BACKGROUND: External cephalic version (ECV) is a medical procedure in which an extracorporeal manipulation is performed to render the breech presentation (BP) fetus in the cephalic position. The use of anesthesia to facilitate repositioning has been evaluated in various randomized clinical trials (RCTs), but its potential effectiveness remains controversial.
METHODS: A systematic literature search was carried out in 8 electronic databases. In the meta-analysis, a random effects model was used to calculate the pooled relative risk (RR) and its 95% confidence interval (CI), and the pooled standardized mean difference (SMD) and its 95% CI, in order to systematically assess the effect of anesthesia on the success rates of ECV, vaginal delivery, cesarean delivery as well as other outcomes. Relevant subgroup analyses, publication bias test and sensitivity analyses were also conducted.
RESULTS: This review included 17 RCTs. Women who received anesthesia had a significantly higher incidence of successful ECV (RR: 1.37, 95% CIs: 1.19-1.58) and vaginal delivery (RR: 1.23, 95% CIs: 1.03-1.47), and a significantly lower incidence of cesarean delivery (RR: 0.69, 95% CIs: 0.53-0.91), compared with those who did not.
CONCLUSIONS: The administration of anesthesia not only significantly reduces maternal pain but also significantly increases the success rate of ECV in women with malpresentation at term, leading to a significant rise in the incidence of vaginal delivery. However, it may increase the incidence of maternal hypotension.
BACKGROUND: The protocol was prospectively registered with PROSPERO, registration CRD42022381552.

To review the decision aids currently available or being developed to predict a patient\'s odds that their external cephalic version (ECV) will be successful.
We searched PubMed/MEDLINE, Cochrane Central, and ClinicalTrials.gov from 2015 to 2022. Articles from a pre-2015 systematic review were also included. We selected English-language articles describing or evaluating models (prediction rules) designed to predict an outcome of ECV for an individual patient. Acceptable model outcomes included cephalic presentation after the ECV attempt and whether the ECV ultimately resulted in a vaginal delivery. Two authors independently performed article selection following PRISMA 2020 guidelines. Since 2015, 380 unique records underwent title and abstract screening, and 49 reports underwent full-text review. Ultimately, 17 new articles and 8 from the prior review were included. Of the 25 articles, 22 proposed one to two models each for a total of 25 models, while the remaining 3 articles validated prior models without proposing new ones.
Of the 17 new articles, 10 were low, 6 moderate, and 1 high risk of bias. Almost all articles were from Europe (11/25) or Asia (10/25); only one study in the last 20 years was from the United States. The models found had diverse presentations including score charts, decision trees (flowcharts), and equations. The majority (13/25) had no form of validation and only 5/25 reached external validation. Only the Newman-Peacock model (United States, 1993) was repeatedly externally validated (Pakistan, 2012 and Portugal, 2018). Most models (14/25) were published in the last 5 years. In general, newer models were designed more robustly, used larger sample sizes, and were more mathematically rigorous. Thus, although they await further validation, there is great potential for these models to be more predictive than the Newman-Peacock model.
Only the Newman-Peacock model is ready for regular clinical use. Many newer models are promising but require further validation.
· 25 ECV prediction models have been published; 14 were in the last 5 years.. · The Newman-Peacock model is currently the only one with sufficient validation for clinical use.. · Many newer models appear to perform better but await further validation..

The purpose of this study was to examine the efficacy of remifentanil on external cephalic version (ECV) in breech presentation. An extensive search was conducted using PubMed, Cochrane Library, and other grey literature. Only randomized controlled trials using remifentanil for ECV were included. Risk ratio (RR) and mean difference (MD) were used to estimate outcomes and quality of evidence was assessed using the Risk of Bias and GRADE system. Five studies consisting of 602 patients were analyzed. Remifentanil resulted in a moderate increase in ECV success rate (RR, 1.19; 95% CI, 1.00 to 1.43; P = .05), a large reduction of pain score (MD, -2.02; 95% CI, -2.32 to -1.72; P < .00001) with fewer transient fetal bradycardia (RR, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.19 to 0.85; P = .02). However, remifentanil did not affect cesarean section rates, (RR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.49 to 1.93; P = .93) instrumental delivery (RR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.41 to 2.15; P = 0.89), and spontaneous delivery rate (RR, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.78 to 1.35; P = 0.87). Mothers treated with remifentanil have a higher patient satisfaction score. The use of remifentanil may be a good strategy for ECV. However, extrapolation of this finding to clinical settings must consider the study limitations.

External cephalic version (ECV) is a moderately painful procedure used to turn a fetus from a non-vertex to cephalic position. This systematic review and meta-analysis compared intravenous remifentanil with other analgesia or no analgesia or placebo on the success rate and associated pain of ECV.
Systematic searches for randomised controlled trials using remifentanil during ECV for non-cephalic term singleton pregnancies were conducted in EMBASE, MEDLINE and the Cochrane Library to October 2021. The primary outcomes were successful ECV and maternal pain; secondary outcomes included mode of delivery and adverse effects. The Cochrane Risk of Bias tool was used and meta-analysis undertaken if there were ≥2 comparable studies.
Four trials were identified, three placebo-controlled and one vs no analgesia, totalling 482 participants. Comparisons against nitrous oxide or neuraxial anaesthesia were not analysed. Two studies had a low overall risk of bias, and two had some concern for bias. Remifentanil compared with placebo increased the success of ECV by 43% (risk ratio [RR] 1.43; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.14 to 1.78). Pain scores (0-10) were lower (mean difference -1.97; 95% CI -2.49 to -1.46) whilst there was no impact on caesarean delivery rate (RR 0.97; 95% CI 0.81 to 1.17). Adverse events were rare, with fetal bradycardia observed less often with remifentanil than placebo.
Remifentanil increases the procedural success of ECV and reduces pain compared with placebo. Trials were at low risk of bias and contained a sufficient number of participants to have reasonable confidence in this finding.

External cephalic version (ECV) is a common procedure and has been shown to be safe and effective in turning a baby from a breech to cephalic presentation. However, whether ECV is safe and effective in women with a scarred uterus from a previous caesarean section remains contentious.
To evaluate the safety and efficacy of external cephalic version in women with a singleton breech pregnancy and at least one previous caesarean delivery.
Literature searches were conducted on MEDLINE, PUBMED, EMBASE, CINAHL and SCOPUS up to June 2020. The search strategy included the following keywords: (\'external cephalic version OR ECV\') AND (\'previous OR prior OR past\' AND \'caesarean OR caesarean OR uterine scar\'). Studies were included if they evaluated the efficacy and/or safety of external cephalic version in women after 36 weeks\' gestation with a singleton breech pregnancy and at least one previous caesarean delivery.
Nine studies were included in the review. ECV success rates and subsequent vaginal delivery rates ranged from 50 to 100% and from 50 to 74.9%, respectively. ECV complications reported included abnormal fetal heart rate, abnormal cardiotocography and transient vaginal bleeding. No studies reported cases of uterine rupture.
ECV in women with a previous caesarean delivery is a relatively successful and low-risk procedure compared to women without a previous caesarean delivery. The results from this systematic review provide useful information for professional bodies in updating clinical guidelines such that ECV may be offered to women with one previous caesarean delivery.

BACKGROUND: Following the term breech trial (TBT), the incidence of Caesarean section secondary to breech presentations increased, from 76.9 % to 89.7 %. External Cephalic Version (ECV) is a safe effective method to reduce non-cephalic presentation at time of delivery.
METHODS: Retrospective audit of all the ECV procedures performed at a tertiary women\'s hospital between Jan 2010 and Jan 2020.
RESULTS: The success rate of ECV was 54.5 %. The rate of vaginal birth following successful ECV was 73.6 % and rate of Caesarean 26.4 %, compared to 96.4 % for those with unsuccessful ECV (P < 0.0001). Factors found to be associated with increased success rates was the use of Intravenous terbutaline (P = 0.03), fetal birth weight ≥3.5 kg (P = 0.0001) and when the procedure is performed by an experienced operator who performed over 20 ECV procedures (P < 0.0001).
CONCLUSIONS: ECV is a safe and effective procedure to reduce Caesarean section rates secondary to breech presentation. A dedicated ECV clinic with experienced operators and the use of intravenous terbutaline could improve success rate of ECV and reduce the number of Caesareans for breech presentation.

BACKGROUND: Breech/transverse presentation is responsible for about 30-50 % of cesarean sections in the world. Cesarean section carries a five-fold greater morbidity than vaginal delivery, deeply impacting on women\'s health. External Cephalic Version (ECV) is an external manipulation used to convert a non-cephalic to a cephalic presentation. The use of tocolysis might facilitate this procedure; however, it is still controversial which drug should be considered as first choice.
OBJECTIVE: To assess the effectiveness of tocolysis with atosiban, a competitive oxytocin receptor antagonist, in order to increase the rate of successful ECV.
METHODS: Nine databases (including MEDLINE, CINAHL, LILACS, EMBASE, Scopus, ClinicalTrials.gov, Scielo, PROSPERO, Cochrane at CENTRAL) were searched from the inception to August 2020 using a combination of MeSH terms and keywords regarding \"atosiban\" and \"external cephalic version\". We included trials of women with a singleton pregnancy who reached at least 36 weeks of gestation and were scheduled to ECV and tocolysis with atosiban (intervention group) compared to beta-agonists or other drugs (control group). The primary outcome was the incidence of successful ECV. Summary measures were reported as relative risk (RR) with 95 % confidence interval (CI).
METHODS: Four studies (1534 women) were eligible for analysis. ECV success rate was significantly lower in women randomized to atosiban (36.7 % vs 45.3 %; RR 0.78 [95 % CI 0.6 to 0.98]). Cesarean section and vaginal delivery rates did not differ between intervention and control group ((59.8 % vs 52.6 %; RR 1.17 [0.98-1.38] and (38.6 % vs 45.0 %; RR 0.83 [95 % CI 0.69-1.01] respectively). Cephalic (36.9 % vs 44.6 %; RR 0.81 [95 % CI 0.65 to 1.01], or breech/transverse presentation at labor (63.4 % vs 55.1 %; RR 1.18 [95 % CI 0.99-1.40]), APGAR score less than 7 at 5 min (1.6 % vs 2.0 %; RR 1.14 [95 % CI 0.27-4.73], NICU admissions (44.2 % vs 48.1 %; RR 0.92 [95 % CI 0.58-1.46] and Umbilical cord pH were similar in both groups. Drug-related side effects were lower in women randomized to atosiban, compared with control group (16.0 % vs 42.9 %; RR 0.38 [95 % CI 0.31 to 0.47].
CONCLUSIONS: The use of atosiban for tocolysis does not improve the rate of successful ECVs when compared to beta-agonists. However, atosiban was associated with a significantly lower incidence of side effects and comparable cesarean section rates.

To estimate the rate of vaginal delivery after successful external cephalic version for breech presentation in women with compared with without a previous cesarean birth.
We searched MEDLINE, Scopus, EMBASE, CINAHL, ClinicalTrials.gov, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for studies comparing the mode of delivery after successful external cephalic version in women with and without a previous cesarean birth.
Two reviewers independently identified studies, extracted data, and evaluated study quality. The rate of vaginal delivery after successful external cephalic version in women with and without a previous cesarean birth was compared, and odds ratios (ORs) with 95% CIs were estimated.
Six cohort studies and two case-control studies, reporting on 14,515 women were identified. The median point prevalence of a successful external cephalic version was 74% (interquartile range 63-81%) in women with a previous cesarean birth compared with 69% (interquartile range 64-83%) in women without a previous cesarean birth. The overall success rate of external cephalic version in women with a previous cesarean birth was similar compared with women without a previous cesarean birth (pooled OR 0.84, 95% CI 0.61-1.15). The median point prevalence of a vaginal delivery was 75% (interquartile range 61-84%) in women with a previous cesarean birth compared with 92% (interquartile range 85-95%) in women without a previous cesarean birth after a successful external cephalic version. The overall success rate of a vaginal delivery in women with a previous cesarean birth was less compared with women without a previous cesarean birth (pooled OR 0.26, 95% CI 0.14-0.50). A planned subgroup analysis on studies that included only multiparous women in the control group (parity one or greater) noted the overall success rate of external cephalic version in women with a previous cesarean birth 76% (853/1,123) was lower compared with multiparous women without a previous cesarean birth 84% (9,911/11,855) (pooled OR 0.70, 95% CI 0.54-0.89, I 37%). The overall success rate of a vaginal delivery in women with a previous cesarean birth 83% (666/806) was less compared with women without a previous cesarean birth 97% (9,449/9,746) (pooled OR 0.21, 95% CI 0.12-0.39, I 73%).
Women with previous cesarean birth have similar rates of successful external cephalic version when compared with women without a cesarean birth. Although the rate of vaginal delivery is lower, the majority of patients have a successful vaginal birth after cesarean.
PROSPERO, CRD42020160145.

BACKGROUND: The objective of this study is to appraise the efficacy and safety of bupivacaine in pregnant participants with breech presentation (BP) receiving external cephalic version (ECV).
METHODS: The following electronic databases will be searched from the origin to the January 31, 2020: PUBMED, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, CINAHL, ACMD, PsycINFO, Scopus, OpenGrey, and China National Knowledge Infrastructure. No language and publication time limitations will be applied to all of them. Randomized controlled trials comparing bupivacaine to other interventions for pain relief in pregnant participants with BP undergoing ECV will be included in this study. Two authors will employ the selection of searched records, extraction of essential data from included RCTs, and risk of bias assessment for each eligible trail independently and respectively. Any doubts between 2 authors will be figured out by a third author through discussion. The risk of bias assessment will be judged using Cochrane risk of bias tool. The data pooling and analysis will be performed using RevMan 5.3 software.
RESULTS: This study will summarize the up-to-date high-quality evidence and will synthesis the outcome data from that evidence to explore the efficacy and safety of bupivacaine for pain relief in pregnant participants with BP undergoing ECV.
CONCLUSIONS: The findings of this study may present important guidance for patients, clinical practice, as well as health-policy makers regarding the utilization of bupivacaine for pain relief in pregnant participants with BP receiving ECV.
UNASSIGNED: PROSPERO CRD42020164409.

The aim of our study was to evaluate the safety and the benefits of manual rotation in the management of Occiput-posterior positions in 2019.
A systematic review of literature was performed using the MEDLINE and COCHRANE LIBRARY databases, in order to identify articles concerning maternal and neonatal outcomes after a manual rotation, through January 2019. Information on study characteristics (review, author, year of publication), population, objectives and main neonatal and maternal outcomes were extracted.
A total of 51 articles were identified and 12 articles were selected for the systematic review. The rate of successful manual rotation were about 47 to 90%. There were more success if systematic manual rotation, multiparity, engagement, spontaneous labour and maternal age<35. The 2nd stage of labour was shorter after an attempt of manual rotation. The randomised controlled trials did not find any statistical difference concerning operative deliveries or neonatal and maternal outcomes.
The manual rotation is an obstetrical manoeuvre which must be regulated and only practiced by trained operators. Currently, the state of science is not sufficient to recommend the manual rotation as a systematic practice in 2019.