Tag Archives: epidemiology

The longer-term effects of CS for breech in Denmark

Screen Shot 2014-08-15 at 06.30.06Something is rotten …

Well, I suppose a backlash was inevitable. Due to the campaigning of women and the willingness of a significant number of health care providers to provide women with a real choice when it comes to breech childbirth, the argument for re-skilling to better support breech births has been gaining momentum. But this week saw the publication of two studies arguing this is not such a good idea.

First it was a Dutch group (Vlemmix et al 2014) who made the argument that at 1.3/1000 compared to nil, vaginal breech birth (VBB) results in ten times the mortality of planned CS. They overlooked the need to match the word ‘planned’ with an intention-to-treat analysis, and their own research (Vlemmix et al 2013) suggesting that neonatal mortality was doubled in pregnancies following an elective CS compared to those where a VBB was planned in the first pregnancy (2.5/1000 vs 1.3/1000). (Read my response here.)

When baby's head has descended into the pelvis, the pubic bones are directly behind the occiput

When baby’s head has descended into the pelvis, the pubic bones are directly behind the occiput

Now a Danish study asks, “Can Caesarean section improve child and maternal health? The case of breech babies” (Jensen and Wust, 2014). Wait, did I read that right? Are we asking whether CS can improve maternal health? Really?

Unlike their Dutch counterparts, Jensen and Wust have decided: “In our estimation sample, we observe only few infant deaths for breech babies. Thus we do not consider this very rare outcome in the proceeding analysis.” One country decides this outcome is a deal breaker, another feels it is so rare that it is not necessary to consider it.

Jensen and Wust present a lot of beautiful graphs and calculations showing that there was a noticeable improvement in Apgar scores and a reduction in visits to the GP, but no significant change in serious morbidity (ill-health) or hospitalisations in the first three years of life, following the sudden increase in elective CS for breech associated with the publication of the Term Breech Trial in 2000.

Although I am in favour of attempting to calculate the longer-term effects of such sweeping changes, I am concerned about what they did and did not choose to speculate upon.

Their most statistically significant finding was an increase in prolonged maternal hospitalisation following an elective CS. This has noticeable financial implications, which they calculated, but they do not address the increase in costs and risks in future births. The financial blind eye is concerning, but their conclusion that CS does not affect the health of the mother, without considering future births, is even more disconcerting.

On the other hand, they speculate that the additional expenditure for elective CS is balanced by costs savings as a result of significant reductions in cerebral palsy and subsequent care needed. They did not have information on actual rates of CP in this population. Instead, they reference a 2001 study by Krebs, which did NOT note a relationship between CP and mode of delivery, and found in 20,000 breech births a total of 4 serious long-term disabilities and 18 minor disabilities possibly related to low Apgar scores. They ignored Krebs previous research (1999) indicating that an increase in CP for breech-presenting babies was NOT associated with mode of delivery. They also ignored a recent systematic review and meta-analysis (O’Callaghan and MacLennan 2013) demonstrating that CS does NOT reduce the risk of CP for breech-presenting babies.

It’s important to get this right. Low Apgars are definitely associated with increased CP and other problems in head-down babies, possibly because the birth itself less often causes minor asphyxia, and therefore the cause is often an underlying fragility. In Krebs’ work, he found the association was mostly with small for gestational age infants; this corresponds with other breech research which consistently associates smaller babies with poorer outcomes. But because many breech babies have lower Apgars as a consequence of the way they are born, Apgars are not such a clear indicator of future risk in this population. They were not in the Term Breech Trial (Whyte et al 2004), and that is the best evidence we have to go on at the moment.

The main outcomes shown in this research are an increase in overall Apgar scores and a decrease in visits to the GP in the first year, less significantly in the second year, and not significantly different in the third year of life. They found no increase in significant neonatal morbidity or hospitalisations in the first 3 years of life. Although it was not originally one of their primary outcomes, the GP visits could be significant. It could also be that in the wake of a major change in practice suggesting that breech-born babies are at increased risk, everyone’s a bit nervous in the first couple of years? We need more information regarding these babies’ actual health problems to understand and use this data, because it conflicts with a Finnish study which found the opposite was the case at 7 years (Ulander et al 2004).

So Jensen and Wust have given us more research indicating an increase in short-term morbidity (with mortality being rare and insignificant?) but no difference in significant neonatal morbidity and the need for increased medical care after 2 years. This matches the information from the Term Breech Trial. Despite the authors insistence they have uncovered evidence that CS is best for all breech babies, and that it is ultimately cheaper (based on their non-evidence-based speculation on future costs of CP only), it actually adds to the literature confirming no concrete evidence of a difference in long-term outcomes for breech babies. Just goes to show you how you can take a group of statistics and put just about any spin on it you like, especially if your mathematical ability makes your analysis fairly impenetrable to most people. (Good thing I live with an actuary.)

Screen Shot 2014-08-15 at 06.30.06Turning now to the elephant in the room

Being born vaginally may be more risky for some babies than being born by CS. Most of the evidence seems to indicate that, in the short-term at least, using standard lithotomy delivery practices, this is the case. On the other hand, most of the long-term evidence does not indicate lasting effects.

What concerns me about literature like this, which makes predictions about what would be saved or not, financially or physically, with this approach or that – is that women, as long as they are human, will continue to have their own unique approach, and they should. That is what being human is about. Many will want to deliver their breech babies by CS, and they should have access to that care, even if it means a greater financial burden. And many will want to give birth vaginally, even in awareness that the rare outcome of neonatal mortality is more likely to happen to them, even in the awareness that if something goes wrong, they will need to live with it for the rest of their lives. We will always have death, and handicapped children that require our grief, our love and our devotion. This cannot be eradicated. Women deserve to be able to make this very personal decision without being made to feel criminal.

Instead of continuing to do research which tells us what we already know, we should invest in research exploring modern management strategies which are showing promise in reducing risk to babies born vaginally, so that women who live in countries where there ought to be a choice actually have one, and women who live in countries where CS is either inaccessible or a real danger to their health have the best chance of going home with a healthy baby. We should stop trying to have the last word on how breech babies should be born, let women decide how to balance the complex array of risks and benefits in their own lives and families, and develop our skills at being ‘with woman’ and her breech.

Shawn

Can we eliminate all risk for breech babies?

Closer to my heart, by Leah Sandretsky,  www.etsy.com/shop/heartbeatstudio

Closer to my heart, by Leah Sandretsky, www.etsy.com/shop/heartbeatstudio

This week (August 2014), a Dutch research team published the results of a large retrospective cohort study concerning the results of all breech births in the Netherlands. They concluded that an increase in the caesarean section rate following publication of the Term Breech Trial (TBT) has resulted in a significant reduction in perinatal mortality related to breech presentation, and therefore a policy of universal caesarean section for breech would improve outcomes for breech babies even further.

In the year prior to October 2000 (the team does not present data from earlier than 1999; why not?), the perinatal death rate was 1.3/1000 for all breech deliveries (VBB and CS inclusive). Elective sections increased from 24% prior to publication of the TBT to 60% afterwards, and from December 2000-2007, the perinatal mortality rate was 0.7/1000 for all breech deliveries, with an overall VBB rate of 22%. Moreover, the team showed that all of the perinatal deaths occurred during what they called planned breech deliveries (although their understanding of ‘planned breech delivery’ is very different from mine, as I discuss below), so the actual perinatal mortality rate for breech babies born vaginally remained steady at 1.6/1000 during both periods.

A rate of 1.6/1000 is actually quite low compared to the mortality rate of approximately 1/100 reported in the Term Breech Trial. However, the authors propose that the results of this study should replace the information currently given to women in Dutch national guidelines, because according to their calculations, “A policy of elective caesarean section for all term breech deliveries could lower the overall term neonatal mortality in term deliveries by 6.8%, from 172 to 162 per year.”

Unfortunately, it’s not so simple.

Dreaming the impossible dream.

A 'normal' breech baby - well-flexed, with lots of room to move

A ‘normal’ breech baby – well-flexed, with lots of room to move

The first problem with this prediction is that it’s not possible to pursue a policy of elective caesarean section for all term breech deliveries, even if you ‘convinced’ the 40% of women who choose to plan a VBB in the Netherlands to plan a CS. The researchers themselves noted that approximately 1:5 of the perinatal deaths observed occurred when breech presentation was not diagnosed until birth. Without instituting expensive changes to breech screening on a national basis, these outcomes will not necessarily be improved, certainly not without performing many more risky caesarean sections in advanced labour. (When these births were excluded from the analysis, the perinatal mortality rate for VBB’s which were actually planned was 1.3/1000 overall. The Netherlands has a high rate of home birth, so some of these unplanned VBB probably occurred at home with surprised, rather than prepared, midwives.)

Also, the researchers note that they have not performed an intention-to-treat analysis of their data. Multiple studies have noted that approximately 10% of women who plan caesarean sections go into labour unexpectedly before their scheduled operation, and 9.7% of the woman randomised to CS in the TBT gave birth vaginally. The researchers say that those for whom this was the case ‘could not be included in the caesarean section group’ for their study. Why? Were they included in the ‘planned’ vaginal breech birth group? The authors note this category was a ‘composite of vaginal delivery and emergency cesarean.’ Regardless of whether these women actually planned a VBB?

In an intention-to-treat analysis, the outcomes for babies who turn head-down spontaneously would also be included, as the decision to plan a VBB influences whether or not they will. In the Term Breech Trial, twice as many turned when a VBB was planned than when a CS was planned, so that 3.8% of all babies who planned a VBB were born in a cephalic position. Failing to do an intention-to-treat analysis disregards the complexity of breech decision-making and the full range of consequences.

Putting the figures into perspective.

664730The researchers note that 40% of women in the Netherlands choose to plan a vaginal breech birth, in collaboration with their doctors and midwives, and approximately 55% of them achieve this. This results in an overall perinatal mortality rate for breech presenting babies in the Netherlands of 0.7/1000, which happens to be the same perinatal mortality rate for low-risk women giving birth in hospital settings in the Netherlands (de Jong et al 2009; the mortality rate was slightly lower for women who planned a home birth at 0.6/1000). From where I am sitting, this looks like a good example of collaborative decision-making reducing risk while preserving choice.

Earlier this year, another team also led by Vlemmix (2013) published an abstract in the AJOG using further data from the Dutch nationwide perinatal registry from 2000-2007. This demonstrated that in addition to greatly increased maternal morbidity, neonatal mortality in pregnancies which followed an elective CS for breech presentation was 2.5/1000, compared to 1.3/1000 following pregnancies where a VBB was planned (which will be an average of the 2.5/1000 risk following a CS, and substantially lower risk following successful planned VBB’s). How then does this affect the prediction that elective caesarean section for all breech presentations would further significantly reduce the overall national perinatal mortality rate? Only if these women do not have any more children. Seems worth a mention to me, when you are recommending that all breech babies with a neonatal mortality risk of 1.3/1000 be delivered by CS.

Consider statistics given in the RCOG guideline on Birth After Previous Caesarean Birth. They summarise the data relating to term VBACS: “Planned VBAC is associated with a 10/10,000 risk of antepartum stillbirth beyond 39 weeks of gestation and a 4/10,000 risk of delivery related perinatal death (if conducted in a large centre).”

So a woman choosing to await spontaneous labour past 39 weeks and attempt a VBAC has a 1.4/1000 risk of losing her baby, but this is not only perceived as a reasonable decision, it is positively encouraged in most hospitals in the UK. Entire midwifery-led care pathways are set up to support women making this choice, and primiparous women to whom elective section for breech is recommended are proactively counselled that they can feel positively about attempting a VBAC the next time around.

But a woman choosing to birth her breech baby vaginally, knowing that she has a 1.3/1000 chance of losing her baby, is suspect. Does anyone else get the feeling we are robbing Peter to pay Paul?

The researchers identified no sub-classification of women for whom breech birth was more risky, or less risky compared to CS. They did observe that babies with a birth weight of over 3500 g (often excluded from VBB) actually only had a perinatal mortality rate of 0.8/1000. Contrary to what they have concluded, encouraging any woman who plans to have more children and wishes to attempt a VBB (at a relative PMR of 1.3/1000) as opposed to advocating universal elective CS for breech (and exposing subsequent children to double the mortality rate, at 2.5/1000), seems a measured approach.

The team’s representation of morbidity statistics also distorts the picture, as long bone fractures (included in their composite statistic) are common in cephalic births as well. They heal well, and are not generally considered ‘serious morbidity.’ Nonetheless, the morbidity rate of 22/1000 reported in this research was also significantly less than the rate of approximately 1/20 reported in the Term Breech Trial.

Designing research which meets the needs of women and their partners

Descending LST, anterior buttock leading

Descending LST, anterior buttock leading

The researchers have called for the results of their study to replace the information in their national patient information leaflets, which are based on the data from the Term Breech Trial, including the information that outcomes at 2 years of age did not differ between planned VBB and planned CS. One of the authors named in this Vlemmix study has also conducted research into what information matters most to women and their partners (Kok et al 2008).

Kok’s study (2008) demonstrated that women were mostly concerned with the safety of their baby and fear for a handicapped child, and that the 2-year outcome was what mattered most to them. Why then has this team conducted yet another study telling us what we already know – that short-term morbidity and mortality is significantly greater when VBB is planned in most cases – rather than robust research addressing what matters most to the families making these decisions? Whyte’s team (2004) emphasised that the 2-year results surprised them, as the group of children who went on to have handicaps at 2 years of age did not overlap at all with the group of children who experienced severe morbidity in the neonatal period. They were all born apparently healthy, and in the Vlemmix study would have been included in the ‘proof’ that universal CS is a safer policy. Given the numerous studies demonstrating a higher risk of cerebral palsy and other adverse outcomes for breech-presenting babies regardless of mode of delivery (O’Collaghan and MacLennan 2013), the question of whether the babies we save from death in the first 7 days go on to lead full and healthy lives is a fundamental question. And it is the concern which matters most to women.

On the other hand, according to Kok et al (2008) the concern which matters most to women’s partners is the outcomes for women. This study reported only 2 maternal deaths in the 1999-2007 period, despite acknowledging another study already published by the Dutch Maternal Mortality Committee reporting 4 deaths following elective section for term singleton breech in the Netherlands in 2000-2002 alone.

Why are the women disappearing?

If this study does not address the central concerns of women and their partners, why should it take precedence in the information given to aid informed decision-making? If the authors have not performed an intention-to-treat analysis, how can they possibly claim to know that their treatment will have the predicted result? If the study has demonstrated a risk similar to that of planning a VBAC, why are both choices not considered equally reasonable?

These authors are all very much involved with research concerning external cephalic version (ECV) and also feel the results of this research demonstrate the need to use ECV more liberally in order to reduce the incidence of breech presentation at term. While I am a fan of their ECV research and a proponent of ECV as a readily available option for women with breech presenting babies, again we cannot ignore the fact that ECV has not yet been demonstrated to improve neonatal outcomes, possibly for the same reasons the 2 year outcomes for children are not affected. However, ECV does significantly reduce the CS rate for women, particularly in centres where the option of VBB is not well supported. Again, I would like to see this highly experienced and highly influential team turn their attention to answering questions we do not already know the answer to, including whether or not manually turning a breech baby from a breech to a head-down position improves the short- and long-term outcomes for these babies, beyond increasing their chance of being born vaginally.

Shawn

De Jonge, A., van der Goes, B.Y., Ravelli, A.C.J., Amelink-Verburg, M.P., et al. (2009) Perinatal mortality and morbidity in a nationwide cohort of 529,688 low-risk planned home and hospital births. BJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology. [Online] 116 (9), 1177–1184. Available from: doi:10.1111/j.1471-0528.2009.02175.x [Accessed: 12 August 2014].

Vlemmix, F., Kazemier, B., Rosman, A., Schaaf, J., et al. (2013) 764: Effect of increased caesarean section rate due to term breech presentation on maternal and fetal outcome in subsequent pregnancies. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology. [Online] 208 (1, Supplement), S321. Available from: doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2012.10.102.

Vlemmix, F., Bergenhenegouwen, L., Schaaf, J.M., Ensing, S., et al. (2014) Term breech deliveries in the Netherlands: did the increased cesarean rate affect neonatal outcome? A population-based cohort study. Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica. [Online] 93 (9), 888–896. Available from: doi:10.1111/aogs.12449 [Accessed: 12 August 2014].

 

Loving breech babies in Ayrshire

with Dr Susanne Albrechtsen (left)

with Dr Albrechtsen (left)

The Dutch in Old Amsterdam do it .. not to mention the Finns .. The folks in Bergen, Norway, do it .. They’re not even second twins …

This Valentine’s Day over 100 obstetricians, midwives, student doctors and student midwives assembled at Crosshouse Hospital in Kilmarnock to show some love to breech babies.

explaining the way 'prayer hands' help maintain alignment of the fetal head

explaining the way ‘prayer hands’ help maintain alignment of the fetal head

We were privileged to be joined by Dr Susanne Albrechtsen, Head of Obstetrics at Haukland Hospital in Bergen, Norway, home of Jørgen Løvset. She has written extensively about the practical management of breech presentation and authored several epidemiological articles. Dr Albrechtsen is responsible for the Norwegian breech guidelines, and shares her expert knowledge of breech and operative vaginal deliveries through practical training throughout Scandinavia and beyond (details available through the Norwegian Medical Society). Her hospital in Bergen, which currently enjoys a CS rate of 13%, is a mecca for trainees hoping to improve their hands-on skills. Haukland, with an annual birth rate of 5000, sees 150-200 breech deliveries per year and Dr Albrechtsen herself has attended over 500 breech deliveries. IMG_0173

How do they do it? Dr Albrechtsen tells us: “You just have to decide that it is good for babies to be born vaginally, unless there is clearly a problem, and commit yourself to developing the skills to enable that to happen.” As she explained, a normal vaginal birth is an important programming event with life-long consequences. Evidence is growing about the links between caesarean section and future disease in the child, such as Type 1 diabetes, asthma, allergies, gastroenteritis and obesity (see Ulander et al, 2004). Dr Albrechtsen also presented her epidemiological data, demonstrating the way CS rates and rates of vaginal birth have changed over the last 40 years in Scandinavia. Particularly interesting were the way the Finns have been able to make a dramatic change within a few years, simply by making the decision to do so.

Dr Michele Mohajer, Royal Shrewsbury

Dr Michele Mohajer
Royal Shrewsbury

Dr Michele Mohajer, whose unit in Shropshire currently enjoys a 14.3% CS rate, shared with us the work of her breech clinic and her extensive experience with ECV, having performed over 1500 procedures herself, in addition to attending hundreds of breech deliveries in her career. It is reassuring to know that these skills are being maintained by expert practitioners.

Feedback from the day suggested that those attending had concerns about managing an undiagnosed breech birth, and interest in developing skills had been driven by recent experiences. This is a real concern. Approximately 3-4% of babies present breech at term, and 25-30% remain undiagnosed until labour. Consequently, an undiagnosed breech presents in labour approximately 1:100 of all births. It is in everyone’s interests that we do our best to support all women wishing to make the informed choice to labour with their breech babies, putting plans in place so that skills can be developed for when women cannot make a measured decision.

working it out together

working it out together

In my view, organising small on-call teams for breech, involving both doctors and midwives, is the best way to accomplish the re-introduction of breech skills. Some research and professional opinion supports this view (Kotaska 2009, Maier et al 2011). Neither all doctors nor all midwives will be confident and keen to attend a breech birth. Ideally all staff involved will be both, but at least one well-prepared and experienced person at every breech birth is essential, for both safety and the reassurance of the woman involved. At the conference, we also reviewed the mechanisms of breech birth, counselling for informed choice, and how to help in a complicated breech birth, particularly when the woman births in an upright position. I’ve noticed more doctors attending these study days each time we do it. One young obstetrician said to me, “I needed you here about a week ago, when I got hauled over the coals for supporting a woman to [successfully] have her breech baby vaginally.” This threatening cultural atmosphere needs to change. We need obstetricians and midwives who are willing to develop the skills to facilitate breech birth in the safest possible way.

Let’s do it .. Let’s fall in love … with breech babies

This study day  was organised by Geraldine Butcher, Consultant Midwife for Ayrshire and Arran, and a passionate advocate for the rights of women to make informed decisions about how to have their babies. Feedback from the study day:

“It has been a very fruitful day for me and I will use the presentations and practice to update my own. I will feel more confident in supporting upright breech birth.”

“It gives me more confidence to promote breech delivery and services surrounding breech as an option.”

“Video scenarios were very helpful. Recent undiagnosed breech presentations have encouraged us to review / update knowledge.”

Shawn

 

Dr Susanne Albrechtsen and the Big Breech Picture

Dr Susanne Albrechtsen, obstetrician and epidemiologist from Haukeland University Hospital in Norway, spoke at a Breech Birth Network study day in Kilmarnock on 14 February 2014. Read about the day.

Epidemiology is the study of patterns, causes and effects associated with conditions of disease or health in defined populations. (Information from the BMJ.) For our purposes, epidemiology helps us to understand what happens with breech presentation in large groups, enabling us to ask and answer questions such as:

  • What factors are associated with an increased incidence of breech presentation?
  • What are the characteristics of the hospitals in which breech presentation is most/least likely to be delivered vaginally, or to result in a good outcome?
  • What are the long-term effects associated with of breech presentation, and do they vary by mode of delivery?

Albrechtsen has been researching breech presentation for many years. In a 2004 systematic review, Albrechtsen and her team discussed the literature concerning mode of delivery for breech presentation. The article illustrates well why the external validity of the Term Breech Trial (TBT) is questionable: many centres have demonstrated considerably lower neonatal mortality and morbidity levels associated with vaginal breech birth (VBB) than those the TBT reported. They also discuss the difficulties of repeating the TBT trial design in locations with good results for breech-born babies: the lower your perinatal morbidity and mortality, the more recruits you need in your study to reach statistical significance. In Norway, Albrechtsen’s team calculated each arm of a randomised controlled trial (RCT) would require 10,000 members for two-sided testing. Clearly impractical. This review also raises reasonable questions about the research base behind the practice of external cephalic version (ECV). Although the available research suggests that the practice of ECV reduces the rate of CS for breech, there is no clear evidence that it reduces perinatal mortality. (You can read an earlier systematic review on this point, if you can read Norwegian.) We should be approaching all options – ECV, VBB, and CS – as reasonable. Albrechtsen and co. have also been making the point for some time that caesarean section does not reduce the rates of cerebral palsy (CP) for breech-presenting babies. Sadly, rates of CP among breech-presenting babies are significantly higher than for vertex babies, regardless of the mode of birth. This is because CP is most often the result of an antenatal insult (infection, growth restriction, etc.) rather than the birth itself. This has recently been confirmed in a systematic review and meta-analysis by another team. The excellent national databases kept in Norway enable these kinds of ‘big picture’ views on the outcomes for breech babies. Albrechtsen has also contributed to a significant amount of literature concerning patterns in the occurrence and recurrence of breech presentation. This includes research on the familial predisposition to term breech delivery, demonstrating that  factors influenced by genetic inheritance come from both mothers and fathers. Additionally, she has looked at the effect of having a breech baby on subsequent pregnancies, covering the recurrence of breech presentation (common), rates of subsequent pregnancies and interpregnancy intervals. Understanding that having a breech baby appears to affect a woman’s attitude toward future pregnancies means that we can attempt to provide more supportive counselling in current breech pregnancies. The extensive Norwegian birth registers also enabled her to look at outcomes among siblings, demonstrating that women with recurring breech presentation represent a lower risk of adverse perinatal outcome, whereas a current breech presentation with no previous history of breech presentation is at higher risk.

“Perhaps heterogeneity exists, implying that recurring breech presentation for some women represents a normal condition with no increase in perinatal mortality” (p 775).

This article adds to our understanding about how confounding factors both contribute to breech presentation and to the increase in poor outcomes among breech babies, regardless of mode of delivery:

“The evidence is compelling that fetuses presenting as breech are affected already to a higher extent before delivery because morphologic and functional damage is more common in these fetuses” (p 775).

Routine CS is likely to improve the rate at which this minority of more vulnerable babies survive being born; but it cannot undo what has already been done. This is supported by the long-term outcomes within the TBT. We should be approaching all options – ECV, VBB, and CS – as reasonable. (This is not to say that breech-presenting babies are likely to be abnormal. The vast majority of them are perfectly normal, assuming a breech position due to genetic or accidental factors. But it does explain why, despite a widespread policy of CS for breech, we still see increased adverse outcomes for babies delivered in a breech position. And why becoming comfortable with the fact that this will occur regardless might help us improve outcomes for more women, who can reasonably choose a VBB.) Albrechtsen’s work on Secular trends in peri- and neonatal mortality in breech presentation; Norway 1967-1994 gives us some insight into why breech presentation has been the subject of fierce and passionate position-taking. In 1967-1976, 9.2% of babies delivered in breech presentation after 24 weeks died; that is almost 1:10. This figure declined significantly throughout subsequent decades, even after the CS rate stabilised, probably due to improved obstetric and neonatal care. (Preterm breech babies are at greater risk than term breech babies, born after 37 weeks.) As someone who spends many hours answering women’s questions – such as, “Why is my baby breech?” – I am grateful for Albrechtsen’s work. Some believe the TBT was the last word on the topic of breech delivery. Others continue to believe that we have much more detail to understand in order to support women well through the complex and emotional journey of a breech pregnancy.

Shawn