Skip to main content
Download PDF

Effect of anesthesia on the success rate of external cephalic version: GRADE- assessed systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Systematic Reviews volume 13, Article number: 202 (2024) Cite this article

Abstract

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.

Conclusion

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.

Systematic review registration

The protocol was prospectively registered with PROSPERO, registration CRD42022381552.

Peer Review reports

Introduction

The breech position (BP) is a prevalent anomalous fetal position encountered in clinical settings. It is noteworthy that roughly 96% of BP fetuses spontaneously reorient themselves to the cephalic position by 32 weeks of gestation. However, the remaining 4% of fetuses keep in the BP until full-term delivery [1]. The breech vaginal delivery poses a significant risk of cord prolapse, trauma, asphyxia, and even death of the newborn. As a result, many medical institutions have made cesarean delivery the standard approach for BP [2]. However, cesarean delivery has a number of possible adverse effects on the mother and newborn, including abnormal uterine bleeding, maternal urinary difficulties, neonatal asthma, and childhood overweight and obesity, which are gradually gaining public attention [3, 4]. Fortunately, the external cephalic version (ECV) provides a potential alternative to cesarean delivery, and its success rate is high in reducing the cesarean rate and overall cost of care without increasing the risk of perinatal complications [2, 5]. Moreover, ECV has been recommended by the Obstetrics and Gynecology societies of the United Kingdom, the United States, and other countries [6, 7].

ECV is a medical procedure in which the BP fetus is externally manipulated to present in the cephalic position. Its success rate ranges from 35% to 86%, with an average success rate of 58% [8]. Gestational age, number of deliveries, placental position, expertise of the obstetrician, etc. may affect the success rate of ECV [9]. And the reaction of pregnant women to the pain produced by the ECV procedure largely influenced the procedure. In the early stages, many pregnant women ask to stop the procedure midway because of the unbearable pain [9]. With the development of medical technology, various anesthetic interventions have been used to assist in the implementation of ECV, such as epidural anesthesia [8], spinal anesthesia [10], inhaled anesthesia [11], intravenous anesthesia [12] and so on.

However, the use of anesthesia in ECV is controversial. While some studies confirmed that anesthetic analgesia significantly enhances the success rate of ECV [13, 14], others demonstrated no difference in the success rate of ECV with or without anesthesia [11, 15]. In addition, the toxic effects of anesthetics and excessive external force may cause adverse events [16, 17]. Assessing the possible risks and benefits of using anesthesia during ECV can help physicians and the public make benefit-maximizing decisions, which has important practical implications. A systematic review and meta-analysis by Goetzinger et al. retrieved randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published from 1966 to April 2011 and found that regional anesthesia was associated with higher ECV success rates and did not increase the incidence of adverse events [18]. Magro-Malosso et al. performed a pooled analysis of RCTs through January 2016 and evaluated the effect of neuraxial analgesia on ECV compared to intravenous anesthesia or no anesthesia. And this meta-analysis concluded that neuraxial analgesia improves the success rate of ECV [19]. In recent years, there has been an increasing number of RCTs on the effects of anesthesia on ECV. The aim of our study was to pool relevant published RCTs to systematically assess the effect of anesthesia (general and regional anesthesia) on the success rate of ECV and possible side effects.

Methods

Our study has been registered (registration number: CRD42022381552) with the PROSPERO database before December 16, 2022 (https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42022381552). We did not use individual data but published data. These data have been widely utilized in research and are generally available. Therefore, we confirm that any aspect of the work covered in this manuscript has been conducted with ethical approval. We used the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions for the preparation and conduct of this meta-analysis. We reported this meta-analysis with reference to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines [20].

Search strategies

The literature searching was completed on January 2, 2024 for relevant available articles (no restrictions on language or date of publication) from the following databases: (1) PubMed; (2) Embase; (3) Cochrane library; (4) Web of Science; (5) Sinomed (CBM); (6) China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI); (7) Wanfang Data Knowledge Service Platform; (8) China Science and Technology Journal VIP Database. The registration search was completed before January 2, 2024 and the relevant data were retrieved from the following registration pools: (1) ClinicalTrials.gov; (2) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP); (3) The EU Clinical Trials Register; (4) Chinese Clinical Trial Registry. The relevant retrieval strategy of different databases was shown in Table s1. Relevant Chinese technical terms for the Chinese databases were used to search for published articles. Furthermore, references of all relevant articles and reviews were retrieved to search for additional eligible studies. The primary outcome was successful ECV, incidence of vaginal delivery, and cesarean delivery. Secondary outcomes were incidence of vaginal breech delivery, emergency cesarean delivery, transient bradycardia, nonreassuring fetal testing (excluding transient bradycardia) after ECV, maternal discomfort, maternal pain score, abruption placentae, vaginal bleeding or postpartum hemorrhage, satisfaction scores, and hypotension. More information on the time points and scales specifics of the different studies outcomes was shown in Table s2.

Inclusion and exclusion criteria

Inclusion criteria

Studies were included in this meta-analysis if they met the following criteria: (1) research must be the RCT study; (2) The study population was only women ≥36 weeks of gestation; (3) The exposure factors were general or regional anesthesia, including epidural anesthesia, spinal anesthesia, inhalation anesthesia and intravenous anesthesia; (4) The control groups were all blank controls without anesthesia (placebo); (5) The data of the experimental and control groups were complete, including the number of occurrences in the experimental group and the total number of occurrences in the control group and the total number of occurrences in the control group; (6) If the same population had multiple publications, the study with the larger sample size or more information available was selected.

Exclusion criteria

The exclusion criteria were as follows: (1) non-RCTs studies; (2) studies in women <36 weeks' gestation; (3) unrelated, repeatedly published literature with no relevant data; (4) comments or letters to the editor, case reports, and abstracts only; and (5) preprint servers, such as medRxiv/bioRxiv, etc.

Data extraction

After removing duplicates, all abstracts and titles were independently screened by two evaluators (LL and ZF) to remove irrelevant articles. We downloaded and read the full text of potential studies and included those that met the selection criteria for this systematic review. Data extraction of the included literature was performed by 2 investigators (LL and ZF). Data extraction included: name of first author, year of study, study region, number of study subjects, type of anesthesia, primary outcome and secondary outcomes. Corresponding authors were contacted twice (reminder emails were sent after the first email) if the data required for the meta-analysis were not available in the published article.

Quality assessment

Two reviewers independently assessed the risk of bias within each study by using a Cochrane risk of bias instrument [21, 22]. We evaluated random sequence generation, allocation concealment, blinding of participants and personnel, blinding of outcome assessment, incomplete outcome data, selective outcome reporting and other sources of bias. The assessors resolve the differences through discussion, and two arbitrators decide on any unresolved differences. When risk of bias varied across included studies, we stratified studies according to risk of bias and produced two estimates of the intervention effect: from trials at low risk of bias and from all studies. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) framework was used to determine the certainty of the evidence [23].

Statistical analysis

Statistical analyses of all data were performed with Stata (version 15.0; Stata Corp, College Station, TX) and RevMan (version 5.3; Cochrane library) software. Relative risk (RR) is the frequency of the outcome in the exposed group divided by the frequency of the outcome in the control group. RR and 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) were estimated for binary outcomes. Standardized mean difference (SMD) was obtained by dividing the difference between the estimated means of the two groups by the mean standard deviation[24]. The SMD express the size of the treatment effect in each study relative to the variability observed in that study[25] . SMD and 95% CIs were calculated for continuous outcomes, which eliminates the effect of dimension when combining statistics[26]. The pooled RR is considered statistically significant if 95% CI did not contain 1, and the pooled SMD is considered statistically significant if 95% CI did not contain 0. To generalize our findings beyond the included studies, the random-effects model is the most appropriate model for meta-analysis[27]. Individual and pooled estimates were illustrated using forest plots. Subgroup analyses were also performed to examine the impact of anesthesia on the success rate of ECV according to study region and type of anesthesia. Sensitivity analyses were performed to explore whether a study had a substantial effect on the outcome. Publication bias was assessed qualitatively by funnel plots and quantitatively by Begg test and Egger's test. In all analyses, P values less than 0.05 were considered statistically significant.

Results

Study selection and characteristics

An electronic search finalized 419 publications, and 32 potentially relevant studies were finally screened after eliminating duplicates and screening titles and abstracts. Of the 32 potentially relevant studies, a total of 16 publications met the inclusion criteria [8,9,10,11,12, 14, 15, 28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36]. The detailed process of literature screening is shown in Fig. 1. Therefore, 16 publications with a total of 17 RCTs were finally included in this meta-analysis, of which the study by Khaw et al. [10] included two RCTs . The characteristics of the included studies are shown in Table 1. The inclusion and exclusion criteria were presented in Table 2.

Fig. 1
figure 1

Flow diagram of the study search and selection process

Full size image
Table 1 Characteristics of the included trials
Full size table
Table 2 Inclusion and exclusion criteria of the included trials
Full size table

Synthesis of results

Table 3 shows the pooled data of the primary and the secondary outcomes of the meta-analysis. Women who received anesthesia had a significantly higher incidence of successful ECV (58.2% vs 45.9%; RR: 1.37, 95% CIs: 1.19-1.58, P=0.001, I2=59%) and vaginal delivery (63.3% vs 51.8%; RR: 1.23, 95% CIs: 1.03-1.47, P=0.02, I2=74%), and a significantly lower incidence of cesarean delivery (38.8% vs 39.7%; RR: 0.69, 95% CIs: 0.53-0.91, P=0.008, I2=82%), compared with those who did not (Fig. 2). As for secondary outcomes, the use of anesthesia significantly reduced the incidence of vaginal breech delivery (0.5% vs 6.6%; RR: 0.16, 95% CIs: 0.04-0.74, P<0.001, I2=0%) but significantly increased the risk of hypotension (6.7% vs 0%; RR: 8.41, 95% CIs: 2.23-31.62, P<0.001, I2=0%) significantly. The use of anesthesia showed a significant decrease in maternal pain scores (SMD: -1.28, 95% CI: -1.96 to -0.61, P<0.001, I2=0%).

Table 3 Primary and secondary outcomes
Full size table
Fig. 2
figure 2

Results of meta-analysis of anesthesia on the risk of successful ECV, vaginal delivery (B) and cesarean delivery (C)

Full size image

However, there was no significant difference between groups for the incidences of emergency cesarean delivery (6.6% vs 4.1%; RR: 1.57, 95% CIs: 0.97-2.54, P=0.24, I2=0%), transient bradycardia (7.6% vs 10.1%; RR: 0.72, 95% CIs: 0.36-1.47, P=0.37, I2=38%), non-reassuring fetal testing, excluding transient bradycardia, after ECV (2.5% vs 2.5%; RR: 1.12, 95% CIs: 0.54-2.34, P=0.36, I2=0%), maternal discomfort (19.1% vs 10.7%; RR: 0.96, 95% CIs: 0.30-3.02, P=0.28, I2=79.3%), abruption placentae (0.8% vs 0.5%; RR: 1.67, 95% CIs: 0.28-9.92, P=0.26, I2=0%), vaginal bleeding or postpartum hemorrhage (2.1% vs 3.8%; RR: 0.58, 95% CIs: 0.29-1.14, P=0.54, I2=0%) and maternal satisfaction scores (SMD: 0.98, 95% CIs: -0.55 to 2.52, P=0.42, I2=97.2%).

Tables 4 and 5 shows the results of the subgroup analysis according to the different types of anesthesia and regions.

Table 4 Subgroup analysis of successful ECV, vaginal delivery and cesarean delivery among different types of anesthesia
Full size table
Table 5 Subgroup analysis of successful ECV in different regions
Full size table

Subgroup analysis of different anesthesia types (Table 4) showed that regional anesthesia significantly increased the success rate of ECV. The ECV success rate with regional anesthesia was 1.65 times higher than that without anesthesia (RR: 1.65, 95% CIs: 1.38-1.98, P<0.001, I2=37.8%), whereas the use of general anesthesia did not have a significant effect on ECV success (RR: 1.16, 95% CIs: 1.00-1.34, P=0.052, I2= 19.9%). Comparison of the different types of regional anesthesia revealed that both spinal anesthesia (RR: 1.48, 95% CIs: 1.17-1.89, P=0.003, I2=71.0%) and epidural anesthesia (RR: 1.91, 95% CIs: 1.36-2.68, P=0.005, I2=0%) significantly increased the success rate of ECVs, with the use of epidural anesthesia had a greater likelihood of ECV success. For the different types of general anesthesia, inhalation anesthesia (RR: 1.00, 95% CIs: 0.84-1.19, P=0.244, I2 =0%) did not have a significant effect on ECV success, whereas intravenous anesthesia (RR: 1.27, 95% CIs: 1.05-1.54, P=0.005, I2=17.6%) significantly improved ECV success. Moreover, we found that regional anesthesia significantly reduced the incidence of cesarean delivery (RR: 0.65, 95% CIs: 0.43-0.97, P=0.005, I2=76.8%), while there was no statistically significant correlation between general anesthesia (RR: 0.92, CI: 0.77-1.11, P=0.227, I2=25.9%) and the incidence of cesarean delivery. In terms of vaginal delivery rate, we found that although regional anesthesia (RR: 1.32, CI: 0.98-1.80, P=0.062, I2=81.0%) had no significant effect on vaginal delivery rate, one type of regional anesthesia, epidural anesthesia (RR: 2.20, CIs: 1.20-4.03, P<0.001, I2=53.0%), significantly increased the vaginal delivery rate. Neither general anesthesia nor the specific type (inhalation anesthesia, intravenous anesthesia) was significantly associated with vaginal delivery rates. The above results showed that there are differences in the effects of different types of anesthesia on the success rate of ECV, the incidence of vaginal delivery, and the incidence of cesarean delivery; however, there is a large overlap in the 95% CIs of the effect values for the different subgroups, and therefore the differences between the subgroups cannot yet be considered statistically significant.

For the different regions (Table 5), we extracted raw data from 17 studies (Khaw et al., 2015 [10] included two RCTs). The results showed that anesthesia significantly increased the success rate of the ECV in Asia (RR: 1.41, 95% CIs: 1.12-1.68, P=0.005, I2=72.1%) and North America (RR: 1.46, 95% CIs: 1.03-2.07, P<0.001, I2=45.4%). In Europe, anesthesia improved the success rate of the ECV, but the difference was not statistically significant (RR: 1.04, 95% CIs: 0.88-1.23, P = 0.323, I2 = 0%). The above results showed that there are differences in the effects of different regions on the success rate of ECV; however, there is a large overlap in the 95% CIs of the effect values for the different subgroups, and therefore the differences between the subgroups cannot yet be considered statistically significant.

Study quality assessment and risk of bias

Using the Cochrane risk of bias assessment tool, all RCTs included in the meta-analysis had low risks of bias in most criteria. The risk of bias graph and summary are illustrated in Fig. 3. The five domains where most assessments were ‘low’ risk were “random sequence generation” (n=13), “allocation concealment” (n=13), “incomplete outcome data” (n=16), “selective reporting” (n=15) and “other bias” (n=10). ‘Unclear’ risk assessments were most common in “blinding of participants and personnel” (n=8). Only one domain with the most ‘high’ risk assessments were “blinding of participants and personnel” (n=9). The study with the least risk of bias assessments was Wang et al. [31] with seven low risk assessments. Four studies (two are included in Khaw et al, 2015) had six ‘low’ risk assessments across domains [10, 14, 35]. Two studies with the most (n=3) uncertainty in risk of bias across domains was Yang et al. [32] and Dugoff et al. [9]. The studies with the highest risk of bias across domains (n=3) were Han et al. [34], Dochez et al. [15] and Burgos et al. [11]. Most of the included studies showed an overall low risk of bias. However, for domains 4 and 5: Blinding of participants and personnel and Blinding of outcome assessment, the overall risk of bias was high. The fact that most studies did not blind medical personnel and that anesthetic injections and surgical procedures were performed by them contributed to the high risk of this bias. Because the behavioral intervention process cannot be fully blinded, this bias is present in all studies and ultimately leads to an overestimation of effects. There was a low risk of bias in the Cochrane risk of bias assessment, and the GRADE assessment showed a moderate to high certainty of anesthesia's effect on the primary outcomes (Fig. 4). In addition, the funnel plot, constructed from the studies corresponding to successful ECV, vaginal delivery and cesarean delivery, did not suggest the presence of potential publication bias (Fig. 5). The Begg's test and Egger's test did not reveal publication bias. In this study, for successful ECV, the P-value for Begg's test was 0.149 and for Egger's test was 0.005. For vaginal delivery, the P-value for Begg's test was 0.115 and for Egger's test was 0.013. For cesarean delivery, the P-value for Begg's test was 0.322 and for Egger's test was 0.502.

Fig. 3
figure 3

Risk of bias graph (A) and summary (B)

Full size image
Fig. 4
figure 4

GRADE assessment of the primary outcomes

Full size image
Fig. 5
figure 5

Funnel plots for successful ECV (A), vaginal delivery (B), cesarean delivery (C)

Full size image

Sensitivity analysis

For successful ECV, vaginal delivery, and cesarean delivery, the conclusions were not altered after excluding each article to calculate the heterogeneity and effect size. Sensitivity analysis results are shown in Fig. 6.

Fig. 6
figure 6

Sensitivity analysis graph of anesthesia with successful ECV (A), vaginal delivery (B), and cesarean delivery (C)

Full size image

Discussion

It is a widely recognized fact that the primary objective of ECV is to reposition the fetus in order to increase the likelihood of vaginal delivery. Our meta-analysis indicates that the success rate of ECV among pregnant women who were anesthetized was 1.37 times higher than those who were not anesthetized. Moreover, the rate of vaginal delivery was 1.23 times higher in the anesthetized group, and the risk of cesarean delivery was significantly lower. However, it should be noted that not all types of anesthesia were equally effective. Inhalation anesthesia did not have a statistically significant effect on the success rate of ECV compared to the control group without anesthesia. Our meta-analysis included three studies that employed nitrous oxide (N2O) as an analgesic gas for inhalation anesthesia, but none of them showed a significant effect on the success rate of ECV [11, 15, 35]. N2O is an easy-to-use and safe analgesic, but its analgesic power is only one-third to one-half that of clinical doses of intravenous fentanyl [37], which may not be sufficient to affect the performance of ECV procedures. Intravenous, spinal, and epidural anesthesia have all been found to contribute to successful ECV. However, it was observed that only the administration of epidural anesthesia led to a significant increase in the rate of vaginal delivery and a decrease in the rate of cesarean delivery. The role of epidural anesthesia was also supported by Mancuso et al., who reported a 1.8-fold increase in ECV success and a 2.2-fold increase in vaginal delivery of cephalic infants under epidural anesthesia [8]. Conversely, spinal anesthesia, which is another form of regional anesthesia, did not have a significant effect on the rate of cesarean delivery or vaginal delivery. This may be due to the differences in characteristics of the anesthesia and the mechanism of action. In conclusion, our findings suggest that epidural anesthesia may be more suitable for ECV, and that further research should explore the specific types and doses of anesthetics required for optimal epidural anesthesia.

Although the utilization of intravenous and spinal anesthesia increased the success rate of ECV, its effectiveness on vaginal delivery or cesarean delivery did not been significantly demonstrated. The use of anesthesia during ECV may have implications for cesarean and vaginal delivery. Specifically, the expected discomfort and pain during ECV might prompt some pregnant women to decline the procedure, choosing instead to have a cesarean section during childbirth. And the use of anesthesia may increase their willingness to undergo ECV and improve the success of the procedure while increasing the likelihood of vaginal delivery [36, 38]. However, there are many other factors that affect cesarean and vaginal delivery. One study conducted on pregnant women in Thailand discovered that a history of vaginal delivery, maternal body mass index (BMI), estimated fetal weight and gestational age were all significant factors affecting the probability of a successful vaginal delivery [39]. In many cases, the decision to perform a cesarean section is often highly dependent on the obstetrician-gynecologist. Consequently, for fetuses in BP, the healthcare providers should make an evaluation based on multiple factors, taking into account not only the appropriate type of anesthesia for ECV, but also the necessity of performing ECV.

Furthermore, we observed a minimal occurrence of adverse events in all studies; however, the use of anesthesia may heighten the possibility of maternal hypotension. Despite the wide CIs in the meta-analysis regarding hypertension, possibly influenced by heterogeneity, our results indicate that the potential harm caused by anesthesia warrants significant attention in clinical practice. We speculated that the heterogeneity might stem from variations in inclusion and exclusion criteria across the studies or differences in the methods used to measure blood pressure. Only the study by Mancuso et al. [8] provided details on the measurement of maternal blood pressure, while no such information was reported in the other studies. Maternal hypotension is a common complication of spinal anesthesia and has a strong correlation with perinatal outcomes [40]. This is primarily because sympathetic relaxation produced by spinal blockade leads to vasodilation, which can result in maternal hypotension. Maternal hypotension may impact uterine blood flow and fetal circulation, leading to fetal hypoxia, bradycardia, and acidosis [41]. In the event that anesthesia is employed during ECV surgery, it is crucial to monitor any changes in maternal blood pressure and implement preventive and corrective measures promptly.

Our study discovered distinct impacts of anesthesia use on the effectiveness of ECV in various regions, which may be attributed to the primary type of anesthesia employed, the ECV surgical technique, and cultural disparities in pain management. Regrettably, the limited quantity of relevant studies prevented us from conducting a more detailed analysis by further categorizing the type of anesthesia. Such categorization can be conducted in subsequent studies to refine the findings.

The strengths of our study are the inclusion of relevant RCTs published to date, the low bias of included studies, and the moderate quality. At the same time, there are some limitations of this study. First, although our meta-analysis performed subgroup analyses of different types of anesthesia, the anesthetic drugs used in different studies and the doses of the drugs were different, which may have an impact on the results. Currently, there is a lack of uniform standards internationally regarding anesthesia care for ECV, and the further studies of anesthetic drugs could be conducted to try to explore the types of anesthetic drugs and doses used that are most appropriate for ECV. Second, there was large overlap in the 95% CIs of effects between groups in the subgroup analysis results of this study. Although one subgroup analysis was statistically significant while another was not, the latter may simply reflect a lack of information rather than a smaller (or no) effect [42]. Thus, our study was only able to explore possible sources of heterogeneity through subgroup analyses and could not clarify differences between subgroups. Third, maternal age, parity, and estimated fetal weight may be confounding factors in different studies [43], and the heterogeneity caused by these factors is difficult to control. Finally, most of the RCTs we included were designed to study successful ECV as a primary outcome and were not sufficiently competent to detect differences in the incidence of cesarean delivery and other perinatal outcomes, resulting in our meta-analysis of other outcomes being less comprehensive.

Conclusion

The administration of anesthesia not only significantly reduces maternal pain, but also significantly increases the success rate of ECV among women with malpresentation at term, which then increases the incidence of vaginal delivery and reduces the incidence of cesarean delivery. However, it may increase the incidence of maternal hypotension. Possible confounders such as maternal age, parity, estimated fetal weight, etc. need to be controlled for to further refine the meta-analysis.

Availability of data and material

The datasets used and/or analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

References

  1. Cruikshank DP. Breech presentation. Clin Obstet Gynecol. 1986;29(2):255–63. https://doi.org/10.1097/00003081-198606000-00008.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Hofmeyr GJ. Interventions to help external cephalic version for breech presentation at term. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2002;2:Cd000184. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.Cd000184.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Gregory KD, Jackson S, Korst L, Fridman M. Cesarean versus vaginal delivery: whose risks? Whose benefits? Am J Perinatol. 2012;29(1):7–18. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0031-1285829.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Keag OE, Norman JE, Stock SJ. Long-term risks and benefits associated with cesarean delivery for mother, baby, and subsequent pregnancies: Systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS medicine. 2018;15(1):e1002494. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1002494.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Melo P, Georgiou EX, Hedditch A, Ellaway P, Impey L. External cephalic version at term: a cohort study of 18 years’ experience. Bjog. 2019;126(4):493–9. https://doi.org/10.1111/1471-0528.15475.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Royal College of Obstetricians & Gynaecologists. External Cephalic Version and Reducing the Incidence of Term Breech Presentation: Green-top Guideline No. 20a. Bjog. 2017;124(7):e178–e92. https://doi.org/10.1111/1471-0528.14466.

  7. External Cephalic Version. ACOG Practice Bulletin, Number 221. Obstet Gynecol. 2020;135(5):e203–12. https://doi.org/10.1097/aog.0000000000003837.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Mancuso KM, Yancey MK, Murphy JA, Markenson GR. Epidural analgesia for cephalic version: a randomized trial. Obstet Gynecol. 2000;95(5):648–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0029-7844(99)00611-0.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Dugoff L, Stamm CA, Jones OW, Mohling SI, Hawkins JL. The effect of spinal anesthesia on the success rate of external cephalic version: a randomized trial. Obstet Gynecol. 1999;93(3):345–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0029-7844(98)00456-6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Khaw KS, Lee SWY, Ngan Kee WD, Law LW, Lau TK, Ng FF, et al. Randomized trial of anaesthetic interventions in external cephalic version for breech presentation. Brit J Anaesth. 2015;114(6):944–50. https://doi.org/10.1093/bja/aev107.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Burgos J, Cobos P, Osuna C, De Mar Centeno M, Fernandez-Llebrez L, Martinez Astorquiza T, et al. Nitrous oxide for analgesia in external cephalic version at term: prospective comparative study. J Perinatal Med. 2013;41(6):719–23. https://doi.org/10.1515/jpm-2013-0046.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Munoz H, Guerra S, Perez-Vaquero P, Valero Martinez C, Aizpuru F, Lopez-Picado A. Remifentanil versus placebo for analgesia during external cephalic version: a randomised clinical trial. Int J Obstet Anesth. 2014;23(1):52–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijoa.2013.07.006.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Birnbach DJ, Matut J, Stein DJ, Campagnuolo J, Drimbarean C, Grunebaum A, et al. The effect of intrathecal analgesia on the success of external cephalic version. Anesth Analg. 2001;93(2):410. https://doi.org/10.1097/00000539-200108000-00035.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Liu X, Xue A. A randomized trial of remifentanil for analgesia in external cephalic version for breech presentation. Medicine. 2016;95(49):e5483. https://doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000005483.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Dochez V, Esbelin J, Misbert E, Arthuis C, Drouard A, Badon V, et al. Effectiveness of nitrous oxide in external cephalic version on success rate: a randomized controlled trial. Acta obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica. 2020;99(3):391–8. https://doi.org/10.1111/aogs.13753.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Hawkins JL, Koonin LM, Palmer SK, Gibbs CP. Anesthesia-related deaths during obstetric delivery in the United States, 1979–1990. Anesthesiology. 1997;86(2):277–84. https://doi.org/10.1097/00000542-199702000-00002.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Bolaji I, Alabi-Isama L. Central neuraxial blockade-assisted external cephalic version in reducing caesarean section rate: systematic review and meta-analysis. Obstetrics and gynecology international. 2009;2009:718981. https://doi.org/10.1155/2009/718981.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Goetzinger KR, Harper LM, Tuuli MG, Macones GA, Colditz GA. Effect of regional anesthesia on the success rate of external cephalic version: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Obstet Gynecol. 2011;118(5):1137–44. https://doi.org/10.1097/AOG.0b013e3182324583.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. Magro-Malosso ER, Saccone G, Di Tommaso M, Mele M, Berghella V. Neuraxial analgesia to increase the success rate of external cephalic version: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2016;215(3):276–86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2016.04.036.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Page MJ, Moher D, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, et al. PRISMA 2020 explanation and elaboration: updated guidance and exemplars for reporting systematic reviews. Bmj. 2021;372:n160. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n160.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Collaboration TC. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 [Updated March 2011] 2011 [Available from: http:// handbook.cochrane.org/.

  22. Dubé C, Rostom A, Lewin G, Tsertsvadze A, Barrowman N, Code C, et al. The use of aspirin for primary prevention of colorectal cancer: a systematic review prepared for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Ann Intern Med. 2007;146(5):365–75. https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-146-5-200703060-00009.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Vist GE, Kunz R, Falck-Ytter Y, Alonso-Coello P, et al. GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. Bmj. 2008;336(7650):924–6. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.39489.470347.AD.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. Shi H, Li X, Huang X, Yang H, Li J, Yang X. Efficacy and safety of the Valsalva maneuver in relieving venipuncture pain in children and adults: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Vasc Access. 2024;23:11297298241231904. https://doi.org/10.1177/11297298241231903.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Gallardo-Gómez D, Richardson R, Dwan K. Standardized mean differences in meta-analysis: A tutorial. Cochrane Evidence Synthesis and Methods. 2024;2(3):e12047. https://doi.org/10.1002/cesm.12047.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Liu S, Wu S, Qi J, Wang L. Effect of traditional Chinese fitness exercises on bone mineral density in postmenopausal women: a network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Front Endocrinol (Lausanne). 2024;15:1323595. https://doi.org/10.3389/fendo.2024.1323595.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. Tufanaru C, Munn Z, Stephenson M, Aromataris E. Fixed or random effects meta-analysis? Common methodological issues in systematic reviews of effectiveness. Int J Evid Based Healthc. 2015;13(3):196–207. https://doi.org/10.1097/xeb.0000000000000065.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Schorr SJ, Speights SE, Ross EL, Bofill JA, Rust OA, Norman PF, et al. A randomized trial of epidural anesthesia to improve external cephalic version success. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1997;177(5):1133–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0002-9378(97)70029-2.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Weiniger CF, Ginosar Y, Elchalal U, Sharon E, Nokrian M, Ezra Y. External cephalic version for breech presentation with or without spinal analgesia in nulliparous women at term: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol. 2007;110(6):1343–50. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.AOG.0000295605.38175.7b.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Weiniger CF, Ginosar Y, Elchalal U, Sela HY, Weissman C, Ezra Y. Randomized controlled trial of external cephalic version in term multiparae with or without spinal analgesia. Brit J Anaesth. 2010;104(5):613–8. https://doi.org/10.1093/bja/aeq053.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Wang Z-H, Yang Y, Xu G-P. Remifentanil analgesia during external cephalic version for breech presentation in nulliparous women at term: A randomized controlled trial. Medicine. 2017;96(11):e6256. https://doi.org/10.1097/md.0000000000006256.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  32. Lijuan Y. Analysis of the clinical effect of epidural anesthesia in lateral breech version at term. Home Med. 2019;8:84.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Qiang Z. Effect of low-concentration ropivacaine combined with low-dose fentanyl neuraxial anesthesia on the success rate of maternal external breech version. Orient Medicated Diet. 2020;24:144.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Han Biao LW, Hui Z, Jianliang S. Effect of low-concentration ropivacaine combined with low-dose fentanyl neuraxial anesthesia on the success rate of external breech version. Modern Pract Med. 2020;32(07):801–3.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Straube LE, Fardelmann KL, Penwarden AA, Chen F, Harker E, Redmon BF, et al. Nitrous oxide analgesia for external cephalic version: a randomized controlled trial. J Clin Anesth. 2021;68:110073. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinane.2020.110073.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Yang J, Lu Z, Liu TT, Chen A, Dai QA, Sun TT, et al. Success Rate and Clinical Outcomes of External Cephalic Version with or without Anesthesia for Breech Presentation at Term in China. Clin Exp Obstet Gynecol. 2023;50(3):63. https://doi.org/10.31083/j.ceog5003063.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Kaufman E, Chastain DC, Gaughan AM, Gracely RH. Staircase assessment of the magnitude and time-course of 50% nitrous-oxide analgesia. J Dent Res. 1992;71(9):1598–603. https://doi.org/10.1177/00220345920710091001.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Unno S, Ogawa K, Nukariya A, Umehara N, Sago H. Predictive factors for successful external cephalic version with regional anesthesia. J Obstet Gynaecol Res. 2023;49(5):1335–40. https://doi.org/10.1111/jog.15615.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Kamlungkuea T, Manonai J, Suriyawongpaisal P, Hansahiranwadee W. Factors Predicting Successful Vaginal Delivery Following Induction of Labor in Term Pregnancy. Int J Women’s Health. 2022;14:245–55. https://doi.org/10.2147/ijwh.S347878.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Hao Q, Hu Y, Zhang L, Ross J, Robishaw S, Noble C, et al. A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Clinical Trials of Neuraxial, Intravenous, and Inhalational Anesthesia for External Cephalic Version. Anesth Analgesia. 2020;131(6):1800–11. https://doi.org/10.1213/ane.0000000000004795.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Šklebar I, Bujas T, Habek D. SPINAL ANAESTHESIA-INDUCED HYPOTENSION IN OBSTETRICS: PREVENTION AND THERAPY. Acta clinica Croatica. 2019;58(Suppl 1):90–5. https://doi.org/10.20471/acc.2019.58.s1.13.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  42. Deeks JJ, Higgins JP, Altman DG, Group obotCSM. Analysing data and undertaking meta-analyses. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. 2019. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119536604.ch10.

  43. Dahl CM, Zhang Y, Ong JX, Yeh C, Son M, Miller ES, et al. A Multivariable Predictive Model for Success of External Cephalic Version. Obstet Gynecol. 2021;138(3):426–33. https://doi.org/10.1097/aog.0000000000004518.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We appreciate all authors for their contributions, and support from People's Hospital of Lishui District and Nanjing Maternity and Child Health Care Hospital. The authors thank the investigators of these studies included in our systematic review and meta-analysis.

Funding

None.

Author information

Author notes

  1. Liming Lei and Zhiyong Fang contributed equally to this work and should be considered co-first author.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Anesthesiology, Women’s Hospital of Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing Women and Children’s Healthcare Hospital, 123 Tianfei Lane, Nanjing, 210004, China

    Liming Lei, Chenyang Xu, Zhaohui Wang, Hui Li & Li Ma

  2. Department of Anesthesiology, Lishui People’s Hospital, Nanjing, Jiangsu, 211200, China

    Zhiyong Fang

Authors
  1. Liming Lei
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Zhiyong Fang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Chenyang Xu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Zhaohui Wang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Hui Li
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Li Ma
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

LL, and LM designed research; LL, and ZF, conducted literature search; LL, ZF, and CX analyzed and interpreted data; LL and ZF wrote the paper. ZW, and LM provided critical opinion. LL, and LM had primary responsibility for final content. LM is the corresponding author. HL is the co-corresponding author. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Hui Li or Li Ma.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

This meta-analysis adhered to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines. The protocol was prospectively registered with PROSPERO (International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews), registration CRD42022381552.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Lei, L., Fang, Z., Xu, C. et al. Effect of anesthesia on the success rate of external cephalic version: GRADE- assessed systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Syst Rev 13, 202 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-024-02616-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-024-02616-y

Keywords

Systematic Reviews

ISSN: 2046-4053