Contraindications in national guidelines for vaginal breech delivery at term: Comparison, consensus, and controversy

IF 3.5 2区 医学 Q1 OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica Pub Date : 2024-08-18 DOI:10.1111/aogs.14947
Merle R. van Dijk, Christiaan Papatsonis, Wessel Ganzevoort, Etelka Moll, Fedde Scheele, Joost Velzel
{"title":"Contraindications in national guidelines for vaginal breech delivery at term: Comparison, consensus, and controversy","authors":"Merle R. van Dijk,&nbsp;Christiaan Papatsonis,&nbsp;Wessel Ganzevoort,&nbsp;Etelka Moll,&nbsp;Fedde Scheele,&nbsp;Joost Velzel","doi":"10.1111/aogs.14947","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Introduction</h3>\n \n <p>The optimal mode of delivery for vaginal breech presentation remains a clinical dilemma. Planned vaginal delivery offers maternal advantages because it avoids major abdominal surgery and has no consequences for following pregnancies, while elective cesarean delivery proves advantageous for the neonate because adverse outcomes are less frequent. Patient selection for vaginal breech delivery is important based on the individual risk balance. A lack of consensus exists regarding the specific contraindications for vaginal breech delivery, largely due to limited scientific evidence. This systematic review aims to give an overview of contraindications for vaginal breech delivery, as presented in guidelines, analyze relevant literature, and offer evidence-based recommendations for the contraindications stated in the guidelines.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Material and Methods</h3>\n \n <p>To identify national guidelines PubMed, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, EMBASE, NICE, UpToDate, and ClinicalKey were searched using two keywords: “breech presentation” and “vaginal delivery.” We systematically reviewed the literature for existing evidence for contraindications for term vaginal breech delivery. The following databases were searched: PubMed (April 2024), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and EMBASE (1947 to 2024).</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>Our search identified eight guidelines that stated a total of 11 contraindications for vaginal breech delivery. Among these guidelines, agreement was limited, with the sole consensus in all guidelines on the contraindication of footling breech. Our comprehensive literature search yielded 43 articles discussing 14 potential contraindications. We found supportive evidence for 7 of 11 contraindications from the guidelines, with only substantial and satisfactory evidence for two contraindications.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusions</h3>\n \n <p>The findings of this study underscore the lack of consensus among national guidelines regarding contraindications for term vaginal breech delivery. Furthermore, we found a notable lack of substantial scientific evidence to support these contraindications. In light of these findings, we suggest a reduced list of contraindications in vaginal breech deliveries.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":6990,"journal":{"name":"Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica","volume":"103 12","pages":"2373-2380"},"PeriodicalIF":3.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/aogs.14947","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/aogs.14947","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction

The optimal mode of delivery for vaginal breech presentation remains a clinical dilemma. Planned vaginal delivery offers maternal advantages because it avoids major abdominal surgery and has no consequences for following pregnancies, while elective cesarean delivery proves advantageous for the neonate because adverse outcomes are less frequent. Patient selection for vaginal breech delivery is important based on the individual risk balance. A lack of consensus exists regarding the specific contraindications for vaginal breech delivery, largely due to limited scientific evidence. This systematic review aims to give an overview of contraindications for vaginal breech delivery, as presented in guidelines, analyze relevant literature, and offer evidence-based recommendations for the contraindications stated in the guidelines.

Material and Methods

To identify national guidelines PubMed, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, EMBASE, NICE, UpToDate, and ClinicalKey were searched using two keywords: “breech presentation” and “vaginal delivery.” We systematically reviewed the literature for existing evidence for contraindications for term vaginal breech delivery. The following databases were searched: PubMed (April 2024), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and EMBASE (1947 to 2024).

Results

Our search identified eight guidelines that stated a total of 11 contraindications for vaginal breech delivery. Among these guidelines, agreement was limited, with the sole consensus in all guidelines on the contraindication of footling breech. Our comprehensive literature search yielded 43 articles discussing 14 potential contraindications. We found supportive evidence for 7 of 11 contraindications from the guidelines, with only substantial and satisfactory evidence for two contraindications.

Conclusions

The findings of this study underscore the lack of consensus among national guidelines regarding contraindications for term vaginal breech delivery. Furthermore, we found a notable lack of substantial scientific evidence to support these contraindications. In light of these findings, we suggest a reduced list of contraindications in vaginal breech deliveries.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
国家指南中关于足月阴道臀位分娩的禁忌症:比较、共识和争议。
导言:阴道臀位的最佳分娩方式仍然是临床上的一个难题。有计划的阴道分娩对产妇有利,因为它避免了腹部大手术,对以后的妊娠也没有影响;而选择剖宫产对新生儿有利,因为不良后果较少。根据个体风险平衡选择阴道臀位分娩的患者非常重要。关于阴道臀位分娩的具体禁忌症缺乏共识,这主要是由于科学证据有限。本系统综述旨在概述指南中提出的阴道臀位分娩禁忌症,分析相关文献,并针对指南中提出的禁忌症提出循证建议:为了确定国家指南,使用两个关键词搜索了 PubMed、Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials、EMBASE、NICE、UpToDate 和 ClinicalKey:"臀先露 "和 "阴道分娩"。我们系统地回顾了有关足月阴道臀位分娩禁忌症的现有证据文献。我们检索了以下数据库:PubMed(2024 年 4 月)、Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials 和 EMBASE(1947 年至 2024 年):结果:我们的搜索发现了 8 份指南,共列出了 11 个阴道臀位分娩禁忌症。在这些指南中,一致意见有限,所有指南的唯一共识是足月臀位分娩禁忌症。我们对文献进行了全面的检索,发现有 43 篇文章讨论了 14 个潜在的禁忌症。我们从指南中找到了 11 个禁忌症中 7 个的支持性证据,只有 2 个禁忌症有实质性和令人满意的证据:结论:本研究的结果表明,各国指南对足月阴道臀位分娩的禁忌症缺乏共识。此外,我们还发现这些禁忌症明显缺乏实质性的科学证据支持。鉴于这些发现,我们建议减少阴道臀位分娩的禁忌症。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
8.00
自引率
4.70%
发文量
180
审稿时长
3-6 weeks
期刊介绍: Published monthly, Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica is an international journal dedicated to providing the very latest information on the results of both clinical, basic and translational research work related to all aspects of women’s health from around the globe. The journal regularly publishes commentaries, reviews, and original articles on a wide variety of topics including: gynecology, pregnancy, birth, female urology, gynecologic oncology, fertility and reproductive biology.
期刊最新文献
Exposure to potentially teratogenic medications before and during the first trimester of pregnancy compared to women of childbearing age: A retrospective analysis of Swiss claims data (2015-2021). Predictors for regression and progression of actively surveilled cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2: A prospective cohort study. Are the uterosacral ligaments detached in young women with pelvic floor symptoms after birth? Efficacy of transabdominal cerclage by open laparotomy relative to existing risk factors. Frequency of fetal blood sampling, delivery mode and neonatal outcome after revised CTG-classification and updated lactate meter in Sweden: An observational study.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1