cephalic presentation diagram

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 vertex 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.

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

• Cookie Preferences

Need to talk? Call 1800 882 436. It's a free call with a maternal child health nurse. *call charges may apply from your mobile

Is it an emergency? Dial 000 If you need urgent medical help, call triple zero immediately.

Share via email

There is a total of 5 error s on this form, details are below.

• Please enter your name
• Please enter your email
• Your email is invalid. Please check and try again
• Please enter recipient's email
• Recipient's email is invalid. Please check and try again
• Agree to Terms required

Error: This is required

Error: Not a valid value

Presentation and position of baby through pregnancy and at birth

9-minute read

If you are concerned about your baby’s movements, contact your doctor or midwife for advice immediately.

• If you baby is in a breech presentation, your doctor may recommend trying a technique called an external cephalic version to try and move your baby while they are still in the uterus for an easier birth.

What does presentation and position mean?

Presentation refers to the part of your baby’s body that is facing downwards in the direction of the birth canal.

Position refers to where your baby’s occiput (the bottom part of the back of their head) is in relation to your body.

If your baby is in a breech presentation , then position refers to where your baby’s sacrum (lower back) is in relation to your body.

People — including medical professionals — sometimes use these terms incorrectly. Sometimes when speaking about babies in breech presentation, the word ‘position’ will be used to refer to their presentation. For example, you may read information or hear people say ‘breech position’ instead of ‘breech presentation’.

What are the different types of presentation my baby could be in during pregnancy and birth?

Most babies present headfirst, also known as cephalic presentation. Most babies that are headfirst will be vertex presentation. This means that the crown of their head sits at the opening of your birth canal.

In rare cases, your baby can be headfirst but in face or brow presentation, which may not be suitable for vaginal birth.

If your baby is in a breech presentation, their feet or bottom will be closest to your birth canal. The 3 most common types of breech presentation are:

• frank or extended breech — where your baby’s legs are straight up in front of their body, with their feet up near their face
• complete or flexed breech — where your baby is in a sitting position with their legs crossed in front of their body and their feet near their bottom
• footling breech — where one or both of your baby’s feet are hanging below their bottom, so the foot or feet are coming first

Read more on breech presentation .

What are the different positions my baby could be in during pregnancy and birth?

If your baby is headfirst, the 3 main types of presentation are:

• anterior – when the back of your baby’s head is at the front of your belly
• lateral – when the back of your baby’s head is facing your side
• posterior – when the back of your baby’s head is towards your back

How will I know what presentation and position my baby is in?

Your doctor or midwife can usually work out your baby’s presentation by feeling your abdomen. They may also double check it with a portable ultrasound. Your baby’s presentation is usually checked around 36 weeks .

Your doctor or midwife will also confirm your baby’s head position in labour by examining your belly and using an ultrasound , and they may also do a vaginal examination . During the vaginal examination they are feeling for certain ridges on your baby’s head called sutures and fontanelles that help them work out which way your baby is positioned.

What is the ideal presentation and position for baby to be in for a vaginal birth?

For a vaginal birth, your baby will ideally be headfirst with the back of their head at the front of your belly, also known as being in the anterior position. This position is best for labour and birth since it means that the smallest part of your baby’s head goes down the birth canal first.

When does a baby usually get in the ideal presentation and position for birth?

Your baby will usually be in a headfirst position by 37 weeks of pregnancy. Around 3 in every 100 babies will be in breech presentation after 37 weeks.

Your baby’s position can change with your contractions during labour as they move down the birth canal, so their exact position can change during labour.

What are my options if baby isn't in the ideal presentation or position for a vaginal birth?

If your baby is in a breech presentation, your doctor may recommend a technique called an external cephalic version (ECV) to try and move your baby while they are still in the uterus . An ECV involves your doctor using their hands to apply pressure on your belly and help turn your baby to a headfirst position. It has a 1 in 2 chance of success and is a safe option in most pregnancies.

There is no evidence to show that alternative therapies, such as exercises, acupuncture or chiropractic treatments, help your baby change from a breech presentation to headfirst.

If your baby remains breech, your doctor may discuss having a breech vaginal birth. Not all doctors and hospitals offer this option. They may also suggest you birth your baby with a planned caesarean section .

If your baby’s presentation is headfirst but the position of your baby’s head is not ideal for labour, it can lead to a longer labour, and potential complications . The position of your baby’s head will often change as your labour progresses. If it doesn’t, sometimes you can still give birth without assistance, or you may need your doctor to help turn your baby’s head or help your birth with a vacuum or forceps .

Any procedure or decision for a type of birth will only go ahead with your consent . You will be able to discuss all the options with your doctor, and based on your preferences for yourself and your baby’s safety, make a decision together .

Resources and support

The Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Obstetrics and Gynaecology has a factsheet about the options available to you if your baby is in a breech presentation at the end of your pregnancy .

Mercy Perinatal has information on external cephalic version (ECV) safety and benefits if your baby is in a breech presentation at the end of your pregnancy.

The Women’s Hospital has information about the different presentations and positions your baby could be in, and how it can affect your birthing experience.

Speak to a maternal child health nurse

Call Pregnancy, Birth and Baby to speak to a maternal child health nurse on 1800 882 436 or video call . Available 7am to midnight (AET), 7 days a week.

Learn more here about the development and quality assurance of healthdirect content .

Last reviewed: October 2023

Related pages

External cephalic version (ecv), malpresentation, breech pregnancy, search our site for.

• Foetal Version
• Breech Presentation

Need more information?

Top results

Breech presentation and turning the baby

In preparation for a safe birth, your health team will need to turn your baby if it is in a bottom first ‘breech’ position.

Read more on WA Health website

Breech Presentation at the End of your Pregnancy

Breech presentation occurs when your baby is lying bottom first or feet first in the uterus (womb) rather than the usual head first position. In early pregnancy, a breech position is very common.

Read more on RANZCOG - Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists website

External Cephalic Version for Breech Presentation - Pregnancy and the first five years

This information brochure provides information about an External Cephalic Version (ECV) for breech presentation

Read more on NSW Health website

When a baby is positioned bottom-down late in pregnancy, this is called the breech position. Find out about 3 main types and safe birthing options.

Read more on Pregnancy, Birth & Baby website

Malpresentation is when your baby is in an unusual position as the birth approaches. Sometimes it’s possible to move the baby, but a caesarean maybe safer.

Labour complications

Even if you’re healthy and well prepared for childbirth, there’s always a chance of unexpected problems. Learn more about labour complications.

ECV is a procedure to try to move your baby from a breech position to a head-down position. This is performed by a trained doctor.

Having a baby

The articles in this section relate to having a baby – what to consider before becoming pregnant, pregnancy and birth, and after your baby is born.

Anatomy of pregnancy and birth - pelvis

Your pelvis helps to carry your growing baby and is tailored for vaginal births. Learn more about the structure and function of the female pelvis.

Planned or elective caesarean

There are important things to consider if you are having a planned or elective caesarean such as what happens during and after the procedure.

Pregnancy, Birth and Baby is not responsible for the content and advertising on the external website you are now entering.

Call us and speak to a Maternal Child Health Nurse for personal advice and guidance.

Need further advice or guidance from our maternal child health nurses?

1800 882 436

Government Accredited with over 140 information partners

We are a government-funded service, providing quality, approved health information and advice

Healthdirect Australia acknowledges the Traditional Owners of Country throughout Australia and their continuing connection to land, sea and community. We pay our respects to the Traditional Owners and to Elders both past and present.

© 2024 Healthdirect Australia Limited

This information is for your general information and use only and is not intended to be used as medical advice and should not be used to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any medical condition, nor should it be used for therapeutic purposes.

The information is not a substitute for independent professional advice and should not be used as an alternative to professional health care. If you have a particular medical problem, please consult a healthcare professional.

Except as permitted under the Copyright Act 1968, this publication or any part of it may not be reproduced, altered, adapted, stored and/or distributed in any form or by any means without the prior written permission of Healthdirect Australia.

Support this browser is being discontinued for Pregnancy, Birth and Baby

Support for this browser is being discontinued for this site

• Internet Explorer 11 and lower

We currently support Microsoft Edge, Chrome, Firefox and Safari. For more information, please visit the links below:

• Chrome by Google
• Firefox by Mozilla
• Microsoft Edge
• Safari by Apple

You are welcome to continue browsing this site with this browser. Some features, tools or interaction may not work correctly.

I want to publish

To find out how to publish or submit your book proposal:

To find a journal or submit your article to a journal:

• Cephalic Presentation
• Medicine and Healthcare
• Obstetrics, Gynecology & Women'S Health

Management of Labour and Delivery – Questions

Rekha Wuntakal, Madhavi Kalidindi, Tony Hollingworth in Get Through , 2014

For each clinical scenario below, choose the single most appropriate stage of labour from the above list of options. Each option may be used once, more than once or not at all. A 30-year-old para 3 woman was admitted at term with regular uterine activity at 5 cm cervical dilatation and 4 hours later she delivered a female neonate with APGARs 9, 10, 10 at 1, 5 and 10 minutes. Syntometrine injection was given immediately after delivery and placenta with membranes was delivered completely 20 minutes after the delivery of the baby by continuous cord traction.A 23-year-old para 3 woman was admitted after spontaneous rupture of membranes at 39 weeks’ gestation. She is contracting 4 in 10 minutes and pushing involuntarily. On vaginal examination the cervix was fully dilated, vertex was 2 cm below the spines in direct occipito-anterior position with minimal caput and moulding.A 30-year-old nulliparous woman was admitted at term with uterine contractions once in every 5 minutes. On examination, the fetus is in cephalic presentation with two fifths palpable per abdomen. The cervix is central, soft, fully effaced and 2 cm dilated with intact membranes.

Biometric Measurements and Normal Growth Parameters in a Child

Nirmal Raj Gopinathan in Clinical Orthopedic Examination of a Child , 2021

In cephalic presentation, the intra-uterine fetal position is of universal flexion, which is carried by the child to the immediate post-partum period. The hips and knees are flexed. The lower legs are internally rotated. The feet are further internally rotated with respect to the lower legs. At times there is an external rotational contracture of the hip that tends to mask the true femoral rotational profile. The anatomy of the lower limbs changes significantly as the child grows. This is primarily in response to the development of motor abilities and the ability of the child to crawl, cruise, stand, walk, and finally run. These changes are seen right from the hip joints, the femoral neck, knees, and tibia to the feet.

DRCOG MCQs for Circuit A Questions

Una F. Coales in DRCOG: Practice MCQs and OSCEs: How to Pass First Time three Complete MCQ Practice Exams (180 MCQs) Three Complete OSCE Practice Papers (60 Questions) Detailed Answers and Tips , 2020

External cephalic version: Used to convert a breech presentation to cephalic presentation.Not contraindicated if there is a prior Caesarean section scar.Can cause premature labour.Contraindicated in hypertension.Can be performed after 33 weeks' gestation in a rhesus-negative mother.

Complex maternal congenital anomalies – a rare presentation and delivery through a supra-umbilical abdominal incision

Published in Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology , 2018

Samantha Bonner, Yara Mohammed

She had a spontaneous conception and booked at 9 weeks of gestation under consultant-led care. A scan confirmed the pregnancy was in the right uterus. She had no other significant medical history but did suffer from recurrent urinary tract infections and hence was on low-dose antibiotic prophylaxis. There was no sonographic evidence of hydronephrosis. Her body mass index (BMI) was 18 at the time of booking. Combined screening was low risk and she had a normal 20 week anomaly scan. She had serial growth scans which demonstrated a normal growth trajectory on a customised chart. The baby was consistently a cephalic presentation. She had multidisciplinary antenatal care, including specialist urologists, general surgeons, obstetricians and anaesthetists. An antenatal MRI scan had shown extensive adhesions over the lower segment of the uterus. She was extensively counselled regarding the mode of delivery and this was scheduled at 37 weeks of gestation to avoid the potential of spontaneous labour and an emergency Caesarean section.

Utilization of epidural volume extension technique for external cephalic version

Published in Baylor University Medical Center Proceedings , 2021

Hanna Hussey, James Damron, Mark F. Powell, Michelle Tubinis

Repeat ultrasound demonstrated breech presentation, normal amniotic fluid volume, and fetal head toward the maternal left abdomen. After 0.25 mg of intramuscular terbutaline injection, a forward roll was initiated by applying pressure from behind the fetal head toward the maternal left. Continuous progress was made and bedside ultrasound showed cephalic presentation. Immediately after successful ECV, the fetal heart rate was 70 beats/min but returned to baseline with conservative measures. Motor blockade regressed after approximately 1.5 hours. After 4 hours of fetal heart rate monitoring and tocometry, the patient was deemed stable for discharge. Follow-up discussion with the patient via phone call on postprocedure day 1 confirmed that she was not experiencing pain or concerning symptoms for neuraxial complications. She returned to the labor and delivery unit at 40 weeks’ gestation for elective induction of labor and had a successful vaginal delivery.

Antenatal scoring system in predicting the success of planned vaginal birth following one previous caesarean section

Aida Kalok, Shahril A. Zabil, Muhammad Abdul Jamil, Pei Shan Lim, Mohamad Nasir Shafiee, Nirmala Kampan, Shamsul Azhar Shah, Nor Azlin Mohamed Ismail

The inclusion criteria were pregnant women at 36 weeks of gestation or more with singleton foetus in cephalic presentation, who agreed for trial of vaginal delivery after one lower segment caesarean section. We excluded women with contraindication for vaginal birth, or who declined trial of vaginal delivery from this study. Previous antenatal history was noted and recorded during the 36-week assessment, including year and indication for previous caesarean section. Recurrent indications involved were cephalopelvic disproportion and obstructed labour. While non-recurrent indications were foetal distress and malpresentation. Past operative notes were checked for any operative complications such as extended uterine tear, organ injury and post-partum haemorrhage. Information regarding current pregnancy including pre-existing medical disorder was recorded. Estimated foetal weight based on ultrasound scan at 36 weeks of gestation was used in this study.

Related Knowledge Centers

• Breech Birth
• Occipital Bone
• Pelvic Cavity
• Presentation
• Shoulder Presentation

Current Research

• Clinical Trials (United States)
• Clinical Trials (Europe)
• Clinical Trials (Australia/New Zealand)
• Clinical Trials (India)

Knowledge is an evolving asset. Help us improve this page for a future release.

• Remote Access
• Save figures into PowerPoint
• Download tables as PDFs

Chapter 27:  Compound Presentations

George Tawagi

• Download Chapter PDF

Disclaimer: These citations have been automatically generated based on the information we have and it may not be 100% accurate. Please consult the latest official manual style if you have any questions regarding the format accuracy.

Download citation file:

• Search Book

Jump to a Section

Prolapse of hand and arm or foot and leg.

• MANAGEMENT OF COMPOUND PRESENTATIONS
• Full Chapter
• Supplementary Content

A presentation is compound when there is prolapse of one or more of the limbs along with the head or the breech, both entering the pelvis at the same time. Footling breech or shoulder presentations are not included in this group. Associated prolapse of the umbilical cord occurs in 15 to 20 percent of cases.

Easily detectable compound presentations occur probably once in 500 to 1000 confinements. It is impossible to establish the exact incidence because:

Spontaneous correction occurs frequently, and examination late in labor cannot provide the diagnosis

Minor degrees of prolapse are detected only by early and careful vaginal examination

Classification of Compound Presentation

Upper limb (arm–hand), one or both

Lower limb (leg–foot), one or both

Arm and leg together

Breech presentation with prolapse of the hand or arm

By far the most frequent combination is that of the head with the hand ( Fig. 27-1 ) or arm. In contrast, the head–foot and breech–arm groups are uncommon, about equally so. Prolapse of both hand and foot alongside the head is rare. All combinations may be complicated by prolapse of the umbilical cord, which then becomes the major problem.

FIGURE 27-1.

Compound presentation: head and hand.

The etiology of compound presentation includes all conditions that prevent complete filling and occlusion of the pelvic inlet by the presenting part. The most common causal factor is prematurity. Others include high presenting part with ruptured membranes, polyhydramnios, multiparity, a contracted pelvis, pelvic masses, and twins. It is also more common with inductions of labor involving floating presenting parts. Another predisposing factor is external cephalic version. During the process of external version, a fetal limb (commonly the hand–arm, but occasionally the foot) can become “trapped” before the fetal head and thus become the presenting part when labor ensues.

Diagnosis is made by vaginal examination, and in many cases, the condition is not noted until labor is well advanced and the cervix is fully dilated.

The condition is suspected when:

There is delay of progress in the active phase of labor

Engagement fails to occur

The fetal head remains high and deviated from the midline during labor, especially after the membranes rupture

In the absence of complications and with conservative management, the results should be no worse than with other presentations.

Mechanism of Labor

Get free access through your institution, pop-up div successfully displayed.

This div only appears when the trigger link is hovered over. Otherwise it is hidden from view.

Please Wait

• Mammary Glands
• Fallopian Tubes
• Supporting Ligaments
• Reproductive System
• Gametogenesis
• Placental Development
• Maternal Adaptations
• Menstrual Cycle
• Antenatal Care
• Small for Gestational Age
• Large for Gestational Age
• RBC Isoimmunisation
• Prematurity
• Prolonged Pregnancy
• Multiple Pregnancy
• Miscarriage
• Recurrent Miscarriage
• Ectopic Pregnancy
• Hyperemesis Gravidarum
• Gestational Trophoblastic Disease
• Breech Presentation
• Abnormal lie, Malpresentation and Malposition
• Oligohydramnios
• Polyhydramnios
• Placenta Praevia
• Placental Abruption
• Pre-Eclampsia
• Gestational Diabetes
• Headaches in Pregnancy
• Haematological
• Obstetric Cholestasis
• Thyroid Disease in Pregnancy
• Epilepsy in Pregnancy
• Induction of Labour
• Operative Vaginal Delivery
• Prelabour Rupture of Membranes
• Caesarean Section
• Shoulder Dystocia
• Cord Prolapse
• Uterine Rupture
• Amniotic Fluid Embolism
• Primary PPH
• Secondary PPH
• Psychiatric Disease
• Postpartum Contraception
• Breastfeeding Problems
• Primary Dysmenorrhoea
• Amenorrhoea and Oligomenorrhoea
• Heavy Menstrual Bleeding
• Endometriosis
• Endometrial Cancer
• Adenomyosis
• Cervical Polyps
• Cervical Ectropion
• Cervical Intraepithelial Neoplasia + Cervical Screening
• Cervical Cancer
• Polycystic Ovary Syndrome (PCOS)
• Ovarian Cysts & Tumours
• Urinary Incontinence
• Genitourinary Prolapses
• Bartholin's Cyst
• Lichen Sclerosus
• Vulval Carcinoma
• Introduction to Infertility
• Female Factor Infertility
• Male Factor Infertility
• Female Genital Mutilation
• Barrier Contraception
• Combined Hormonal
• Progesterone Only Hormonal
• Intrauterine System & Device
• Emergency Contraception
• Pelvic Inflammatory Disease
• Genital Warts
• Genital Herpes
• Trichomonas Vaginalis
• Bacterial Vaginosis
• Vulvovaginal Candidiasis
• Obstetric History
• Gynaecological History
• Sexual History
• Obstetric Examination
• Speculum Examination
• Bimanual Examination
• Amniocentesis
• Chorionic Villus Sampling
• Hysterectomy
• Endometrial Ablation
• Tension-Free Vaginal Tape
• Contraceptive Implant
• Fitting an IUS or IUD

Abnormal Fetal lie, Malpresentation and Malposition

Original Author(s): Anna Mcclune Last updated: 1st December 2018 Revisions: 12

• 1 Definitions
• 2 Risk Factors
• 3.2 Presentation
• 3.3 Position
• 4 Investigations
• 5.1 Abnormal Fetal Lie
• 5.2 Malpresentation
• 5.3 Malposition

The lie, presentation and position of a fetus are important during labour and delivery.

In this article, we will look at the risk factors, examination and management of abnormal fetal lie, malpresentation and malposition.

Definitions

• Longitudinal, transverse or oblique
• Cephalic vertex presentation is the most common and is considered the safest
• Other presentations include breech, shoulder, face and brow
• Usually the fetal head engages in the occipito-anterior position (the fetal occiput facing anteriorly) – this is ideal for birth
• Other positions include occipito-posterior and occipito-transverse.

Note: Breech presentation is the most common malpresentation, and is covered in detail here .

Fig 1 – The two most common fetal presentations: cephalic and breech.

Risk Factors

The risk factors for abnormal fetal lie, malpresentation and malposition include:

• Multiple pregnancy
• Uterine abnormalities (e.g fibroids, partial septate uterus)
• Fetal abnormalities
• Placenta praevia
• Primiparity

Identifying Fetal Lie, Presentation and Position

The fetal lie and presentation can usually be identified via abdominal examination. The fetal position is ascertained by vaginal examination.

For more information on the obstetric examination, see here .

• Face the patient’s head
• Place your hands on either side of the uterus and gently apply pressure; one side will feel fuller and firmer – this is the back, and fetal limbs may feel ‘knobbly’ on the opposite side

Presentation

• Palpate the lower uterus (above the symphysis pubis) with the fingers of both hands; the head feels hard and round (cephalic) and the bottom feels soft and triangular (breech)
• You may be able to gently push the fetal head from side to side

The fetal lie and presentation may not be possible to identify if the mother has a high BMI, if she has not emptied her bladder, if the fetus is small or if there is polyhydramnios .

During labour, vaginal examination is used to assess the position of the fetal head (in a cephalic vertex presentation). The landmarks of the fetal head, including the anterior and posterior fontanelles, indicate the position.

Fig 2 – Assessing fetal lie and presentation.

Investigations

Any suspected abnormal fetal lie or malpresentation should be confirmed by an ultrasound scan . This could also demonstrate predisposing uterine or fetal abnormalities.

Abnormal Fetal Lie

If the fetal lie is abnormal, an external cephalic version (ECV) can be attempted – ideally between 36 and 38 weeks gestation.

ECV is the manipulation of the fetus to a cephalic presentation through the maternal abdomen.

It has an approximate success rate of 50% in primiparous women and 60% in multiparous women. Only 8% of breech presentations will spontaneously revert to cephalic in primiparous women over 36 weeks gestation.

Complications of ECV are rare but include fetal distress , premature rupture of membranes, antepartum haemorrhage (APH) and placental abruption. The risk of an emergency caesarean section (C-section) within 24 hours is around 1 in 200.

ECV is contraindicated in women with a recent APH, ruptured membranes, uterine abnormalities or a previous C-section .

Fig 3 – External cephalic version.

Malpresentation

The management of malpresentation is dependent on the presentation.

• Breech – attempt ECV before labour, vaginal breech delivery or C-section
• Brow – a C-section is necessary
• If the chin is anterior (mento-anterior) a normal labour is possible; however, it is likely to be prolonged and there is an increased risk of a C-section being required
• If the chin is posterior (mento-posterior) then a C-section is necessary
• Shoulder – a C-section is necessary

Malposition

90% of malpositions spontaneously rotate to occipito-anterior as labour progresses. If the fetal head does not rotate, rotation and operative vaginal delivery can be attempted. Alternatively a C-section can be performed.

• Usually the fetal head engages in the occipito-anterior position (the fetal occiput facing anteriorly) - this is ideal for birth

If the fetal lie is abnormal, an external cephalic version (ECV) can be attempted - ideally between 36 and 38 weeks gestation.

• Breech - attempt ECV before labour, vaginal breech delivery or C-section

Found an error? Is our article missing some key information? Make the changes yourself here!

Once you've finished editing, click 'Submit for Review', and your changes will be reviewed by our team before publishing on the site.

We use cookies to improve your experience on our site and to show you relevant advertising. To find out more, read our privacy policy .

Privacy Overview

Obstetric and Newborn Care I

10.02 key terms related to fetal positions.

a. “Lie” of an Infant.

Lie refers to the position of the spinal column of the fetus in relation to the spinal column of the mother. There are two types of lie, longitudinal and transverse. Longitudinal indicates that the baby is lying lengthwise in the uterus, with its head or buttocks down. Transverse indicates that the baby is lying crosswise in the uterus.

b. Presentation/Presenting Part.

Presentation refers to that part of the fetus that is coming through (or attempting to come through) the pelvis first.

(1) Types of presentations (see figure 10-1). The vertex or cephalic (head), breech, and shoulder are the three types of presentations. In vertex or cephalic, the head comes down first. In breech, the feet or buttocks comes down first, and last–in shoulder, the arm or shoulder comes down first. This is usually referred to as a transverse lie.

(2) Percentages of presentations.

(a) Head first is the most common-96 percent.

(b) Breech is the next most common-3.5 percent.

(c) Shoulder or arm is the least common-5 percent.

(3) Specific presentation may be evaluated by several ways.

(a) Abdominal palpation-this is not always accurate.

(b) Vaginal exam–this may give a good indication but not infallible.

(c) Ultrasound–this confirms assumptions made by previous methods.

(d) X-ray–this confirms the presentation, but is used only as a last resort due to possible harm to the fetus as a result of exposure to radiation.

c. Attitude.

This is the degree of flexion of the fetus body parts (body, head, and extremities) to each other. Flexion is resistance to the descent of the fetus down the birth canal, which causes the head to flex or bend so that the chin approaches the chest.

(1) Types of attitude (see figure 10-2).

(a) Complete flexion. This is normal attitude in cephalic presentation. With cephalic, there is complete flexion at the head when the fetus “chin is on his chest.” This allows the smallest cephalic diameter to enter the pelvis, which gives the fewest mechanical problems with descent and delivery.

(b) Moderate flexion or military attitude. In cephalic presentation, the fetus head is only partially flexed or not flexed. It gives the appearance of a military person at attention. A larger diameter of the head would be coming through the passageway.

(c) Poor flexion or marked extension. In reference to the fetus head, it is extended or bent backwards. This would be called a brow presentation. It is difficult to deliver because the widest diameter of the head enters the pelvis first. This type of cephalic presentation may require a C/Section if the attitude cannot be changed.

(d) Hyperextended. In reference to the cephalic position, the fetus head is extended all the way back. This allows a face or chin to present first in the pelvis. If there is adequate room in the pelvis, the fetus may be delivered vaginally.

(2) Areas to look at for flexion.

(a) Head-discussed in previous paragraph, 10-2c(1).

(b) Thighs-flexed on the abdomen.

(c) Knees-flexed at the knee joints.

(d) Arches of the feet-rested on the anterior surface of the legs.

(e) Arms-crossed over the thorax.

(3) Attitude of general flexion. This is when all of the above areas are flexed appropriately as described.

d. Station.

This refers to the depth that the presenting part has descended into the pelvis in relation to the ischial spines of the mother’s pelvis. Measurement of the station is as follows:

(1) The degree of advancement of the presenting part through the pelvis is measured in centimeters.

(2) The ischial spines is the dividing line between plus and minus stations.

(3) Above the ischial spines is referred to as -1 to -5, the numbers going higher as the presenting part gets higher in the pelvis (see figure10-3).

(4) The ischial spines is zero (0) station.

(5) Below the ischial spines is referred to +1 to +5, indicating the lower the presenting part advances.

e. Engagement.

This refers to the entrance of the presenting part of the fetus into the true pelvis or the largest diameter of the presenting part into the true pelvis. In relation to the head, the fetus is said to be engaged when it reaches the midpelvis or at a zero (0) station. Once the fetus is engaged, it (fetus) does not go back up. Prior to engagement occurring, the fetus is said to be “floating” or ballottable.

f. Position.

This is the relationship between a predetermined point of reference or direction on the presenting part of the fetus to the pelvis of the mother.

(1) The maternal pelvis is divided into quadrants.

(a) Right and left side, viewed as the mother would.

(b) Anterior and posterior. This is a line cutting the pelvis in the middle from side to side. The top half is anterior and the bottom half is posterior.

(c) The quadrants never change, but sometimes it is confusing because the student or physician’s viewpoint changes.

NOTE: Remember that when you are describing the quadrants, view them as the mother would.

(2) Specific points on the fetus.

(a) Cephalic or head presentation.

1 Occiput (O). This refers to the Y sutures on the top of the head.

2 Brow or fronto (F). This refers to the diamond sutures or anterior fontanel on the head.

3 Face or chin presentation (M). This refers to the mentum or chin.

(b) Breech or butt presentation.

1 Sacrum or coccyx (S). This is the point of reference.

2 Breech birth is associated with a higher perinatal mortality.

(c) Shoulder presentation.

1 This would be seen with a transverse lie.

2. Scapula (Sc) or its upper tip, the acromion (A) would be used for the point of reference.

(3) Coding of positions.

(a) Coding simplifies explaining the various positions.

1 The first letter of the code tells which side of the pelvis the fetus reference point is on (R for right, L for left).

2 The second letter tells what reference point on the fetus is being used (Occiput-O, Fronto-F, Mentum-M, Breech-S, Shoulder-Sc or A).

3 The last letter tells which half of the pelvis the reference point is in (anterior-A, posterior-P, transverse or in the middle-T).

(b) Each presenting part has the possibility of six positions. They are normally recognized for each position–using “occiput” as the reference point.

1 Left occiput anterior (LOA).

2 Left occiput posterior (LOP).

3 Left occiput transverse (LOT).

4 Right occiput anterior (ROA).

5. Right occiput posterior (ROP).

6 Right occiput transverse (ROT).

(c) A transverse position does not use a first letter and is not the same as a transverse lie or presentation.

1 Occiput at sacrum (O.S.) or occiput at posterior (O.P.).

2 Occiput at pubis (O.P.) or occiput at anterior (O.A.).

(4) Types of breech presentations (see figure10-4).

(a) Complete or full breech. This involves flexion of the fetus legs. It looks like the fetus is sitting in a tailor fashion. The buttocks and feet appear at the vaginal opening almost simultaneously.

A–Complete. B–Frank. C–Incomplete.

(b) Frank and single breech. The fetus thighs are flexed on his abdomen. His legs are against his trunk and feet are in his face (foot-in-mouth posture). This is the most common and easiest breech presentation to deliver.

(c) Incomplete breech. The fetus feet or knees will appear first. His feet are labeled single or double footing, depending on whether 1 or 2 feet appear first.

(5) Observations about positions (see figure 10-5).

(a) LOA and ROA positions are the most common and permit relatively easy delivery.

(b) LOP and ROP positions usually indicate labor may be longer and harder, and the mother will experience severe backache.

(c) Knowing positions will help you to identify where to look for FHT’s.

1 Breech. This will be upper R or L quad, above the umbilicus.

2 Vertex. This will be lower R or L quad, below the umbilicus.

(d) An occiput in the posterior quadrant means that you will feel lumpy fetal parts, arms and legs (see figure 10-5 A). If delivered in that position, the infant will come out looking up.

(e) An occiput in the anterior quadrant means that you will feel a more smooth back (see figure 10-5 B). If delivered in that position, the infant will come out looking down at the floor.

Distance Learning for Medical and Nursing Professionals

An official website of the United States government

Here’s how you know

Official websites use .gov A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS A lock ( Lock Locked padlock icon ) or https:// means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

• Health Topics
• Drugs & Supplements
• Medical Tests
• Medical Encyclopedia
• About MedlinePlus
• Customer Support

Your baby in the birth canal

During labor and delivery, your baby must pass through your pelvic bones to reach the vaginal opening. The goal is to find the easiest way out. Certain body positions give the baby a smaller shape, which makes it easier for your baby to get through this tight passage.

The best position for the baby to pass through the pelvis is with the head down and the body facing toward the mother's back. This position is called occiput anterior.

Information

Certain terms are used to describe your baby's position and movement through the birth canal.

FETAL STATION

Fetal station refers to where the presenting part is in your pelvis.

• The presenting part. The presenting part is the part of the baby that leads the way through the birth canal. Most often, it is the baby's head, but it can be a shoulder, the buttocks, or the feet.
• Ischial spines. These are bone points on the mother's pelvis. Normally the ischial spines are the narrowest part of the pelvis.
• 0 station. This is when the baby's head is even with the ischial spines. The baby is said to be "engaged" when the largest part of the head has entered the pelvis.
• If the presenting part lies above the ischial spines, the station is reported as a negative number from -1 to -5.

In first-time moms, the baby's head may engage by 36 weeks into the pregnancy. However, engagement may happen later in the pregnancy, or even during labor.

This refers to how the baby's spine lines up with the mother's spine. Your baby's spine is between their head and tailbone.

Your baby will most often settle into a position in the pelvis before labor begins.

• If your baby's spine runs in the same direction (parallel) as your spine, the baby is said to be in a longitudinal lie. Nearly all babies are in a longitudinal lie.
• If the baby is sideways (at a 90-degree angle to your spine), the baby is said to be in a transverse lie.

FETAL ATTITUDE

The fetal attitude describes the position of the parts of your baby's body.

The normal fetal attitude is commonly called the fetal position.

• The head is tucked down to the chest.
• The arms and legs are drawn in towards the center of the chest.

Abnormal fetal attitudes include a head that is tilted back, so the brow or the face presents first. Other body parts may be positioned behind the back. When this happens, the presenting part will be larger as it passes through the pelvis. This makes delivery more difficult.

DELIVERY PRESENTATION

Delivery presentation describes the way the baby is positioned to come down the birth canal for delivery.

The best position for your baby inside your uterus at the time of delivery is head down. This is called cephalic presentation.

• This position makes it easier and safer for your baby to pass through the birth canal. Cephalic presentation occurs in about 97% of deliveries.
• There are different types of cephalic presentation, which depend on the position of the baby's limbs and head (fetal attitude).

If your baby is in any position other than head down, your doctor may recommend a cesarean delivery.

Breech presentation is when the baby's bottom is down. Breech presentation occurs about 3% of the time. There are a few types of breech:

• A complete breech is when the buttocks present first and both the hips and knees are flexed.
• A frank breech is when the hips are flexed so the legs are straight and completely drawn up toward the chest.
• Other breech positions occur when either the feet or knees present first.

The shoulder, arm, or trunk may present first if the fetus is in a transverse lie. This type of presentation occurs less than 1% of the time. Transverse lie is more common when you deliver before your due date, or have twins or triplets.

CARDINAL MOVEMENTS OF LABOR

As your baby passes through the birth canal, the baby's head will change positions. These changes are needed for your baby to fit and move through your pelvis. These movements of your baby's head are called cardinal movements of labor.

• This is when the widest part of your baby's head has entered the pelvis.
• Engagement tells your health care provider that your pelvis is large enough to allow the baby's head to move down (descend).
• This is when your baby's head moves down (descends) further through your pelvis.
• Most often, descent occurs during labor, either as the cervix dilates or after you begin pushing.
• During descent, the baby's head is flexed down so that the chin touches the chest.
• With the chin tucked, it is easier for the baby's head to pass through the pelvis.

Internal Rotation

• As your baby's head descends further, the head will most often rotate so the back of the head is just below your pubic bone. This helps the head fit the shape of your pelvis.
• Usually, the baby will be face down toward your spine.
• Sometimes, the baby will rotate so it faces up toward the pubic bone.
• As your baby's head rotates, extends, or flexes during labor, the body will stay in position with one shoulder down toward your spine and one shoulder up toward your belly.
• As your baby reaches the opening of the vagina, usually the back of the head is in contact with your pubic bone.
• At this point, the birth canal curves upward, and the baby's head must extend back. It rotates under and around the pubic bone.

External Rotation

• As the baby's head is delivered, it will rotate a quarter turn to be in line with the body.
• After the head is delivered, the top shoulder is delivered under the pubic bone.
• After the shoulder, the rest of the body is usually delivered without a problem.

Alternative Names

Shoulder presentation; Malpresentations; Breech birth; Cephalic presentation; Fetal lie; Fetal attitude; Fetal descent; Fetal station; Cardinal movements; Labor-birth canal; Delivery-birth canal

Barth WH. Malpresentations and malposition. In: Landon MB, Galan HL, Jauniaux ERM, et al, eds. Gabbe's Obstetrics: Normal and Problem Pregnancies . 8th ed. Philadelphia, PA: Elsevier; 2021:chap 17.

Kilpatrick SJ, Garrison E, Fairbrother E. Normal labor and delivery. In: Landon MB, Galan HL, Jauniaux ERM, et al, eds. Gabbe's Obstetrics: Normal and Problem Pregnancies . 8th ed. Philadelphia, PA: Elsevier; 2021:chap 11.

Review Date 11/10/2022

Updated by: John D. Jacobson, MD, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Loma Linda University School of Medicine, Loma Linda, CA. Also reviewed by David C. Dugdale, MD, Medical Director, Brenda Conaway, Editorial Director, and the A.D.A.M. Editorial team.

Related MedlinePlus Health Topics

• Childbirth Problems

Warning: The NCBI web site requires JavaScript to function. more...

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.

• Management of breech presentation

Evidence review M

NICE Guideline, No. 201

National Guideline Alliance (UK) .

• Copyright and Permissions

Review question

What is the most effective way of managing a longitudinal lie fetal malpresentation (breech presentation) in late pregnancy?

Introduction

Breech presentation of the fetus in late pregnancy may result in prolonged or obstructed labour with resulting risks to both woman and fetus. Interventions to correct breech presentation (to cephalic) before labour and birth are important for the woman’s and the baby’s health. The aim of this review is to determine the most effective way of managing a breech presentation in late pregnancy.

Summary of the protocol

Please see Table 1 for a summary of the Population, Intervention, Comparison and Outcome (PICO) characteristics of this review.

Summary of the protocol (PICO table).

For further details see the review protocol in appendix A .

Methods and process

This evidence review was developed using the methods and process described in Developing NICE guidelines: the manual 2014 . Methods specific to this review question are described in the review protocol in appendix A .

Declarations of interest were recorded according to NICE’s conflicts of interest policy .

Clinical evidence

Included studies.

Thirty-six randomised controlled trials (RCTs) were identified for this review.

The included studies are summarised in Table 2 .

Three studies reported on external cephalic version (ECV) versus no intervention ( Dafallah 2004 , Hofmeyr 1983 , Rita 2011 ). One study reported on a 4-arm trial comparing acupuncture, sweeping of fetal membranes, acupuncture plus sweeping, and no intervention ( Andersen 2013 ). Two studies reported on postural management versus no intervention ( Chenia 1987 , Smith 1999 ).

Seven studies reported on ECV plus anaesthesia ( Chalifoux 2017 , Dugoff 1999 , Khaw 2015 , Mancuso 2000 , Schorr 1997 , Sullivan 2009 , Weiniger 2010 ). Of these studies, 1 study compared ECV plus anaesthesia to ECV plus other dosages of the same anaesthetic ( Chalifoux 2017 ); 4 studies compared ECV plus anaesthesia to ECV only ( Dugoff 1999 , Mancuso 2000 , Schorr 1997 , Weiniger 2010 ); and 2 studies compared ECV plus anaesthesia to ECV plus a different anaesthetic ( Khaw 2015 , Sullivan 2009 ).

Ten studies reported ECV plus a β2 receptor agonist ( Brocks 1984 , Fernandez 1997 , Hindawi 2005 , Impey 2005 , Mahomed 1991 , Marquette 1996 , Nor Azlin 2005 , Robertson 1987 , Van Dorsten 1981 , Vani 2009 ). Of these studies, 5 studies compared ECV plus a β2 receptor agonist to ECV plus placebo ( Fernandez 1997 , Impey 2005 , Marquette 1996 , Nor Azlin 2005 , Vani 2009 ); 1 study compared ECV plus a β2 receptor agonist to ECV alone ( Robertson 1987 ); and 4 studies compared ECV plus a β2 receptor agonist to no intervention ( Brocks 1984 , Hindawi 2005 , Mahomed 1991 , Van Dorsten 1981 ).

One study reported on ECV plus Ca 2+ channel blocker versus ECV plus placebo ( Kok 2008 ). Two studies reported on ECV plus β2 receptor agonist versus ECV plus Ca 2+ channel blocker ( Collaris 2009 , Mohamed Ismail 2008 ). Four studies reported on ECV plus a µ-receptor agonist ( Burgos 2016 , Liu 2016 , Munoz 2014 , Wang 2017 ), of which 3 compared against ECV plus placebo ( Liu 2016 , Munoz 2014 , Wang 2017 ) and 1 compared to ECV plus nitrous oxide ( Burgos 2016 ).

Four studies reported on ECV plus nitroglycerin ( Bujold 2003a , Bujold 2003b , El-Sayed 2004 , Hilton 2009 ), of which 2 compared it to ECV plus β2 receptor agonist ( Bujold 2003b , El-Sayed 2004 ) and compared it to ECV plus placebo ( Bujold 2003a , Hilton 2009 ). One study compared ECV plus amnioinfusion versus ECV alone ( Diguisto 2018 ) and 1 study compared ECV plus talcum powder to ECV plus gel ( Vallikkannu 2014 ).

One study was conducted in Australia ( Smith 1999 ); 4 studies in Canada ( Bujold 2003a , Bujold 2003b , Hilton 2009 , Marquette 1996 ); 2 studies in China ( Liu 2016 , Wang 2017 ); 2 studies in Denmark ( Andersen 2013 , Brocks 1984 ); 1 study in France ( Diguisto 2018 ); 1 study in Hong Kong ( Khaw 2015 ); 1 study in India ( Rita 2011 ); 1 study in Israel ( Weiniger 2010 ); 1 study in Jordan ( Hindawi 2005 ); 5 studies in Malaysia ( Collaris 2009 , Mohamed Ismail 2008 , Nor Azlin 2005 , Vallikkannu 2014 , Vani 2009 ); 1 study in South Africa ( Hofmeyr 1983 ); 2 studies in Spain ( Burgos 2016 , Munoz 2014 ); 1 study in Sudan ( Dafallah 2004 ); 1 study in The Netherlands ( Kok 2008 ); 2 studies in the UK ( Impey 2005 , Chenia 1987 ); 9 studies in US ( Chalifoux 2017 , Dugoff 1999 , El-Sayed 2004 , Fernandez 1997 , Mancuso 2000 , Robertson 1987 , Schorr 1997 , Sullivan 2009 , Van Dorsten 1981 ); and 1 study in Zimbabwe ( Mahomed 1991 ).

The majority of studies were 2-arm trials, but there was one 3-arm trial ( Khaw 2015 ) and two 4-arm trials ( Andersen 2013 , Chalifoux 2017 ). All studies were conducted in a hospital or an outpatient ward connected to a hospital.

See the literature search strategy in appendix B and study selection flow chart in appendix C .

Excluded studies

Studies not included in this review with reasons for their exclusions are provided in appendix K .

Summary of clinical studies included in the evidence review

Summaries of the studies that were included in this review are presented in Table 2 .

Summary of included studies.

See the full evidence tables in appendix D and the forest plots in appendix E .

Quality assessment of clinical outcomes included in the evidence review

See the evidence profiles in appendix F .

Economic evidence

A systematic review of the economic literature was conducted but no economic studies were identified which were applicable to this review question.

A single economic search was undertaken for all topics included in the scope of this guideline. See supplementary material 2 for details.

Economic studies not included in this review are listed, and reasons for their exclusion are provided in appendix K .

Summary of studies included in the economic evidence review

No economic studies were identified which were applicable to this review question.

Economic model

No economic modelling was undertaken for this review because the committee agreed that other topics were higher priorities for economic evaluation.

Evidence statements

Clinical evidence statements, comparison 1. complementary therapy versus control (no intervention), critical outcomes, cephalic presentation in labour.

No evidence was identified to inform this outcome.

Method of birth

Caesarean section.

• Very low quality evidence from 1 RCT (N=204) showed that there is no clinically important difference between acupuncture and control (no intervention) on the number of caesarean sections in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 0.74 (95% CI 0.38 to 1.43).
• Very low quality evidence from 1 RCT (N=200) showed that there is no clinically important difference between acupuncture plus membrane sweeping and control (no intervention) on the number of caesarean sections in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 1.29 (95% CI 0.73 to 2.29).

Admission to SCBU/NICU

• Very low quality evidence from 1 RCT (N=204) showed that there is no clinically important difference between acupuncture and control (no intervention) on admission to SCBU/NICU in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 0.19 (95% CI 0.02 to 1.62).
• Very low quality evidence from 1 RCT (N=200) showed that there is no clinically important difference between acupuncture plus membrane sweeping and control (no intervention) on admission to SCBU/NICU in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 0.40 (0.08 to 2.01).

Fetal death after 36 +0 weeks gestation

Infant death up to 4 weeks chronological age, important outcomes, apgar score <7 at 5 minutes.

• Very low quality evidence from 1 RCT (N=204) showed that there is no clinically important difference between acupuncture and control (no intervention) on Apgar score <7 at 5 minutes in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 0.32 (95% CI 0.01 to 7.78).
• Very low quality evidence from 1 RCT (N=200) showed that there is no clinically important difference between acupuncture plus membrane sweeping and control (no intervention) on Apgar score <7 at 5 minutes in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 0.33 (0.01 to 8.09).

Birth before 39 +0 weeks of gestation

Comparison 2. complementary therapy versus other treatment.

• Low quality evidence from 1 RCT (N=207) showed that there is no clinically important difference between acupuncture and membrane sweeping on the number of caesarean sections in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 0.64 (95% CI 0.34 to 1.22).
• Low quality evidence from 1 RCT (N=204) showed that there is no clinically important difference between acupuncture and acupuncture plus membrane sweeping on the number of caesarean sections in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 0.57 (95% CI 0.30 to 1.07).
• Very low quality evidence from 1 RCT (N=203) showed that there is no clinically important difference between acupuncture plus membrane sweeping and membrane sweeping on the number of caesarean sections in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 1.13 (95% CI 0.66 to 1.94).
• Very low quality evidence from 1 RCT (N=207) showed that there is no clinically important difference between acupuncture and membrane sweeping on admission to SCBU/NICU in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 0.33 (95% CI 0.03 to 3.12).
• Very low quality evidence from 1 RCT (N=204) showed that there is no clinically important difference between acupuncture and acupuncture plus membrane sweeping on admission to SCBU/NICU in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 0.48 (95% CI 0.04 to 5.22).
• Very low quality evidence from 1 RCT (N=203) showed that there is no clinically important difference between acupuncture plus membrane sweeping and membrane sweeping on admission to SCBU/NICU in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 0.69 (95% CI 0.12 to 4.02).
• Low quality evidence from 1 RCT (N=207) showed that there is no clinically important difference between acupuncture and membrane sweeping on Apgar score <7 at 5 minutes in pregnant women with breech presentation: RD 0.00 (95% CI −0.02 to 0.02).
• Low quality evidence from 1 RCT (N=204) showed that there is no clinically important difference between acupuncture and acupuncture plus membrane sweeping on Apgar score <7 at 5 minutes in pregnant women with breech presentation: RD 0.00 (95% CI −0.02 to 0.02).
• Low quality evidence from 1 RCT (N=203) showed that there is no clinically important difference between acupuncture plus membrane sweeping and membrane sweeping on Apgar score <7 at 5 minutes in pregnant women with breech presentation: RD 0.00 (95% CI −0.02 to 0.02).

Comparison 3. ECV versus no ECV

• Moderate quality evidence from 2 RCTs (N=680) showed that there is clinically important difference favouring ECV over no ECV on cephalic presentation in labour in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 1.83 (95% CI 1.53 to 2.18).

Cephalic vaginal birth

• Very low quality evidence from 3 RCTs (N=740) showed that there is a clinically important difference favouring ECV over no ECV on cephalic vaginal birth in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 1.67 (95% CI 1.20 to 2.31).

Breech vaginal birth

• Very low quality evidence from 2 RCTs (N=680) showed that there is no clinically important difference between ECV and no ECV on breech vaginal birth in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 0.29 (95% CI 0.03 to 2.84).
• Very low quality evidence from 3 RCTs (N=740) showed that there is no clinically important difference between ECV and no ECV on the number of caesarean sections in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 0.52 (95% CI 0.23 to 1.20).
• Very low quality evidence from 1 RCT (N=60) showed that there is no clinically important difference between ECV and no ECV on admission to SCBU//NICU in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 0.50 (95% CI 0.14 to 1.82).
• Very low evidence from 3 RCTs (N=740) showed that there is no statistically significant difference between ECV and no ECV on fetal death after 36 +0 weeks gestation in pregnant women with breech presentation: Peto OR 0.29 (95% CI 0.05 to 1.73) p=0.18.
• Very low quality evidence from 2 RCTs (N=120) showed that there is no clinically important difference between ECV and no ECV on Apgar score <7 at 5 minutes in pregnant women with breech presentation: Peto OR 0.28 (95% CI 0.04 to 1.70).

Comparison 4. ECV + Amnioinfusion versus ECV only

• Very low quality evidence from 1 RCT (N=109) showed that there is no clinically important difference between ECV plus amnioinfusion and ECV alone on cephalic presentation in labour in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 1.74 (95% CI 0.74 to 4.12).
• Low quality evidence from 1 RCT (N=109) showed that there is no clinically important difference between ECV plus amnioinfusion and ECV alone on the number of caesarean sections in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 0.95 (95% CI 0.75 to 1.19).

Comparison 5. ECV + Anaesthesia versus ECV only

• Very low quality evidence from 2 RCTs (N=210) showed that there is no clinically important difference between ECV plus anaesthesia and ECV alone on cephalic presentation in labour in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 1.16 (95% CI 0.56 to 2.41).
• Very low quality evidence from 5 RCTs (N=435) showed that there is no clinically important difference between ECV plus anaesthesia and ECV alone on cephalic vaginal birth in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 1.16 (95% CI 0.77 to 1.74).
• Very low quality evidence from 1 RCT (N=108) showed that there is no clinically important difference between ECV plus anaesthesia and ECV alone on breech vaginal birth in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 0.33 (95% CI 0.04 to 3.10).
• Very low quality evidence from 3 RCTs (N=263) showed that there is no clinically important difference between ECV plus anaesthesia and ECV alone on the number of caesarean sections in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 0.76 (95% CI 0.42 to 1.38).
• Moderate quality evidence from 1 RCT (N=69) showed that there is a clinically important difference favouring ECV plus anaesthesia over ECV alone on admission to SCBU/NICU in pregnant women with breech presentation: MD −1.80 (95% CI −2.53 to −1.07).
• Low quality evidence from 1 RCT (N=126) showed that there is no clinically important difference between ECV plus anaesthesia and ECV alone on Apgar score <7 at 5 minutes in pregnant women with breech presentation: RD 0.00 (95% CI −0.03 to 0.03).

Comparison 6. ECV + Anaesthesia versus ECV + Anaesthesia

• Very low quality evidence from 1 RCT (N=120) showed that there is no clinically important difference between ECV plus 2.5mg Bupivacaine plus 0.015mg Fentanyl and ECV plus 5mg Bupivacaine plus 0.015mg Fentanyl on cephalic vaginal birth in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 1.13 (95% CI 0.73 to 1.74).
• Low quality evidence from 1 RCT (N=119) showed that there is no clinically important difference between ECV plus 2.5mg Bupivacaine plus 0.015mg Fentanyl and ECV plus 7.5mg Bupivacaine plus 0.015mg Fentanyl on cephalic vaginal birth in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 0.81 (95% CI 0.53 to 1.23).
• Very low quality evidence from 1 RCT (N=120) showed that there is no clinically important difference between ECV plus 2.5mg Bupivacaine plus 0.015mg Fentanyl and ECV plus 10mg Bupivacaine plus 0.015mg Fentanyl on cephalic vaginal birth in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 0.96 (95% CI 0.61 to 1.50).
• Very low quality evidence from 1 RCT (N=95) showed that there is no clinically important difference between ECV plus 2.5mg Bupivacaine plus 0.015mg Fentanyl and ECV plus 0.05mg Fentanyl on cephalic vaginal birth in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 0.69 (95% CI 0.37 to 1.28).
• Low quality evidence from 1 RCT (N=119) showed that there is no clinically important difference between ECV plus 5mg Bupivacaine plus 0.015mg Fentanyl and ECV plus 7.5mg Bupivacaine plus 0.015mg Fentanyl on cephalic vaginal birth in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 0.81 (95% CI 0.53 to 1.23).
• Very low quality evidence from 1 RCT (N=120) showed that there is no clinically important difference between ECV plus 5mg Bupivacaine plus 0.015mg Fentanyl and ECV plus 10mg Bupivacaine plus 0.015mg Fentanyl on cephalic vaginal birth in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 0.96 (95% CI 0.61 to 1.50).
• Very low evidence from 1 RCT (N=119) showed that there is no clinically important difference between ECV plus 7.5mg Bupivacaine plus 0.015mg Fentanyl and ECV plus 10mg Bupivacaine plus 0.015mg Fentanyl on cephalic vaginal birth in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 1.19 (95% CI 0.79 to 1.79).
• Low quality evidence from 1 RCT (N=120) showed that there is no clinically important difference between ECV plus 2.5mg Bupivacaine plus 0.015mg Fentanyl and ECV plus 5mg Bupivacaine plus 0.015mg Fentanyl on the number of caesarean sections in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 0.92 (95% CI 0.68 to 1.24).
• Very low evidence from 1 RCT (N=119) showed that there is no clinically important difference between ECV plus 2.5mg Bupivacaine plus 0.015mg Fentanyl and ECV plus 7.5mg Bupivacaine plus 0.015mg Fentanyl on the number of caesarean sections in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 1.08 (95% CI 0.78 to 1.50).
• Very low evidence from 1 RCT (N=120) showed that there is no clinically important difference between ECV plus 2.5mg Bupivacaine plus 0.015mg Fentanyl and ECV plus 10mg Bupivacaine plus 0.015mg Fentanyl on the number of caesarean sections in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 0.94 (95% CI 0.70 to 1.28).
• Low quality evidence from 1 RCT (N=119) showed that there is no clinically important difference between ECV plus 5mg Bupivacaine plus 0.015mg Fentanyl and ECV plus 7.5mg Bupivacaine plus 0.015mg Fentanyl on the number of caesarean sections in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 1.17 (95% CI 0.86 to 1.61).
• Very low quality evidence from 1 RCT (N=120) showed that there is no clinically important difference between ECV plus 5mg Bupivacaine plus 0.015mg Fentanyl and ECV plus 10mg Bupivacaine plus 0.015mg Fentanyl on the number of caesarean sections in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 1.03 (95% CI 0.77 to 1.37).
• Low quality evidence from 1 RCT (N=119) showed that there is no clinically important difference between ECV plus 7.5mg Bupivacaine plus 0.015mg Fentanyl and ECV plus 10mg Bupivacaine plus 0.015mg Fentanyl on the number of caesarean sections in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 0.88 (95% CI 0.64 to 1.20).

Comparison 7. ECV + β2 agonist versus Control (no intervention)

• Moderate quality evidence from 2 RCTs (N=256) showed that there is a clinically important difference favouring ECV plus β2 agonist over control (no intervention) on cephalic presentation in labour in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 4.83 (95% CI 3.27 to 7.11).
• Very low quality evidence from 3 RCTs (N=265) showed that there no clinically important difference between ECV plus β2 agonist and control (no intervention) on cephalic vaginal birth in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 2.03 (95% CI 0.22 to 19.01).
• Very low quality evidence from 4 RCTs (N=513) showed that there is a clinically important difference favouring ECV plus β2 agonist over control (no intervention) on breech vaginal birth in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 0.38 (95% CI 0.20 to 0.69).
• Low quality evidence from 4 RCTs (N=513) showed that there is a clinically important difference favouring ECV plus β2 agonist over control (no intervention) on the number of caesarean sections in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 0.53 (95% CI 0.41 to 0.67).
• Very low quality evidence from 1 RCT (N=48) showed that there is no clinically important difference between ECV plus β2 agonist and control (no intervention) on admission to SCBU/NICU in pregnant women with breech presentation: RD 0.00 (95% CI −0.08 to 0.08).
• Very low quality evidence from 3 RCTs (N=208) showed that there is no statistically significant difference between ECV plus β2 agonist and control (no intervention) on fetal death after 36 +0 weeks gestation in pregnant women with breech presentation: RD −0.01 (95% CI −0.03 to 0.01) p=0.66.
• Very low quality evidence from 2 RCTs (N=208) showed that there is no clinically important difference between ECV plus β2 agonist and control (no intervention) on Apgar score <7 at 5 minutes in pregnant women with breech presentation: Peto OR 0.80 (95% CI 0.31 to 2.10).

Comparison 8. ECV + β2 agonist versus ECV only

• Very low quality evidence from 2 RCTs (N=172) showed that there is no clinically important difference between ECV plus β2 agonist and ECV only on cephalic vaginal birth in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 1.32 (95% CI 0.67 to 2.62).
• Very low quality evidence from 1 RCT (N=58) showed that there is no clinically important difference between ECV plus β2 agonist and ECV only on breech vaginal birth in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 0.75 (95% CI 0.22 to 2.50).
• Very low quality evidence from 2 RCTs (N=172) showed that there is no clinically important difference between ECV plus β2 agonist and ECV only on the number of caesarean sections in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 0.79 (95% CI 0.27 to 2.28).
• Very low quality evidence from 1 RCT (N=114) showed that there is no clinically important difference between ECV plus β2 agonist and ECV only on admission to SCBU/NICU in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 1.00 (95% CI 0.21 to 4.75).

Comparison 9. ECV + β2 agonist versus ECV + Placebo

• Very low quality evidence from 2 RCTs (N=146) showed that there is no clinically important difference between ECV plus β2 agonist and ECV plus placebo on cephalic presentation in labour in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 1.54 (95% CI 0.24 to 9.76).
• Very low quality evidence from 2 RCTs (N=125) showed that there is no clinically important difference between ECV plus β2 agonist and ECV plus placebo on cephalic vaginal birth in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 1.27 (95% CI 0.41 to 3.89).
• Very low quality evidence from 2 RCTs (N=227) showed that there is no clinically important difference between ECV plus β2 agonist and ECV plus placebo on breech vaginal birth in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 1.00 (95% CI 0.33 to 2.97).
• Low quality evidence from 4 RCTs (N=532) showed that there is no clinically important difference between ECV plus β2 agonist and ECV plus placebo on the number of caesarean sections in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 0.81 (95% CI 0.72 to 0.92)
• Very low quality evidence from 2 RCTs (N=146) showed that there is no clinically important difference between ECV plus β2 agonist and ECV plus placebo on admission to SCBU/NICU in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 0.78 (95% CI 0.17 to 3.63).
• Very low quality evidence from 1 RCT (N=124) showed that there is no clinically important difference between ECV plus β2 agonist and ECV plus placebo on Apgar score <7 at 5 minutes in pregnant women with breech presentation: RD 0.00 (95% CI −0.03 to 0.03).

Comparison 10. ECV + Ca 2+ channel blocker versus ECV + Placebo

• Moderate quality evidence from 1 RCT (N=310) showed that there is no clinically important difference between ECV plus Ca 2+ channel blocker and ECV plus placebo on cephalic presentation in labour in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 1.13 (95% CI 0.87 to 1.48).
• Moderate quality evidence from 1 RCT (N=310) showed that there is no clinically important difference between ECV plus Ca 2+ channel blocker and ECV plus placebo on cephalic vaginal birth in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 0.90 (95% CI 0.73 to 1.12).
• Moderate quality evidence from 1 RCT (N=310) showed that there is no clinically important difference between ECV plus Ca 2+ channel blocker and ECV plus placebo on the number of caesarean sections in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 1.11 (95% CI 0.88 to 1.40).
• High quality evidence from 1 RCT (N=310) showed that there is no clinically important difference between ECV plus Ca 2+ channel blocker and ECV plus placebo on admission to SCBU/NICU in pregnant women with breech presentation: MD −0.20 (95% CI −0.70 to 0.30).
• Moderate quality evidence from 1 RCT (N=310) showed that there is no statistically significant difference between ECV plus Ca 2+ channel blocker and ECV plus placebo on fetal death after 36 +0 weeks gestation in pregnant women with breech presentation: RD 0.00 (95% CI −0.01 to 0.01) p=1.00.
• Low quality evidence from 1 RCT (N=310) showed that there is no clinically important difference between ECV plus Ca 2+ channel blocker and ECV plus placebo on Apgar score <7 at 5 minutes in pregnant women with breech presentation: Peto OR 0.52 (95% 0.05 to 5.02).

Comparison 11. ECV + Ca2+ channel blocker versus ECV + β2 agonist

• Low quality evidence from 1 RCT (N=90) showed that there is a clinically important difference favouring ECV plus β2 agonist over ECV plus Ca 2+ channel blocker on cephalic presentation in labour in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 0.62 (95% CI 0.39 to 0.98).
• Very low quality evidence from 2 RCTs (N=126) showed that there is no clinically important difference between ECV plus Ca 2+ channel blocker and ECV plus β2 agonist on cephalic vaginal birth in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 1.26 (95% CI 0.55 to 2.89).
• Very low quality evidence from 2 RCTs (N=132) showed that there is a clinically important difference favouring ECV plus β2 agonist over ECV plus Ca 2+ channel blocker on the number of caesarean sections in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 1.42 (95% CI 1.06 to 1.91).
• Very low quality evidence from 2 RCTs (N=176) showed that there is no clinically important difference between ECV plus Ca 2+ channel blocker and ECV plus β2 agonist on admission to SCBU/NICU in pregnant women with breech presentation: Peto OR 0.53 (95% CI 0.05 to 5.22).
• Very low quality evidence from 2 RCTs (N=176) showed that there is no clinically important difference between ECV plus Ca 2+ channel blocker and ECV plus β2 agonist on Apgar score <7 at 5 minutes in pregnant women with breech presentation: RD 0.00 (95% CI −0.03 to 0.03).

Comparison 12. ECV + µ-receptor agonist versus ECV only

• High quality evidence from 1 RCT (N=80) showed that there is no clinically important difference between ECV plus µ-receptor agonist and ECV alone on cephalic vaginal birth in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 1.00 (95% CI 0.80 to 1.24).
• Low quality evidence from 1 RCT (N=80) showed that there is no clinically important difference between ECV plus µ-receptor agonist and ECV alone on the number of caesarean sections in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 1.00 (95% CI 0.42 to 2.40).
• Low quality evidence from 1 RCT (N=126) showed that there is no clinically important difference between ECV plus µ-receptor agonist and ECV alone on Apgar score <7 at 5 minutes in pregnant women with breech presentation: RD 0.00 (95% CI −0.03 to 0.03).

Comparison 13. ECV + µ-receptor agonist versus ECV + Placebo

Cephalic vaginal birth after successful ecv.

• High quality evidence from 2 RCTs (N=98) showed that there is no clinically important difference between ECV plus µ-receptor agonist and ECV plus placebo on cephalic vaginal birth after successful ECV in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 1.00 (95% CI 0.86 to 1.17).

Caesarean section after successful ECV

• Low quality evidence from 2 RCTs (N=98) showed that there is no clinically important difference between ECV plus µ-receptor agonist and ECV plus placebo on caesarean section after successful ECV in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 0.97 (95% CI 0.33 to 2.84).

Breech vaginal birth after unsuccessful ECV

• High quality evidence from 3 RCTs (N=186) showed that there is a clinically important difference favouring ECV plus µ-receptor agonist over ECV plus placebo on breech vaginal birth after unsuccessful ECV in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 0.10 (95% CI 0.02 to 0.53).

Caesarean section after unsuccessful ECV

• Moderate quality evidence from 3 RCTs (N=186) showed that there is no clinically important difference between ECV plus µ-receptor agonist and ECV plus placebo on caesarean section after unsuccessful ECV in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 1.19 (95% CI 1.09 to 1.31).
• Low quality evidence from 1 RCT (N=137) showed that there is no statistically significant difference between ECV plus µ-receptor agonist and ECV plus placebo on fetal death after 36 +0 weeks gestation in pregnant women with breech presentation: RD 0.00 (95% CI −0.03 to 0.03) p=1.00.

Comparison 14. ECV + µ-receptor agonist versus ECV + Anaesthesia

• Moderate quality evidence from 1 RCT (N=92) showed that there is no clinically important difference between ECV plus µ-receptor agonist and ECV plus anaesthesia on cephalic vaginal birth in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 1.04 (95% CI 0.84 to 1.29).
• Very low quality evidence from 2 RCTs (N=212) showed that there is no clinically important difference between ECV plus µ-receptor agonist and ECV plus anaesthesia on the number of caesarean sections in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 0.90 (95% CI 0.61 to 1.34).
• Very low quality evidence from 1 RCT (N=129) showed that there is no clinically important difference between ECV plus µ-receptor agonist and ECV plus anaesthesia on admission to SCBU/NICU in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 2.30 (95% CI 0.21 to 24.74).
• Low quality evidence from 2 RCTs (N=255) showed that there is no clinically important difference between ECV plus µ-receptor agonist and ECV plus anaesthesia on Apgar score <7 at 5 minutes in pregnant women with breech presentation: RD 0.00 (95% CI −0.02 to 0.02).

Comparison 15. ECV + Nitric oxide donor versus ECV + Placebo

• Very low quality evidence from 3 RCTs (N=224) showed that there is no clinically important difference between ECV plus nitric oxide donor and ECV plus placebo on cephalic presentation in labour in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 1.13 (95% CI 0.59 to 2.16).
• Low quality evidence from 1 RCT (N=99) showed that there is no clinically important difference between ECV plus nitric oxide donor and ECV plus placebo on cephalic vaginal birth in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 0.78 (95% CI 0.49 to 1.22).
• Low quality evidence from 2 RCTs (N=125) showed that there is no clinically important difference between ECV plus nitric oxide donor and ECV plus placebo on the number of caesarean sections in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 0.83 (95% CI 0.68 to 1.01).

Comparison 16. ECV + Nitric oxide donor versus ECV + β2 agonist

• Low quality evidence from 1 RCT (N=74) showed that there is no clinically important difference between ECV plus β2 agonist and ECV plus nitric oxide donor on cephalic presentation in labour in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 0.56 (95% CI 0.29 to 1.09).
• Very low quality evidence from 2 RCTs (N=97) showed that there is no clinically important difference between ECV plus nitric oxide donor and ECV plus β2 agonist on cephalic vaginal birth in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 0.98 (95% CI 0.47 to 2.05).
• Very low quality evidence from 1 RCT (N=59) showed that there is no clinically important difference between ECV plus nitric oxide donor and ECV plus β2 agonist on the number of caesarean sections in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 1.07 (95% CI 0.73 to 1.57).

Comparison 17. ECV + Talcum powder versus ECV + Gel

• Low quality evidence from 1 RCT (N=95) showed that there is no clinically important difference between ECV plus talcum powder and ECV plus gel on cephalic presentation in labour in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 1.02 (95% CI 0.68 to 1.53).
• Low quality evidence from 1 RCT (N=95) showed that there is no clinically important difference between ECV plus talcum powder and ECV plus gel on cephalic vaginal birth in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 1.08 (95% CI 0.67 to 1.74).
• Low quality evidence from 1 RCT (N=95) showed that there is no clinically important difference between ECV plus talcum powder and ECV plus gel on the number of caesarean sections in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 0.94 (95% CI 0.67 to 1.33).
• Low quality evidence from 1 RCT (N=95) showed that there is no clinically important difference between ECV plus talcum powder and ECV plus gel on admission to SCBU/NICU in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 1.96 (95% CI 0.38 to 10.19).

Comparison 18. Postural management versus No postural management

• Low quality evidence from 1 RCT (N=76) showed that there is no clinically important difference between postural management and no postural management on cephalic presentation in labour in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 1.26 (95% CI 0.70 to 2.30).
• Low quality evidence from 1 RCT (N=76) showed that there is no clinically important difference between postural management and no postural management on cephalic vaginal birth in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 1.11 (95% CI 0.59 to 2.07).

Breech vaginal delivery

• Low quality evidence from 1 RCT (N=76) showed that there is no clinically important difference between postural management and no postural management on breech vaginal delivery in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 1.15 (95% CI 0.67 to 1.99).
• Low quality evidence from 1 RCT (N=76) showed that there is no clinically important difference between postural management and no postural management on the number of caesarean sections in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 0.69 (95% CI 0.31 to 1.52).
• Low quality evidence from 1 RCT (N=76) showed that there is no clinically important difference between postural management and no postural management on Apgar score <7 at 5 minutes in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 0.24 (95% CI 0.03 to 2.03).

Comparison 19. Postural management + ECV versus ECV only

• Moderate quality evidence from 1 RCT (N=100) showed that there is no clinically important difference between postural management plus ECV and ECV only on the number of caesarean sections in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 1.05 (95% CI 0.80 to 1.38).
• Low quality evidence from 1 RCT (N=100) showed that there is no clinically important difference between postural management plus ECV and ECV only on Apgar score <7 at 5 minutes in pregnant women with breech presentation: Peto OR 0.13 (95% CI 0.00 to 6.55).

Economic evidence statements

No economic evidence was identified which was applicable to this review question.

The committee’s discussion of the evidence

Interpreting the evidence, the outcomes that matter most.

Provision of antenatal care is important for the health and wellbeing of both mother and baby with the aim of avoiding adverse pregnancy outcomes and enhancing maternal satisfaction and wellbeing. Breech presentation in labour may be associated with adverse outcomes for the fetus, which has contributed to an increased likelihood of caesarean birth. The committee therefore agreed that cephalic presentation in labour and method of birth were critical outcomes for the woman, and admission to SCBU/NICU, fetal death after 36 +0 weeks gestation, and infant death up to 4 weeks chronological age were critical outcomes for the baby. Apgar score <7 at 5 minutes and birth before 39 +0 weeks of gestation were important outcomes for the baby.

The quality of the evidence

The quality of the evidence for interventions for managing a longitudinal lie fetal malpresentation (that is breech presentation) in late pregnancy ranged from very low to high, with most of the evidence being of a very low or low quality.

This was predominately due to serious overall risk of bias in some outcomes; imprecision around the effect estimate in some outcomes; indirect population in some outcomes; and the presence of serious heterogeneity in some outcomes, which was unresolved by subgroup analysis. The majority of included studies had a small sample size, which contributed to imprecision around the effect estimate.

No evidence was identified to inform the outcomes of infant death up to 4 weeks chronological age and birth before 39 +0 weeks of gestation.

There was no publication bias identified in the evidence. However, the committee noted the influence pharmacological developers may have in these trials as funders, and took this into account in their decision making.

Benefits and harms

The committee discussed that in the case of breech presentation, a discussion with the woman about the different options and their potential benefits, harms and implications is needed to ensure an informed decision. The committee discussed that some women may prefer a breech vaginal birth or choose an elective caesarean birth, and that her preferences should be supported, in line with shared decision making.

The committee discussed that external cephalic version is standard practice for managing breech presentation in uncomplicated singleton pregnancies at or after 36+0 weeks. The committee discussed that there could be variation in the success rates of ECV based on the experience of the healthcare professional providing the ECV. There was some evidence supporting the use of ECV for managing a breech presentation in late pregnancy. The evidence showed ECV had a clinically important benefit in terms of cephalic presentations in labour and cephalic vaginal deliveries, when compared to no intervention. The committee noted that the evidence suggested that ECV was not harmful to the baby, although the effect estimate was imprecise relating to the relative rarity of the fetal death as an outcome.

Cephalic (head-down) vaginal birth is preferred by many women and the evidence suggests that external cephalic version is an effective way to achieve this. The evidence suggested ECV increased the chance for a cephalic vaginal birth and the committee agreed that it was important to explain this to the woman during her consultation.

The committee discussed the optimum timing for ECV. Timing of ECV must take into account the likelihood of the baby turning naturally before a woman commences labour and the possibility of the baby turning back to a breech presentation after ECV if it is done too early. The committee noted that in their experience, current practice was to perform ECV at 37 gestational weeks. The majority of the evidence demonstrating a benefit of ECV in this review involved ECV performed around 37 gestational weeks, although the review did not look for studies directly comparing different timings of ECV and their relative success rates.

The evidence in this review excluded women with previous complicated pregnancies, such as those with previous caesarean section or uterine surgery. The committee discussed that a previous caesarean section indicates a complicated pregnancy and that this population of women are not the focus of this guideline, which concentrates on women with uncomplicated pregnancies.

The committee’s recommendations align with other NICE guidance and cross references to the NICE guideline on caesarean birth and the section on breech presenting in labour in the NICE guideline on intrapartum care for women with existing medical conditions or obstetric complications and their babies were made.

ECV combined with pharmacological agents

There were some small studies comparing a variety of pharmacological agents (including β2 agonists, Ca 2+ channel blockers, µ-receptor agonists and nitric oxide donors) given alongside ECV. Overall the evidence typically showed no clinically important benefit of adding any pharmacological agent to ECV except in comparisons with a control arm with no ECV where it was not possible to isolate the effect of the ECV versus the pharmacological agent. The evidence tended toward benefit most for β2 agonists and µ-receptor agonists however there was no consistent or high quality evidence of benefit even for these agents. The committee agreed that although these pharmacological agents are used in practice, there was insufficient evidence to make a recommendation supporting or refuting their use or on which pharmacological agent should be used.

The committee discussed that the evidence suggesting µ-receptor agonist, remifentanil, had a clinically important benefit in terms reducing breech vaginal births after unsuccessful ECV was biologically implausible. The committee noted that this pharmacological agent has strong sedative effects, depending on the dosage, and therefore studies comparing it to a placebo had possible design flaws as it would be obvious to all parties whether placebo or active drug had been received. The committee discussed that the risks associated with using remifentanil such as respiratory depression, likely outweigh any potential added benefit it may have on managing breech presentation.

There was some evidence comparing different anaesthetics together with ECV. Although there was little consistent evidence of benefit overall, one small study of low quality showed a combination of 2% lidocaine and epinephrine via epidural catheter (anaesthesia) with ECV showed a clinically important benefit in terms of cephalic presentations in labour and the method of birth. The committee discussed the evidence and agreed the use of anaesthesia via epidural catheter during ECV was uncommon practice in the UK and could be expensive, overall they agreed the strength of the evidence available was insufficient to support a change in practice.

Postural management

There was limited evidence on postural management as an intervention for managing breech presentation in late pregnancy, which showed no difference in effectiveness. Postural management was defined as ‘knee-chest position for 15 minutes, 3 times a day’. The committee agreed that in their experience women valued trying interventions at home first which might make postural management an attractive option for some women, however, there was no evidence that postural management was beneficial. The committee also noted that in their experience postural management can cause notable discomfort so it is not an intervention without disadvantages.

Cost effectiveness and resource use

A systematic review of the economic literature was conducted but no relevant studies were identified which were applicable to this review question.

The committee’s recommendations to offer external cephalic version reinforces current practice. The committee noted that, compared to no intervention, external cephalic version results in clinically important benefits and that there would also be overall downstream cost savings from lower adverse events. It was therefore the committee’s view that offering external cephalic version is cost effective and would not entail any resource impact.

Andersen 2013

Brocks 1984

Bujold 2003

Burgos 2016

Chalifoux 2017

Chenia 1987

Collaris 2009

Dafallah 2004

Diguisto 2018

Dugoff 1999

El-Sayed 2004

Fernandez 1997

Hindawi 2005

Hilton 2009

Hofmeyr 1983

Mahomed 1991

Mancuso 2000

Marquette 1996

Mohamed Ismail 2008

NorAzlin 2005

Robertson 1987

Schorr 1997

Sullivan 2009

VanDorsten 1981

Vallikkannu 2014

Weiniger 2010

Appendix A. Review protocols

Review protocol for review question: What is the most effective way of managing a longitudinal lie fetal malpresentation (breech presentation) in late pregnancy? (PDF, 260K)

Appendix B. Literature search strategies

Literature search strategies for review question: What is the most effective way of managing a longitudinal lie fetal malpresentation (breech presentation) in late pregnancy? (PDF, 281K)

Appendix C. Clinical evidence study selection

Clinical study selection for: What is the most effective way of managing a longitudinal lie fetal malpresentation (breech presentation) in late pregnancy? (PDF, 113K)

Appendix D. Clinical evidence tables

Clinical evidence tables for review question: What is the most effective way of managing a longitudinal lie fetal malpresentation (breech presentation) in late pregnancy? (PDF, 1.2M)

Appendix E. Forest plots

Forest plots for review question: What is the most effective way of managing a longitudinal lie fetal malpresentation (breech presentation) in late pregnancy? (PDF, 678K)

Appendix F. GRADE tables

GRADE tables for review question: What is the most effective way of managing a longitudinal lie fetal malpresentation (breech presentation) in late pregnancy? (PDF, 1.0M)

Appendix G. Economic evidence study selection

Economic evidence study selection for review question: what is the most effective way of managing a longitudinal lie fetal malpresentation (breech presentation) in late pregnancy, appendix h. economic evidence tables, economic evidence tables for review question: what is the most effective way of managing a longitudinal lie fetal malpresentation (breech presentation) in late pregnancy, appendix i. economic evidence profiles, economic evidence profiles for review question: what is the most effective way of managing a longitudinal lie fetal malpresentation (breech presentation) in late pregnancy, appendix j. economic analysis, economic evidence analysis for review question: what is the most effective way of managing a longitudinal lie fetal malpresentation (breech presentation) in late pregnancy.

No economic analysis was conducted for this review question.

Appendix K. Excluded studies

Excluded clinical and economic studies for review question: what is the most effective way of managing a longitudinal lie fetal malpresentation (breech presentation) in late pregnancy, clinical studies, table 24 excluded studies.

View in own window

Economic studies

No economic evidence was identified for this review.

Appendix L. Research recommendations

Research recommendations for review question: what is the most effective way of managing a longitudinal lie fetal malpresentation (breech presentation) in late pregnancy.

No research recommendations were made for this review question.

Evidence reviews underpinning recommendation 1.2.38

These evidence reviews were developed by the National Guideline Alliance, which is a part of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists

Disclaimer : The recommendations in this guideline represent the view of NICE, arrived at after careful consideration of the evidence available. When exercising their judgement, professionals are expected to take this guideline fully into account, alongside the individual needs, preferences and values of their patients or service users. The recommendations in this guideline are not mandatory and the guideline does not override the responsibility of healthcare professionals to make decisions appropriate to the circumstances of the individual patient, in consultation with the patient and/or their carer or guardian.

Local commissioners and/or providers have a responsibility to enable the guideline to be applied when individual health professionals and their patients or service users wish to use it. They should do so in the context of local and national priorities for funding and developing services, and in light of their duties to have due regard to the need to eliminate unlawful discrimination, to advance equality of opportunity and to reduce health inequalities. Nothing in this guideline should be interpreted in a way that would be inconsistent with compliance with those duties.

NICE guidelines cover health and care in England. Decisions on how they apply in other UK countries are made by ministers in the Welsh Government , Scottish Government , and Northern Ireland Executive . All NICE guidance is subject to regular review and may be updated or withdrawn.

• Cite this Page National Guideline Alliance (UK). Management of breech presentation: Antenatal care: Evidence review M. London: National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE); 2021 Aug. (NICE Guideline, No. 201.)
• PDF version of this title (2.2M)

In this Page

Other titles in this collection.

• NICE Evidence Reviews Collection

Related NICE guidance and evidence

• NICE Guideline 201: Antenatal care

Supplemental NICE documents

• Supplement 1: Methods (PDF)
• Supplement 2: Health economics (PDF)

Related information

• PMC PubMed Central citations
• PubMed Links to PubMed

Similar articles in PubMed

• Review Identification of breech presentation: Antenatal care: Evidence review L [ 2021] Review Identification of breech presentation: Antenatal care: Evidence review L National Guideline Alliance (UK). 2021 Aug
• Vaginal delivery of breech presentation. [J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2009] Vaginal delivery of breech presentation. Kotaska A, Menticoglou S, Gagnon R, MATERNAL FETAL MEDICINE COMMITTEE. J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2009 Jun; 31(6):557-566.
• Review Cephalic version by moxibustion for breech presentation. [Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2005] Review Cephalic version by moxibustion for breech presentation. Coyle ME, Smith CA, Peat B. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2005 Apr 18; (2):CD003928. Epub 2005 Apr 18.
• [Fetal expulsion: Which interventions for perineal prevention? CNGOF Perineal Prevention and Protection in Obstetrics Guidelines]. [Gynecol Obstet Fertil Senol. 2...] [Fetal expulsion: Which interventions for perineal prevention? CNGOF Perineal Prevention and Protection in Obstetrics Guidelines]. Riethmuller D, Ramanah R, Mottet N. Gynecol Obstet Fertil Senol. 2018 Dec; 46(12):937-947. Epub 2018 Oct 28.
• Foetal weight, presentaion and the progress of labour. II. Breech and occipito-posterior presentation related to the baby's weight and the length of the first stage of labour. [J Obstet Gynaecol Br Emp. 1961] Foetal weight, presentaion and the progress of labour. II. Breech and occipito-posterior presentation related to the baby's weight and the length of the first stage of labour. BAINBRIDGE MN, NIXON WC, SMYTH CN. J Obstet Gynaecol Br Emp. 1961 Oct; 68:748-54.

Recent Activity

• Management of breech presentation Management of breech presentation

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

When viewing this topic in a different language, you may notice some differences in the way the content is structured, but it still reflects the latest evidence-based guidance.

Breech presentation

• Overview  
• Theory  
• Diagnosis  
• Management  
• Follow up  
• Resources  

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.

Breech presentation in pregnancy occurs when a baby presents with the buttocks or feet rather than the head first (cephalic presentation) and is associated with increased morbidity and mortality for both the mother and the baby. [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. There is good current evidence regarding effective management of breech presentation in late pregnancy using external cephalic version and/or planned cesarean section.

History and exam

Key diagnostic factors.

• buttocks or feet as the presenting part
• fetal head under costal margin
• fetal heartbeat above the maternal umbilicus

Other diagnostic factors

• subcostal tenderness
• pelvic or bladder pain

Risk factors

• premature fetus
• small for gestational age fetus
• nulliparity
• fetal congenital anomalies
• previous breech delivery
• uterine abnormalities
• abnormal amniotic fluid volume
• placental abnormalities
• female fetus

Diagnostic tests

1st tests to order.

• transabdominal/transvaginal ultrasound

Treatment algorithm

<37 weeks' gestation and in labor, ≥37 weeks' gestation not in labor, ≥37 weeks' gestation in labor: no imminent delivery, ≥37 weeks' gestation in labor: imminent delivery, contributors, natasha nassar, phd.

Associate Professor

Menzies Centre for Health Policy

Sydney School of Public Health

University of Sydney

Disclosures

NN has received salary support from Australian National Health and a Medical Research Council Career Development Fellowship; she is an author of a number of references cited in this topic.

Christine L. Roberts, MBBS, FAFPHM, DrPH

Research Director

Clinical and Population Health Division

Perinatal Medicine Group

Kolling Institute of Medical Research

CLR declares that she has no competing interests.

Jonathan Morris, MBChB, FRANZCOG, PhD

Professor of Obstetrics and Gynaecology and Head of Department

JM declares that he has no competing interests.

Peer reviewers

John w. bachman, md.

Consultant in Family Medicine

Department of Family Medicine

Mayo Clinic

JWB declares that he has no competing interests.

Rhona Hughes, MBChB

Lead Obstetrician

Lothian Simpson Centre for Reproductive Health

The Royal Infirmary

RH declares that she has no competing interests.

Brian Peat, MD

Director of Obstetrics

Women's and Children's Hospital

North Adelaide

South Australia

BP declares that he has no competing interests.

Lelia Duley, MBChB

Professor of Obstetric Epidemiology

University of Leeds

Bradford Institute of Health Research

Temple Bank House

Bradford Royal Infirmary

LD declares that she has no competing interests.

Justus Hofmeyr, MD

Head of the Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology

East London Private Hospital

East London

South Africa

JH is an author of a number of references cited in this topic.

Differentials

• Transverse lie
• Caesarean birth
• Mode of term singleton breech delivery

Use of this content is subject to our disclaimer

Log in or subscribe to access all of BMJ Best Practice

Log in to access all of bmj best practice, help us improve bmj best practice.

Please complete all fields.

I have some feedback on:

We will respond to all feedback.

For any urgent enquiries please contact our customer services team who are ready to help with any problems.

Phone: +44 (0) 207 111 1105

Email: [email protected]

Your feedback has been submitted successfully.

• 011 4211 1111
• 011 4290 9090 (E)

Vertex Presentation: What It Means for You & Your Baby

By Sitaram Bhartia Team | December 3, 2020 | Maternity | 2020-12-03 13 April 2023

During the course of your pregnancy, you may hear your gynecologist refer to the ‘position’ or ‘presentation’ of your baby. The ‘presentation’ of the baby is the part of the baby that lies at the lower end of the uterus (womb) or is at the entry of the pelvis. 

The ‘position’, in medical terms, indicates in which way the ‘presenting part’ of the baby lies in relation to the mother, i.e. whether it lies in the front, at the back or on the sides.  

“In layman terms, ‘presentation’ and ‘position’ are often used interchangeably,” says Dr. Anita Sabherwal Anand, Obstetrician-Gynecologist at Sitaram Bhartia Hospital in Delhi.

When a doctor says that your baby is in a head down position, it means that your baby is in vertex presentation .

What is vertex position in pregnancy? What is the difference between vertex and cephalic presentation?

In layman terms, the head down position is known as ‘cephalic presentation’ which means that the head of the baby lies towards the mouth of the uterus (cervix) and the buttocks and feet of the baby are located at the top of the uterus. Vertex is the medical term for “crown of head”. Vertex presentation indicates that the crown of the head or vertex of the baby is presenting towards the cervix.

Vertex presentation is the most common presentation observed in the third trimester.

The definition of vertex presentation , according to the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecologists is, “ A fetal presentation where the head is presenting first in the pelvic inlet.”

Is vertex presentation normal?

Yes, the vertex position of the baby is the most appropriate and favourable position to achieve normal delivery .

“About 95% of babies are in vertex presentation (head down) at 36 weeks, while 3-4% may lie in a ‘ breech position ,” says Dr. Anita.

Breech presentation is a non vertex presentation .

A baby is said to be in breech presentation when its feet and buttocks are at the bottom, on the cervix, and the head settles at the top of the uterus.

Should I be worried about a breech presentation?

“There is no need to worry because babies turn throughout pregnancy, “ explains Dr. Anita. 

In the early weeks of pregnancy, because the baby is small, it can lie in any position. As it grows heavier than 1 kg, it usually tumbles down and comes into the head down position. 

What may cause babies to be in the breech position?

There are a few situations that may increase the risk of having a breech baby even after 36 weeks of pregnancy. These are:

• Twins or multiple babies, wherein there is limited space for movement of the babies
• Low levels of amniotic fluid that prevents free movement of babies or very high volume of amniotic fluid that does not allow the baby to settle in a position
• Abnormalities in the uterus, either the presence of low lying placenta or large fibroids in the lower part of the uterus

Breech positions are higher in preterm birth where the baby is small and may not have had enough time to flip.

“Your gynecologist will place her hands on your abdomen and ascertain the baby’s position during your consultations in the third trimester.”

It was in one such consultation that Shilpa Newati found out that her baby was in breech presentation. She was consulting another hospital where her gynecologist advised a cesarean section. But Shilpa remained adamant and decided to get a second opinion. 

“When I came to Sitaram Bhartia Hospital, the gynecologist explained that babies can turn even until the last moment. Since my pregnancy was progressing well she saw no reason to rush into a cesarean section. “

“I was advised to wait and try a few simple techniques that may help the baby turn.”

Can a baby turn from being in breech presentation to vertex presentation ?

Yes. If your baby is in breech position, you could try turning your baby through these methods: 

• Daily walks (45-60 minutes) not only keep the mother fit but also help the baby tumble down into the head down position.
• Exercises like Cat and Camel or High Bridge may help turn the baby. “Be sure to learn these from a physiotherapist who can properly teach you what to do.”
• External Cephalic Version (ECV) is a maneuver to manually turn the baby to vertex presentation . It is usually done after 36 weeks by a gynecologist with the guidance of an ultrasound. ECV has a success rate of about 50% .

There are a few other methods that are not scientifically proven but may be safe to try.

• Torch: Placing a torch near your vagina may help the baby move in the direction of the light.
• Music: Playing music near the bottom of the belly may encourage the baby to move toward the sound of music.

In Shilpa’s case, the baby turned into vertex presentation at 37 weeks and she went on to have a vaginal delivery like she had hoped. 

Watch Shilpa share her story:

In very few instances, the baby may not turn into vertex presentation . In such a situation, a cesarean section may be safer for both mother and baby. 

Come in for a consultation  Please Chat with us on WhatsApp to schedule an appointment.

More Resources:

• Baby’s Head Engaged: Symptoms, Meaning & What You Can Do
• C Section Delivery: 9 Indications Where It May Be Avoidable
• How to Turn Baby’s Head Down Naturally [VIDEO]

This article has been written with and reviewed by Dr. Anita Sabherwal Anand , who has over 20 years of experience in Obstetrics and Gynecology. 

START TYPING AND PRESS ENTER TO SEARCH