cephalic presentation at 32 weeks means

• Type 2 Diabetes
• Heart Disease
• Digestive Health
• Multiple Sclerosis
• COVID-19 Vaccines
• Occupational Therapy
• Healthy Aging
• Health Insurance
• Public Health
• Patient Rights
• Caregivers & Loved Ones
• End of Life Concerns
• Health News
• Thyroid Test Analyzer
• Doctor Discussion Guides
• Hemoglobin A1c Test Analyzer
• Lipid Test Analyzer
• Complete Blood Count (CBC) Analyzer
• What to Buy
• Editorial Process
• Meet Our Medical Expert Board

What Is Cephalic Position?

The ideal fetal position for labor and delivery

• Why It's Best

Risks of Other Positions

• Determining Position
• Turning a Fetus

The cephalic position is when a fetus is head down when it is ready to enter the birth canal. This is one of a few variations of how a fetus can rest in the womb and is considered the ideal one for labor and delivery.

About 96% of babies are born in the cephalic position. Most settle into it between the 32nd and 36th weeks of pregnancy . Your healthcare provider will monitor the fetus's position during the last weeks of gestation to ensure this has happened by week 36.

If the fetus is not in the cephalic position at that point, the provider may try to turn it. If this doesn't work, some—but not all—practitioners will attempt to deliver vaginally, while others will recommend a Cesarean (C-section).

Getty Images

Why Is the Cephalic Position Best?

During labor, contractions dilate the cervix so the fetus has adequate room to come through the birth canal. The cephalic position is the easiest and safest way for the baby to pass through the birth canal.

If the fetus is in a noncephalic position, delivery becomes more challenging. Different fetal positions have a range of difficulties and varying risks.

A small percentage of babies present in noncephalic positions. This can pose risks both to the fetus and the mother, and make labor and delivery more challenging. It can also influence the way in which someone can deliver.

A fetus may actually find itself in any of these positions throughout pregnancy, as the move about the uterus. But as they grow, there will be less room to tumble around and they will settle into a final position.

It is at this point that noncephalic positions can pose significant risks.

Cephalic Posterior

A fetus may also present in an occiput or cephalic posterior position. This means they are positioned head down, but they are facing the abdomen instead of the back.

This position is also nicknamed "sunny-side up."

Presenting this way increases the chance of a painful and prolonged delivery.

There are three different types of breech fetal positioning:

• Frank breech: The legs are up with the feet near the head.
• Footling breech: One or both legs is lowered over the cervix.
• Complete breech: The fetus is bottom-first with knees bent.

A vaginal delivery is most times a safe way to deliver. But with breech positions, a vaginal delivery can be complicated.

When a baby is born in the breech position, the largest part—its head—is delivered last. This can result in them getting stuck in the birth canal (entrapped). This can cause injury or death.

The umbilical cord may also be damaged or slide down into the mouth of the womb, which can reduce or cut off the baby's oxygen supply.

Some providers are still comfortable performing a vaginal birth as long as the fetus is doing well. But breech is always a riskier delivery position compared with the cephalic position, and most cases require a C-section.

Likelihood of a Breech Baby

You are more likely to have a breech baby if you:

• Go into early labor before you're full term
• Have an abnormally shaped uterus, fibroids , or too much amniotic fluid
• Are pregnant with multiples
• Have placenta previa (when the placenta covers the cervix)

Transverse Lie

In transverse lie position, the fetus is presenting sideways across the uterus rather than vertically. They may be:

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

If a transverse lie is not corrected before labor, a C-section will be required. This is typically the case.

Determining Fetal Position

Your healthcare provider can determine if your baby is in cephalic presentation by performing a physical exam and ultrasound.

In the final weeks of pregnancy, your healthcare provider will feel your lower abdomen with their hands to assess the positioning of the baby. This includes where the head, back, and buttocks lie

If your healthcare provider senses that the fetus is in a breech position, they can use ultrasound to confirm their suspicion.

Turning a Fetus So They Are in Cephalic Position

External cephalic version (ECV) is a common, noninvasive procedure to turn a breech baby into cephalic position while it's still in the uterus.

This is only considered if a healthcare provider monitors presentation progress in the last trimester and notices that a fetus is maintaining a noncephalic position as your delivery date approaches.

External Cephalic Version (ECV)

ECV involves the healthcare provider applying pressure to your stomach to turn the fetus from the outside. They will attempt to rotate the head forward or backward and lift the buttocks in an upward position. Sometimes, they use ultrasound to help guide the process.

The best time to perform ECV is about 37 weeks of pregnancy. Afterward, the fetal heart rate will be monitored to make sure it’s within normal levels. You should be able to go home after having ECV done.

ECV has a 50% to 60% success rate. However, even if it does work, there is still a chance the fetus will return to the breech position before birth.

Natural Methods For Turning a Fetus

There are also natural methods that can help turn a fetus into cephalic position. There is no medical research that confirms their efficacy, however.

• Changing your position: Sometimes a fetus will move when you get into certain positions. Two specific movements that your provider may recommend include: Getting on your hands and knees and gently rocking back and forth. Another you could try is pushing your hips up in the air while laying on your back with your knees bent and feet flat on the floor (bridge pose).
• Playing stimulating sounds: Fetuses gravitate to sound. You may be successful at luring a fetus out of breech position by playing music or a recording of your voice near your lower abdomen.
• Chiropractic care: A chiropractor can try the Webster technique. This is a specific chiropractic analysis and adjustment which enables chiropractors to establish balance in the pregnant person's pelvis and reduce undue stress to the uterus and supporting ligaments.
• Acupuncture: This is a considerably safe way someone can try to turn a fetus. Some practitioners incorporate moxibustion—the burning of dried mugwort on certain areas of the body—because they believe it will enhance the chances of success.

A Word From Verywell

While most babies are born in cephalic position at delivery, this is not always the case. And while some fetuses can be turned, others may be more stubborn.

This may affect your labor and delivery wishes. Try to remember that having a healthy baby, and staying well yourself, are your ultimate priorities. That may mean diverting from your best laid plans.

Speaking to your healthcare provider about turning options and the safest route of delivery may help you adjust to this twist and feel better about how you will move ahead.

Glezerman M. Planned vaginal breech delivery: current status and the need to reconsider . Expert Rev Obstet Gynecol. 2012;7(2):159-166. doi:10.1586/eog.12.2

Cleveland Clinic. Fetal positions for birth .

MedlinePlus. Breech birth .

UT Southwestern Medical Center. Can you turn a breech baby around?

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. If your baby is breech .

Roecker CB. Breech repositioning unresponsive to Webster technique: coexistence of oligohydramnios .  Journal of Chiropractic Medicine . 2013;12(2):74-78. doi:10.1016/j.jcm.2013.06.003

By Cherie Berkley, MS Berkley is a journalist with a certification in global health from Johns Hopkins University and a master's degree in journalism.

You and your baby at 32 weeks pregnant

Your baby at 32 weeks.

By about 32 weeks, the baby is usually lying with their head pointing downwards, ready for birth. This is known as cephalic presentation.

If your baby is not lying head down at this stage, it's not a cause for concern – there's still time for them to turn.

The amount of amniotic fluid in your uterus is increasing, and your baby is still swallowing fluid and passing it out as urine.

You at 32 weeks

Being active and fit during pregnancy will help you adapt to your changing shape and weight gain. It can also help you cope with labour and get back into shape after the birth.

Find out about exercise in pregnancy .

You may develop pelvic pain in pregnancy. This is not harmful to your baby, but it can cause severe pain and make it difficult for you to get around.

Find out about ways to tackle pelvic pain in pregnancy .

Read about the benefits of breastfeeding for you and your baby. It's never too early to start thinking about how you're going to feed your baby, and you do not have to make up your mind until your baby is born.

Things to think about

• how you might feel after the birth

Start4Life has more about you and your baby at 32 weeks pregnant .

You can sign up for Start4Life's weekly emails for expert advice, videos and tips on pregnancy, birth and beyond.

Page last reviewed: 13 October 2021 Next review due: 13 October 2024

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

• Variations in Fetal Position and Presentation |

During pregnancy, the fetus can be positioned in many different ways inside the mother's uterus. The fetus may be head up or down or facing the mother's back or front. At first, the fetus can move around easily or shift position as the mother moves. Toward the end of the pregnancy the fetus is larger, has less room to move, and stays in one position. How the fetus is positioned has an important effect on delivery and, for certain positions, a cesarean delivery is necessary. There are medical terms that describe precisely how the fetus is positioned, and identifying the fetal position helps doctors to anticipate potential difficulties during labor and delivery.

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).

The uterus is abnormally shaped or contains growths such as fibroids .

The fetus has a birth defect .

There is more than one fetus (multiple gestation).

Position and Presentation of the Fetus

Variations in fetal position and presentation.

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).

When a fetus faces up, the neck is often straightened rather than bent,which requires more room for the head to pass through the birth canal. Delivery assisted by a vacuum device or forceps or cesarean delivery may be necessary.

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.

In a first delivery, these problems may occur more frequently because a woman’s tissues have not been stretched by previous deliveries. Because of risk of injury or even death to the baby, cesarean delivery is preferred when the fetus is in breech presentation, unless the doctor is very experienced with and skilled at delivering breech babies or there is not an adequate facility or equipment to safely perform a cesarean delivery.

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

Labor starts too soon (preterm labor).

The uterus is abnormally shaped or contains abnormal growths such as fibroids .

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.

• Cookie Preferences

Copyright © 2024 Merck & Co., Inc., Rahway, NJ, USA and its affiliates. All rights reserved.

• Learn   /  

Why Is Cephalic Presentation Ideal For Childbirth?

5   Dec   2017 | 8 min Read

During labour, contractions stretch your birth canal so that your baby has adequate room to come through during birth. The cephalic presentation is the safest and easiest way for your baby to pass through the birth canal.

If your baby is in a non-cephalic position, delivery can become more challenging. Different fetal positions pose a range of difficulties and varying risks and may not be considered ideal birthing positions.

Two Kinds of Cephalic Positions

There are two kinds of cephalic positions:

• Cephalic occiput anterior , where your baby’s head is down and is facing toward your back.
• Cephalic occiput posterior , where your baby is positioned head down, but they are facing your abdomen instead of your back. This position is also nicknamed ‘sunny-side-up’ and can increase the chances of prolonged and painful delivery. 

How to Know if Your Baby is In a Cephalic Position?

You can feel your baby’s position by rubbing your hand on your belly. If you feel your little one’s stomach in the upper stomach, then your baby is in a cephalic position. But if you feel their kicks in the lower stomach, then it could mean that your baby is in a breech position.

You can also determine whether your baby is in the anterior or posterior cephalic position. If your baby is in the anterior position, you may feel their movement underneath your ribs and your belly button could also pop out. If your baby is in the posterior position, then you may feel their kicks in their abdomen, and your stomach may appear rounded up instead of flat. 

You can also determine your baby’s position through an ultrasound scan or a physical examination at your healthcare provider’s office. 

Benefits of Cephalic Presentation in Pregnancy

Cephalic presentation is one of the most ideal birth positions, and has the following benefits:

• It is the safest way to give birth as your baby’s position is head-down and prevents the risk of any injuries.
• It can help your baby move through the delivery canal as safely and easily as possible.
• It increases the chances of smooth labour and delivery.

Are There Any Risks Involved in Cephalic Position?

Conditions like a cephalic posterior position in addition to a narrow pelvis of the mother can increase the risk of pregnancy complications during delivery. Some babies in the head-first cephalic presentation might have their heads tilted backward. This may, in some rare cases, cause preterm delivery.

What are the Risks Associated with Other Birth Positions?

A small percentage of babies may settle into a non-cephalic position before their birth. This can pose risks to both your and your baby’s health, and also influence the way in which you deliver. 

In the next section, we have discussed a few positions that your baby can settle in throughout pregnancy, as they move around the uterus. But as they grow old, there will be less space for them to tumble around, and they will settle into their final position. This is when non-cephalic positions can pose a risk.  

Breech Position

There are three types of breech fetal positioning:

• Frank breech : Your baby’s legs stick straight up along with their feet near their head.
• Footling breech: One or both of your baby’s legs are lowered over your cervix.
• Complete breech: Your baby is positioned bottom-first with their knees bent.

If your baby is in a breech position , vaginal delivery is considered complicated. When a baby is born in breech position, the largest part of their body, that is, their head is delivered last. This can lead to injury or even fetal distress. Moreover, the umbilical cord may also get damaged or get wrapped around your baby’s neck, cutting off their oxygen supply.  

If your baby is in a breech position, your healthcare provider may recommend a c-section, or they may try ways to flip your baby’s position in a cephalic presentation.

Transverse Lie

In this position, your baby settles in sideways across the uterus rather than being in a vertical position. They may be:

• Head-down, with their back facing the birth canal
• One shoulder pointing toward the birth canal
• Up with their hands and feet facing the birth canal

If your baby settles in this position, then your healthcare provider may suggest a c-section to reduce the risk of distress in your baby and other pregnancy complications.

Turning Your Baby Into A Cephalic Position

External cephalic version (ECV) is a common, and non-invasive procedure that helps turn your baby into a cephalic position while they are in the womb. However, your healthcare provider may only consider this procedure if they consider you have a stable health condition in the last trimester, and if your baby hasn’t changed their position by the 36th week.

You can also try some natural remedies to change your baby’s position, such as:

• Lying in a bridge position: Movements like bridge position can sometimes help move your baby into a more suitable position. Lie on your back with your feet flat on the ground and your legs bent. Raise your pelvis and hips into a bridge position and hold for 5-10 minutes. Repeat several times daily.
• Chiropractic care: A chiropractor can help with the adjustment of your baby’s position and also reduce stress in them.
• Acupuncture: After your doctor’s go-ahead, you can also consider acupuncture to get your baby to settle into an ideal birthing position.

While most babies settle in a cephalic presentation by the 36th week of pregnancy, some may lie in a breech or transverse position before birth. Since the cephalic position is considered the safest, your doctor may recommend certain procedures to flip your baby’s position to make your labour and delivery smooth. You may also try the natural methods that we discussed above to get your baby into a safe birthing position and prevent risks or other pregnancy complications. 

When Should A Baby Be In A Cephalic Position?

Your baby would likely naturally drop into a cephalic position between weeks 37 to 40 of your pregnancy .

Is Cephalic Position Safe?

Research shows that 95% of babies take the cephalic position a few weeks or days before their due date. It is considered to be the safest position. It ensures a smooth birthing process.

While most of the babies are in cephalic position at delivery, this is not always the case. If you have a breech baby, you can discuss the available options for delivery with your doctor.

Does cephalic presentation mean labour is near?

Head-down is the ideal position for your baby within your uterus during birth. This is known as the cephalic position. This posture allows your baby to pass through the delivery canal more easily and safely.

Can babies change from cephalic to breech?

The external cephalic version (ECV) is the most frequent procedure used for turning a breech infant.

How can I keep my baby in a cephalic position?

While your baby naturally gets into this position, you can try some exercises to ensure that they settle in cephalic presentation. Exercises such as breech tilt, forward-leaning position (spinning babies program), cat and camel pose can help.

Stitches after a normal delivery : How many stitches do you need after a vaginal delivery? Tap this post to know.

Vaginal birth after caesarean delivery : Learn all about the precautions to consider before having a vaginal delivery after a c-section procedure. 

How many c-sections can you have : Tap this post to know the total number of c-sections that you can safely have.

Cover Image Credit: Freepik.com

Related Topics for you

babychakraenglish

cephalicposition

cephalicpresentation

fetaldevelopment

fetalmovement

preganancycare

Suggestions offered by doctors on BabyChakra are of advisory nature i.e., for educational and informational purposes only. Content posted on, created for, or compiled by BabyChakra is not intended or designed to replace your doctor's independent judgment about any symptom, condition, or the appropriateness or risks of a procedure or treatment for a given person.

Cephalic presentation at 32 weeks

You May Also Like

Planning visitors during hospital stay, you’re pregnant how these moms reacted, jump to your week of pregnancy, trending on what to expect, moms share home remedies for pregnancy morning sickness, 8 expensive products moms say are worth the money, ⚠️ you can't see this cool content because you have ad block enabled., 14 moms on what labor really feels like, what are your go-to healthy snacks, things they don't tell you about: mom edition, pregnancy brain moments let's have a laugh, help keep our community safe, to create a safe place, please, on our end, we will.

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

• Key Points |

Abnormal fetal lie or presentation may occur due to fetal size, fetal anomalies, uterine structural abnormalities, multiple gestation, or other factors. Diagnosis is by examination or ultrasonography. Management is with physical maneuvers to reposition the fetus, operative vaginal delivery , or cesarean delivery .

Terms that describe the fetus in relation to the uterus, cervix, and maternal pelvis are

Fetal presentation: Fetal part that overlies the maternal pelvic inlet; vertex (cephalic), face, brow, breech, shoulder, funic (umbilical cord), or compound (more than one part, eg, shoulder and hand)

Fetal position: Relation of the presenting part to an anatomic axis; for transverse presentation, occiput anterior, occiput posterior, occiput transverse

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)

Fetal congenital anomalies

Uterine structural abnormalities (eg, fibroids, synechiae)

Multiple gestation

Several common types of abnormal lie or presentation are discussed here.

Transverse lie

Fetal position is transverse, with the fetal long axis oblique or perpendicular rather than parallel to the maternal long axis. Transverse lie is often accompanied by shoulder presentation, which requires cesarean delivery.

Breech presentation

There are several types of breech presentation.

Frank breech: The fetal hips are flexed, and the knees extended (pike position).

Complete breech: The fetus seems to be sitting with hips and knees flexed.

Single or double footling presentation: One or both legs are completely extended and present before the buttocks.

Types of breech presentations

Breech presentation makes delivery difficult ,primarily because the presenting part is a poor dilating wedge. Having a poor dilating wedge can lead to incomplete cervical dilation, because the presenting part is narrower than the head that follows. The head, which is the part with the largest diameter, can then be trapped during delivery.

Additionally, the trapped fetal head can compress the umbilical cord if the fetal umbilicus is visible at the introitus, particularly in primiparas whose pelvic tissues have not been dilated by previous deliveries. Umbilical cord compression may cause fetal hypoxemia.

Predisposing factors for breech presentation include

Preterm labor

Uterine abnormalities

Fetal anomalies

If delivery is vaginal, breech presentation may increase risk of

Umbilical cord prolapse

Birth trauma

Perinatal death

Face or brow presentation

In face presentation, the head is hyperextended, and position is designated by the position of the chin (mentum). When the chin is posterior, the head is less likely to rotate and less likely to deliver vaginally, necessitating cesarean delivery.

Brow presentation usually converts spontaneously to vertex or face presentation.

Occiput posterior position

The most common abnormal position is occiput posterior.

The fetal neck is usually somewhat deflexed; thus, a larger diameter of the head must pass through the pelvis.

Progress may arrest in the second phase of labor. Operative vaginal delivery or cesarean delivery is often required.

Position and Presentation of the Fetus

If a fetus is in the occiput posterior position, operative vaginal delivery or cesarean delivery is often required.

In breech presentation, the presenting part is a poor dilating wedge, which can cause the head to be trapped during delivery, often compressing the umbilical cord.

For breech presentation, usually do cesarean delivery at 39 weeks or during labor, but external cephalic version is sometimes successful before labor, usually at 37 or 38 weeks.

• Cookie Preferences

Copyright © 2024 Merck & Co., Inc., Rahway, NJ, USA and its affiliates. All rights reserved.

• 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

How your twins’ fetal positions affect labor and delivery

Twin fetal presentation – also known as the position of your babies in the womb – dictates whether you'll have a vaginal or c-section birth. Toward the end of pregnancy, most twins will move in the head-down position (vertex), but there's a risk that the second twin will change position after the first twin is born. While there are options to change the second twin's position, this can increase the risk of c-section and other health issues. Learn about the six possible twin fetal presentations: vertex-vertex, vertex-breech, breech-breech, vertex-transverse, breech-transverse, and transverse-transverse – and how they'll impact your delivery and risks for complications.

What is fetal presentation and what does it mean for your twins?

As your due date approaches, you might be wondering how your twins are currently positioned in the womb, also known as the fetal presentation, and what that means for your delivery. Throughout your pregnancy, your twin babies will move in the uterus, but sometime during the third trimester – usually between 32 and 36 weeks – their fetal presentation changes as they prepare to go down the birth canal.

The good news is that at most twin births, both babies are head-down (vertex), which means you can have a vaginal delivery. In fact, nearly 40 percent of twins are delivered vaginally.

But if one baby has feet or bottom first (breech) or is sideways (transverse), your doctor might deliver the lower twin vaginally and then try to rotate the other twin so that they face head-down (also called external cephalic version or internal podalic version) and can be delivered vaginally. But if that doesn't work, there's still a chance that your doctor will be able to deliver the second twin feet first vaginally via breech extraction (delivering the breech baby feet or butt first through the vagina).

That said, a breech extraction depends on a variety of factors – including how experienced your doctor is in the procedure and how much the second twin weighs. Studies show that the higher rate of vaginal births among nonvertex second twins is associated with labor induction and more experienced doctors, suggesting that proper delivery planning may increase your chances of a vaginal birth .

That said, you shouldn't totally rule out a Cesarean delivery with twins . If the first twin is breech or neither of the twins are head-down, then you'll most likely have a Cesarean delivery.

Research also shows that twin babies who are born at less than 34 weeks and have moms with multiple children are associated with intrapartum presentation change (when the fetal presentation of the second twin changes from head-down to feet first after the delivery of the first twin) of the second twin. Women who have intrapartum presentation change are more likely to undergo a Cesarean delivery for their second twin.

Here's a breakdown of the different fetal presentations for twin births and how they will affect your delivery.

Head down, head down (vertex, vertex)

This fetal presentation is the most promising for a vaginal delivery because both twins are head-down. Twins can change positions, but if they're head-down at 28 weeks, they're likely to stay that way.

When delivering twins vaginally, there is a risk that the second twin will change position after the delivery of the first. Research shows that second twins change positions in 20 percent of planned vaginal deliveries. If this happens, your doctor may try to rotate the second twin so it faces head-down or consider a breech extraction. But if neither of these work or are an option, then a Cesarean delivery is likely.

In vertex-vertex pairs, the rate of Cesarean delivery for the second twin after a vaginal delivery of the first one is 16.9 percent.

Like all vaginal deliveries, there's also a chance you'll have an assisted birth, where forceps or a vacuum are needed to help deliver your twins.

Head down, bottom down (vertex, breech)

When the first twin's (the lower one) head is down, but the second twin isn't, your doctor may attempt a vaginal delivery by changing the baby's position or doing breech extraction, which isn't possible if the second twin weighs much more than the first twin.

The rates of emergency C-section deliveries for the second twin after a vaginal delivery of the first twin are higher in second twins who have a very low birth weight. Small babies may not tolerate labor as well.

Head down, sideways (vertex, transverse)

If one twin is lying sideways or diagonally (oblique), there's a chance the baby may shift position as your labor progresses, or your doctor may try to turn the baby head-down via external cephalic version or internal podalic version (changing position in the uterus), which means you may be able to deliver both vaginally.

Bottom down, bottom down (breech, breech)

When both twins are breech, a planned C-section is recommended because your doctor isn't able to turn the fetuses. Studies also show that there are fewer negative neonatal outcomes for planned C-sections than planned vaginal births in breech babies.

As with any C-section, the risks for a planned one with twins include infection, loss of blood, blood clots, injury to the bowel or bladder, a weak uterine wall, placenta abnormalities in future pregnancies and fetal injury.

Bottom down, sideways (breech, transverse)

When the twin lowest in your uterus is breech or transverse (which happens in 25 percent of cases), you'll need to have a c-section.

Sideways, sideways (transverse, transverse)

This fetal presentation is rare with less than 1 percent of cases. If both babies are lying horizontally, you'll almost definitely have a C-section.

Learn more:

• Twin fetal development month by month
• Your likelihood of having twins or more
• When and how to find out if you’re carrying twins or more

Was this article helpful?

32 weeks pregnant with twins

28 weeks pregnant with twins

36 weeks pregnant with twins

24 weeks pregnant with twins

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 .

Cleveland Clinic. Fetal Positions for Birth: https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/articles/9677-fetal-positions-for-birth Opens a new window [Accessed July 2021]

Mayo Clinic. Fetal Presentation Before Birth: https://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-lifestyle/pregnancy-week-by-week/multimedia/fetal-positions/sls-20076615?s=7 Opens a new window [Accessed July 2021]

NHS. Giving Birth to Twins or More: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29016498/ Opens a new window [Accessed July 2021]

Science Direct. Breech Extraction: https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/medicine-and-dentistry/breech-extraction Opens a new window [Accessed July 2021]

Obstetrics & Gynecology. Clinical Factors Associated With Presentation Change of the Second Twin After Vaginal Delivery of the First Twin https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29016498/ Opens a new window [Accessed July 2021]

American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology. Fetal presentation and successful twin vaginal delivery: https://www.ajog.org/article/S0002-9378(04)00482-X/fulltext [Accessed July 2021]

The Journal of Maternal-Fetal & Neonatal Medicine. Changes in fetal presentation in twin pregnancies https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/14767050400028592 Opens a new window [Accessed July 2021]

Reviews in Obstetrics & Gynecology. An Evidence-Based Approach to Determining Route of Delivery for Twin Gestations https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3252881/ Opens a new window [Accessed July 2021]

Nature. Neonatal mortality and morbidity in vertex–vertex second twins according to mode of delivery and birth weight: https://www.nature.com/articles/7211408 Opens a new window [Accessed July 2021]

Cochrane. Planned cesarean for a twin pregnancy: https://www.cochrane.org/CD006553/PREG_planned-caesarean-section-twin-pregnancy Opens a new window [Accessed July 2021]

Kids Health. What Is the Apgar Score?: https://www.kidshealth.org/Nemours/en/parents/apgar0.html Opens a new window [Accessed July 2021]

American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology. Neonatal mortality in second twin according to cause of death, gestational age, and mode of delivery https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15467540/ Opens a new window [Accessed July 2021]

Lancet. Planned cesarean section versus planned vaginal birth for breech presentation at term: a randomised multicentre trial. Term Breech Trial Collaborative Group https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11052579/ Opens a new window [Accessed July 2021]

Cleveland Clinic. Cesarean Birth (C-Section): https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/treatments/7246-cesarean-birth-c-section Opens a new window [Accessed July 2021]

St. Jude Medical Staff. Delivery of Twin Gestation: http://www.sjmedstaff.org/documents/Delivery-of-twins.pdf Opens a new window [Accessed July 2021]

Where to go next

• Vishal's account
• Prenatal Care

Fetal Cephalic Presentation During Pregnancy

What Is Cephalic Position?

Types of cephalic position, benefits of cephalic presentation, risks of cephalic position, what are some other positions and their associated risks, when does a foetus get into the cephalic position, how do you know if baby is in cephalic position, how to turn a breech baby into cephalic position, natural ways to turn a baby into cephalic position.

If your baby is moving around in the womb, it’s a good sign as it tells you that your baby is developing just fine. A baby starts moving around in the belly at around 14 weeks. And their first movements are usually called ‘ quickening’ or ‘fluttering’.

A baby can settle into many different positions throughout the pregnancy, and it’s alright. But it is only when you have reached your third and final trimester that the position of your baby in your womb will matter the most. The position that your baby takes at the end of the gestation period will most likely be how your baby will make its appearance in the world. Out of all the different positions that your baby can settle into, the cephalic position at 36 weeks is considered the best position. Read on to learn more about fetal cephalic presentation.

When it comes to cephalic presentation meaning, the following can be considered. A baby is in the cephalic position when he is in a head-down position. This is the best position for them to come out in. In case of a ‘cephalic presentation’, the chances of a smooth delivery are higher. This position is where your baby’s head has positioned itself close to the birth canal, and the feet and bottom are up. This is the best position for your baby to be in for safe and healthy delivery.

Your doctor will begin to keep an eye on the position of your baby at around 34 weeks to 36 weeks . The closer you get to your due date, the more important it is that your baby takes the cephalic position. If your baby is not in this position, your doctor will try gentle nudges to get your baby in the right position.

Though it is pretty straightforward, the cephalic position actually has two types, which are explained below:

1. Cephalic Occiput Anterior

Most babies settle in this position. Out of all the babies who settle in the cephalic position, 95% of them will settle this way. This is when a baby is in the head-down position but is facing the mother’s back. This is the preferred position as the baby is able to slide out more easily than in any other position.

2. Cephalic Occiput Posterior

In this position, the baby is in the head-down position but the baby’s face is turned towards the mother’s belly. This type of cephalic presentation is not the best position for delivery as the baby’s head could get stuck owing to its wide position. Almost 5% of the babies in cephalic presentation settle into this position. Babies who come out in this position are said to come out ‘sunny side up’.

Cephalic presentation, where the baby’s head is positioned down towards the birth canal, is the most common and optimal fetal presentation for childbirth. This positioning facilitates a smoother delivery process for both the mother and the baby. Here are several benefits associated with cephalic presentation:

1. Reduced risk of complications

Cephalic presentation decreases the likelihood of complications during labor and delivery , such as umbilical cord prolapse or shoulder dystocia, which can occur with other presentations.

2. Easier vaginal delivery

With the baby’s head positioned first, vaginal delivery is generally easier and less complicated compared to other presentations, resulting in a smoother labor process for the mother.

3. Lower risk of birth injuries

Cephalic presentation reduces the risk of birth injuries to the baby, such as head trauma or brachial plexus injuries, which may occur with other presentations, particularly breech or transverse positions.

4. Faster progression of labor

Babies in cephalic presentation often help to stimulate labor progression more effectively through their positioning, potentially shortening the duration of labor and reducing the need for medical interventions.

5. Better fetal oxygenation

Cephalic presentation typically allows for optimal positioning of the baby’s head, which facilitates adequate blood flow and oxygenation, contributing to the baby’s well-being during labor and delivery.

Factors such as the cephalic posterior position of the baby and a narrow maternal pelvis can increase the likelihood of complications during childbirth. Occasionally, infants in the cephalic presentation may exhibit a backward tilt of their heads, potentially leading to preterm delivery in rare instances.

In addition to cephalic presentation, there are several other fetal positions that can occur during pregnancy and childbirth, each with its own associated risks. These positions can impact the delivery process and may require different management strategies. Here are two common fetal positions and their associated risks:

1. Breech Presentation

• Babies in breech presentation, where the buttocks or feet are positioned to enter the birth canal first, are at higher risk of birth injuries such as hip dysplasia or brachial plexus injuries.
• Breech presentation can lead to complications during labor and delivery, including umbilical cord prolapse, entrapment of the head, or difficulty delivering the shoulders, necessitating interventions such as cesarean section.

2. Transverse Lie Presentation

• Transverse lie , where the baby is positioned sideways across the uterus, often leads to prolonged labor and increases the likelihood of cesarean section due to difficulties in the baby’s descent through the birth canal.
• The transverse position of the baby may result in compression of the umbilical cord during labor, leading to decreased oxygen supply and potential fetal distress. This situation requires careful monitoring and intervention to ensure the baby’s well-being.

When a foetus is moving into the cephalic position, it is known as ‘head engagement’. The baby stars getting into this position in the third trimester, between the 32nd and the 36th weeks, to be precise. When the head engagement begins, the foetus starts moving down into the pelvic canal. At this stage, very little of the baby is felt in the abdomen, but more is felt moving downward into the pelvic canal in preparation for birth.

You may think that in order to find out if your baby has a cephalic presentation, an ultrasound is your only option. This is not always the case. You can actually find out the position of your baby just by touching and feeling their movements.

By rubbing your hand on your belly, you might be able to feel their position. If your baby is in the cephalic position, you might feel their kicks in the upper stomach. Whereas, if the baby is in the breech position, you might feel their kicks in the lower stomach.

Even in the cephalic position, it may be possible to tell if your baby is in the anterior position or in the posterior position. When your baby is in the anterior position, they may be facing your back. You may be able to feel your baby move underneath your ribs. It is likely that your belly button will also pop out.

When your baby is in the posterior position, you will usually feel your baby start to kick you in your stomach. When your baby has its back pressed up against your back, your stomach may not look rounded out, but flat instead.

Mothers whose placentas have attached in the front, something known as anterior placenta , you may not be able to feel the movements of your baby as well as you might like to.

Breech babies can make things complicated. Both the mother and the baby will face some problems. A breech baby is positioned head-up and bottom down. In order to deliver the baby, the birth canal needs to open a lot wider than it has to in the cephalic position. Besides this, your baby can get an arm or leg entangled while coming out.

If your baby is in the breech position, there are some things that you can do to encourage the baby to get into the cephalic position. There are a few exercises that could help such as pelvic tilts , swimming , spending a bit of time upside down, and belly dancing are a few ways you can try yourself to get your baby into the head-down position .

If this is not working either, your doctor will try an ECV (External Cephalic Version) . Here, your doctor will be hands-on, applying some gentle, but firm pressure to your tummy. In order to reach a cephalic position, the baby will need to be rolled into a bottom’s up position. This technique is successful around 50% of the time. When this happens, you will be able to have a normal vaginal delivery.

Though it sounds simple enough to get the fetal presentation into cephalic, there are some risks involved with ECV. If your doctor notices your baby’s heart rate starts to become problematic, the doctor will stop the procedure right away.

Encouraging a baby to move into the cephalic position, where the head is down towards the birth canal, is often desirable for smoother labor and delivery. While medical interventions may be necessary in some cases, there are natural methods that pregnant individuals can try to help facilitate this positioning. Here are several techniques that may help turn a baby into the cephalic position:

1. Optimal Maternal Positioning

Maintaining positions such as kneeling, hands and knees, or pelvic tilts may encourage the baby to move into the cephalic position by utilizing gravity and reducing pressure on the pelvis.

2. Spinning Babies Techniques

Specific exercises and positions recommended by the Spinning Babies organization, such as Forward-Leaning Inversion or the Sidelying Release, aim to promote optimal fetal positioning and may help encourage the baby to turn cephalic.

3. Chiropractic Care or Acupuncture

Some individuals find that chiropractic adjustments or acupuncture sessions with qualified practitioners can help address pelvic misalignment or relax tight muscles, potentially creating more space for the baby to maneuver into the cephalic position.

4. Prenatal Yoga and Swimming

Engaging in gentle exercises like prenatal yoga or swimming may help promote relaxation, reduce stress on the uterine ligaments, and encourage the baby to move into the cephalic position naturally. These activities also support overall physical and mental well-being during pregnancy.

1. What factors influence whether my baby will be in cephalic presentation?

Several factors can influence your baby’s position during pregnancy, including the shape and size of your uterus, the strength of your abdominal muscles, the amount of amniotic fluid, and the position of the placenta . Additionally, your baby’s own movements and preferences play a role.

2. Is it necessary for my baby to be in cephalic presentation for a vaginal delivery?

While cephalic presentation is considered the optimal position for vaginal delivery, some babies born in non-cephalic presentations can still be safely delivered vaginally with the guidance of a skilled healthcare provider. However, certain non-cephalic presentations may increase the likelihood of needing a cesarean section.

3. What can I do to encourage my baby to stay in the cephalic presentation?

Maintaining good posture, avoiding positions that encourage the baby to settle into a breech or transverse lie, staying active with gentle exercises, and avoiding excessive reclining can all help encourage your baby to remain in the cephalic presentation. Additionally, discussing any concerns with your healthcare provider and following their recommendations can be beneficial.

This was all about fetus with cephalic presentation. Most babies get into the cephalic position on their own. This is the most ideal situation as there will be little to no complications during normal vaginal labour. There are different cephalic positions, but these should not cause a lot of issues. If your baby is in any position other than cephalic in pregnancy, you may need C-Section . Keep yourself updated on the smallest of progress during your pregnancy so that you are aware of everything that is going on. Go for regular check-ups as your doctor will be able to help you if a complication arises during acephalic presentation at 20, 28 and 30 weeks.

References/Resources:

1. Glezerman. M; Planned vaginal breech delivery: current status and the need to reconsider (Expert Review of Obstetrics & Gynecology); Taylor & Francis Online; https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1586/eog.12.2 ; January 2014

2. Feeling your baby move during pregnancy; UT Southwestern Medical Center; https://utswmed.org/medblog/fetal-movements/

3. Fetal presentation before birth; Mayo Clinic; https://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-lifestyle/pregnancy-week-by-week/in-depth/fetal-positions/art-20546850

4. Fetal Positions; Cleveland Clinic; https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/articles/9677-fetal-positions-for-birth

5. FAQs: If Your Baby Is Breech; American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists; https://www.acog.org/womens-health/faqs/if-your-baby-is-breech

6. Roecker. C; Breech repositioning unresponsive to Webster technique: coexistence of oligohydramnios (Journal of Chiropractic Medicine); Science Direct; https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1556370713000588 ; June 2013

7. Presentation and position of baby through pregnancy and at birth; Pregnancy, Birth & Baby; https://www.pregnancybirthbaby.org.au/presentation-and-position-of-baby-through-pregnancy-and-at-birth

Belly Mapping Pregnancy Belly Growth Chart Baby in Vertex Position during Labour and Delivery

• RELATED ARTICLES
• MORE FROM AUTHOR

Garbh Sanskar Practices

Haemorrhoids (Piles) During Pregnancy: Causes Symptoms and Remedies

Husband's Responsibilities During Pregnancy - Taking Care of Your Pregnant Wife

Dancing During Pregnancy - Benefits and Important Safety Tips

Pica In Pregnancy - Causes, Complications & Remedies

Maternal Fetal Medicine Specialists (Perinatologist) - What Are They & When to See One?

Popular on parenting.

245 Rare Boy & Girl Names with Meanings

Top 22 Short Moral Stories For Kids

170 Boy & Girl Names That Mean 'Gift from God'

800+ Unique & Cute Nicknames for Boys & Girls

Latest posts.

5 Ways to Maintain Diaper Hygiene in Summer for a Happy Baby!

4 Baby Sleep-Related Questions All New Parents Have Answered by a Paediatrician!

Do Indian Babies Have Different Diaper Needs? Here's an Expert's Opinion!

6 Top Tips to Ensure Your Baby Gets Deep Sleep Every Day

• Research article
• Open access
• Published: 18 May 2018

Delivery of the second twin: influence of presentation on neonatal outcome, a case controlled study

• Gerhard Bogner   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-4495-1209 1 ,
• Valentina Wallner 2 ,
• Claudius Fazelnia 1 ,
• Martina Strobl 3 ,
• Birgit Volgger 4 ,
• Thorsten Fischer 1 &
• Volker R. Jacobs 1  

BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth volume  18 , Article number:  176 ( 2018 ) Cite this article

30k Accesses

15 Citations

13 Altmetric

Metrics details

Spontaneous vaginal twin delivery after 32nd week of gestation is safe when first twin presenting cephalic. Aim of this study is to identify obstetric factors influencing the condition of second twin and to verify whether non-cephalic presentation and vaginal breech delivery of the second twin is safe.

This is a retrospective case controlled cohort study of 717 uncomplicated twin deliveries ≥32 + 0 weeks of gestation from 2005 to 2014 in two tertiary perinatal centers. Obstetric parameters were evaluated in three groups with descriptive, univariate logistic regression analysis for perinatal outcome of second twins.

The three groups included twins delivered by elective cesarean section ECS ( n  = 277, 38.6%), by unplanned cesarean section UPC ( n  = 233, 32.5%) and vaginally ( n  = 207, 28.9%). Serious adverse fetal outcome is rare and we found no differences between the groups. Second twins after ECS had significant better umbilical artery UA pH ( p  < 0.001) and better Apgar compared to UPC ( p  = 0.002). Variables for a fetal population “at risk” for adverse neonatal outcome after vaginal delivery (UA pH < 7.20, Apgar 5´ < 9) were associated with higher gestational age ( p  = 0.001), longer twin-twin interval ( p  = 0.05) and vacuum extraction of twin A ( p  = 0.04). Non-cephalic presentation of second twins was not associated (UA pH < 7.20 OR 1.97, CI 95% 0.93–4.22, p  = 0.07, Apgar 5´ < 9 OR 1.63, CI 95% 0.70–3.77, p  = 0.25, Transfer to neonatal intermediate care unit p  = 0.48). Twenty-one second twins (2,9%) were delivered by cesarean section following vaginal delivery of the first twin. Even though non-cephalic presentation was overrepresented in this subgroup, outcome variables were not significantly different compared to cephalic presentation.

Conclusions

Even though elective cesarean means reduced stress for second twins this seems not to be clinically relevant. Non-cephalic presentation of the second twin does not significantly influence the perinatal outcome of the second twin but might be a risk factor for vaginal-cesarean birth.

Peer Review reports

Key message

Second twins after vaginal breech delivery are adapted as well as cephalics. Non-cephalic presentation of the second twin is a risk factor for combined vaginal-cesarean birth.

Twin pregnancies are rising during the past decades in Europe and the U.S. [ 1 , 2 ] Currently 2–3% of all births are twin births [ 3 ]. At the same time the rate of cesarean section in twin pregnancies has increased globally [ 4 , 5 ]. A prospective randomized trial showed that vaginal delivery in uncomplicated twin pregnancies after 32 + 0 gestational weeks is possible and safe if the first twin is in cephalic position [ 6 ]. Thus, in these cases it is recommended that women be counseled to attempt vaginal delivery [ 7 ].

Nevertheless, the delivery of the second twin remains a challenge, especially if the twin B is not in cephalic presentation. Generally, retrospective studies show increased risk of perinatal mortality for the second twin [ 8 , 9 ]. Only one small randomized trial suggests that in twins with non-cephalic presentation after the thirty-fifth gestational week the neonatal outcome of the second twin is not significantly influenced by the route of delivery [ 10 ]. Due to lacking prospective studies to choose the best mode of delivery on the basis of individual case characteristics, in one hand expertise in the management of vaginal twin delivery is mandatory and on the other hand patient preference has to be respected [ 11 ]. A trial of labor is successful in 77% [ 12 ].

Due to a shift towards Caesarean Section for singleton breech, particularly since the publication of the Term Breech Trial, experience in managing vaginal breech deliveries in Europe has markedly decreased [ 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 ]. For vaginal breech deliveries a variety of standard maneuvers are described in medical textbooks [ 17 ]. However, there is still no evidence-based data for these techniques available until now. Active second stage management for the second twin is considered to be associated with better neonatal outcome and a low rate of combined vaginal-cesarean delivery [ 18 ]. In recent years some working groups have clinically implemented all fours position of the mother for vaginal breech delivery in singletons [ 19 ]. Up to date, experiences with vaginal breech delivery of the second twin in all fours have not been published.

Aim of this study was to describe long-term experience of two tertiary perinatal centers with twin delivery, generally. Primary objective is to show whether attempted vaginal delivery of twins without additional risk is associated with serious fetal adverse events for the second twin. Furthermore, the purpose was to identify obstetric variables as potential risks for asphyxia of the second twin. Special focus was set on breech presentation of the second twin. Secondary aim was to present experience with delivery management and outcome of second breech twins in all-fours position of the mother.

This is a retrospective analysis of 717 twin births from January 1st 2005 to October 31st 2014 in two European tertiary obstetric perinatal centers. Data were extracted from the medical records and the obstetric clinical database. Only twin births without any additional maternal or fetal risks were included. Inclusion criteria were completed 32nd week of gestation, cephalic presentation of the first twin (for vaginal attempt). Exclusion criteria were perinatal complications such as HELLP syndrome, preeclampsia, growth restrictions <5th percentile, known fetal malformations and pre-labor stillbirth of one twin.

According to modes of delivery three main groups were stratified as

Elective (planned) Cesarean section [ECS],

Unplanned Cesarean section [UPC] and

Vaginal delivery [VD].

ECS were intended cesarean without onset of labor and/or rupture of membranes. UPC summarized all deliveries ended with abdominal delivery of at least one child. Subgroups were cephalic and non-cephalic presentation (Fig.  1 ). The perinatal outcome of second twins was calculated statistically between these three groups. Subgroup analysis focused on vaginal delivery ( n  = 207) and non-cephalic presentation of the second twin ( n  = 54).

Design of the study: Three groups of mode of twin delivery to compare outcome of twins B. Out of 207 twin deliveries intended to deliver vaginally n  = 21 twin B were born by C-section after vaginal delivery of twin A. Their outcome measures were analyzed in the UPC group

Primary outcome variable was serious adverse fetal events defined by birth pH of the umbilical artery UA pH < 7.10 and Apgar after 5 min < 6 and transfer to neonatal intensive care unit NICU due to fetal distress, severe fetal injury or death.

Secondary outcome variable as surrogate for fetus “at risk” for asphyxia was defined as UA pH < 7.20, Apgar after 5 min < 9 or postpartal transfer of the newborn to NICU due to perinatal fetal distress.

Special focus of this study was set on all cases of twin deliveries with second twins in breech presentation combined with attempt of vaginal delivery on all fours position of the mother. The same obstetrician attended all these deliveries. They were documented prospectively.

Breech delivery procedure (including on all fours)

Vaginal delivery of second twin is managed and intended not active. The process of vaginal delivery of the second twin with non-cephalic presentation is summarized in the following: After delivery of the first twin, concomitant oxytocin infusion support is stopped. Then the second twin’s presentation is checked by ultrasound in maternal supine position. In case of unstable or incomplete breech presentation, the obstetrician is using his flat hands for stabilization of fetal position laterally under continuous fetal heart rate monitoring. At this point the obstetrician is waiting for contractions. In case of transverse presentation, the fetus is turned into breech or cephalic presentation by an external version and stabilized manually under ultrasound guidance. The technique is according to external cephalic version and was previously described [ 20 ]. After fetal position is stabilized, an amniotomy is performed at re-starting of spontaneous contractions. The target of the timeline is to deliver both children within an interval of less than 30 min. Vigilant monitoring for abnormal fetal heart rate or vaginal bleeding as an indicator for placental abruption is required. Ongoing watchful waiting is mandatory in case of a prolonged time period of > 30 min between the two twins [ 21 ]. After rupture of membranes a vaginal examination is required to exclude an umbilical cord prolapse. Subsequently, the obstetrician waits for the fetal bottom to extend and rotate under continuous fetal heart rate monitoring. Optionally, oxytocin infusion is given to support manual maneuvers to delivery the fetus. Choice of maneuvers was at sole discretion of the obstetrician.

If all-fours management is intended, no later than this point the women is instructed to change into all-fours position. Without any interference by obstetrician and midwife are watching for the spontaneous process of delivery. No episiotomy, no manual perineal support or fetal extraction is intended. Labor and gravity are the only factors actively progressing the delivery. When delivery of shoulder and arms is delayed, vaginal delivery is completed in supine position using the standard maneuvers to deliver neonates (partial or complete breech extraction, Mauriceau maneuver, Bracht maneuver, movement of nuchal arms, etc.). In case of delay in spontaneous delivery of the head in all fours, a bolus of 3 IU/ml oxytocin is applied. If the fetal head does not appear within up to three contractions, fetal head is delivered over the perineum by bilateral thumb pressure on the shoulders of the fetus towards the maternal symphysis. Technique and process of delivery in all fours has recently been described [ 19 ]. Instant standby of anesthesia and neonatologist is provided for potential emergency C-section of the second twin during entire vaginal delivery attempt.

EC approval

Although twin birth and vaginal breech delivery is a commonly accepted mode of delivery and standard of care in singletons and twins, the study protocol was reviewed and approved by the local Ethics Committee (415-EP/73/145–2012, Ethics Committee for the State of Salzburg, Austria).

Statistical Methods

The data were summarized using standard methods of descriptive statistics. Means of metric data were compared by t-tests (2 groups) or ANOVA (3 groups). Categorical data was compared with chi-squared tests when enough data was available; Fisher’s exact test was used for sparse data. Analysis of the relationship between binary outcome variables with various risk factors was carried out by logistic regression. All calculations were performed using statistical software package SPSS version 18 (SPSS Inc. Chicago, IL, USA). The significance level was set to 5% (α = 0.05).

Of all twin births ( n  = 717, n  = 1434 children) n  = 277 s twins (38.6%) were delivered by ECS and n  = 233 (32.5%) by UPC due to different reasons such as early onset of labor, rupture of membranes and trial of labor, including 21 neonates (2.9%) born by cesarean section after vaginal delivery of twin A. Main reasons for UPC were preterm delivery < 35 week of gestation ( n  = 69, 25.8%), intended ECS and early onset of labor ( n  = 115, 49.3%) and termination after trail of labor because of obstetrical problems ( n  = 37, 15.8%). In the third group 207 women (28.9%) delivered vaginally (VD). In this group n  = 153 twin B (73.9%) presented in cephalic and n  = 54 (26.1%) in breech, finally. The three groups differ significantly in gestational age (35.8 ± 1.6; 35.0 ± 1.9; 36.2 ± 1.7 weeks of gestation, p  < 0.001) and parity (1.6 ± 0.9; 1.5 ± 0.9; 2.0 ± 1.0; difference between C-section and VD p  < 0.001, no difference between the two C-section groups p  = 0.82) (Table  1 ).

Serious adverse outcome of the second twin was rare. There was no severe fetal injury, no fetal death within the first 4 weeks after delivery. Postpartally three minor fetal malformations were diagnosed. Only two second twin after UPC and one after vaginal delivery showed decreased Apgar 5` < 6, UA pH < 7.10 and transfer to NICU (asphyxia). Three first twins showed asphyxia (two with UPC, one twin after vacuum delivery). There were seven newborns with UA pH < 7.0 (three twin A, four twin B – two of them after UPC, one after vacuum extraction, one by emergency C-section of the second twin).

Paired comparison of the first and the second twin shows that UA pH is reduced in second twins ( p  = 0.003). There was no difference between the twins regarding Apgar and transfer rate to NICU ( p  = 0.36 and p  = 0.26, respectively). If vaginal delivery of the first twin is followed by surgical delivery of the second twin, all outcome parameter of the second twin were decreased compared to parameters for the first twin (for all p  < 0.001).

Focused comparison of the variables of neonatal outcome of second twin showed significantly lower Apgar at 5′ < 9 ( p  = 0.003) following UPC, number of neonates with UA pH < 7.20 was significantly higher following UPC and VD ( p  < 0.001). Postpartal Apgar at 5′ > 9 and the transfer rate to the NICU were increased after UPC ( p  < 0.001), generally. Compared to VD ( n  = 6/207) UPC showed an increased number of transfers due to neonatal distress or respiratory problems ( n  = 17/233; p  = 0.04) as well (Table  2 ). Postpartal UA pH was significantly lower in VD group (7.26 ± 0.08, p  < 0.001) but without a higher transfer rate of newborns to NICU due to clinical respiratory distress ( p  = 0.07). Within the VD group Table  3 shows the comparison of variables in the subgroups cephalic ( n  = 153) and breech presentation ( n  = 54). Significant differences are seen in gestational age ( p  = 0.02), twin-twin interval ( p  = 0.04), Apgar 5′( p  = 0.05) and UA pH values ( p  = 0.30).

Univariate analysis of parameter of second twins ( n  = 207) in the VD group revealed a significant association of “at risk” outcome variables: Postpartal UA pH < 7.20 was significantly associated to gestational age (OR = 1.98 CI 95% 1.19–2.05, p  = 0.001), longer twin-twin interval (OR 1.03, CI 95% 1.0–1.06, p  = 0.05) and vacuum extraction of the first twin (OR 2.7, CI 95% 1.05–6.96, p  = 0.04) (Table  4 ). In univariate analysis for Apgar 5´ < 9 only two explanatory variably display significant effect on the outcome variable: Gestational age (OR = 0.63, CI 95% 0.5–0.8, p  < 0.001) and derived birth weight (OR = 0.87, CI 95% 0.79–0.97). The association was higher after the 36th week of gestation than between the 32nd and 35th week of gestation (UA pH p  = 0.003, Apgar 5´ < 9 p  = 0.08). In particular, there was no association between presentation of the second twin and neonatal outcome (UA pH < 7.20 OR 1.97, CI 95% 0.93–4.22, p  = 0.07, Apgar 5´ < 9 OR 1.63, CI 95% 0,70–3.768, p  = 0.25).

Among n  = 440 intended or initiated vaginal deliveries n  = 21 neonates (4.8%) delivered after UPC following VD of the first twin. Of these, n  = 11 were in non-cephalic presentation (five breeches, six transverse presentation). The outcome parameters of these children were significantly lower compared to other neonates after UPC (UA pH p  < 0.001, Apgar 5′ p  < 0.001, neonatal transfer p  = 0.03). In this situation there was a weak correlation between presentation of the 2nd twins in non-cephalic presentation and this “at risk” outcome parameter (UA pH p  = 0.054, Apgar 5′ p  = 0.97, neonatal transfer p  = 0.3).

Vaginal breech delivery on all fours

Within the VD group ( n  = 207) n  = 54 were born in breech position. From these n  = 12 women (22.2%) attempted breech delivery in maternal all-fours position. Six of these deliveries (50%) were completed spontaneously without any intervention of the obstetrician. In three additional interventions were successful and birth was completed in all fours. Only three women were converted back to supine position and delivered by standard maneuvers (two due to a failure of progress and/or abnormal fetal heart rate and one due to maternal indication because of shoulder complaints).

The results of this study suggest that presentation of the second twin does not significantly influences its clinical obstetrical outcome. It has been shown that non-cephalic second twins are overrepresented in twin deliveries with combined vaginal/cesarean procedure. Furthermore, there was no significant correlation between presentation and adverse perinatal outcome after UPC of the second twin.

Within the VD group there were significant differences in the subgroups of cephalic and breech deliveries regarding twin-twin interval, Apgar 5’values and UA pH values. This fact is due to our non-active management of the second twin and seems to be not clinically relevant because there are no differences in the number of severe poor values of Apgar 5′ < 6 and UA pH < 7.10 in the subgroup of neonates after breech delivery.

The subgroup analysis of vaginal breech delivery attempted in all fours seems to be feasible and was completed in 9 of 12 attempts. In the three attempts obstetric skills and training in management of twins and breeches were essential to complete the vaginal delivery. To our knowledge this is the first study presenting a case series of vaginal breech delivery of the second twin in the all fours position of the mother. We were aware that delivery of the second twin in maternal all-fours position is contradictory to active management. Therefore, the methode has the potential to prolong the inter- twin delivery interval, to increase risk for difficult obstetric maneuvers and and thus cesarean delivery for the second twin. Even we had no problems with this 12 all fours, the small sample size does not allow any conclusions to be drawn about safety or likelihood of vaginal birth in comparison to lithotomy position.

It is obvious for the authors that pH < 7.20 and Apgar 5′ < 9 is not regarded as adverse neonatal outcome. But there were only few neonates with general used definitions of severe perinatal asphyxia UA pH < 7.10 and Apgar 5′ < 6 in our study. Therefore setting cut off values higher includes neonates who may be at risk or tend to neonatal asphyxia and was used as a secondary outcome. To show differences in serious adverse outcome sample volume of twin deliveries are too small.

UPC summarized all started deliveries ended with abdominal delivery of at least one child. Due to the retrospective design of the study it is not possible to distinguish clearly between UPC with starting contracting, premature rupture of membranes either, and failed trail of labor. At one side women presenting first time (i.e. preterm) at the department with started labor and no documented intention for mode of delivery. On the other side there are women who intended vaginal delivery and changed their decision to C-Section. Women with obvious intention for ECS and prematurely slightly starting without cervix dilatation were put in the ECS group.

The Twin Birth Study, a prospective multicenter randomized study, published in 2013, with 105 participating hospitals in 25 countries, showed no difference between neonatal and maternal mortality and morbidity under optimal conditions when delivery was planned vaginally or as cesarean section [ 6 ]. Detailed prospective analyses of data that would help in decision making for best mode of delivery and obstetric management in vaginal delivery of second twins have not been published yet. Therefore, only retrospective studies serve as guidance [ 11 ].

Recently a retrospective study with large sample size pointed out that planned cesarean section lowers the risk of serious neonatal morbidity, in particular of the second twin. Notably it favors planned cesarean at gestational week ≥36 [ 22 ]. Accordingly, our data suggests that higher gestational age may be a risk factor for neonatal distress of the second twin.

Non-cephalic presentation of the second twin at term is infrequent, with about approximately 25% of all twin pregnancies, and planned cesarean section is more common in the non-cephalic presentation [ 23 ]. Intrapartum change from cephalic to non-cephalic during delivery was stated in 11% [ 24 ]. Due to declining expertise in perinatal management of vaginal breech deliveries, a safe method to deliver the second twin is desired. The data from this study support that vaginal breech delivery in all fours is feasible and an option for management of the second twins [ 19 ].

For reasons of better management in delivering the second twin supine position has been established as superior maternal position for the obstetrician [ 25 ]. Hypothetically, the upright position of the mother (sitting or in all fours) is a more natural and physiological delivery position, but the obstetrician has limited possibility to intervene. Breech deliveries in all fours might be an option for skilled obstetricians, but is not adequate for settings with little or no experience and without continuous clinical practicing facilities.

For evidence-based counseling of women for vaginal birth in twin pregnancies, there are some risks to consider adequately such as presentation, chorionicity, birth interval to twin A or weight differences. Non–cephalic presentation is not considered a risk factor for failed trial of labor, but only as a risk factor for a combined mode of delivery (vaginal-cesarean). In literature risk factors that were associated independently with cesarean delivery were primiparity (OR 5.78; 95% CI 2.24–14.88) and advanced maternal age of ≥35 years (OR 2.36; 95% CI, 1.16–4.80). Trial of labor was successful in 77–82% [ 12 ]. Even women at highest risk for cesarean delivery (nulliparous, advanced maternal age, induced labor) still had a probability of 48.6% for vaginal delivery [ 26 ]. Our data show that maternal age and low parity is an elective factor for ECS and probably biased the selection for this study. We could not confirm that age of the mother and parity is a risk factor for adverse neonatal outcome.

Regarding studies focused on non-cephalic presentation of the second twin, there is only one prospective randomized trial not reporting any significant differences in neonatal morbidity [ 10 ]. A recently published retrospective secondary data set analysis of the WHO Global Survey on Maternal and Perinatal Health focused on non-cephalic presentation of the second twin and revealed only an association with increased odds of Apgar < 7 at 5 min, but not of any other maternal/perinatal outcomes [ 23 ]. They conclude - together with others [ 27 ] - that a non-cephalic presentation is not relevant when considering planning the mode of delivery.

Data from this study indicates that combined vaginal-cesarean birth is the least optimal method for 2nd twins and should be avoided if possible [ 25 ]. Vaginal-cesarean delivery is associated with non-cephalic second twin and a prolonged inter-delivery interval [ 28 ]. There is evidence that active management of second stage of labor, including breech extraction of second twins and internal version of non-engaged second twins, is resulting in avoidance of cesarean delivery for the second twin after vaginal delivery of the first twin [ 18 , 29 ]. Without active management of the second stage, the likelihood of a combined vaginal-cesarean delivery can be as high as 6–10% [ 30 ]. In contrast, delivery (cephalic and non cephalic) in this setting and especially in all fours is intended as non-interventional spontaneous and therefore it is not in accordance with active management.

Additionally, monochorionic twins are considered to have an increased risk for fetal death (even at term), necrotizing enterocolitis and neuromorbidity [ 31 ]. A recent retrospective study did not indicate monochorionicity as an additional risk for vaginal birth [ 32 ]. A delivery prior to the end of gestational week 36 is not justified in uncomplicated monochorionic pregnancies [ 33 ]. Therefore, the optimal time of delivery in monochorionic twins is the completed 37th week of gestation, in dichorionic twins the completed 38th week of gestation [ 34 ]. Our data approved monochorionicity without evidence of feto-fetal transfusion syndrome is not an indication for elective cesarean section. Even in monochorionic twin deliveries, a trial of labor succeeds in 77% without increased perinatal morbidity [ 31 , 33 ].

Regarding the influence of birth interval between twin A and B, breech presentation of twin B has the potential to decrease the perinatal outcome (higher rate of vaginal-cesarean delivery but without decrease of post partum UA pH [ 9 , 18 , 35 ]).

Strengths of this study are the large sample size of twin deliveries in tertiary perinatal centers with equal group size of mode of delivery and narrow evidence-based inclusion criteria. The study also includes a high number of twin births with homogeneous processes of obstetrical management. Innovative is the subanalysis of breech deliveries in all fours as a potential new option of management in twin delivery. Limitations are the retrospective study design and non-randomization as well as the rather small number of women with vaginal breech delivery due to the rarity of breech presentation in second twins.

Despite elective Cesarean in twin pregnancies without maternal and neonatal risk factors shows better primary outcome this seems clinically not relevant when twin A is presented in cephalic. Even vaginal delivery of the second twin in breech presentation seems to be safe for management of the second twin after completed 32nd weeks of gestation. Non-cephalic presentation of the second twin is associated with a higher risk for combined vaginal-cesarean delivery. However, non-cephalic second twins are not exposed and are not at risk for asphyxia compared to second twins with cephalic presentation. Presentation of the second twin is not an eligible variable for counseling women for mode of delivery. Management of vaginal breech delivery for second twins in all four position of the mother seems to be feasible and an option for breech management. However, this technique might only be conducted in centers where obstetricians are experienced in breech delivery including routine training of vaginal breech delivery using an obstetric model.

Abbreviations

Confidence interval 95% percentile

Apgar after 5 min below value 9

planned (elective) cesarean section

Neonatal intermediate care unit

Not significant

pH of umbilical artery

Unplanned cesarean section

Vaginal delivery

Vacuum extraction

Blondel B, Macfarlane A. Rising multiple maternity rates and medical management of subfertility: better information is needed. Eur J Pub Health. 2003;13(1):83–6.

Article   Google Scholar  

EURO-PERISTAT. European Perinatal Health Report 2010. www.europeristat.com/reports/european-perinatal-health-report-2010.html Accessed 29 Aug 2016.

Martin JA, Kung HC, Mathews TJ, et al. Annual summary of vital statistics: 2006. Pediatrics. 2008;121(4):788–0.

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Lee HC, Gould JB, Boscardin WJ, El-Sayed YY, Blumenfeld YJ. Trends in cesarean delivery for twin births in the United States: 1995-2008. Obstet Gynecol. 2011;118(5):1095–101.

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Kyvernitakis A, Kyvernitakis I, Karageorgiadis AS, et al. Rising cesarean rates of twin deliveries in Germany from 1990 to 2012. Z Geburtshilfe Neonatol. 2013;217(5):177–82.

Article   PubMed   CAS   Google Scholar  

Barrett JF, Hannah ME, Hutton EK, et al. A randomized trial of planned cesarean or vaginal delivery for twin pregnancy. N Engl J Med. 2013;369(14):1295–305.

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   CAS   Google Scholar  

American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine, Caughey AB, Cahill AG, Guise JM, Rouse DJ. Safe prevention of the primary cesarean delivery. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2014;210(3):179–93.

Smith GC, Pell JP, Dobbie R. Birth order, gestational age, and risk of delivery related perinatal death in twins: retrospective cohort study. BMJ. 2002;325(7371):1004.

Armson BA, O'Connell C, Persad V, Joseph KS, Young DC, Baskett TF. Determinants of perinatal mortality and serious neonatal morbidity in the second twin. Obstet Gynecol. 2006;108(3 Pt 1):556–64.

Rabinovici J, Barkai G, Reichman B, Serr DM, Mashiach S. Randomized management of the second nonvertex twin: vaginal delivery or cesarean section. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1987;156(1):52–6.

Seelbach-Goebel B. Twin birth considering the current results of the “twin birth study”. Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd. 2014;74(9):838–44.

Breathnach FM, McAuliffe FM, Geary M, et al. Prediction of safe and successful vaginal twin birth. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2011;205(3):237.e1–7.

Vlemmix F, Bergenhenegouwen L, Schaaf JM, et al. Term breech deliveries in the Netherlands: did the increased cesarean rate affect neonatal outcome? A population-based cohort study. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2014;93(9):888–96.

Hannah ME, Hannah WJ, Hewson SA, Hodnett ED, Saigal S, Willan AR. Planned caesarean section versus planned vaginal birth for breech presentation at term: a randomised multicentre trial. Term Breech Trial Collaborative Group. Lancet. 2000;356(9239):1375–83.

Azria E, Le Meaux JP, Khoshnood B, et al. Factors associated with adverse perinatal outcomes for term breech fetuses with planned vaginal delivery. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2012;207(4):285.e1–9.

Glezerman M. Five years to the term breech trial: the rise and fall of a randomized controlled trial. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2006;194(1):20–5.

Cunningham FG, Levino KJ, Bloom SL, Huath JC, Dj R, Spong CY. Chapter 28: breech delivery and chapter 45: multifetal pregnancy. In: Williams obstetrics. 24th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill; 2014. p. 558–74. p.891-924.

Google Scholar  

Fox NS, Silverstein M, Bender S, Klauser CK, Saltzman DH, Rebarber A. Active second-stage management in twin pregnancies undergoing planned vaginal delivery in a U.S. population. Obstet Gynecol. 2010;115(2 Pt 1):229–33.

Bogner G, Strobl M, Schausberger C, Fischer T, Reisenberger K, Jacobs VR. Breech delivery in the all fours position: a prospective observational comparative study with classic assistance. J Perinat Med. 2015;43(6):707–13.

Bogner G, Xu F, Simbrunner C, Bacherer A, Reisenberger K. Single-institute experience, management, success rate, and outcome after external cephalic version at term. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2012;116(2):134–7.

Leung TY, Tam WH, Leung TN, Lok IH, Lau TK. Effect of twin-to-twin delivery interval on umbilical cord blood gas in the second twins. BJOG. 2002;109(1):63–7.

Dong Y, Luo ZC, Yang ZJ, Chen L, Guo YN, Branch W, Zhang J, Huang H. Is cesarean delivery preferable in twin pregnancies at >=36 weeks gestation? PLoS One. 2016;11(5):e0155692.

Vogel JP, Holloway E, Cuesta C, Carroli G, Souza JP, Barrett J. Outcomes of non-vertex second twins, following vertex vaginal delivery of first twin: a secondary analysis of the WHO global survey on maternal and perinatal health. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2014;14:55.

Easter SR, Lieberman E, Carusi D. Fetal presentation and successful twin vaginal delivery. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2016;214(1):116.e1–116.e10.

Cruikshank DP. Intrapartum management of twin gestations. Obstet Gynecol. 2007;109(5):1167–76.

Fox NS, Gupta S, Melka S, et al. Risk factors for cesarean delivery in twin pregnancies attempting vaginal delivery. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2015;212(1):106.e1–5.

Steins Bisschop CN, Vogelvang TE, May AM, Schuitemaker NW. Mode of delivery in non-cephalic presenting twins: a systematic review. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2012;286(1):237–47.

Persad VL, Baskett TF, O'Connell CM, Scott HM. Combined vaginal-cesarean delivery of twin pregnancies. Obstet Gynecol. 2001;98(6):1032–7.

PubMed   CAS   Google Scholar  

Schmitz T, CeC C, Azria E, Lopez E, Cabrol D, Goffinet F. Neonatal outcomes of twin pregnancy according to the planned mode of delivery. Obstet Gynecol. 2008;111(3):695–703.

Yang Q, Wen SW, Chen Y, Krewski D, Fung Kee Fung K, Walker M. Occurrence and clinical predictors of operative delivery for the vertex second twin after normal vaginal delivery of the first twin. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2005;192(1):178–84.

Hack KE, Derks JB, Elias SG, et al. Increased perinatal mortality and morbidity in monochorionic versus dichorionic twin pregnancies: clinical implications of a large Dutch cohort study. BJOG. 2008;115(1):58–67.

Garabedian C, Poulain C, Duhamel A, Subtil D, Houfflin-Debarge V, Deruelle P. Intrapartum management of twin pregnancies: are uncomplicated monochorionic pregnancies more at risk of complications than dichorionic pregnancies? Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2015;94(3):301–7.

Hack KE, Derks JB, Elias SG, et al. Perinatal mortality and mode of delivery in monochorionic diamniotic twin pregnancies ≥ 32 weeks of gestation: a multicentre retrospective cohort study. BJOG. 2011;118(9):1090–7.

Breathnach FM, McAuliffe FM, Geary M, et al. Optimum timing for planned delivery of uncomplicated monochorionic and dichorionic twin pregnancies. Obstet Gynecol. 2012;119(1):50–9.

Schneuber S, Magnet E, Haas J, et al. Twin-to-twin delivery time: neonatal outcome of the second twin. Twin Res Hum Genet. 2011;14(6):573–9.

Download references

Acknowledgements

Thanks for statistical analysis and consulting by Dr. Mynda Schreuer, Salzburg.

Availability of data and materials

The datasets generated during and/or analysed during the current study are not publicly available due the data source is extracted from medical records and obstetrical clinical database, therefore they are not anonymized, but are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology (OB/GYN), Paracelsus Medical University, Muellner Hauptstr. 48, A-5020, Salzburg, Austria

Gerhard Bogner, Claudius Fazelnia, Thorsten Fischer & Volker R. Jacobs

Paracelsus Medical University, Salzburg, Austria

Valentina Wallner

Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Hospital of Wels-Grieskirchen, Wels, Austria

Martina Strobl

Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Hospital Lienz, Lienz, Tyrol, Austria

Birgit Volgger

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

All authors substantially contribute the concept, design or analysis and interpretation of the data. They critically have read the manuscript and gave their final approval to the submitted manuscript. Substantial contributions to conception and design, acquisition of data, analysis and interpretation of data: GB, MS, VW, VJ. Involved in drafting the manuscript or revising it critically for important intellectual content: GB, CF, BV, VJ. The lead author affirms that this manuscript is an honest, accurate, and transparent account of the study being reported; that no important aspects of the study have been omitted; and that any discrepancies from the study as planned have been explained. Rework of revised version before final approval of the version to be published: GB, VJ, TF.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Gerhard Bogner .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate.

The content of this study was approved by the Institutional Review Board “Ethikkommission des Landes Salzburg” on 7.9.2012 (Reference number 415-EP/73/145 2012). All patients had given an informed consent to planned mode of delivery. The manuscript does not contain data from individual person. Consent to participate is not applicable.

Consent for publication

Not applicable. Consent for publication was not required, as data were anonymized and informed consent was waived by the ethics committee.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Bogner, G., Wallner, V., Fazelnia, C. et al. Delivery of the second twin: influence of presentation on neonatal outcome, a case controlled study. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 18 , 176 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12884-018-1815-0

Download citation

Received : 06 October 2016

Accepted : 01 May 2018

Published : 18 May 2018

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s12884-018-1815-0

Share this article

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

• Breech delivery
• Delivery of second twin
• Management of twin delivery
• Outcome second twin
• Mode of delivery
• Non-cephalic second twin

BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth

ISSN: 1471-2393

• Submission enquiries: [email protected]
• General enquiries: [email protected]

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.

StatPearls [Internet]. Treasure Island (FL): StatPearls Publishing; 2024 Jan-.

StatPearls [Internet].

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.

• 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.

This book is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0) ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ ), which permits others to distribute the work, provided that the article is not altered or used commercially. You are not required to obtain permission to distribute this article, provided that you credit the author and journal.

• Cite this Page Gray CJ, Shanahan MM. Breech Presentation. [Updated 2022 Nov 6]. In: StatPearls [Internet]. Treasure Island (FL): StatPearls Publishing; 2024 Jan-.

In this Page

Bulk download.

• Bulk download StatPearls data from FTP

Related information

• PMC PubMed Central citations
• PubMed Links to PubMed

Similar articles in PubMed

• [What effect does leg position in breech presentation have on mode of delivery and early neonatal morbidity?]. [Z Geburtshilfe Neonatol. 1997] [What effect does leg position in breech presentation have on mode of delivery and early neonatal morbidity?]. Krause M, Fischer T, Feige A. Z Geburtshilfe Neonatol. 1997 Jul-Aug; 201(4):128-35.
• The effect of intra-uterine breech position on postnatal motor functions of the lower limbs. [Early Hum Dev. 1993] The effect of intra-uterine breech position on postnatal motor functions of the lower limbs. Sival DA, Prechtl HF, Sonder GH, Touwen BC. Early Hum Dev. 1993 Mar; 32(2-3):161-76.
• The influence of the fetal leg position on the outcome in vaginally intended deliveries out of breech presentation at term - A FRABAT prospective cohort study. [PLoS One. 2019] The influence of the fetal leg position on the outcome in vaginally intended deliveries out of breech presentation at term - A FRABAT prospective cohort study. Jennewein L, Allert R, Möllmann CJ, Paul B, Kielland-Kaisen U, Raimann FJ, Brüggmann D, Louwen F. PLoS One. 2019; 14(12):e0225546. Epub 2019 Dec 2.
• Review Breech vaginal delivery at or near term. [Semin Perinatol. 2003] Review Breech vaginal delivery at or near term. Tunde-Byass MO, Hannah ME. Semin Perinatol. 2003 Feb; 27(1):34-45.
• Review [Breech Presentation: CNGOF Guidelines for Clinical Practice - Epidemiology, Risk Factors and Complications]. [Gynecol Obstet Fertil Senol. 2...] Review [Breech Presentation: CNGOF Guidelines for Clinical Practice - Epidemiology, Risk Factors and Complications]. Mattuizzi A. Gynecol Obstet Fertil Senol. 2020 Jan; 48(1):70-80. Epub 2019 Nov 1.

Recent Activity

• Breech Presentation - StatPearls Breech Presentation - StatPearls

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

• Help & Feedback
• About epocrates

Breech presentation

Highlights & basics, diagnostic approach, risk factors, history & exam, differential diagnosis.

• Tx Approach

Emerging Tx

Complications.

PATIENT RESOURCES

Patient Instructions

Breech presentation refers to the baby presenting for delivery with the buttocks or feet first rather than head.

Associated with increased morbidity and mortality for the mother in terms of emergency cesarean section and placenta previa; and for the baby in terms of preterm birth, small fetal size, congenital anomalies, and perinatal mortality.

Incidence decreases as pregnancy progresses and by term occurs in 3% to 4% of singleton term pregnancies.

Treatment options include external cephalic version to increase the likelihood of vaginal birth or a planned cesarean section, the optimal gestation being 37 and 39 weeks, respectively.

Planned cesarean section is considered the safest form of delivery for infants with a persisting breech presentation at term.

Quick Reference

Key Factors

buttocks or feet as the presenting part

Fetal head under costal margin, fetal heartbeat above the maternal umbilicus.

Other Factors

subcostal tenderness

Pelvic or bladder pain.

Diagnostics Tests

1st Tests to Order

transabdominal/transvaginal ultrasound

Treatment options.

presumptive

<37 weeks' gestation

specialist evaluation

corticosteroid

magnesium sulfate

≥37 weeks' gestation not in labor

unsuccessful ECV with persistent breech

Classifications

Types of breech presentation

Baby's buttocks lead the way into the birth canal

Hips are flexed, knees are extended, and the feet are in close proximity to the head

65% to 70% of breech babies are in this position.

Baby presents with buttocks first

Both the hips and the knees are flexed; the baby may be sitting cross-legged.

One or both of the baby's feet lie below the breech so that the foot or knee is lowermost in the birth canal

This is rare at term but relatively common with premature fetuses.

Common Vignette

Other Presentations

Epidemiology

33% of births less than 28 weeks' gestation

14% of births at 29 to 32 weeks' gestation

9% of births at 33 to 36 weeks' gestation

6% of births at 37 to 40 weeks' gestation.

Pathophysiology

• Natasha Nassar, PhD
• Christine L. Roberts, MBBS, FAFPHM, DrPH
• Jonathan Morris, MBChB, FRANZCOG, PhD
• John W. Bachman, MD
• Rhona Hughes, MBChB
• Brian Peat, MD
• Lelia Duley, MBChB
• Justus Hofmeyr, MD

Clinical exam

Palpation of the abdomen to determine the position of the baby's head

Palpation of the abdomen to confirm the position of the fetal spine on one side and fetal extremities on the other

Palpation of the area above the symphysis pubis to locate the fetal presenting part

Palpation of the presenting part to confirm presentation, to determine how far the fetus has descended and whether the fetus is engaged.

Ultrasound examination

Premature fetus.

Prematurity is consistently associated with breech presentation. [ 6 ] [ 9 ] This may be due to the smaller size of preterm infants, who are more likely to change their in utero position.

Increasing duration of pregnancy may allow breech-presenting fetuses time to grow, turn spontaneously or by external cephalic version, and remain cephalic-presenting.

Larger fetuses may be forced into a cephalic presentation in late pregnancy due to space or alignment constraints within the uterus.

small for gestational age fetus

Low birth-weight is a risk factor for breech presentation. [ 9 ] [ 11 ] [ 12 ] [ 13 ] [ 14 ] Term breech births are associated with a smaller fetal size for gestational age, highlighting the association with low birth-weight rather than prematurity. [ 6 ]

nulliparity

Women having a first birth have increased rates of breech presentation, probably due to the increased likelihood of smaller fetal size. [ 6 ] [ 9 ]

Relaxation of the uterine wall in multiparous women may reduce the odds of breech birth and contribute to a higher spontaneous or external cephalic version rate. [ 10 ]

fetal congenital anomalies

Congenital anomalies in the fetus may result in a small fetal size or inappropriate fetal growth. [ 9 ] [ 12 ] [ 14 ] [ 15 ]

Anencephaly, hydrocephaly, Down syndrome, and fetal neuromuscular dysfunction are associated with breech presentation, the latter due to its effect on the quality of fetal movements. [ 9 ] [ 14 ]

previous breech delivery

The risk of recurrent breech delivery is 8%, the risk increasing from 4% after one breech delivery to 28% after three. [ 16 ]

The effects of recurrence may be due to recurring specific causal factors, either genetic or environmental in origin.

uterine abnormalities

Women with uterine abnormalities have a high incidence of breech presentation. [ 14 ] [ 17 ] [ 18 ] [ 19 ]

female fetus

Fifty-four percent of breech-presenting fetuses are female. [ 14 ]

abnormal amniotic fluid volume

Both oligohydramnios and polyhydramnios are associated with breech presentation. [ 1 ] [ 12 ] [ 14 ]

Low amniotic fluid volume decreases the likelihood of a fetus turning to a cephalic position; an increased amniotic fluid volume may facilitate frequent change in position.

placental abnormalities

An association between placental implantation in the cornual-fundal region and breech presentation has been reported, although some studies have not found it a risk factor. [ 8 ] [ 20 ] [ 21 ] [ 22 ] [ 10 ] [ 14 ]

The association with placenta previa is also inconsistent. [ 8 ] [ 9 ] [ 22 ] Placenta previa is associated with preterm birth and may be an indirect risk factor.

Pelvic or vaginal examination reveals the buttocks and/or feet, felt as a yielding, irregular mass, as the presenting part. [ 26 ] In cephalic presentation, a hard, round, regular fetal head can be palpated. [ 26 ]

The Leopold maneuver on examination suggests breech position by palpation of the fetal head under the costal margin. [ 26 ]

The baby's heartbeat should be auscultated using a Pinard stethoscope or a hand-held Doppler to indicate the position of the fetus. The fetal heartbeat lies above the maternal umbilicus in breech presentation. [ 1 ]

Tenderness under one or other costal margin as a result of pressure by the harder fetal head.

Pain due to fetal kicks in the maternal pelvis or bladder.

breech position

Visualizes the fetus and reveals its position.

Used to confirm a clinically suspected breech presentation. [ 28 ]

Should be performed by practitioners with appropriate skills in obstetric ultrasound.

Establishes the type of breech presentation by imaging the fetal femurs and their relationship to the distal bones.

Transverse lie

Differentiating Signs/Symptoms

Fetus lies horizontally across the uterus with the shoulder as the presenting part.

Similar predisposing factors such as placenta previa, abnormal amniotic fluid volume, and uterine anomalies, although more common in multiparity. [ 1 ] [ 2 ] [ 29 ]

Differentiating Tests

Clinical examination and fetal auscultation may be indicative.

Ultrasound confirms presentation.

Treatment Approach

Breech presentation <37 weeks' gestation.

The UK Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (RCOG) recommends that corticosteroids should be offered to women between 24 and 34+6 weeks' gestation, in whom imminent preterm birth is anticipated. Corticosteroids should only be considered after discussion of risks/benefits at 35 to 36+6 weeks. Given within 7 days of preterm birth, corticosteroids may reduce perinatal and neonatal death and respiratory distress syndrome. [ 32 ] The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) recommends a single course of corticosteroids for pregnant women between 24 and 33+6 weeks' gestation who are at risk of preterm delivery within 7 days, including those with ruptured membranes and multiple gestations. It may also be considered for pregnant women starting at 23 weeks' gestation who are at risk of preterm delivery within 7 days. A single course of betamethasone is recommended for pregnant women between 34 and 36+6 weeks' gestation at risk of preterm birth within 7 days, and who have not received a previous course of prenatal corticosteroids. Regularly scheduled repeat courses or serial courses (more than two) are not currently recommended. A single repeat course of prenatal corticosteroids should be considered in women who are less than 34 weeks' gestation, who are at risk of preterm delivery within 7 days, and whose prior course of prenatal corticosteroids was administered more than 14 days previously. Rescue course corticosteroids could be provided as early as 7 days from the prior dose, if indicated by the clinical scenario. [ 33 ]

Magnesium sulfate given before anticipated early preterm birth reduces the risk of cerebral palsy in surviving infants. Physicians electing to use magnesium sulfate for fetal neuroprotection should develop specific guidelines regarding inclusion criteria, treatment regimens, and concurrent tocolysis. [ 34 ]

Breech presentation from 37 weeks' gestation, before labor

ECV is the initial treatment for a breech presentation at term when the patient is not in labor. It involves turning a fetus presenting by the breech to a cephalic (head-down) presentation to increase the likelihood of vaginal birth. [ 35 ] [ 36 ] Where available, it should be offered to all women in late pregnancy, by an experienced clinician, in hospitals with facilities for emergency delivery, and no contraindications to the procedure. [ 35 ] There is no upper time limit on the appropriate gestation for ECV, with success reported at 42 weeks.

There is no general consensus on contraindications to ECV. Contraindications include multiple pregnancy (except after delivery of a first twin), ruptured membranes, current or recent (<1 week) vaginal bleeding, rhesus isoimmunization, other indications for cesarean section (e.g., placenta previa or uterine malformation), or abnormal electronic fetal monitoring. [ 35 ] One systematic review of relative contraindications for ECV highlighted that most contraindications do not have clear empirical evidence. Exceptions include placental abruption, severe preeclampsia/HELLP syndrome, or signs of fetal distress (abnormal cardiotocography and/or Doppler flow). [ 36 ]

The procedure involves applying external pressure and firmly pushing or palpating the mother's abdomen to coerce the fetus to somersault (either forward or backward) into a cephalic position. [ 37 ]

The overall ECV success rate varies but, in a large series, 47% of women following an ECV attempt had a cephalic presentation at birth. [ 35 ] [ 38 ]  Various factors influence the success rate. One systematic review found ECV success rates to be 68% overall, with the rate significantly higher for women from African countries (89%) compared with women from non-African countries (62%), and higher among multiparous (78%) than nulliparous women (48%). [ 39 ] Overall, the ECV success rates for nulliparous and multiparous non-African women were 43% and 73%, respectively, while for nulliparous and multiparous African women rates were 79% and 91%, respectively. Another study reported no difference in success rate or rate of cesarean section among women with previous cesarean section undergoing ECV compared with women with previous vaginal birth. However, numbers were small and further studies in this regard are required. [ 40 ]

Women's preference for vaginal delivery is a major contributing factor in their decision for ECV. However, studies suggest women with a breech presentation at term may not receive complete and/or evidence-based information about the benefits and risks of ECV. [ 41 ] [ 42 ] Although up to 60% of women reported ECV to be painful, the majority highlighted the benefits outweigh the risks (71%) and would recommend ECV to their friends or be willing to repeat for themselves (84%). [ 41 ] [ 42 ]

Cardiotocography and ultrasound should be performed before and after the procedure. Tocolysis should be used to facilitate the maneuver, and Rho(D) immune globulin should be administered to women who are Rhesus negative. [ 35 ] Tocolytic agents include adrenergic beta-2 receptor stimulants such as albuterol, terbutaline, or ritodrine (widely used with ECV in some countries, but not yet available in the US). One Cochrane review of tocolytic beta stimulants demonstrates that these are less likely to be associated with failed ECV, and are effective in increasing cephalic presentation and reducing cesarean section. [ 43 ] There is no current evidence to recommend one beta-2 adrenergic receptor agonist over another. Until these data are available, adherence to a local protocol for tocolysis is recommended. The Food and Drug Administration has issued a warning against using injectable terbutaline beyond 48 to 72 hours, or acute or prolonged treatment with oral terbutaline, in pregnant women for the prevention or prolonged treatment of preterm labor, due to potential serious maternal cardiac adverse effects and death. [ 44 ] Whether this warning applies to the subcutaneous administration of terbutaline in ECV is still unclear; however, studies currently support this use. The European Medicines Agency (EMA) recommends that injectable beta agonists should be used for up to 48 hours between the 22nd and 37th week of pregnancy only. They should be used under specialist supervision with continuous monitoring of the mother and unborn baby owing to the risk of adverse cardiovascular effects in both the mother and baby. The EMA no longer recommends oral or rectal formulations for obstetric indications. [ 45 ]

If ECV is successful, pregnancy care should continue as usual for any cephalic presentation. One systematic review assessing the mode of delivery after a successful ECV found that these women were at increased risk for cesarean section and instrumental vaginal delivery compared with women with spontaneous cephalic pregnancies. However, they still had a lower rate of cesarean section following ECV (i.e., 47%) compared with the cesarean section rate for those with a persisting breech (i.e., 85%). With a number needed to treat of three, ECV is still considered to be an effective means of preventing the need for cesarean section. [ 46 ]

Planned cesarean section should be offered as the safest mode of delivery for the baby, even though it carries a small increase in serious immediate maternal complications compared with vaginal birth. [ 24 ] [ 25 ] [ 31 ] In the US, most unsuccessful ECV with persistent breech will be delivered via cesarean section.

A vaginal mode of delivery may be considered by some clinicians as an option, particularly when maternal request is provided, senior and experienced staff are available, there is no absolute contraindication to vaginal birth (e.g., placenta previa, compromised fetal condition), and with optimal fetal growth (estimated weight above the tenth centile and up to 3800 g). Other factors that make planned vaginal birth higher risk include hyperextended neck on ultrasound and footling presentation. [ 24 ]

Breech presentation from 37 weeks' gestation, during labor

The first option should be a planned cesarean section.

There is a small increase in the risk of serious immediate maternal complications compared with vaginal birth (RR 1.29, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.61), including pulmonary embolism, infection, bleeding, damage to the bladder and bowel, slower recovery from the delivery, longer hospitalization, and delayed bonding and breast-feeding. [ 23 ] [ 31 ] [ 47 ] [ 48 ] [ 49 ] [ 50 ] [ 51 ] [ 52 ] [ 53 ] [ 54 ] [ 55 ] [ 56 ] [ 57 ] [ 58 ] Consider using antimicrobial triclosan-coated sutures for wound closure to reduce the risk of surgical site infection. [ 59 ]

The long-term risks include potential compromise of future obstetric performance, increased risk of repeat cesarean section, infertility, uterine rupture, placenta accreta, placental abruption, and emergency hysterectomy. [ 60 ] [ 61 ] [ 62 ] [ 63 ]

Planned cesarean section is safer for babies, but is associated with increased neonatal respiratory distress. The risk is reduced when the section is performed at 39 weeks' gestation. [ 64 ] [ 65 ] [ 66 ] For women undergoing a planned cesarean section, RCOG recommends an informed discussion about the potential risks and benefits of a course of prenatal corticosteroids between 37 and 38+6 weeks' gestation. Although prenatal corticosteroids may reduce admission to the neonatal unit for respiratory morbidity, it is uncertain if there is any reduction in respiratory distress syndrome, transient tachypnea of the newborn, or neonatal unit admission overall. In addition, prenatal corticosteroids may result in harm to the neonate, including hypoglycemia and potential developmental delay. [ 32 ] ACOG does not recommend corticosteroids in women >37 weeks' gestation. [ 33 ]

Undiagnosed breech in labor generally results in cesarean section after the onset of labor, higher rates of emergency cesarean section associated with the least favorable maternal outcomes, a greater likelihood of cord prolapse, and other poor infant outcomes. [ 23 ] [ 67 ] [ 49 ] [ 68 ] [ 69 ] [ 70 ] [ 71 ]

This mode of delivery may be considered by some clinicians as an option for women who are in labor, particularly when delivery is imminent. Vaginal breech delivery may also be considered, where suitable, when delivery is not imminent, maternal request is provided, senior and experienced staff are available, there is no absolute contraindication to vaginal birth (e.g., placenta previa, compromised fetal condition), and with optimal fetal growth (estimated weight above the tenth centile and up to 3800 g). Other factors that make planned vaginal birth higher risk include hyperextended neck on ultrasound and footling presentation. [ 24 ]

Findings from one systematic review of 27 observational studies revealed that the absolute risks of perinatal mortality, fetal neurologic morbidity, birth trauma, 5-minute Apgar score <7, and neonatal asphyxia in the planned vaginal delivery group were low at 0.3%, 0.7%, 0.7%, 2.4%, and 3.3%, respectively. However, the relative risks of perinatal mortality and morbidity were 2- to 5-fold higher in the planned vaginal than in the planned cesarean delivery group. Authors recommend ongoing judicious decision-making for vaginal breech delivery for selected singleton, term breech babies. [ 72 ]

ECV may also be considered an option for women with breech presentation in early labor, when delivery is not imminent, provided that the membranes are intact.

A woman presenting with a breech presentation <37 weeks is an area of clinical controversy. Optimal mode of delivery for preterm breech has not been fully evaluated in clinical trials, and the relative risks for the preterm infant and mother remain unclear. In the absence of good evidence, if diagnosis of breech presentation prior to 37 weeks' gestation is made, prematurity and clinical circumstances should determine management and mode of delivery.

Primary Options

12 mg intramuscularly every 24 hours for 2 doses

6 mg intramuscularly every 12 hours for 4 doses

The UK Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists recommends that corticosteroids should be offered to women between 24 and 34+6 weeks' gestation, in whom imminent preterm birth is anticipated. Corticosteroids should only be considered after discussion of risks/benefits at 35 to 36+6 weeks. Given within 7 days of preterm birth, corticosteroids may reduce perinatal and neonatal death and respiratory distress syndrome. [ 32 ]

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists recommends a single course of corticosteroids for pregnant women between 24 and 33+6 weeks' gestation who are at risk of preterm delivery within 7 days, including those with ruptured membranes and multiple gestations. It may also be considered for pregnant women starting at 23 weeks' gestation who are at risk of preterm delivery within 7 days. A single course of betamethasone is recommended for pregnant women between 34 and 36+6 weeks' gestation at risk of preterm birth within 7 days, and who have not received a previous course of prenatal corticosteroids. Regularly scheduled repeat courses or serial courses (more than two) are not currently recommended. A single repeat course of prenatal corticosteroids should be considered in women who are less than 34 weeks' gestation, who are at risk of preterm delivery within 7 days, and whose prior course of prenatal corticosteroids was administered more than 14 days previously. Rescue course corticosteroids could be provided as early as 7 days from the prior dose, if indicated by the clinical scenario. [ 33 ]

consult specialist for guidance on dose

external cephalic version (ECV)

There is no upper time limit on the appropriate gestation for ECV; it should be offered to all women in late pregnancy by an experienced clinician in hospitals with facilities for emergency delivery and no contraindications to the procedure. [ 35 ] [ 36 ]

ECV involves applying external pressure and firmly pushing or palpating the mother's abdomen to coerce the fetus to somersault (either forward or backward) into a cephalic position. [ 37 ]

There is no general consensus on contraindications to ECV. Contraindications include multiple pregnancy (except after delivery of a first twin), ruptured membranes, current or recent (<1 week) vaginal bleeding, rhesus isoimmunization, other indications for cesarean section (e.g., placenta previa or uterine malformation), or abnormal electronic fetal monitoring. [ 35 ]  One systematic review of relative contraindications for ECV highlighted that most contraindications do not have clear empirical evidence. Exceptions include placental abruption, severe preeclampsia/HELLP syndrome, or signs of fetal distress (abnormal cardiotocography and/or Doppler flow). [ 36 ]

Cardiotocography and ultrasound should be performed before and after the procedure.

If ECV is successful, pregnancy care should continue as usual for any cephalic presentation. A systematic review assessing the mode of delivery after a successful ECV found that these women were at increased risk for cesarean section and instrumental vaginal delivery compared with women with spontaneous cephalic pregnancies. However, they still had a lower rate of cesarean section following ECV (i.e., 47%) compared with the cesarean section rate for those with a persisting breech (i.e., 85%). With a number needed to treat of 3, ECV is still considered to be an effective means of preventing the need for cesarean section. [ 46 ]

tocolytic agents

see local specialist protocol for dosing guidelines

Tocolytic agents include adrenergic beta-2 receptor stimulants such as albuterol, terbutaline, or ritodrine (widely used with external cephalic version [ECV] in some countries, but not yet available in the US). They are used to delay or inhibit labor and increase the success rate of ECV. There is no current evidence to recommend one beta-2 adrenergic receptor agonist over another. Until these data are available, adherence to a local protocol for tocolysis is recommended.

The Food and Drug Administration has issued a warning against using injectable terbutaline beyond 48-72 hours, or acute or prolonged treatment with oral terbutaline, in pregnant women for the prevention or prolonged treatment of preterm labor, due to potential serious maternal cardiac adverse effects and death. [ 44 ] Whether this warning applies to the subcutaneous administration of terbutaline in ECV is still unclear; however, studies currently support this use. The European Medicines Agency (EMA) recommends that injectable beta agonists should be used for up to 48 hours between the 22nd and 37th week of pregnancy only. They should be used under specialist supervision with continuous monitoring of the mother and unborn baby owing to the risk of adverse cardiovascular effects in both the mother and baby. The EMA no longer recommends oral or rectal formulations for obstetric indications. [ 45 ]

A systematic review found there was no evidence to support the use of nifedipine for tocolysis. [ 73 ]

There is insufficient evidence to evaluate other interventions to help ECV, such as fetal acoustic stimulation in midline fetal spine positions, or epidural or spinal analgesia. [ 43 ]

Rho(D) immune globulin

300 micrograms intramuscularly as a single dose

Nonsensitized Rh-negative women should receive Rho(D) immune globulin. [ 35 ]

The indication for its administration is to prevent rhesus isoimmunization, which may affect subsequent pregnancy outcomes.

Rho(D) immune globulin needs to be given at the time of external cephalic version and should be given again postpartum to those women who give birth to an Rh-positive baby. [ 74 ]

It is best administered as soon as possible after the procedure, usually within 72 hours.

Dose depends on brand used. Dose given below pertains to most commonly used brands. Consult specialist for further guidance on dose.

elective cesarean section/vaginal breech delivery

Mode of delivery (cesarean section or vaginal breech delivery) should be based on the experience of the attending clinician, hospital policies, maternal request, and the presence or absence of complicating factors. In the US, most unsuccessful external cephalic version (ECV) with persistent breech will be delivered via cesarean section.

Cesarean section, at 39 weeks or greater, has been shown to significantly reduce perinatal mortality and neonatal morbidity compared with vaginal breech delivery (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.19 to 0.56). [ 31 ] Although safer for these babies, there is a small increase in serious immediate maternal complications compared with vaginal birth (RR 1.29, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.61), as well as long-term risks for future pregnancies, including pulmonary embolism, bleeding, infection, damage to the bladder and bowel, slower recovery from the delivery, longer hospitalization, and delayed bonding and breast-feeding. [ 23 ] [ 31 ] [ 47 ] [ 48 ] [ 49 ] [ 50 ] [ 51 ] [ 52 ] [ 53 ] [ 54 ] [ 55 ] [ 56 ] [ 57 ] [ 58 ] Consider using antimicrobial triclosan-coated sutures for wound closure to reduce the risk of surgical site infection. [ 59 ]

Vaginal delivery may be considered by some clinicians as an option, particularly when maternal request is provided, when senior and experienced staff are available, when there is no absolute contraindication to vaginal birth (e.g., placenta previa, compromised fetal condition), and with optimal fetal growth (estimated weight above the tenth centile and up to 3800 g). Other factors that make planned vaginal birth higher risk include hyperextended neck on ultrasound and footling presentation. [ 24 ]

For women undergoing a planned cesarean section, the UK Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists recommends an informed discussion about the potential risks and benefits of a course of prenatal corticosteroids between 37 and 38+6 weeks' gestation. Although prenatal corticosteroids may reduce admission to the neonatal unit for respiratory morbidity, it is uncertain if there is any reduction in respiratory distress syndrome, transient tachypnea of the newborn, or neonatal unit admission overall. In addition, prenatal corticosteroids may result in harm to the neonate, including hypoglycemia and potential developmental delay. [ 32 ] The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists does not recommend corticosteroids in women >37 weeks' gestation. [ 33 ]

It is best administered as soon as possible after delivery, usually within 72 hours.

Administration of postpartum Rho (D) immune globulin should not be affected by previous routine prenatal prophylaxis or previous administration for a potentially sensitizing event. [ 74 ]

≥37 weeks' gestation in labor: no imminent delivery

planned cesarean section

For women with breech presentation in labor, planned cesarean section at 39 weeks or greater has been shown to significantly reduce perinatal mortality and neonatal morbidity compared with vaginal breech delivery (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.19 to 0.56). [ 31 ]

Although safer for these babies, there is a small increase in serious immediate maternal complications compared with vaginal birth (RR 1.29, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.61), as well as long-term risks for future pregnancies, including pulmonary embolism, infection, bleeding, damage to the bladder and bowel, slower recovery from the delivery, longer hospitalization, and delayed bonding and breast-feeding. [ 23 ] [ 31 ] [ 47 ] [ 48 ] [ 49 ] [ 50 ] [ 51 ] [ 52 ] [ 53 ] [ 54 ] [ 55 ] [ 56 ] [ 57 ] [ 58 ]  Consider using antimicrobial triclosan-coated sutures for wound closure to reduce the risk of surgical site infection. [ 59 ]

Continuous cardiotocography monitoring should continue until delivery. [ 24 ] [ 25 ]

vaginal breech delivery

Mode of delivery (cesarean section or vaginal breech delivery) should be based on the experience of the attending clinician, hospital policies, maternal request, and the presence or absence of complicating factors.

This mode of delivery may be considered by some clinicians as an option, particularly when maternal request is provided, when senior and experienced staff are available, when there is no absolute contraindication to vaginal birth (e.g., placenta previa, compromised fetal condition), and with optimal fetal growth (estimated weight above the tenth centile and up to 3800 g). Other factors that make planned vaginal birth higher risk include hyperextended neck on ultrasound and footling presentation. [ 24 ]

For women with persisting breech presentation, planned cesarean section has, however, been shown to significantly reduce perinatal mortality and neonatal morbidity compared with vaginal breech delivery (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.19 to 0.56). [ 31 ]

ECV may also be considered an option for women with breech presentation in early labor, provided that the membranes are intact.

There is no upper time limit on the appropriate gestation for ECV. [ 35 ]

Involves applying external pressure and firmly pushing or palpating the mother's abdomen to coerce the fetus to somersault (either forward or backward) into a cephalic position. [ 37 ]

Relative contraindications include placental abruption, severe preeclampsia/HELLP syndrome, and signs of fetal distress (abnormal cardiotocography and/or abnormal Doppler flow). [ 35 ] [ 36 ]

Rho(D) immune globulin needs to be given at the time of ECV and should be given again postpartum to those women who give birth to an Rh-positive baby. [ 74 ]

≥37 weeks' gestation in labor: imminent delivery

cesarean section

For women with persistent breech presentation, planned cesarean section has been shown to significantly reduce perinatal mortality and neonatal morbidity compared with vaginal breech delivery (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.19 to 0.56). [ 31 ] Although safer for these babies, there is a small increase in serious immediate maternal complications compared with vaginal birth (RR 1.29, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.61), as well as long-term risks for future pregnancies, including pulmonary embolism, infection, bleeding, damage to the bladder and bowel, slower recovery from the delivery, longer hospitalization, and delayed bonding and breast-feeding. [ 23 ] [ 31 ] [ 47 ] [ 48 ] [ 49 ] [ 50 ] [ 51 ] [ 52 ] [ 53 ] [ 54 ] [ 55 ] [ 56 ] [ 57 ] [ 58 ]  Consider using antimicrobial triclosan-coated sutures for wound closure to reduce the risk of surgical site infection. [ 59 ]

This mode of delivery may be considered by some clinicians as an option, particularly when delivery is imminent, maternal request is provided, when senior and experienced staff are available, when there is no absolute contraindication to vaginal birth (e.g., placenta previa, compromised fetal condition), and with optimal fetal growth (estimated weight above the tenth centile and up to 3800 g). Other factors that make planned vaginal birth higher risk include hyperextended neck on ultrasound and footling presentation. [ 24 ]

It is best administered as soon as possible after the delivery, usually within 72 hours.

External cephalic version before term

Moxibustion, postural management, follow-up overview, perinatal complications.

Compared with cephalic presentation, persistent breech presentation has increased frequency of cord prolapse, abruptio placentae, prelabor rupture of membranes, perinatal mortality, fetal distress (heart rate <100 bpm), preterm delivery, lower fetal weight. [ 10 ] [ 11 ] [ 67 ]

complications of cesarean section

There is a small increase in the risk of serious immediate maternal complications compared with vaginal birth (RR 1.29, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.61), including pulmonary embolism, infection, bleeding, damage to the bladder and bowel, slower recovery from the delivery, longer hospitalization, and delayed bonding and breast-feeding. [ 23 ] [ 31 ] [ 47 ] [ 48 ] [ 49 ] [ 50 ] [ 51 ] [ 52 ] [ 53 ] [ 54 ] [ 55 ] [ 56 ] [ 57 ] [ 58 ]

The long-term risks include potential compromise of future obstetric performance, increased risk of repeat cesarean section, infertility, uterine rupture, placenta accreta, placental abruption, and emergency hysterectomy. [ 60 ] [ 61 ] [ 62 ] [ 63 ] The evidence suggests that using sutures, rather than staples, for wound closure after cesarean section reduces the incidence of wound dehiscence. [ 59 ]

Emergency cesarean section, compared with planned cesarean section, has demonstrated a higher risk of severe obstetric morbidity, intra-operative complications, postoperative complications, infection, blood loss >1500 mL, fever, pain, tiredness, and breast-feeding problems. [ 23 ] [ 48 ] [ 50 ] [ 70 ] [ 81 ]

Key Articles

Impey LWM, Murphy DJ, Griffiths M, et al; Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. Management of breech presentation: green-top guideline no. 20b. BJOG. 2017 Jun;124(7):e151-77. [Full Text]

Hofmeyr GJ, Hannah M, Lawrie TA. Planned caesarean section for term breech delivery. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015 Jul 21;(7):CD000166. [Abstract] [Full Text]

Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. External cephalic version and reducing the incidence of term breech presentation. March 2017 [internet publication]. [Full Text]

Cluver C, Gyte GM, Sinclair M, et al. Interventions for helping to turn term breech babies to head first presentation when using external cephalic version. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015 Feb 9;(2):CD000184. [Abstract] [Full Text]

de Hundt M, Velzel J, de Groot CJ, et al. Mode of delivery after successful external cephalic version: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Obstet Gynecol. 2014 Jun;123(6):1327-34. [Abstract]

Referenced Articles

1. Cunningham F, Gant N, Leveno K, et al. Williams obstetrics. 21st ed. New York: McGraw-Hill; 1997.

2. Kish K, Collea JV. Malpresentation and cord prolapse. In: DeCherney AH, Nathan L, eds. Current obstetric and gynecologic diagnosis and treatment. New York: McGraw-Hill Professional; 2002.

3. Scheer K, Nubar J. Variation of fetal presentation with gestational age. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1976 May 15;125(2):269-70. [Abstract]

4. Nassar N, Roberts CL, Cameron CA, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of clinical examination for detection of non-cephalic presentation in late pregnancy: cross sectional analytic study. BMJ. 2006 Sep 16;333(7568):578-80. [Abstract] [Full Text]

5. Roberts CL, Peat B, Algert CS, et al. Term breech birth in New South Wales, 1990-1997. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 2000 Feb;40(1):23-9. [Abstract]

6. Roberts CL, Algert CS, Peat B, et al. Small fetal size: a risk factor for breech birth at term. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 1999 Oct;67(1):1-8. [Abstract]

7. Brar HS, Platt LD, DeVore GR, et al. Fetal umbilical velocimetry for the surveillance of pregnancies complicated by placenta previa. J Reprod Med. 1988 Sep;33(9):741-4. [Abstract]

8. Kian L. The role of the placental site in the aetiology of breech presentation. J Obstet Gynaecol Br Commonw. 1963 Oct;70:795-7. [Abstract]

9. Rayl J, Gibson PJ, Hickok DE. A population-based case-control study of risk factors for breech presentation. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1996 Jan;174(1 Pt 1):28-32. [Abstract]

10. Westgren M, Edvall H, Nordstrom L, et al. Spontaneous cephalic version of breech presentation in the last trimester. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1985 Jan;92(1):19-22. [Abstract]

11. Brenner WE, Bruce RD, Hendricks CH. The characteristics and perils of breech presentation. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1974 Mar 1;118(5):700-12. [Abstract]

12. Hall JE, Kohl S. Breech presentation. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1956 Nov;72(5):977-90. [Abstract]

13. Morgan HS, Kane SH. An analysis of 16,327 breech births. JAMA. 1964 Jan 25;187:262-4. [Abstract]

14. Luterkort M, Persson P, Weldner B. Maternal and fetal factors in breech presentation. Obstet Gynecol. 1984 Jul;64(1):55-9. [Abstract]

15. Braun FH, Jones KL, Smith DW. Breech presentation as an indicator of fetal abnormality. J Pediatr. 1975 Mar;86(3):419-21. [Abstract]

16. Albrechtsen S, Rasmussen S, Dalaker K, et al. Reproductive career after breech presentation: subsequent pregnancy rates, interpregnancy interval, and recurrence. Obstet Gynecol. 1998 Sep;92(3):345-50. [Abstract]

17. Zlopasa G, Skrablin S, Kalafatić D, et al. Uterine anomalies and pregnancy outcome following resectoscope metroplasty. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2007 Aug;98(2):129-33. [Abstract]

18. Acién P. Breech presentation in Spain, 1992: a collaborative study. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 1995 Sep;62(1):19-24. [Abstract]

19. Michalas SP. Outcome of pregnancy in women with uterine malformation: evaluation of 62 cases. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 1991 Jul;35(3):215-9. [Abstract]

20. Fianu S, Vaclavinkova V. The site of placental attachment as a factor in the aetiology of breech presentation. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 1978;57(4):371-2. [Abstract]

21. Haruyama Y. Placental implantation as the cause of breech presentation [in Japanese]. Nihon Sanka Fujinka Gakkai Zasshi. 1987 Jan;39(1):92-8. [Abstract]

22. Filipov E, Borisov I, Kolarov G. Placental location and its influence on the position of the fetus in the uterus [in Bulgarian]. Akush Ginekol (Sofiia). 2000;40(4):11-2. [Abstract]

23. Waterstone M, Bewley S, Wolfe C. Incidence and predictors of severe obstetric morbidity: case-control study. BMJ. 2001 May 5;322(7294):1089-93. [Abstract] [Full Text]

24. Impey LWM, Murphy DJ, Griffiths M, et al; Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. Management of breech presentation: green-top guideline no. 20b. BJOG. 2017 Jun;124(7):e151-77. [Full Text]

25. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists Committee on Obstetric Practice. ACOG committee opinion no. 745: mode of term singleton breech delivery. Obstet Gynecol. 2018 Aug;132(2):e60-3. [Abstract] [Full Text]

26. Beischer NA, Mackay EV, Colditz P, eds. Obstetrics and the newborn: an illustrated textbook. 3rd ed. London: W.B. Saunders; 1997.

27. Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. Antepartum haemorrhage: green-top guideline no. 63. November 2011 [internet publication]. [Full Text]

28. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Practice bulletin no. 175: ultrasound in pregnancy. Obstet Gynecol. 2016 Dec;128(6):e241-56. [Abstract]

29. Enkin M, Keirse MJNC, Neilson J, et al. Guide to effective care in pregnancy and childbirth. 3rd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2000.

30. Hofmeyr GJ, Kulier R, West HM. External cephalic version for breech presentation at term. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012 Oct 17;(10):CD000083. [Abstract] [Full Text]

31. Hofmeyr GJ, Hannah M, Lawrie TA. Planned caesarean section for term breech delivery. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015 Jul 21;(7):CD000166. [Abstract] [Full Text]

32. Stock SJ, Thomson AJ, Papworth S, et al. Antenatal corticosteroids to reduce neonatal morbidity and mortality: Green-top Guideline No. 74. BJOG. 2022 Jul;129(8):e35-60. [Abstract] [Full Text]

33. American College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists Committee on Obstetric Practice. Committee opinion no. 713: antenatal corticosteroid therapy for fetal maturation. August 2017 (reaffirmed 2020) [internet publication]. [Full Text]

34. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists Committee on Obstetric Practice. Committee opinion no. 455: magnesium sulfate before anticipated preterm birth for neuroprotection. March 2010 (reaffirmed 2020) [internet publication]. [Full Text]

35. Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. External cephalic version and reducing the incidence of term breech presentation. March 2017 [internet publication]. [Full Text]

36. Rosman AN, Guijt A, Vlemmix F, et al. Contraindications for external cephalic version in breech position at term: a systematic review. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2013 Feb;92(2):137-42. [Abstract]

37. Hofmeyr GJ. Effect of external cephalic version in late pregnancy on breech presentation and caesarean section rate: a controlled trial. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1983 May;90(5):392-9. [Abstract]

38. Beuckens A, Rijnders M, Verburgt-Doeleman GH, et al. An observational study of the success and complications of 2546 external cephalic versions in low-risk pregnant women performed by trained midwives. BJOG. 2016 Feb;123(3):415-23. [Abstract]

39. Nassar N, Roberts CL, Barratt A, et al. Systematic review of adverse outcomes of external cephalic version and persisting breech presentation at term. Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol. 2006 Mar;20(2):163-71. [Abstract]

40. Sela HY, Fiegenberg T, Ben-Meir A, et al. Safety and efficacy of external cephalic version for women with a previous cesarean delivery. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2009 Feb;142(2):111-4. [Abstract]

41. Pichon M, Guittier MJ, Irion O, et al. External cephalic version in case of persisting breech presentation at term: motivations and women's experience of the intervention [in French]. Gynecol Obstet Fertil. 2013 Jul-Aug;41(7-8):427-32. [Abstract]

42. Nassar N, Roberts CL, Raynes-Greenow CH, et al. Evaluation of a decision aid for women with breech presentation at term: a randomised controlled trial [ISRCTN14570598]. BJOG. 2007 Mar;114(3):325-33. [Abstract] [Full Text]

43. Cluver C, Gyte GM, Sinclair M, et al. Interventions for helping to turn term breech babies to head first presentation when using external cephalic version. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015 Feb 9;(2):CD000184. [Abstract] [Full Text]

44. US Food & Drug Administration. FDA Drug Safety Communication: new warnings against use of terbutaline to treat preterm labor. Feb 2011 [internet publication]. [Full Text]

45. European Medicines Agency. Restrictions on use of short-acting beta-agonists in obstetric indications - CMDh endorses PRAC recommendations. October 2013 [internet publication]. [Full Text]

46. de Hundt M, Velzel J, de Groot CJ, et al. Mode of delivery after successful external cephalic version: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Obstet Gynecol. 2014 Jun;123(6):1327-34. [Abstract]

47. Lydon-Rochelle M, Holt VL, Martin DP, et al. Association between method of delivery and maternal rehospitalisation. JAMA. 2000 May 10;283(18):2411-6. [Abstract]

48. Yokoe DS, Christiansen CL, Johnson R, et al. Epidemiology of and surveillance for postpartum infections. Emerg Infect Dis. 2001 Sep-Oct;7(5):837-41. [Abstract]

49. van Ham MA, van Dongen PW, Mulder J. Maternal consequences of caesarean section. A retrospective study of intra-operative and postoperative maternal complications of caesarean section during a 10-year period. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 1997 Jul;74(1):1-6. [Abstract]

50. Murphy DJ, Liebling RE, Verity L, et al. Early maternal and neonatal morbidity associated with operative delivery in second stage of labour: a cohort study. Lancet. 2001 Oct 13;358(9289):1203-7. [Abstract]

51. Lydon-Rochelle MT, Holt VL, Martin DP. Delivery method and self-reported postpartum general health status among primiparous women. Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol. 2001 Jul;15(3):232-40. [Abstract]

52. Wilson PD, Herbison RM, Herbison GP. Obstetric practice and the prevalence of urinary incontinence three months after delivery. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1996 Feb;103(2):154-61. [Abstract]

53. Persson J, Wolner-Hanssen P, Rydhstroem H. Obstetric risk factors for stress urinary incontinence: a population-based study. Obstet Gynecol. 2000 Sep;96(3):440-5. [Abstract]

54. MacLennan AH, Taylor AW, Wilson DH, et al. The prevalence of pelvic disorders and their relationship to gender, age, parity and mode of delivery. BJOG. 2000 Dec;107(12):1460-70. [Abstract]

55. Thompson JF, Roberts CL, Currie M, et al. Prevalence and persistence of health problems after childbirth: associations with parity and method of birth. Birth. 2002 Jun;29(2):83-94. [Abstract]

56. Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. Australia's mothers and babies 2015 - in brief. October 2017 [internet publication]. [Full Text]

57. Mutryn CS. Psychosocial impact of cesarean section on the family: a literature review. Soc Sci Med. 1993 Nov;37(10):1271-81. [Abstract]

58. DiMatteo MR, Morton SC, Lepper HS, et al. Cesarean childbirth and psychosocial outcomes: a meta-analysis. Health Psychol. 1996 Jul;15(4):303-14. [Abstract]

59. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Caesarean birth. Mar 2021 [internet publication]. [Full Text]

60. Greene R, Gardeit F, Turner MJ. Long-term implications of cesarean section. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1997 Jan;176(1 Pt 1):254-5. [Abstract]

61. Coughlan C, Kearney R, Turner MJ. What are the implications for the next delivery in primigravidae who have an elective caesarean section for breech presentation? BJOG. 2002 Jun;109(6):624-6. [Abstract]

62. Hemminki E, Merilainen J. Long-term effects of cesarean sections: ectopic pregnancies and placental problems. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1996 May;174(5):1569-74. [Abstract]

63. Gilliam M, Rosenberg D, Davis F. The likelihood of placenta previa with greater number of cesarean deliveries and higher parity. Obstet Gynecol. 2002 Jun;99(6):976-80. [Abstract]

64. Morrison JJ, Rennie JM, Milton PJ. Neonatal respiratory morbidity and mode of delivery at term: influence of timing of elective caesarean section. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1995 Feb;102(2):101-6. [Abstract]

65. Annibale DJ, Hulsey TC, Wagner CL, et al. Comparative neonatal morbidity of abdominal and vaginal deliveries after uncomplicated pregnancies. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 1995 Aug;149(8):862-7. [Abstract]

66. Hook B, Kiwi R, Amini SB, et al. Neonatal morbidity after elective repeat cesarean section and trial of labor. Pediatrics. 1997 Sep;100(3 Pt 1):348-53. [Abstract]

67. Nassar N, Roberts CL, Cameron CA, et al. Outcomes of external cephalic version and breech presentation at term: an audit of deliveries at a Sydney tertiary obstetric hospital, 1997-2004. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2006;85(10):1231-8. [Abstract]

68. Nwosu EC, Walkinshaw S, Chia P, et al. Undiagnosed breech. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1993 Jun;100(6):531-5. [Abstract]

69. Flamm BL, Ruffini RM. Undetected breech presentation: impact on external version and cesarean rates. Am J Perinatol. 1998 May;15(5):287-9. [Abstract]

70. Cockburn J, Foong C, Cockburn P. Undiagnosed breech. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1994 Jul;101(7):648-9. [Abstract]

71. Leung WC, Pun TC, Wong WM. Undiagnosed breech revisited. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1999 Jul;106(7):638-41. [Abstract]

72. Berhan Y, Haileamlak A. The risks of planned vaginal breech delivery versus planned caesarean section for term breech birth: a meta-analysis including observational studies. BJOG. 2016 Jan;123(1):49-57. [Abstract] [Full Text]

73. Wilcox C, Nassar N, Roberts C. Effectiveness of nifedipine tocolysis to facilitate external cephalic version: a systematic review. BJOG. 2011 Mar;118(4):423-8. [Abstract]

74. Qureshi H, Massey E, Kirwan D, et al. BCSH guideline for the use of anti-D immunoglobulin for the prevention of haemolytic disease of the fetus and newborn. Transfus Med. 2014 Feb;24(1):8-20. [Abstract] [Full Text]

75. Hutton EK, Hofmeyr GJ, Dowswell T. External cephalic version for breech presentation before term. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015 Jul 29;(7):CD000084. [Abstract] [Full Text]

76. Coyle ME, Smith CA, Peat B. Cephalic version by moxibustion for breech presentation. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012 May 16;(5):CD003928. [Abstract] [Full Text]

77. Hofmeyr GJ, Kulier R. Cephalic version by postural management for breech presentation. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012 Oct 17;(10):CD000051. [Abstract] [Full Text]

78. Hannah ME, Whyte H, Hannah WJ, et al. Maternal outcomes at 2 years after planned cesarean section versus planned vaginal birth for breech presentation at term: the International Randomized Term Breech Trial. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2004 Sep;191(3):917-27. [Abstract]

79. Eide MG, Oyen N, Skjaerven R, et al. Breech delivery and Intelligence: a population-based study of 8,738 breech infants. Obstet Gynecol. 2005 Jan;105(1):4-11. [Abstract]

80. Whyte H, Hannah ME, Saigal S, et al. 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. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2004 Sep;191(3):864-71. [Abstract]

81. Brown S, Lumley J. Maternal health after childbirth: results of an Australian population based survey. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1998 Feb;105(2):156-61. [Abstract]

Published by

American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists

2016 (reaffirmed 2022)

Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (UK)

National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (UK)

Topic last updated: 2024-03-05

Natasha Nassar , PhD

Associate Professor

Menzies Centre for Health Policy

Sydney School of Public Health

University of Sydney

Christine L. Roberts , MBBS, FAFPHM, DrPH

Research Director

Clinical and Population Health Division

Perinatal Medicine Group

Kolling Institute of Medical Research

Jonathan Morris , MBChB, FRANZCOG, PhD

Professor of Obstetrics and Gynaecology and Head of Department

Peer Reviewers

John W. Bachman , MD

Consultant in Family Medicine

Department of Family Medicine

Mayo Clinic

Rhona Hughes , MBChB

Lead Obstetrician

Lothian Simpson Centre for Reproductive Health

The Royal Infirmary

Brian Peat , MD

Director of Obstetrics

Women's and Children's Hospital

North Adelaide

South Australia

Lelia Duley , MBChB

Professor of Obstetric Epidemiology

University of Leeds

Bradford Institute of Health Research

Temple Bank House

Bradford Royal Infirmary

Justus Hofmeyr , MD

Head of the Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology

East London Private Hospital

East London

South Africa