LETTERS OBG

MANAGEMENT

Term Breech Trial It should be noted, however, that none of

conclusions challenged the breech deliveries were counted in the sig-
nificant perinatal morbidity and mortality

I read with great

interest The term
breech: vaginal or
cases for that year, unless other obstetric cir-
cumstances were present. Could this indicate
that it is better to wait and see how a patients
cesarean delivery? labor patterns develop before deciding to per-
[January], by Alex form a cesarean? Our impression is that peri-
Vidaeff, MD, Edward natal mortality and morbidity have more to do
Yeomans, MD, Ellen with the way a labor is conducted than the
Mozurkewich, MD, mode of delivery. We propose that further
and Martin Gimovsky, research is needed to establish a safe and stan-
MD, regarding the dard way of supervising a breech labor, and to
Term Breech Trial solve such debatable issues as the use of aug-
(TBT) conducted by Mary E. Hannah. The mentation, epidural analgesia, or premature
studys remarkable scientific design, along interference with the fetus during delivery.
with the work of all those involved, undoubt- GABRIEL BANCEANU, PHD

edly gave significant weight to the conclusion B U C H A R E S T, R O M A N I A

that elective cesarean should be the preferred

mode of delivery for term breech fetuses. Drs. Vidaeff and Yeomans respond:
Our teaching hospital in Romania had the It appears as though Dr. Banceanu feelsas
honor of participating in the TBT. In this we dothat further research on term breech
country, term breech pregnancies with no deliveries is still needed. Selection of appro-
other complications are allowed to undertake priate candidates for vaginal breech delivery
is the first step in the process, and undeni-
ably a very important one. However, as Dr.
Perinatal mortality and morbidity have
Banceanu points out, the management of
more to do with the way a labor is labor and delivery is often critical in deter-
mining outcomes. Unfortunately, this ele-
conducted than the mode of delivery.
ment could not be controlled or adequately
accounted for in the TBT.
a well-supervised trial of labor, and approxi- A recent challenge to the American Col-
mately 60% of these fetuses are delivered vagi- lege of Obstetricians and Gynecologists
nally. But in reviewing the TBT results from (ACOG) endorsement of planned cesarean
our institution, we observed that even in study delivery for breech presentation at term indi-
conditions, only 60% of the patients random- cates to us that obstetricians can still agree to
ized to planned vaginal birth actually deliv- disagree on this subject.1
ered vaginally; the others delivered via cesare-
an due to complications during laborfind- Dr. Mozurkewich responds:
ings consistent with the overall results report- I appreciate Dr. Banceanus comments. It is
ed by the TBT. interesting to note that at his hospital, a trial
C O N T I N U E D

16 OBG MANAGEMENT October 2002

 LETTERS C O N T I N U E D

TA B L E 1 trial conditions, the investigators reported

VBAC risk scoring system*, increases in perinatal morbidity and mor-
tality in the planned vaginal birth group.2
SCORE 2 FOR SCORE 1 FOR SCORE 0 FOR
EACH ITEM EACH ITEM EACH ITEM
In addition, the authors performed a sub-
analysis in which subjects were excluded if
Past:
they experienced vaginal breech delivery
1 cesarean 2 cesareans More than 2 cesareans
after prolonged labor, induction or augmen-
2-layer closure 2-layer closure, with 1-layer closure
postoperative fever tation of labor, footling or uncertain breech
Cesarean more than Cesarean 1-2 Cesarean less than presentation at delivery, or if the clinician at
2 years ago years ago 1 year ago delivery was not skilled or experienced. De-
Cesarean not due Cesarean performed Cesarean performed
spite these exclusions, planned cesarean sec-
to CPD due to dystocia due to CPD
Term vaginal birth Premature vaginal No vaginal birth
tion prevailed. For these reasons, I feel the
birth overall conclusions and recommendations
Present: of the TBT are quite robust.
Singleton Twins (both cephalic) Twins (only
first cephalic) REFERENCES

Cephalic Breech Other presentations 1. Hauth JC, Cunningham FG. Vaginal breech delivery is still justified. Obstet
Gynecol. 2002;99:1115-1116.
Fetal weight less Fetal weight Fetal weight
2. Hannah ME, Hannah WJ, Hewson SA, Hodnett ED, Saigal S, Willan AR.
than 3,500 g 3,500-4,500 g above 4,500 g
Planned cesarean section versus planned vaginal birth for breech presentation at
Expect spontaneous Expect labor will Expect labor will term: A randomized multicenter trial. Lancet. 2000;356:1375-1383.
labor need augmentation need to be induced 3. Hannah WJ, Allardice J, Amankwah K, et al. The Canadian consensus on
breech management at term. J SOGC. 1994;16:1839-1858.
Maternal weight Maternal weight Maternal weight
less than 170 lbs 171-250 lbs above 250 lbs

CPD = cephalopelvic disproportion; VBAC = vaginal birth after cesarean

*Low risk: 16-20 points; medium risk: 6-15 points; high risk: 0-5 points Scoring patients for VBAC

Score 0 for each item you cannot document from history.

n VBAC: Safer
of labor did not result in any perinatal deaths
or cases of serious perinatal morbidity among
I than you think
[August], Ellen Mozurkewich,
TBT participants. He suggests that optimal MD, recommends carefully
management of the properly selected breech selecting patients for vaginal
presentation at term may be to allow a trial of delivery after cesarean
labor and to assign mode of delivery based on (VBAC). However, she does
intrapartum progress. However, the planned not offer clear guidelines for
vaginal birth group in the TBT essentially such a selection process. Here
received the same management protocol that at Elmhurst Hospital Center-
Dr. Banceanu describes.2 The guidelines that Mt. Sinai affiliation, we utilize
formed the TBTs protocol for intrapartum a scoring system to identify candidates at low, medi-
management stemmed from a Canadian con- um, and high risk for VBAC (Table 1). While patients
sensus conference on breech presentation at who score from 16 to 20 points are considered low-risk
term and established clear conditions neces- and, therefore, good candidates for VBAC, patients
sary for the continuation of labor trials.3 But who score 0 to 5 points are considered high-risk and
even despite these relatively optimal should never be offered a trial of labor. Medium-risk
C O N T I N U E D

18 OBG MANAGEMENT October 2002

LETTERS C O N T I N U E D

patients, scoring from 6 to 15 points, require

individualized consideration with extensive
counseling.
E. HAKIM-ELAHI, MD

C H I E F O F W O M E N S H E A LT H S E RV I C E S

E L M H U R S T H O S P I TA L C E N T E R

E L M H U R S T, N Y

Dr. Mozurkewich responds:

Thank you, Dr. Hakim-Elahi, for your
comments. To my knowledge, none of the
scoring systems designed to predict failed trial
of labor have proven reliable.
In an assessment of several models,
Macones and colleagues reported a best-
model sensitivity for prediction of failed trial of
labor of 77%, with a specificity of 65%.1 This
means that 35% of women discouraged from
undergoing a trial of labor under this system
would have achieved vaginal delivery. Other
investigators have reported on scoring systems
with similar test characteristics.2,3 In a decision
analysis, Macones suggested that an ideal
system should have both sensitivity and
specificity in excess of 75% in order to obtain
a reasonable trade-off between reduction in
morbidity and the total rate of cesarean
sections.4 In the absence of a validated
scoring system meeting these requirements,
our institution continues to select and counsel
candidates for trial of labor according to
published ACOG guidelines.5

REFERENCES
1. Macones GA, Hausman N, Edelstein R, Stamilio DM, Marder SJ. Predicting out-
comes of trials of labor in women attempting vaginal birth after cesarean delivery:
A comparison of multivariate methods with neural networks. Am J Obstet Gynecol.
2001;184:409-413.
2. Flamm B, Geiger A. Vaginal birth after cesarean delivery: An admission scoring
system. Obstet Gynecol. 1997;90:907-910.
3. Weinstein D, Benshushan A, Tanos V, Zilberstein R. Predictive score for vaginal
birth after cesarean section. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1996;174:192-198.
4. Macones GA. The utility of clinical tests of eligibility for a trial of labor following
cesarean section: A decision analysis. BJOG. 1999;106:642-646.
5. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Vaginal birth after previous
cesarean delivery. Practice bulletin #5. Washington, DC: ACOG;1999.

October 2002 OBG MANAGEMENT 21