Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Beckenendlage – Ist die vaginale Geburt out?

Breech presentation – is vaginal birth obsolete?

  • Gynäkologie aktuell
  • Published:
Der Gynäkologe Aims and scope

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Literatur

  1. https://www.destatis.de/DE/Presse/Pressemitteilungen/2018/10/PD18_420_122.html;jsessionid=975D0E5467DBAB365D6B257A69BF4D9C. Zugegriffen: 27.04.2019

  2. https://www.rcog.org.uk/en/guidelines-research-services/guidelines/gtg20b/. Zugegriffen: 27.04.2019

  3. https://www.jogc.com/article/S1701-2163(16)34221-9/pdf. Zugegriffen: 27.04.2019

  4. https://www.acog.org/-/media/Committee-Opinions/Committee-on-Obstetric-Practice/co745.pdf?dmc=1&ts=20181228T1457351971. Zugegriffen: 27.04.2019

  5. Hannah ME, Hannah WJ, Hewson SA, Hodnett ED, Saigal S, Willan AR (2000) Planned caesarean section versus planned vaginal birth for breech presentation at term: a randomised multicentre trial. Term Breech Trial Collaborative Group. Lancet 356(9239):1375–1383

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Rietberg CC, Elferink-Stinkens PM, Visser GH (2005) 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. BJOG 112:205–209

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Goffinet F, Carayol M, Foidart JM, Alexander S, Uzan S, Subtil D, Bréart G, PREMODA Study Group (2006) 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 194(4):1002–1011

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Jennewein L, Kielland-Kaisen U, Paul B, Möllmann CJ, Klemt AS, Schulze S, Bock N, Schaarschmidt W, Brüggmann D, Louwen F (2018) Maternal and neonatal outcome after vaginal breech delivery at term of children weighing more or less than 3,8 kg: A FRABAT prospective cohort study. PLoS ONE 13(8):e202760

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Macharey G, Gissler M, Rahkonen L, Ulander VM, Väisänen-Tommiska M, Nuutila M, Heinonen S (2017) Risk factors associated with adverse perinatal outcome in planned vaginal breech labors at term: a retrospective population-based case-control study. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 17(1):93

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Smith GC (2001) Life-table analysis of the risk of perinatal death at term and post term in singleton pregnancies. Am J Obstet Gyncol 184:489–496

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Vlemmix F, Bergenhenegouwen L, Schaaf JM, Ensing S, Rosman AN, Ravelli AC et al (2014) Term breech deliveries in the Netherlands: did the increased cesarean rate affect neonatal outcome? A population-based cohort study. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 93:888–896

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Beuckens A, Rijnders M, Verburgt-Doeleman GH, Rijninks-van Driel GC, Thorpe J, Hutton EK (2015) An observational study of the success and complications of 2546 external cephalic versions in low-risk pregnant women performed by trained midwives. BJOG 123:415–423

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Tong Leung VK, Suen SS, Singh Sahota D, Lau TK, Yeung Leung T (2012) External cephalic version does not increase the risk of intra-uterine death: a 17-year experience and literature review. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 25:1774–1778

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Collins S, Ellaway P, Harrington D, Pandit M, Impey LW (2007) The complications of external cephalic version: results from 805 consecutive attempts. BJOG 114:636–638

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Kaneti H, Rosen D, Markov S, Beyth Y, Fejgin MD (2000) Intrapartum external cephalic version of footling-breech presentation. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 79:1083–1085

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. https://www.rcog.org.uk/en/guidelines-research-services/guidelines/gtg20a/. Zugegriffen: 27.04.2019

  17. Kok M, Cnossen J, Gravendeel L, van der Post J, Opmeer B, Mol BW (2008) Clinical factors to predict the outcome of external cephalic version: a  metaanalysis. Am J Obstet Gynecol 199:630.e1–630.e7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Kok M, Cnossen J, Gravendeel L, Van Der Post JA, Mol BW (2009) Ultrasound factors to predict the outcome of external cephalic version: a meta-analysis. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 33:76–84

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Burgos J, Cobos P, Rodrguez L, Osuna C, Centeno MM, Martnez-Astorquiza T et al (2014) Is external cephalic version at term contraindicated in previous caesarean section? A prospective comparative cohort study. BJOG 121:230–235

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Coyle ME, Smith CA, Peat B (2012) Cephalic version by moxibustion for breech presentation. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD003928.pub3

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Vas J, Aranda-Regules JM, Modesto M, Ramos-Monserrat M, Barón M, Aguilar I et al (2013) Using moxibustion in primary healthcare to correct non-vertex presentation: a multicenter randomized controlled trial. Acupunct Med 31:31–38

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Klinik für Gynäkologie und Geburtshilfe, Universitätsklinikum Schleswig-Holstein, Campus Kiel, Arnold-Heller-Str. 3, 24105, Kiel, Deutschland

    Anna-Christina Rambow,  Martina Brügge,  Nicolai Maass &  André Farrokh

Authors
  1. Anna-Christina Rambow
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Martina Brügge
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Nicolai Maass
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. André Farrokh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Anna-Christina Rambow.

Ethics declarations

Interessenkonflikt

A.-C. Rambow, M. Brügge, N. Maass und A. Farrokh geben an, dass kein Interessenkonflikt besteht.

Für diesen Beitrag wurden von den Autoren keine Studien an Menschen oder Tieren durchgeführt. Für die aufgeführten Studien gelten die jeweils dort angegebenen ethischen Richtlinien.

Additional information

Redaktion

T. Fehm, Düsseldorf

L. Kiesel, Münster

R. Kimmig, Essen

N. Maass, Kiel

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Rambow, AC., Brügge, M., Maass, N. et al. Beckenendlage – Ist die vaginale Geburt out?. Gynäkologe 52, 692–696 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00129-019-4435-5

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00129-019-4435-5

Search

Navigation