Advertisement

Prognosis for deliveries in face presentation: a case–control study

  • Emmanuelle ArsèneEmail author
  • C. Langlois
  • E. Clouqueur
  • P. Deruelle
  • D. Subtil
Maternal-Fetal Medicine

Abstract

Purpose

To estimate the maternal and fetal prognosis for attempted vaginal deliveries of fetuses in face compared with vertex presentations. To evaluate the factors associated with a cesarean during labor for fetuses in face presentation.

Methods

This case–control study collected all the cases of face presentation in a university hospital level-3 maternity ward between 22 and 42 weeks of gestation over a 16-year period. For each case, we selected three control cases with vertex presentations delivered the same day. Cesareans before labor were excluded.

Results

We compared 60 attempted vaginal deliveries of fetuses in face presentation with 174 of fetuses in vertex presentation. The cesarean rate during labor was more than three times higher for the face presentations (31.7 vs 9.2%, P < 0.0001). Arterial pH values and Apgar scores were similar in both sets of newborns. After logistic regression, the factors associated with a cesarean during labor were nulliparity and early diagnosis of the presentation (i.e., before 5 cm dilatation). The initial position (mentum-anterior vs. transverse or posterior) was not significantly associated with the mode of delivery.

Conclusions

In face presentations, attempted vaginal delivery triples the cesarean risk. Nonetheless, more than two-thirds of these women give birth vaginally without any impairment of neonatal condition.

Keywords

Face presentation Deflexed presentation Prognosis Cesarean 

Notes

Author contributions

EA: project development, data collection, data analysis, and manuscript writing. CL: data analysis. EC: manuscript editing. PD: manuscript editing. DS: project development, data analysis, and manuscript writing/editing.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. 1.
    Cunningham FG, Williams JW (2010) Williams obstetrics, 23rd edn. McGraw-Hill Medical, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Cruikshank DP, Cruikshank JE (1981) Face and brow presentation: a review. Clin Obstet Gynecol 24(2):333–351CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Seeds JW, Cefalo RC (1982) Malpresentations. Clin Obstet Gynecol 25(1):145–156CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Posner AC, Cohn S (1951) An analysis of 45 face presentations. Am J Obstet Gynecol 62(3):592–599CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Reinke T (1953) Face presentation: a review of 94 cases. Am J Obstet Gynecol 66(6):1185–1190CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Duff P (1981) Diagnosis and management of face presentation. Obstet Gynecol 57(1):105–112Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Posner AC, Buch IM (1943) Face and persistent brow presentations. Surgery, Gynecology and Obstetrics 77:618–630Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Sharmila V, Babu TA (2014) Unusual birth trauma involving face: a completely preventable iatrogenic injury. J Clin Neonatol 3(2):120–121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Chaoui A (1982) La présentation de la face. Facteurs de risques; déductions thérapeutiques. J Gynecol Obstet Biol Reprod 11:731–738Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Benedetti TJ, Lowensohn RI, Truscott AM (1980) Face presentation at term. Obstet Gynecol 55(2):199–202Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bhal PS, Davies NJ, Chung T (1998) A population study of face and brow presentation. J Obstet Gynaecol 18(3):231–235CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Shaffer BL, Cheng YW, Vargas JE, Laros RK, Caughey AB (2006) Face presentation: predictors and delivery route. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 194(5):e10–e12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Ducarme G, Ceccaldi P-F, Chesnoy V, Robinet G, Gabriel R (2006) Face presentation: retrospective study of 32 cases at term. Gynecol Obstet Fertil 34(5):393–396CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Zayed F, Amarin Z, Obeidat B, Obeidat N, Alchalabi H, Lataifeh I (2008) Face and brow presentation in northern Jordan, over a decade of experience. Arch Gynecol Obstet 278(5):427–430CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Schwartz Z, Dgani R, Lancet M, Kessler I (1986) Face presentation. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol 26(3):172–176CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Arsene E, Langlois C, Garabedian C, Clouqueur E, Deruelle P, Subtil D (2016) Prenatal factors related to face presentation: a case control study. Arch Gynecol Obstet 294(2):279–284CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Audra P, Jacquot F (1988) Deflected cephalic presentation. A propos of 80 cases. Rev Fr Gynecol Obstet 83(5):355–357Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Pôle Femme Mère Enfant, Centre Hospitalier de CalaisCalaisFrance
  2. 2.Unité de Biostatistiques, MRRC, CHRU LilleLille cedexFrance
  3. 3.Pôle Femme Mère Nouveau-né, Clinique d’Obstétrique, Hôpital Jeanne de FlandreUniversité Nord de FranceLille cedexFrance
  4. 4.EA 4489, Environnement périnatal et croissancePRES Université Lille Nord de FranceLilleFrance
  5. 5.EA 2694PRES Université Lille Nord de FranceLilleFrance

Personalised recommendations