Management and outcomes of breech presentation at term in Thailand: a systematic review and meta-analysis 10.55131/jphd/2022/200222

Main Article Content

Thitaporn Siriwan
Shawn Walker


There is a continuous debate on the management of term breech presentation (TBP) regarding the mode of delivery. Limited information about TBP and an absence of Thai national guidelines have led to differences in practices for the mode of delivery. This study aims to describe term breech management in Thailand, including the percentage of TBP and mode of delivery, external cephalic version (ECV) outcomes, and maternal and neonatal outcomes following cesarean section (CS) and vaginal breech birth (VBB). A comprehensive electronic database search was performed in MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE, BNI, MIDIRS, CENTRAL, Scopus, PubMed and HINARI, ThaiJO and J Med Assoc Thai. All databases were searched for updates up to the 7th of April 2021 and reference lists of relevant studies were searched. Inclusion criteria consisted of primary studies assessing the management of TBP, including ECV (≥36 weeks’ gestation) and mode of delivery at term (≥37 weeks’ gestation); and studies that observed maternal or neonatal outcomes following mode of breech delivery in Thailand. The NICE methodology checklist for cohort studies was utilized to assess the risk of bias in individual studies. To synthesise the findings, a combination of meta-analysis and narrative synthesis was utilised, based on the research questions and data of the included studies. Ten studies with a total of 5112 women were included. TBP represented 89.78% of all breech deliveries in Thailand. The average success rate of ECV was high at 70%, with few complications reported and a CS rate reduction, although only in two small studies. Within the VBB group when compared with CS, the pooled estimates of neonatal outcomes including 1- and 5-minute Apgar score, birth trauma, NICU admission, neonatal death and subgroup perinatal death, showed higher risks, with only neonatal jaundice being lower. Maternal outcomes including puerperal fever and postpartum haemorrhage, indicated a lower risk following VBB compared to CS.

TBP was associated with an increased CS rate. A focus on this population could help to reduce the national CS rate. ECV as a standard practice would be a beneficial national policy. Controversies amongst mode of birth for TBP regarding neonatal and maternal outcomes remain, as existing evidence is of a very low quality.  The evidence strongly supports a need for VBB skills training to improve neonatal outcomes, for planned or unplanned VBBs. Current approaches require reconsideration and standardization of practices and skills. Scaling up the quality and quantity of breech research in Thailand is needed, along with establishing the national guideline.


Download data is not yet available.

Article Details

How to Cite
Siriwan T, Walker S. Management and outcomes of breech presentation at term in Thailand: a systematic review and meta-analysis: 10.55131/jphd/2022/200222. JPHD [Internet]. 2022 May 20 [cited 2022 Aug. 10];20(2):312-36. Available from:
Review articles
Author Biographies

Thitaporn Siriwan, Obstetrics and midwifery nursing department, The Royal Thai Army Nursing College, Bangkok, Thailand

Obstetrics and midwifery nursing department, The Royal Thai Army Nursing College, Bangkok, Thailand

Shawn Walker, Florence Nightingale Faculty of Nursing, Midwifery and Palliative Care, King’s College London, London, UK

Florence Nightingale Faculty of Nursing, Midwifery and Palliative Care, King’s College London, London, UK


Cunningham FG, Leveno KJ, Bloom SL, Dashe JS, Hoffman BL, Casey BM et al, editors. Williams Obstetrics. 25th ed. New York: Mc Graw Hill Education; 2018.

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

Håheim LL, Albrechtsen S, Berge LN, Børdahl PE, Egeland T, Henriksen T, Øian P. Breech birth at term: vaginal delivery or elective cesarean section? A systematic review of the literature by a Norwegian review team. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2004;83(2):126-130.

Mishra M, Sinha P. Does caesarean section provide the best outcome for mother and baby in breech presentation? A perspective from the developing world. J Obstet Gynaecol. 2011;31(6):495–498.

Lawson GW. The term breech trial ten years on: primum non nocere?. Birth. 2012; 39: 3–9.

Hofmeyr GJ, Hannah M, Lawrie TA. Planned caesarean section for term breech delivery. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 2015;7. doi:10.1002/ 14651858.CD000166.pub2.

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 multicenter trial. Lancet. 2000; 356(9239):1375–1383. 10.1016/S0140-6736(00)02840-3.

Whyte H, Hannah ME, Saigal S, Hannah WJ, Hewson S, Amankwah K, 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;191(3): 864–871. j.ajog.2004.06.056.

Hutton EK, Hofmeyr GJ, Dowswell T. External cephalic version for breech presentation before term. Cochrane Database Syst. 2015;7. doi:10.1002/ 14651858.CD000084.pub3.

Hofmeyr GJ, Kulier R, West HM. External cephalic version for breech presentation at term. Cochrane Database Syst. 2015;4. doi: 10.1002/ 14651858.CD000083.pub3.

Collaris RJ, Oei SG. External cephalic version: A safe procedure? a systematic review of version-related risks. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2004; 83(6), 511–518. 2004.00347.x.

Boucher M, Bujold E, Marquette GP, Vezina Y. The relationship between amniotic fluid index and successful external cephalic version: A 14-year experience. Am. J. Obstet.Gynecol. 2003;189(3),751–754. 10.1067/S0002-9378(03)00846-9.

Impey L, Lissoni D. Outcome of external cephalic version after 36 weeks’ gestation without tocolysis. J. Matern-Fetal Neonatal Med. 1999:8(5), 203–207. 14767059909052047.

Impey L, Pandit M. Tocolysis for repeat external cephalic version in breech presentation at term: A randomised, double-blinded, placebo-controlled trial. BJOG: Int. J. Obstet. 2005;112(5), 627–631. 2004.00518.x.

American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. ACOG Committee Opinion Number 745: Mode of term sigleton breech delivery. Obstet. Gynecol. 2018: 132(2), e60–e63.

Berhan Y, Haileamlak A. The risks of planned vaginal breech delivery versus planned caesarean section for term breech birth: A meta-analysis icluding observational studies. BJOG: Int. J. Obstet.. 2016;123(1),49–57.

Goffinet F, Carayol M, Foidart JM, Alexander S, Uzan S, Subtil D, et al. Is planned vaginal delivery for breech presentation at term still an option? Results of an observational prospective survey in France and Belgium. Am. J. Obstet.Gynecol. 2006;194(4), 1002–1011. 2005.10.817.

Kumari AS, Grundsell H. Mode of delivery for breech presentation in grandmultiparous women. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2004:85(3),234-239.

Habib S, Riaz S, Abbasi N, Ayaz A, Bibi A, Parveen Z. Vaginal Breech Delivery: Still A Safe Option. JAMC. 2013;25(3-4),38-40.

Dohbit JS, Foumane P, Tochie JN, Mamoudou F, Temgoua MN, Tankeu R, et al. Maternal and neonatal outcomes of vaginal breech delivery for singleton term pregnancies in a carefully selected Cameroonian population: a cohort study. BMJ. 2017; 7(11),e017198.

Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada. SOGC Clinical practice guideline: Vaginal Delivery of Breech Presentation. JOGC. 2009;226(6),557–566. 10.1016/j.ijgo.2009.07.002.

Fonseca A, Silva R, Rato I, Neves AR, Peixoto C, Ferraz Z, et al. Breech presentation: Vaginal versus cesarean delivery, which intervention leads to the best outcomes?. Acta Med. Port. 2017;30(6),479-484.

Vlemmix F, Bergenhenegouwen L, Schaaf JM, Ensing S, Rosman AN, Ravelli ACJ, 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),888–896. 10.1111/aogs.12449.

Hofmeyr GJ, Haws RA, Bergström S, Lee ACC, Okong P, Darmstadt GL, et al. Obstetric care in low-resource settings: What, who, and how to overcome challenges to scale up? Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2009;107(2009), S21-S45. 2009.07.017.

Reeves BC, Deeks JJ, Higgins JP, Shea B, Tugwell P, Wells GA. Including non‐randomized studies on intervention effects. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 2019;595–620. 9781119536604.ch24.

Higgins JPT, Thomas J, Chandler J, Cumpston M, Li T, Page MJ, Welch VA (editors). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions version 6.2 [internet]. Cochrane, 2021 [updated 2021 Feb; cited 2021 April 25). Available from:

McKenzie JE, Brennan SE, Ryan RE, Thomson HJ, Johnston RV. Summarizing study characteristics and preparing for synthesis. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 2019; 229–240.

Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, Shamseer L, Tetzlaff JM, Akl EA, Brennan SE, Chou R. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ. 2021 Mar 29;372.

Greenhalgh T. How to read a paper : the basics of evidence-based medicine. 5th ed. London: John Wiley & Sons; 2014.

National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. The Social Care Guidance Manual. The Social Care Guidance Manual [Internet]. NICE, 2018 [cited 2021 Apr 25]. Available from:

Guyatt G, Oxman AD, Akl EA, Kunz, R, Vist G, Brozek J, et al. GRADE guidelines. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 2011;64(4),383–394. j.jclinepi.2010.04.026.

Dekkers OM, Vandenbroucke JP, Cevallos M, Renehan AG, Altman DG, Egger M. COSMOS-E: Guidance on conducting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of observational studies of etiology. PLoS Med. 2019;16(2),1–

Cochrane RevMan. Review Manager (RevMan) [Internet]. Cochrane; 2020. [cited 2020 July 25]. Available from

Vergnes JN, Marchal-Sixou C, Nabet C, Maret D, Hamel O. Ethics in systematic reviews. J. Med. Ethics. 2010;36(12),771–774. 10.1136/jme.2010.039941.

Wongwananuruk T, Borriboonhirunsarn D. Incidence of vaginal breech delivery in singleton in Siriraj Hospital. J Med Assoc Thai. 2005; 88(5),582–587.

Rueangchainikhom W, Sarapak S, Prommas, S. Efficacy of external cephalic version with tocolysis in late pregnancy. J Med Assoc Thai. 2008;91(1),19–24.

Anuwutnavin S, Kitnithee B, Chanprapaph P, Heamar S, RongdechP. Comparison of maternal and perinatal morbidity between elective and emergency caesarean section in singleton-term breech presentation. J Obstet Gynaecol. 2019;1–7. 10.1080/01443615.2019.1634018.

Puangsricharern A, Anakrat W. Trends in Singleton Breech Delivery in Rajavithi Hospital from 2002-2008. Thai J. Obstet. Gynaecol. 2012;20(10), 191–197.

Wattanaruangkowit W. Singleton Breech Deliveries at Yasothon Hospital: A Retrospective Study. J. Health Sci. 2008; 17(6), SVI1622-SVI1628.

Pathanopas S. Breech delivery in Potharam Hospital. Region 7 Medical Journal.1994; 13(2), 95–103.

Limtiamratana S. Incidence of vaginal breech delivery in singleton in Banpong Hospital. Region 6 -7 Medical Journal. 2007; 26(3), 261–269.

Chaipinitpan S. Incidence and factors associated with vaginal breech delivery of sigleton breech presentation at Satun Hospital. Academic Journal 12. 2005;16(4.2),87-94.

Wisestanakorn W, Herabutya Y, O-Prasertsawat P, Thanantaseth C. Fetal outcome in term frank breech primipara delivered vaginally and by elective cesarean section. J Med Assoc Thai. 1990;73(1),47-51.

Chanrachakul B, Jaovisidha A, Herabutya Y, Srimanoi M, Puttharuksa J. External cephalic version: first report from Thailand. J Med Assoc Thai. 1999;82(3),224-228.

Sterne JAC, Sutton AJ, Ioannidis JPA, Terrin N, Jones DR, Lau J, et al. Recommendations for examining and interpreting funnel plot asymmetry in meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials. BMJ. 2011;343(7818),1–8.

Gilbert WM, Hicks SM, Boe NM, Danielsen B. Vaginal versus cesarean delivery for breech presentation in California: A population-based study. Obstet. Gynecol. 2004; 103(5),911–917. 00809-3.

Allen VM, Baskett TF, O’Connell CM. Contribution of Select Maternal Groups to Temporal Trends in Rates of Caesarean Section. JOGC. 2010;32(7),633–641.

Molkenboer JF, Bouckaert PX, Roumen FJ. Recent trends in breech delivery in the Netherlands. BJOG: Int. J. Obstet. 2003;110(10), 948-951.

Vidaeff AC. Breech delivery before and after the term breech trial. Clin Obstet Gynecol. 2006;49(1),198-210.

Grootscholten K, Kok M, Oei G, Mol BWJ, Post, JA. External cephalic version-Related risks :A meta-amalysis. Lancet. 2008;265(6782),264–268.

Beuckens A, Rijnders M, Verburgt-Doeleman GHM, Rijninks-Van Driel GC, Thorpe J, Hutton EK. An observational study of the success and complications of 2546 external cephalic versions in low-risk pregnant women performed by trained midwives. BJOG: Int. J. Obstet. 2016;123(3),415–423.

Melo P, Georgiou EX, Hedditch A, Ellaway P, Impey L. External cephalic version at term: a cohort study of 18 years’ experience. BJOG: Int. J. Obstet. 2018;126(4),493–499.

Cluver C, Gyte GM, Sinclair M, Dowswell T, Hofmeyr GJ. Interventions for helping to turn term breech babies to head first presentation when using external cephalic version (Review). Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 2015. 10.1002/14651858.CD000184.pub4.

Kok M, Cnossen J, Gravendeel L, Vander PJ, Opmeer B, Mol BW. Clinical factors to predict the outcome of external cephalic version: a meta-analysis. Am. J. Obstet.Gynecol. 2008;199(6),630.e1-630.e7.

Beuckens A, Rijnders M, Verburgt-Doeleman GHM, Rijninks-Van Driel GC, Thorpe J, Hutton EK. An observational study of the success and complications of 2546 external cephalic versions in low-risk pregnant women performed by trained midwives. BJOG: Int. J. Obstet. 2016;123(3),415–423.

Chanrachakul B, Herabutya Y. The Practice of External Cephalic Version (ECV) and Vaginal Birth after Cesarean Section (VBAC) to reduce Cesarean Section rate in Thailand. Thai J. Obstet. Gynaecol. 2001;13(1),15–18.

American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. ACOG practice bulletin Number 221: External cephalic version. Obstet. Gynecol. 2020;135(5),e203–e212.

Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. External Cephalic Version and Reducing the Incidence of Term Breech Presentation. BJOG. 2017;124,e178–e192.

Cheng, M. & Hannah, M. Breech delivery at term: a critical review of the literature. Obstet. Gynecol. 1993;82, 605–618.

Yamamura Y, Ramin KD, Ramin SM. Trial of vaginal breech delivery: Current role. Clin Obstet Gynecol. 2017;50(2),526–536. GRF.0b013e31804c9d24.

Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. Management of breech presentation at term. RANZCOG. 2016;1-13.

Korb D, Schmitz T, Alexander S, Subtil D, Verspyck E, Deneux-Tharaux C, Goffinet F. Association between planned mode of delivery and severe maternal morbidity in women with breech presentations: A secondary analysis of the PREMODA prospective general population study. J. Gynecol. Obstet. Hum. Reprod. 2020;49(2).

Krebs L, Langhoff-Roos J. Elective cesarean delivery for term breech. Obstet. Gynecol. 2003;101(4), 690–696. 03073-9.

Moola S, Munn Z, Tufanaru C, Aromataris E, Sears K, Sfetcu R, et al. Chapter 7: Systematic reviews of etiology and risk. In: Aromataris E, Munn Z (Editors). JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis. JBI. 2020.

Popay J, Roberts H, Sowden A, Petticrew M, Arai L, Rodgers M, et al. Narrative Synthesis in Systematic Reviews: A Product from the ESRC Methods Programme. ESRC. 2016; 93.

Deeks JJ, Higgins JP, Altman DG. Analysing data and undertaking meta‐analyses. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 2019;241–284.

Derisbourg S, Costa E, De Luca L, Amirgholami S, Kamdem VB, Vercoutere A, et al. Impact of implementation of a breech clinic in a tertiary hospital. BMC pregnancy & childbirth. 2020;20(1):1-2.

Walker S, Scamell M, Parker P. Standards for maternity care professionals attending planned upright breech births: A Delphi study. Midwifery. 2016;34,7–14. /10.1016/j.midw.2016.01.007.