Please wait a minute...
Clinical and Experimental Obstetrics & Gynecology  2018, Vol. 45 Issue (2): 310-311    DOI: 10.12891/ceog4096.2018
Case Report Previous articles | Next articles
Should external cephalic version be attempted in the presence of a nuchal cord?
R.N. Pollack1, Y. Weill2, *()
1 Meuhedet Health Fund, Department of Obstetrics & Gynecology, Jerusalem, Israel
2 Department of Ophthalmology, Shaare Zedek Medical Center, Jerusalem, Israel
Download:  PDF
Export:  BibTeX | EndNote (RIS)      
Abstract  
Objective: The efficacy and safety of external cephalic version (ECV) for breech presentation in the presence of a nuchal cord has not been studied. Here the authors report two cases of failed ECV in the presence of nuchal cord. Case Report: A 28-year-old, G4P3A0, presented at term with breech presentation. Umbilical cord was demonstrated ultrasonographically to be wrapped twice around the neck. External cephalic version was attempted three times with no success. A 25-year-old, G1P0A0, was diagnosed with breech presentation at 36 weeks’ gestation. A nuchal cord was wrapped twice around the fetal neck. ECV was performed three times unsuccessfully. No complications were noted during or after the procedures in both cases. Conclusion: The present findings could suggest a new relative contraindication that should be further investigated.
Key words:  Breech presentation      Cesarean section      External cephalic version      Fetal malpresentation      Fetal version      Nuchal cord     
Published:  10 April 2018     
*Corresponding Author(s):  Y. WEILL     E-mail:  yishayweill@gmail.com

Cite this article: 

R.N. Pollack, Y. Weill. Should external cephalic version be attempted in the presence of a nuchal cord?. Clinical and Experimental Obstetrics & Gynecology, 2018, 45(2): 310-311.

URL: 

https://ceog.imrpress.com/EN/10.12891/ceog4096.2018     OR     https://ceog.imrpress.com/EN/Y2018/V45/I2/310

[1] Athanasia Tsaroucha, Aliki Tympa Grigoriadou, Tania Moshovou, Kassiani Theodoraki, Aikaterini Melemeni. Efficacy of intrathecally administered fentanyl versus dexmedetomidine for cesarean section: a double blinded, randomized clinical trial[J]. Clinical and Experimental Obstetrics & Gynecology, 2021, 48(5): 1065-1070.
[2] Eser Ağar, Seda Şahin Aker. Effect of sexual dysfunction on women's preference for delivery methods: a social media-based survey[J]. Clinical and Experimental Obstetrics & Gynecology, 2021, 48(5): 1154-1161.
[3] Uros Visic, Tatjana Stopar Pintaric, Tit Albreht, Iva Blajic, Miha Lucovnik. Multimodal stepwise analgesia for reducing opioid consumption after cesarean delivery[J]. Clinical and Experimental Obstetrics & Gynecology, 2021, 48(5): 1162-1166.
[4] Lorenz Hinterleitner, Herbert Kiss, Johannes Ott. The impact of Cesarean section on female fertility: a narrative review[J]. Clinical and Experimental Obstetrics & Gynecology, 2021, 48(4): 781-786.
[5] Dragan Belci, Gian Carlo Di Renzo, Davor Zoričić, Andrea Tinelli, Antonio Malvasi, Michael Stark. Less is more—a minimal approach technique for Cesarean Section[J]. Clinical and Experimental Obstetrics & Gynecology, 2021, 48(3): 478-482.
[6] Eser Ağar, Gökhan Karakoç. Comparison of electrocautery and scalpel for blood loss and postoperative pain in Pfannenstiel incisions in recurrent cesarean sections: a randomized controlled trial[J]. Clinical and Experimental Obstetrics & Gynecology, 2021, 48(3): 534-539.
[7] Lejla Kamerić, Anis Cerovac, Mirzeta Rizvanović, Alen Kamerić, Mahira Jahić, Dubravko Habek. Frequency of cesarean section in pregnant women with risk factors for preeclampsia: prospective cohort study[J]. Clinical and Experimental Obstetrics & Gynecology, 2021, 48(3): 561-566.
[8] Batool Ali H. Alkhazal, Majed Abdullah Halawani, Ibtihal Omar Alsahabi, Hassan S.O. Abduljabbar. The preferred mode of delivery among primigravida Middle Eastern Women. A questionnaire based study[J]. Clinical and Experimental Obstetrics & Gynecology, 2021, 48(3): 567-571.
[9] Faris Mujezinović, Veronika Anzeljc, Monika Sobočan, Iztok Takač. Do women in Slovenia prefer vaginal birth after prior caesarean and what hinders its successful outcome? A single institution retrospective analysis[J]. Clinical and Experimental Obstetrics & Gynecology, 2021, 48(3): 607-614.
[10] Ryuichi Shimaoka, Tomomi Shiga, Ken-ichirou Morishige. Change in uterine artery blood flow with intrauterine balloon tamponade[J]. Clinical and Experimental Obstetrics & Gynecology, 2021, 48(2): 307-311.
[11] Bara'a Samara, Anton R. Sabella. The knowledge and attitudes of Palestinian women towards different childbirth delivery options[J]. Clinical and Experimental Obstetrics & Gynecology, 2021, 48(1): 138-143.
[12] Jing Wang, Min Zhou, Li Zhang, Long-Xin Zhang. Effective doses 50% and 95% of subarachnoid injection of sufentanil with ropivacaine in lumbar anesthesia for cesarean section in severe preeclampsia[J]. Clinical and Experimental Obstetrics & Gynecology, 2021, 48(1): 105-109.
[13] J.R. Huang, X. Li, C. Fu, Y.H. Deng, T. Gao, H.W. Zhang. Is preprocessing helpful for suction and curettage in treating cesarean scar pregnancy?[J]. Clinical and Experimental Obstetrics & Gynecology, 2020, 47(6): 900-905.
[14] N.K. Aref. Rectal misoprostol after cesarean delivery: does it affect recovery of bowel functions? A prospective randomized trial[J]. Clinical and Experimental Obstetrics & Gynecology, 2020, 47(6): 906-910.
[15] H. Takahashi, Y. Baba, R. Usui, S. Nagayama, K. Horie, A. Ohkuchi, S. Matsubara. Proteinuria as a novel risk factor for allogeneic blood transfusion irrespective of single or twin pregnancy[J]. Clinical and Experimental Obstetrics & Gynecology, 2020, 47(5): 709-713.
No Suggested Reading articles found!