Prospective study of external cephalic version in Glasgow: Patient selection, outcome and factors associated with outcome

Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology

Volumn 19, Issue 6, 1999, Pages 598-601

  Williams, J ^a   Bjornsson, S ^c   Cameron, A D ^b   Mathers, A ^c   Yahya, S Z S ^c   Pell, Jill P ^a  

^a NHS GREATER GLASGOW AND CLYDE   (United Kingdom)

^b QUEEN MOTHER S HOSPITAL   (United Kingdom)

^c Dalian House ^*

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

UTERUS SPASMOLYTIC AGENT;

ADULT; ARTICLE; BREECH EXTRACTION; BREECH PRESENTATION; DELIVERY; EXPERIENCE; FEMALE; FETUS ECHOGRAPHY; GESTATIONAL AGE; HUMAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; PARITY; PATIENT SELECTION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; UNITED KINGDOM;

EID: 0032758786     PISSN: 01443615     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/01443619963806     Document Type: Article

References (14)

1. Ben-Arie A., Kogan S., Schachter M., Hagay Z. J. and Insler V. (1995) The impact of external cephalic version on the rate of vaginal and caesarean breech deliveries: a 3 year cumulative experience. European Journal of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Biology, 63, 125-129.
2. Chung T., Neale E., Lau T. K. and Rogers M. (1996) A randomized, double blind, controlled trial of tocolysis to assist external cephalic version in late pregnancy. Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica, 75, 720-724.
3. Fernandez C. O., Bloom S. L., Smulian J. C., Ananth C. V. and Wendel G. D. Jr (1997) A randomized placebo-controlled evaluation of terbutaline for external cephalic version. Obstetrics and Gynecology, 90, 775-779.
4. Green J. E., McLean F., Smith L. P. and Usher R. (1982) Has an increased caesarean section rate for term breech deliveries reduced the incidence of birth asphyxia, trauma and death? American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 142, 643-648.
5. Hofmeyr G. J. (1983) Effect of external cephalic version in late pregnancy on breech presentation and caesarean section rate: a controlled trial. British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, 90, 392-399.
6. Lang G., Dobbie G., Grant J., et al. (1995) The Scottish Caesarean Section Audit. Discussion document. Edinburgh.
7. McIlwaine G., Boulton-Jones C., Cole S. and Wilkinson C. (1998) Caesarean Section in Scotland 1994/5: A National Audit. Edinburgh, Scottish Programme for Clinical Effectiveness in Reproductive Health.
8. Marquette G. P., Boucher M., Theriault D. and Rinfret D. (1996) Does the use of a tocolytic agent affect the success rate of external cephalic version? American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 175, 859-861.
9. Mashiach R., Hod M., Kaplan B., Friedman S., Ovadia J. and Schoenfeld A. (1995) External cephalic version at term using broad criteria: effect on mode of delivery. Clinical and Experimental Obstetrics and Gynecology, 22, 279-284.
10. Robertson A. W., Kopelman J. N., Read J. A., Duff P., Magelssen D. J. and Dashow E. E. (1987) External cephalic version at term: is a tocolytic necessary? Obstetrics and Gynecology, 70, 896-899.
11. Scorza W. E. (1996) Intrapartum management of breech presentation. Clinics in Perinatology, 23, 31-49.
12. Seeds J. W. and Cefalo R. C. (1982) Breech delivery. Clinical Obstetrics and Gynecology, 25, 145-156.
13. Yahya S. Z. S., Williams J., Mathers A., Bjornsson S., Cameron A. D. and Pell J. P. (1998) Variations in the management of singleton breech presentation throughout Scotland. Scottish Medical Journal, 43, 144-145.
14. Zhang J., Bowes W. A. and Fortney J. A. (1993) Efficacy of external cephalic version: a review. Obstetrics and Gynecology, 82, 306-312.