education Activity

Breech presentation refers to the fetus in the longitudinal lie with the buttocks or lower extremity entering the pelvis first. The three types of breech presentation include frank breech, complete breech, and incomplete breech. In a frank breech, the fetus has flexion of both hips, and the legs are straight with the feet near the fetal face, in a pike position. This activity reviews the cause and pathophysiology of breech presentation and highlights the role of the interprofessional team in its management.

Objectives:

  • Describe the pathophysiology of breech presentation.
  • Review the physical exam of a patient with a breech presentation.
  • Summarize the treatment options for breech presentation.
  • Explain the importance of improving care coordination among interprofessional team members to improve outcomes for patients affected by breech presentation.

Introduction

Breech presentation refers to the fetus in the longitudinal lie with the buttocks or lower extremity entering the pelvis first. The three types of breech presentation include frank breech, complete breech, and incomplete breech. In a frank breech, the fetus has flexion of both hips, and the legs are straight with the feet near the fetal face, in a pike position. The complete breech has the fetus sitting with flexion of both hips and both legs in a tuck position. Finally, the incomplete breech can have any combination of one or both hips extended, also known as footling (one leg extended) breech, or double footling breech (both legs extended). [1] [2] [3]

Clinical conditions associated with breech presentation include those that may increase or decrease fetal motility, or affect the vertical polarity of the uterine cavity. Prematurity, multiple gestations, aneuploidies, congenital anomalies, Mullerian anomalies, uterine leiomyoma, and placental polarity as in placenta previa are most commonly associated with a breech presentation.  Also, a previous history of breech presentation at term increases the risk of repeat breech presentation at term in subsequent pregnancies. [4] [5] These are discussed in more detail in the pathophysiology section.

Epidemiology

Breech presentation occurs in 3% to 4% of all term pregnancies. A higher percentage of breech presentations occurs with less advanced gestational age. At 32 weeks, 7% of fetuses are breech, and 28 weeks or less, 25% are breech.

Specifically, following one breech delivery, the recurrence rate for the second pregnancy was nearly 10%, and for a subsequent third pregnancy, it was 27%. Prior cesarean delivery has also been described by some to increase the incidence of breech presentation two-fold.

Pathophysiology

As mentioned previously, the most common clinical conditions or disease processes that result in the breech presentation are those that affect fetal motility or the vertical polarity of the uterine cavity. [6] [7]

Conditions that change the vertical polarity or the uterine cavity, or affect the ease or ability of the fetus to turn into the vertex presentation in the third trimester include:

  • Mullerian anomalies: Septate uterus, bicornuate uterus, and didelphys uterus 
  • Placentation: Placenta previa as the placenta is occupying the inferior portion of the uterine cavity. Therefore, the presenting part cannot engage
  • Uterine leiomyoma: Mainly larger myomas located in the lower uterine segment, often intramural or submucosal, that prevent engagement of the presenting part.
  • Prematurity
  • Aneuploidies and fetal neuromuscular disorders commonly cause hypotonia of the fetus, inability to move effectively
  • Congenital anomalies:  Fetal sacrococcygeal teratoma, fetal thyroid goiter
  • Polyhydramnios: Fetus is often in unstable lie, unable to engage
  • Oligohydramnios: Fetus is unable to turn to vertex due to lack of fluid
  • Laxity of the maternal abdominal wall: Uterus falls forward, the fetus is unable to engage in the pelvis.

The risk of cord prolapse varies depending on the type of breech. Incomplete or footling breech carries the highest risk of cord prolapse at 15% to 18%, while complete breech is lower at 4% to 6%, and frank breech is uncommon at 0.5%.

History and Physical

During the physical exam, using the Leopold maneuvers, palpation of a hard, round, mobile structure at the fundus and the inability to palpate a presenting part in the lower abdomen superior to the pubic bone or the engaged breech in the same area, should raise suspicion of a breech presentation.

During a cervical exam, findings may include the lack of a palpable presenting part, palpation of a lower extremity, usually a foot, or for the engaged breech, palpation of the soft tissue of the fetal buttocks may be noted. If the patient has been laboring, caution is warranted as the soft tissue of the fetal buttocks may be interpreted as caput of the fetal vertex.

Any of these findings should raise suspicion and ultrasound should be performed.

Diagnosis of a breech presentation can be accomplished through abdominal exam using the Leopold maneuvers in combination with the cervical exam. Ultrasound should confirm the diagnosis.

On ultrasound, the fetal lie and presenting part should be visualized and documented. If breech presentation is diagnosed, specific information including the specific type of breech, the degree of flexion of the fetal head, estimated fetal weight, amniotic fluid volume, placental location, and fetal anatomy review (if not already done previously) should be documented.

Treatment / Management

Expertise in the delivery of the vaginal breech baby is becoming less common due to fewer vaginal breech deliveries being offered throughout the United States and in most industrialized countries. The Term Breech Trial (TBT), a well-designed, multicenter, international, randomized controlled trial published in 2000 compared planned vaginal delivery to planned cesarean delivery for the term breech infant. The investigators reported that delivery by planned cesarean resulted in significantly lower perinatal mortality, neonatal mortality, and serious neonatal morbidity. Also, there was no significant difference in maternal morbidity or mortality between the two groups. Since that time, the rate of term breech infants delivered by planned cesarean has increased dramatically. Follow-up studies to the TBT have been published looking at maternal morbidity and outcomes of the children at two years. Although these reports did not show any significant difference in the risk of death and neurodevelopmental, these studies were felt to be underpowered. [8] [9] [10] [11]

Since the TBT, many authors since have argued that there are still some specific situations that vaginal breech delivery is a potential, safe alternative to planned cesarean. Many smaller retrospective studies have reported no difference in neonatal morbidity or mortality using these specific criteria.

The initial criteria used in these reports were similar: gestational age greater than 37 weeks, frank or complete breech presentation, no fetal anomalies on ultrasound examination, adequate maternal pelvis, and estimated fetal weight between 2500 g and 4000 g. In addition, the protocol presented by one report required documentation of fetal head flexion and adequate amniotic fluid volume, defined as a 3-cm vertical pocket. Oxytocin induction or augmentation was not offered, and strict criteria were established for normal labor progress. CT pelvimetry did determine an adequate maternal pelvis.

Despite debate on both sides, the current recommendation for the breech presentation at term includes offering external cephalic version (ECV) to those patients that meet criteria, and for those whom are not candidates or decline external cephalic version, a planned cesarean section for delivery sometime after 39 weeks.

Regarding the premature breech, gestational age will determine the mode of delivery. Before 26 weeks, there is a lack of quality clinical evidence to guide mode of delivery. One large retrospective cohort study recently concluded that from 28 to 31 6/7 weeks, there is a significant decrease in perinatal morbidity and mortality in a planned cesarean delivery versus intended vaginal delivery, while there is no difference in perinatal morbidity and mortality in gestational age 32 to 36 weeks. Of note, due to lack of recruitment, no prospective clinical trials are examining this issue.

Differential Diagnosis

  • Face and brow presentation
  • Fetal anomalies
  • Fetal death
  • Grand multiparity
  • Multiple pregnancies
  • Oligohydramnios
  • Pelvis Anatomy
  • Preterm labor
  • Primigravida
  • Uterine anomalies

Pearls and Other Issues

In light of the decrease in planned vaginal breech deliveries, thus the decrease in expertise in managing this clinical scenario, it is prudent that policies requiring simulation and instruction in the delivery technique for vaginal breech birth are established to care for the emergency breech vaginal delivery.

Enhancing Healthcare Team Outcomes

A breech delivery is usually managed by an obstetrician, labor and delivery nurse, anesthesiologist and a neonatologist. The ultimate decison rests on the obstetrician. To prevent complications, today cesarean sections are performed and experienced with vaginal deliveries of breech presentation is limited. For healthcare workers including the midwife who has no experience with a breech delivery, it is vital to communicate with an obstetrician, otherwise one risks litigation if complications arise during delivery. [12] [13] [14]

Review Questions

  • Access free multiple choice questions on this topic.
  • Comment on this article.

Disclosure: Caron Gray declares no relevant financial relationships with ineligible companies.

Disclosure: Meaghan Shanahan declares no relevant financial relationships with ineligible companies.

IMAGES

  1. PPT

    breech presentation and longitudinal lie

  2. Labor and Birth Processes

    breech presentation and longitudinal lie

  3. PPT

    breech presentation and longitudinal lie

  4. Lie, presentation, attitude, and position

    breech presentation and longitudinal lie

  5. Breech Presentation

    breech presentation and longitudinal lie

  6. section for breech presentation

    breech presentation and longitudinal lie

VIDEO

  1. Lillie Excellence Center

  2. Breech presentation manuevers

  3. Breech Delivery story #bestgynecologist #drkshilpireddy #breechbaby #breechdelivery #normaldelivery

  4. breech presentation

  5. Breech presentation

  6. Malpresentation

COMMENTS

  1. Fetal Presentation, Position, and Lie (Including Breech Presentation

    Fetal lie: Relation of the fetus to the long axis of the uterus; longitudinal, oblique, or transverse Normal fetal lie is longitudinal, normal presentation is vertex, and occiput anterior is the most common position. Abnormal fetal lie, presentation, or position may occur with Fetopelvic disproportion (fetus too large for the pelvic inlet)

  2. Breech Presentation

    Breech presentation refers to the fetus in the longitudinal lie with the buttocks or lower extremity entering the pelvis first. The three types of breech presentation include frank breech, complete breech, and incomplete breech.

  3. Fetal Presentation, Position, and Lie (Including Breech Presentation

    Up-and-down (with the baby's spine parallel to mother's spine, called longitudinal) is normal, but sometimes the lie is sideways (transverse) or at an angle (oblique). For these aspects of fetal positioning, the combination that is the most common, safest, and easiest for the mother to deliver is the following:

  4. Management of breech presentation

    Management of breech presentation Review question Introduction Summary of the protocol Table 1 Summary of the protocol (PICO table). appendix A. Methods and process This evidence review was developed using the methods and process described in 2014 Declarations of interest were recorded according to NICE's conflicts of interest policy.

  5. Abnormal Fetal Lie and Presentation

    The most common relationship between fetus and mother is the longitudinal lie, cephalic presentation. A breech fetus also is a longitudinal lie, with the fetal buttocks as the presenting part. Breech fetuses also are referred to as malpresentations because of the many problems associated with them.

  6. Breech Presentation: Overview, Vaginal Breech Delivery ...

    Breech presentation is defined as a fetus in a longitudinal lie with the buttocks or feet closest to the cervix. This occurs in 3-4% of all deliveries. The percentage of breech deliveries...

  7. Management of malposition and malpresentation in labour

    The most common fetal malpresentation in longitudinal lie is breech presentation which itself can be further subdivided into subtypes. Other malpresentations in longitudinal lie include face, brow and compound. The fetus in non-longitudinal lie may be oblique or transverse, with shoulder, arm or cord presentations. Malpositions, such as ...

  8. Breech Presentation

    Breech presentation is a type of malpresentation and occurs when the fetal head lies over the uterine fundus and fetal buttocks or feet present over the maternal pelvis (instead of cephalic/head presentation). The incidence in the United Kingdom of breech presentation is 3-4% of all fetuses. 1

  9. Chapter 25: Breech Presentation

    Breech presentation is a longitudinal lie with a variation in polarity. The fetal pelvis is the leading pole. The denominator is the sacrum. ... Factors that influence the occurrence of breech presentation include (1) the uterine relaxation associated with high parity; (2) polyhydramnios, in which the excessive amount of amniotic fluid makes it ...

  10. Breech Presentation, Unstable Lie, Malpresentation, and Malpositions

    The lie varies between longitudinal, oblique, and transverse. Presentation. The fetal body part that is adjacent to the birth canal in the lower uterine segment closest to the cervix. The presentations seen in practice are cephalic (head), face, brow, shoulder, arm, hand, breech, or compound (combination of head or limbs with a limb or cord)

  11. Fetal presentation: Breech, posterior, transverse lie, and more

    Fetal presentation, or how your baby is situated in your womb at birth, is determined by the body part that's positioned to come out first, and it can affect the way you deliver. At the time of delivery, 97 percent of babies are head-down (cephalic presentation).

  12. Breech Presentation

    Breech presentation refers to the fetus in the longitudinal lie with the buttocks or lower extremity entering the pelvis first. The three types of breech presentation include frank breech, complete breech, and incomplete breech. In a frank breech, the fetus has flexion of both hips, and the legs are …

  13. Abnormal Fetal lie, Malpresentation and Malposition

    Lie - the relationship between the long axis of the fetus and the mother. Longitudinal, transverse or oblique Presentation - the fetal part that first enters the maternal pelvis. Cephalic vertex presentation is the most common and is considered the safest Other presentations include breech, shoulder, face and brow

  14. Breech Baby: Causes, Complications, Turning & Delivery

    Transverse lie: This is a form of breech presentation where your baby is positioned horizontally across your uterus instead of vertically. This would make their shoulder enter the vagina first. Advertisement. How does a breech baby affect pregnancy? Your pregnancy is usually not affected. Most breech babies are born healthy, although there is a ...

  15. Breech Extraction Delivery: Overview, Indications, Contraindications

    Overview Fetal malpresentation occurs in about 4% of all term pregnancies. The most common malpresentation by far is breech presentation, where the fetal longitudinal lie is oriented...

  16. Fetal presentation before birth

    Frank breech. When a baby's feet or buttocks are in place to come out first during birth, it's called a breech presentation. This happens in about 3% to 4% of babies close to the time of birth. The baby shown below is in a frank breech presentation. That's when the knees aren't bent, and the feet are close to the baby's head.

  17. Breech in Labor

    Breech presentation is defined as a fetus in a longitudinal lie with the buttocks or feet closest to the cervix. This occurs in 3-4% of all deliveries. The percentage of breech presentation decreases with advancing gestational age from 22-25% of births prior to 28 weeks' gestation to 7-15% of births at 32 weeks' gestation to 3-4% of births at term.

  18. Breech birth

    Cause. With regard to the fetal presentation during pregnancy, three periods have been distinguished. During the first period, which lasts until the 24th gestational week, the incidence of a longitudinal lie increases, with equal proportions of breech or cephalic presentations from this lie. This period is characterized by frequent changes of presentations.

  19. Fetal Presentation, Position, and Lie (Including Breech Presentation

    During routine prenatal care, clinicians assess fetal lie and presentation with physical examination in the late third trimester. Ultrasonography can also be done. If breech presentation is detected, external cephalic version can sometimes move the fetus to vertex presentation before labor, usually at 37 or 38 weeks.

  20. Breech Presentation

    The breech presentation refers to a longitudinal lie where the presenting part is the breech pole, which can be constituted by the fetal buttocks, the thighs and/or the feet. It must be...

  21. Breech

    Breech presentation is an absolutely normal variation of pregnancy. Since the baby is in longitudinal lie, he can be born spontaneously. Frank breech: the baby's legs are extended and touch the head, occurs in about 65% of breech births. Complete breech: both knees are flexed and the feet tucked in beside the buttocks.

  22. Presentation (obstetrics)

    Vertex presentation with longitudinal lie: [1] Left occipitoanterior (LOA)—the occiput is close to the vagina (hence known as vertex presentation), facing anteriorly (forward with mother standing) and toward the left. This is the most common position and lie. Right occipitoanterior (ROA)—the occiput faces anteriorly and toward the right.

  23. Breech Presentation

    Breech presentation refers to the fetus in the longitudinal lie with the buttocks or lower extremity entering the pelvis first. The three types of breech presentation include frank breech, complete breech, and incomplete breech. In a frank breech, the fetus has flexion of both hips, and the legs are straight with the feet near the fetal face ...