Comparison of Materials used in Facilitating External Cephalic Version
Introduction: External cephalic version (ECV) is a procedure to manipulate a fetus with breech presentation to cephalic presentation through maternal abdomen under ultrasound guidance. It is done to reduce the number of assisted breech deliveries and caesarean sections for breech presentation. Talcum powder or aqueous gel is frequently used to facilitate ECV. We compared powder with gel in attaining a successful version and level of practitioner satisfaction with powder versus gel use.
Materials and Methods: This retrospective descriptive study was conducted by Wah Medical College in POF hospital (affiliated with WMC) , Wah Cantt from 10th Oct 2015- 10th Oct 2019. Total of 56 low risk gravid women underwent ECV after selection on the basis of inclusion and exclusion criteria. By using convenient consecutive sampling, powder or gel during ECV was allocated
accordingly. ECV was performed by the single experienced practitioner in labour room with cardiotocograph and emergency caesarean facilities . Powder and gel use was compared in attaining a successful version. ECV was declared successful on confirming head of fetus in lower uterine segment on ultrasound. Unsuccessful ECVs were reattempted with crossover use to the other aid. Practitioner satisfaction was defined as, ease experienced by the practitioner in performing ECV. It was graded as high, medium and low on the base of ease or difficulty experienced by the practitioner while using powder or gel during ECV. The data was recorded & analysed using SPSS software. Descriptive statistics with Chi-square test is applied to find out the association between successful version & practitioner satisfaction level with powder versus gel use.
Results: In the powder use group, 9 ECVs were successful and 19 ECV’s were unsuccessful. In gel use group, 12 ECVs were successful and 16 were unsuccessful. There were more successful ECV’s in gel group but the association was not significant (P-value .408). Practitioner satisfaction was significantly high with gel than the powder use(P-value .<.001).
Conclusion: Powder or gel is not superior over the other as an aid for achieving successful ECV though gel use is more satisfying for the provider than powder use in performing ECV. More studies are required regarding aids used in performing ECV for recommendations in clinical practice.
Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. Management of Breech Presentation. BJOG 2017;
2. Danielian PJ, Wang J, Hall MH. Long-term outcome by method of delivery of fetuses
in breech presentation at term: population based follow up. BMJ 1996;312:1451–3.
3. Hannah ME, Hannah WJ, Hewson SA, Hodnett ED, Saigal S, Willan AR. Planned
caesarean section versus planned vaginal birth for breech presentation at term: a
randomised multicentre trial. Term Breech Trial Collaborative Group. Lancet
2000;356:1375–83. doi: 10.1016/s0140-6736(00)02840-3.
4. Martin JA, Hamilton BE, Sutton PD, Ventura SJ, Menacker F, Munson ML. Births: final
data for 2002. Natl Vital Stat Rep 2003;52(10):1–113.
5. WHO H. WHO statement on caesarean section rates. Geneva, Switzerland. 2015
Apr.WHO reference number: WHO/RHR/15.02
6. Hofmeyr GJ, Hannah M, Lawrie TA. Planned caesarean section for term breech
delivery. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2015, Issue 7. Art. No.: CD000166.
7. ACOG Committee Opinion Number 745 Term Singleton Breech Delivery e61 VOL.
132, NO. 2, AUGUST 2018. ONG-18-105860..63.
8. Kotaska A, Menticoglou S, Gagnon R, Farine D, Basso M, Bos H, Delisle MF,
Grabowska K, Hudon L, Mundle W, et al: Vaginal delivery of breech presentation. J
Obstet Gynaecol Can 2009, 31(6):557–566. 567-578. doi: 10.1016/j.ijgo.2009.07.002.
9. Gunay T, Turgut A, Bor ED, Hocaoglu M. Comparison of maternal and fetal
complications in pregnant women with breech presentation undergoing spontaneous or induced vaginal delivery, or cesarean delivery. Taiwanese Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology. 2020 May 1;59(3):392-7.
10. Fischer R, Ramus M R, Modena B A. Breech Presentation. Jun 15,
11. Ferreira JC, Borowski D, Czuba B, Cnota W, Wloch A, Sodowski K, et al. The evolution
of fetal presentation during pregnancy: a retrospective, descriptive cross-sectional
study. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2015;94:660–3. doi: 10.1111/aogs.12626. Epub
2015 Mar 25.
12. WestgrenM,EdvallH,Nordstro€mL,SvaleniusE,RanstamJ. Spontaneous cephalic
version of breech presentation in the last trimester. Br J Obstet Gynaecol
1985;92:19–22. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.1985.tb01043.x.
13. Hofmeyr GJ, Kulier R: External cephalic version for breech presentation at term.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2012, 10, CD000083. doi:
14. Hutton EK, Hannah ME, Barrett J: Use of external cephalic version for breech
pregnancy and mode of delivery for breech and twin pregnancy: a survey of
Canadian practitioners. J Obstet Gynaecol Can 2002, 24(10):804–810. doi:
15. Impey LWM, Murphy DJ, Griffiths M, Penna LK on behalf of the Royal College of
Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. External Cephalic Version and Reducing the
Incidence of Term Breech Presentation. BJOG 2017; 124: e178–e192.
16. External cephalic version. Practice Bulletin No. 161 American College of
Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Obstet Gynecol ,2016;127:e 54-61. doi:
17. Tong Leung VK, Suen SS, Singh Sahota D, Lau TK, Yeung Leung T. External cephalic
version does not increase the risk of intra-uterine death: a 17-year experience and
literature review. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 2012;25:1774–8. doi:
18. Majeed N, Kalsoom S, Safdar F, Rafique S, Tariq S, Bibi S. To determine the rate
of success of external cephalic version in low risk breech presentations and
possible factors affecting its success in POF hospital, Wah Cantt. Journal of
Rawalpindi Medical College. 2021 Jun 30;25(2):186-91.(18).DOI:
19. Rosman AN, Guijt A, Vlemmix F, Rijnders M, Mol BW, Kok M. Contraindications for
external cephalic version in breech position at term: a systematic review. Acta
Obstet Gynecol Scand 2013;92:137–42. (19) doi: 10.1111/aogs.12011. Epub 2012 Nov 1.
20. Collins S, Ellaway P, Harrington D, Pandit M, Impey LW. The complications of
external cephalic version: results from 805 consecutive attempts. BJOG
2007;114:636–8. (20). https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-0528.2007.01271.x.
21. Tan JM, Macario A, Carvalho B, Druzin ML, El-Sayed YY: Cost-effectiveness of
external cephalic version for term breech presentation. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth
2010, 10:3. (21) https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2393-10-3
22. Impey L, Pandit M. Tocolysis for repeat external cephalic version in breech
presentation at term: a randomised, double-blinded, placebo-controlled trial. BJOG
2005;112:627–31.(22) doi: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.2004.00518.x.
23. Clinical Practice Guidelines: Abnormalities of lie and presentation. July 2018;
(amended Oct 2018)King Edward Memorial Hospital for Women. Perth, Western
Australia. Accessible on://www.kemh.health.wa.gov.au/For-healthprofessionals/Clinical-guidelines/OG Form: MR 295.75
24. Rosman AN, Guijt A, Vlemmix F, Rijnders M, Mol BW, Kok M. Contraindications
for external cephalic version in breech position at term: a systematic review. Acta
obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica. 2013 Feb;92(2):137-42.
25. Vallikkannu N, Nadzratulaiman WN, Omar SZ, Lay KS, Tan PC. Talcum powder
or aqueous gel to aid external cephalic version: a randomised controlled trial.
BMC pregnancy and childbirth. 2014 Dec;14(1):1-8. doi: 10.1186/1471-2393-14-49.
26. Cluver C, Gyte GM, Sinclair M, Dowswell T, Hofmeyr GJ. Interventions for
helping to turn term breech babies to head first presentation when using external
cephalic version. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 2015(2). doi:
Copyright (c) 2022 Noreen Majeed, Faiza Safdar, Khair un Nisa, Shamsa Tariq, Nargis Shabana, Saana Bibji
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
All research articles published in the Journal of Rawalpindi Medical College (JRMC) are fully open access: immediately freely available to read, download, and share. Copyrights of all articles published in JRMC are retained by the authors. First publication rights are granted to JRMC. The journal/publisher is not responsible for subsequent uses of the work.
All articles are published under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY-SA 4.0) license.