Category Archives: Research

Avoiding ‘us versus them’ when breech births go wrong

This week, BBC News Northern Ireland reported on a coroner’s inquest concerning a breech birth:

“Baby death inquest hears breech delivery method very unusual practice.”

11 April 2024, Kelly Bonner, BBC News NI

In this blog, I reflect on how this inquest has been reported. I do so with the understanding that not everything that is reported is 100% accurate. But once it is in print, we must deal with it.

I acknowledge the significant grief and devastation the parents of Troy Brady have experienced; they deserve justice and clarity. I also acknowledge the trauma Dr Sharma and colleagues have experienced, as their undoubtedly best intentions fell short of the desired outcome. I will offer some alternative ways we can learn from this tragic event, in the hope that our professions can prevent similar avoidable harm in the future.

Claim: Upright maternal positions are ‘very unusual practice’ for breech births.

The article’s headline caption is that, “The delivery position used by a doctor for a baby boy who was in a breech position was a ‘very unusual practice’, an expert [consultant obstetrician] has told an inquest.” The obstetric consultant expert who made this claim also testified that she has ‘delivered 30 breeched [sic] babies in her career and does not consider herself experienced in breech delivery.’ Another consultant obstetrician, from Scotland, further testified: “Breech delivery on all fours isn’t something we do in Scotland. It’s simply not something we’re experienced in. We would normally deliver the baby in lithotomy position.”

Unusual practice for whom?

These witnesses have made a classic type II error – when one assumes that something does not exist or is uncommon simply because one has not encountered it. One only needs to do a basic literature search to uncover the evidence for how ‘usual’ or ‘unusual’ upright maternal positions are for vaginal breech births.

In fact, almost all (if not all) UK primary research concerning how to improve the safety of vaginal breech birth is being done by people who regularly practice upright breech birth. Research about caesarean section is NOT research about how to improve the safety of actual vaginal breech births. Research about identifying breech babies or trying to turn them head-down in pregnancy (external cephalic version) is NOT research about how to improve the safety of actual vaginal breech births.

PubMed Search: ((vaginal breech birth) AND (safety)) AND (UK)

Breech Birth Network’s Physiological Breech Birth training is the only training that has been evaluated in NHS hospitals that has demonstrated a change in knowledge and behaviour following training (2017 & 2021). The training includes how to safety assist upright breech births. Upright maternal position is taught as a “tool and not a rule” in a clinician’s vaginal breech birth skillset. Nonetheless, among a sample of clinicians who have experience facilitating vaginal breech births in BOTH supine/lithotomy and upright positions, the outcomes demonstrate a clear preference for upright positions once clinicians have received this training, with good outcomes compared to those who have not.

In 2022, Deputy Director of Midwifery Emma Spillane published her case control study covering eight years of vaginal breech births in a London teaching hospital (2012 – 2020). Neither she nor I worked at this site during the study period. In this sample of 45 births, 43% occurred in upright maternal birthing positions, and 56% were facilitated by midwives.

The OptiBreech feasibility studies and pilot trial are the only prospective observational studies of vaginal breech births to be conducted in the UK since the Term Breech Trial was published in 2000. Over 70% of OptiBreech births occurred in upright positions, when the births were attended by clinicians who had appropriate training to support women to birth in the birthing position of their choice. In qualitative studies with women, they also reported more balanced counselling, detailing the risks and benefits of all options, from breech specialist midwives working in OptiBreech clinics. (This was another concern in the Brady case.)

Who is ‘we’? And who decides what ‘we do’ in Scotland?

Baby Elliott, born at Forth Valley Royal Hospital in Scotland.

While no research has reported maternal birth positions for vaginal breech births in Scotland, it is categorically wrong to say that it is ‘not done’ in Scotland, let alone in Northern Ireland. The OptiBreech team recently published a birth story from a woman very keen to share her experience, specifically to raise awareness of the need to ensure more maternity care providers in Scotland have training in upright breech birth.

Within the past two years, Breech Birth Network has been commissioned to deliver the Physiological Breech Birth Study Day in Kilmarnock, Glasgow and Dumfries. Within our training, we use videos provided by women who have given birth in upright positions in Scotland. Every time we do teach, we ask attendants about their prior experience. Upright breech birth experience is invariably reported in Scotland, as it is at all English, Welsh and Northern Irish hospitals where we teach. Multiple members of our teaching team are based in Scotland, where they practice – you guessed it! – upright breech birth.

From our training in Kilmarnock:

What was the most useful part of this training?

Excellent explanation of mechanisms of breech birth and the manoeuvres to assist if needed.
All content was excellent, including new videos not available on online course. But most useful part was tapping into [the instructor's] first hand experience, both of clinical VBB and of establishing breech service with shared expertise.

What is one thing you intend to change about your practice based on this training?

Knowing that breech babies need to be born quickly and not waiting hands off the breech if there isn't clear descent.

How would you like to see this training influence practice in your organisation?

We are already using some of content/resources in modified way to introduce physiological breech birth. I hope we can have formal in house study days and support to adopt the algorithm in our guideline in coming years.
Feedback from Breech Birth Network Physiological Breech Birth Study Day in Kilmarnock, 2023

It is true than many providers in Scotland, such as those that supported Sandy MacMillan’s birth, do not have formal training in upright breech birth. Despite clear demand from women for this option, upright breech-experienced clinicians who wish to introduce the fully-evaluated, evidence-based training available face resistance from decision-makers who keep repeating: “Breech delivery on all fours isn’t something we do in Scotland. It’s simply not something we’re experienced in. We would normally deliver the baby in lithotomy position.” And it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy

Upright breech-experienced providers who have been safely attending vaginal breech births over the past seven years have been writing to me over the past few days to ask for help in addressing the extraordinary resistance they are experiencing due to this sensationalised media, based on a statement made by a self-described non-breech-experienced obstetrician, about a birth that occurred in 2016. Let’s take a deep breath before a fear-driven reaction distracts from the very real issues raised in this case.

What does ‘slow and delayed’ mean?

Jane Brady told the inquest during her evidence that Troy was delivered up to his neck in the all-fours position and was “hanging there, just hanging there”.

Her husband John Brady described the labour as “shocking”.

“I was waiting for someone to step in and save the day. It seemed as if no-one knew what they were doing,” he said.

quoted in 11 April 2024, BBC News NI

The harrowing events described by Troy Brady’s parents are the most consequential issue in this case. We (Breech Birth Network and the OptiBreech Collaborative) have been raising awareness of the dangers of delay in vaginal breech births to the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists and the Royal College of Midwives for a few years now.

Impey L, Murphy D, Griffiths M, Penna L, on behalf of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. Management of Breech Presentation (Green-Top Guideline 20b). 2017

It is important to remember that this birth occurred in 2016. While many providers of vaginal breech education had been teaching upright breech methods by that point, the majority of teaching focused heavily on a ‘Hands Off the Breech’ approach. In the early 2000’s, upright maternal positioning was taught almost as a panacea. Based on the belief that it was safer to avoid touching the baby, proponents advocating putting the woman in an all fours position so that gravity could help the baby be born without the need for hands-on manoeuvres. As result, many people tried this, and discovered that in fact, hands-on manoeuvres are often needed.

The RCOG first introduced guidance on timings in the 2017 update of their guidance, based on professional opinion. Prior to this, the approach emphasised ‘Hands Off the Breech,’ but with no guidance on indications to intervene, how to intervene in upright births, or optimal time intervals.

Our mutual observation that reluctance to intervene was resulting in avoidable adverse outcomes prompted Dr Anke Reitter and I to undertake our first video study. This attempted to accurately describe, for the first time, the ‘normal’ parameters for vaginal breech births, based on evidence rather than professional opinion. During the process of conducting this study, I systematised the approach we were then teaching into the first Physiological Breech Birth Algorithm, focusing on our recommendation that the birth should be complete within 7 minutes of rumping (both buttocks and anus visible on the perineum), 5 minutes of the birth of the fetal pelvis, and/or 3 minutes of the birth of the umbilicus.

“In my reading of the case, delivery was slow and delayed,” she said.

“Manoeuvres were not deployed by Dr Sharma and that made me feel that he didn’t have an awful lot of experience in this type of birth.

“When things went wrong it was obvious that Dr Sharma hadn’t been trained on how to manoeuvre the baby and there was a delay.”

Dr Alyson Hunter, quoted in 11 April 2024, BBC News NI

We first taught using the Physiological Breech Birth Algorithm at a study day in Belfast, Northern Ireland, in October 2017. This was the first study day in the world to introduce this algorithmic approach. Yes, we also introduced upright birthing positions and what manoeuvres are effective when using these positions. But after 14 years of doing research in this area, my strong opinion is this: While upright birthing positions are often preferred by the women and clinicians who use them, the biggest impact on the safety of vaginal breech birth comes from improvements to our understanding of what constitutes ‘normal’ progress, especially the normal time frames of emergence.

This sensationalised journalism will potentially result in a backlash against all those who have been using and teaching physiological breech birth methods. The most tragic outcome if this occurs is that women like Sandy MacMillan will continue to request support for upright breech births, and well-intentioned clinicians like Dr Sharma will continue to support their reasonable request, but without access to high-quality training about how and when to intervene in these types of births. As a result, we will continue to have inquests that include testimony like that above. The solution to an adverse outcome based on lack of appropriate training in a widely used practice is NOT to restrict training and practice.

What about the placenta?

The paediatric pathologist and neonatologist expert in this inquest also described problems with the placenta that likely impacted this birth:

During the inquest hearing, experts told the court that Troy had a “smaller than usual” placenta and that it was not “operating as it should be”.

Dr Caroline Gannon, a paediatric and perinatal pathologist, said it is known that “placenta infection and placenta deficiency can cause brain damage”.

Consultant neonatologist Dr David Sweet told the inquest Troy’s reduced reserves meant he was “less able to deal with vaginal delivery”.

However, he said there was “no clue” there was a risk to Troy.

“No one could have known he had a deficient placenta,” he added.

“Having half a placenta is like having one lung instead of two – he’s going to get into difficulty quicker,” he said.

Baby death inquest hears breech delivery method very unusual practice, BBC News NI, 11 April 2024

I am absolutely in agreement with the neonatologist. Some breech babies are breech because there is an underlying problem, and unfortunately, we cannot always identify when this is the case. But it is MUCH more likely when a baby is premature, born at 33 weeks rather than about 40 weeks. In OptiBreech physiological breech birth practice, we teach that, exactly as the neonatologists describes, smaller babies are more likely to get into difficulty quicker. And therefore, attendants must be even more swift to assist the birth.

Again, the issue is not with the maternal position – all of us who practice upright breech birth regularly have attended multiple successful upright preterm breech births.

What is expertise, and who is an expert?

The obstetric consultant expert who made the headline claim also testified that she has ‘delivered 30 breeched [sic] babies in her career and does not consider herself experienced in breech delivery.’

My own credentials / expertise to comment are:

Search conducted Sunday, 14 April 2024. To make it easy, I’ve circled the links to my work. The other two links are work by close colleagues.
  • I am one of the most experienced vaginal breech birth attendants in the UK. I have attended well over 50 vaginal breech births (I stopped counting). I have also contributed to the safe care of at least double that number, because for many, an in-labour caesarean birth is the safest option when a deviation from normal occurs. Knowing how to identify this is part of the skill of an experienced vaginal breech birth attendant.
  • My experience includes management of complicated breech births (eg. needing to use hands-on manoeuvres to deliver the baby) where the woman is in an upright position, as well as those where the woman is in a supine position. To me personally, neither is ‘very unusual practice.’
  • I am the only clinician in the country who has led multi-centre studies of planned vaginal breech births. My OptiBreech work included 13 NHS sites in England and Wales, 199 planned vaginal breech births, and 96 actual vaginal breech births.
  • I teach vaginal breech birth skills personally to over 1000 experienced maternity care providers each year, through a training course developed out of research and thoroughly evaluated. I lead a team of similarly experienced clinicians who help teach this course, and it is constantly developing based on our frequent reflections and the research.
  • I lead an international community of practice. My visibility in this arena means that I frequently debrief clinicians and women who have experienced poor outcomes with vaginal breech births. While this is one of the saddest and most difficult aspects of my role as a public expert, it also enables me to identify patterns across a wide range of practice cultures. This in turn helps me to focus my research on the areas most likely to impact safety if we improve them.
  • My PhD was titled, “Competence and Expertise in Physiological Breech Birth,” giving me some confidence in my ability to identify this.
  • Finally, I continue to research the ‘problem’ of how to make vaginal breech birth as safe as possible from a variety of perspectives, using multiple scientific methods. If you search ‘vaginal breech birth’ on any research database, you will find my work among the top 10 primary research publications. If you search ‘upright breech birth’ on ANY search engine, it would be impossible to miss my work in this area.

But I am a midwife. I am rarely called upon to provide formal ‘expert witness’ nationally or even locally, in risk management activities. This is likely due to what Diehl and Dzubinski describe as ‘Role Incredulity.’ People expect consultant obstetricians to be experts in vaginal breech birth, even when they are giving testimony that they are not. Whereas, due to the rarity with which midwives are perceived as clinical experts in complex births, a midwife who is an actual expert in vaginal breech birth will frequently face doubts about her capacity. This is my daily lived experience.

What should we focus on?

In my expert opinion, focusing on the following information is most likely to impact the safety of future vaginal breech births, regardless of the maternal birthing position:

“In my reading of the case, delivery was slow and delayed,” she said.

“Manoeuvres were not deployed by Dr Sharma and that made me feel that he didn’t have an awful lot of experience in this type of birth.

“When things went wrong it was obvious that Dr Sharma hadn’t been trained on how to manoeuvre the baby and there was a delay.”

Dr Alyson Hunter, quoted in 11 April 2024, BBC News NI

Continuing to focus on the upright birthing position, with antagonism directed against those who support women’s choice to use this position, is a distraction from the real safety issue. That is, the continuing dogmatic, non-evidence-based belief that ‘hands off the breech’ until at least 5 minutes have passed from the birth of the pelvis (RCOG, 2017) will result in a ‘safer’ delivery. This is simply false, ignored by most experts, and dangerous when novices blindly follow it. But it continues to be taught, along with the promotion of lithotomy birthing positions, usually with much confidence and shroud-waving by people who have actually attended very few, if any, vaginal breech births.

Secondary analysis SPSS means table, 14 April 2024, of Spillane’s Optimal Time Intervals for Vaginal Breech Births dataset.

The table above was created from our archived dataset of Spillane’s Optimal Time Intervals for Vaginal Breech Births study. It demonstrates that in control cases (good outcomes), assistance is provided in all cases well before the 3 minutes from the umbilicus recommended in current RCOG guidance. There is less difference, and less ability to modify this difference, in the length of time taken to perform manoeuvres. Swifter intervention is a modifiable behavioural factor.

This is directly relevant to John Brady’s description of his baby being born up to the neck and then “hanging there, just hanging there.” Even an untrained parent can see that there is something very, very wrong with this approach. Please, listen to him!

For a cross-cultural comparison, the Danish national guideline has now eliminated the instruction to ‘let the baby hang’ after the birth of the arms, regardless of the position the mother is in. This is not helpful, as it does not result in head flexion. Only manual assistance can help flex the aftercoming head, and delaying this is potentially harmful.

While there is evidence to suggest swifter intervention results in better outcomes, especially when attendants are novices and less likely to perform manoeuvres confidently, this teaching continues to be attacked, disbelieved and dismissed in favour of ‘us versus them’-style debates about maternal birthing position. This is a hardship for those of us who are continually striving to improve the safety of vaginal breech birth and respect women’s right to give birth as they choose.

Meanwhile, babies are needlessly dying.

— Shawn

Secondary analysis SPSS means table, 14 April 2024, of Spillane’s Optimal Time Intervals for Vaginal Breech Births dataset. Compared to the differences between controls and cases (good and adverse outcomes), less obvious differences exist in time-to-intervention intervals between supine and upright births.

Breech-COS meeting: May 8, 2024

Avni Batish and Kate Stringer, photo by George Haroun

On May 8th, we will be holding an online meeting to establish a consensus on short-term outcomes in our Breech-COS study. We invite anyone with an interest to attend.

Topic: Breech core outcome consensus meeting

Time: May 8, 2024 01:00 PM London

Join the meeting with this ZOOM LINK.

Papers to inform the above events:

Walker S, Dasgupta T, Halliday A, Reitter A. Development of a core outcome set for effectiveness studies of breech birth at term (Breech-COS): A systematic review on variations in outcome reportingEur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2021;263:117-126. doi:10.1016/j.ejogrb.2021.06.021

Walker S, Dasgupta T, Shennan A, Sandall J, Bunce C, Roberts P. Development of a core outcome set for effectiveness studies of breech birth at term (Breech-COS)—an international multi-stakeholder Delphi study: study protocol. Trials. 2022;23(1):249. doi:10.1186/s13063-022-06136-9

How it began …

Shawn Walker is funded by a National Institute of Health and Care Research (NIHR) Advanced Fellowship (300582, OptiBreech).

How ‘evidence-based’ is your Algorithm?

Vaginal breech birth (VBB) is a controversial area of research, in an area of high obstetric litigation. Understandably, people are wary of introducing changes in practice that could expose them, mothers or babies to additional risks. Our research team responds frequently to questions and challenges about our approach, how it aligns with national guidance, and the evidence base.

Recently, a colleague became concerned after reading that the Health Services Investigation Board (HSIB) had presented evidence in Parliament in 2020 about the use of an algorithm to assist a baby’s birth.

The report did not indicate which algorithm was used in this instance, and there are many in circulation. Neither Breech Birth Network nor the OptiBreech Collaborative have ever produced an algorithm for use by maternity triage teams to support breech births at home, nor have we ever promoted the use of our algorithm for this purpose. We have not been informed by any sites in the south-east of England that have been using our algorithm that they have been instructed by the HSIB to stop using it.

How does the OptiBreech Algorithm align with national guidance?

The Physiological Breech Birth Algorithm (OptiBreech Algorithm) is designed to guide clinical decision-making during simulation training, to develop these skills for use in practice. The Vaginal Breech Birth training is delivered via the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (RCOG). The 2023 course was attended by 105 obstetricians and midwives from across the UK, and international visitors.

The description of manoeuvres in our algorithm is fully compliant with RCOG Management of Breech Presentation guidance, which states that, “If the operator has the skills of undertaking the manoeuvres with the mother in a forward position these should be performed without delay.”

In the RCOG guideline, all evidence relating to management of active second stage is based on ‘expert opinion.’ This guidance states that, “[I]ntervention to expediate breech birth is required if there is evidence of poor fetal condition or if there is a delay of more than 5 minutes from delivery of the buttocks to the head, or of more than 3 minutes from the umbilicus to the head.”

How does the OptiBreech Algorithm differ from national guidance?

Our Algorithm and OptiBreech guideline recommend that the birth should be complete within (including time for manoeuvres): 7 minutes from rumping (both buttocks and anus visible on the perineum), 5 minutes from the birth of the pelvis, and/or 3 minutes from the birth of the umbilicus. This is more conservative than the RCOG guideline and, in principle, less likely to contribute to delay in a baby’s birth – unless earlier intervention actually causes complications (see below).

The RCOG guidance was published in 2017 and is intended to be updated every three years. It has not since been updated, but that does not mean that the evidence base has not moved on.

What evidence is the OptiBreech Algorithm based on?

First version

The first version of the Physiological Breech Birth Algorithm was used in Breech Birth Network training in 2017. It was based on video evidence conducted with Dr Anke Reitter. This structured study of video evidence measured median and range interval times for a series of upright breech birth videos. We also recorded the observable mechanisms (position changes) of the breech baby as they journeyed out of the maternal pelvis, and how these related to whether attendants used interventions to facilitate the birth. From this data, we produced an algorithm, including indications that assistance is needed and which interventions were indicated.

Prior to this, training had been based on a combination of instructing attendants to remain “Hands off the breech,” or to perform a set of routine manoeuvres, each of which are only appropriate to supine positions. This was clearly causing confusion and delay.

Refinements

Midwife Emma Spillane then further tested the time intervals with a case-control design and found similar results. While head and arm entrapment only occurred once each, when interventions were used, attendants to ‘case’ births (neonatal admissions or death) waited almost twice as long to intervene as those at ‘control’ births (no neonatal admission).

How has the OptiBreech Algorithm been tested in practice?

Currently, the OptiBreech Algorithm guides vaginal breech birth management within all OptiBreech research, alongside a more detailed OptiBreech Practice Guideline. These materials are reviewed regularly within the OptiBreech Collaborative, based on reviews of their use in practice and our continually evolving evidence base. We follow a Community of Practice approach and host frequent webinars focused on developments in practice.

There are more outcome data associated with use of the OptiBreech Algorithm than any other breech algorithm we can identify. To date, we have evaluated the effects of training and service delivery based on the OptiBreech Algorithm in three prospective studies:

The training evaluation

In our 2016-2019 evaluation, obstetricians and midwives received training in ‘physiological breech birth’ based on the OptiBreech Algorithm. We compared clinical outcomes for births attended by someone who had completed the training with those not attended by someone who had completed the training. We prospectively recorded 0/21 (0%) severe neonatal outcomes when VBBs were attended by someone who had completed the OptiBreech training, compared to 5/69 (7.2%) where no clinicians present had completed the training.

The implementation evaluation

We evaluated how well thirteen National Health Service (NHS) hospitals were able to implement breech intrapartum teams and provide OptiBreech-trained professionals for VBBs, planned or unplanned. This study observed one neonatal SAE among 82 planned (1.2%) and 40 actual VBBs (2.5%). In the birth where the SAE occurred, the woman was positioned in a supine position, had spinal anaesthesia prior to the start of second stage, and Loveset’s and Mauriceau-Smellie-Veit (M-S-V) were used as instructed in the PROMPT flowchart.

Among VBBs, 34/39 (87.2%) were complete within 5 minutes of the birth of the pelvis. One was born very quickly, without an attendant, so the data is missing.

The prospective observational cohort (In Press)

Our prospective observational cohort study collects outcomes for women who receive OptiBreech collaborative care for a planned or unplanned VBB, currently across 10 NHS sites. Management of labour is based on the OptiBreech Algorithm and Practice Guideline

In our latest analysis of data received to 8 September 2023, the database records 97 planned and 42 actual VBBs. None of them involved a neonatal SAE. Two babies had an Apgar <7 at 5 minutes (2.1%). We have interval data available for 30 of these births, and 27 of them (90%) were completed within 5 minutes of the birth of the pelvis.

Total prospective VBBs

These studies include a total of 200 prospectively observed* and 103 actual OptiBreech VBBs, with one neonatal SAE. This corresponds to a rate of 0.5% for planned VBB and 1.0% for actual VBBs to date.

(* The training evaluation did not include planned VBBs that ended in caesarean birth. These rates could change as we accumulate further data.)

How does this compare to other vaginal breech birth research?

To measure neonatal severe adverse events (SAEs), we use a composite measure, that is made up of: neonatal mortality (death, neonatal admission to SCBU/NICU for >4 days, Apgar <4 at 5 minutes, HIE Grade 3, Intubation / ventilation >24 hours, parenteral or tube feeding >24 hours, seizures or convulsions > 24 hours, peripheral nerve / brachial plexus injury present at discharge, skull fracture, spinal cord injury). This measure is based on a similar composite used in the Term Breech Trial and PREMODA studies.

In the Term Breech Trial, the neonatal SAE rate for planned VBB was 52/1039 (5.0%) overall and 29/511 (5.7%) in countries with a low overall perinatal mortality rate, such as the UK.

In PREMODA, the neonatal SAE rate for planned VBB was 40/2502 (1.6%).

In the largest study of VBB in the UK this century, Pradhan et al reported a low Apgar (<7 at 5 minutes) rate of 52/882 (5.9%).

Does immediate assistance result in more complications?

Among the 103 actual VBBs we have evaluated, 88.4% were completed within five minutes of the birth of the pelvis, and the neonatal SAE rate was 1%. A rate of 88.4% under 5 minutes is NOT achievable without actively encouraging or assisting the birth. Our guidance is clearly not resulting in an increase in serious complications. In our next analysis, we will look at rates of assistance and minor complications.

Who are the OptiBreech Collaborative? And what is the basis for their claims of expertise?

The OptiBreech Collaborative consists of the Principal Investigators for our research at various sites across the UK, including breech specialist midwives and obstetricians. We all support planned (and unplanned), term, singleton VBBs regularly. Names are acknowledged in our recent publications. The Collaborative is led by Dr Shawn Walker, a consultant midwife and the chief investigator of the OptiBreech studies.

The RCOG guidance states, “Guidance for the case selection and management of vaginal breech birth should be developed in each department by the healthcare professionals who supervise such births.”

We are not even certain the authors of the RCOG guidance, who are eminent, experienced and well-respected obstetricians, are regularly supervising planned, term, singleton VBBs. We certainly know that a majority of consultant obstetricians in the UK are not regularly supervising planned, term, singleton VBBs. If women are to be believed, many professionals are actively discouraging planned VBB by providing only inaccurate and/or biased information.

The RCOG guidance points to ‘an article by Evans’ (not publicly available) to describe the technique and manoeuvres to be used for VBBs in an ‘all fours’ position. We absolutely credit Jane Evans and Mary Cronk with introducing VBB in an ‘all fours’ position to UK practice with the first ever training provided, and their training was our starting point. Mary Cronk (who attended a total of 25 VBBs in her career) introduced the phrase, “Hands off the breech.” This has been widely adopted by the RCOG and other guidelines. But neither Evans nor Cronk has ever shared any outcome data. The OptiBreech effort has transparently reported 200 prospectively observed VBBs.

While we eagerly began with Evans-Cronk methods, our own experience and research has simply taught us that we get better outcomes when we assist the birth sooner rather than later, using our physiology-based, responsive approach rather than a routine set of manoeuvres. That is what we practice, that is what we evaluate, and that is what we teach.

We never expected that we would end up recommending more active intervention and liberal use of episiotomy with any delay on the perineum (after other methods are used). But there is no point in doing research if you do not believe the results and allow it to guide your practice.

What is the evidence for other algorithms currently in use?

We cannot identify a single study that has compared outcomes for VBBs before and after training based on a different breech algorithm with actual clinical outcome data that improved, other than ours.

We have identified one study (Hardy et al 2020), which evaluated training based on the ‘appropriate manoeuvres,’ Lovesets and M-S-V. The pre-training low Apgar rate was 0/56 and post-training it was 7/80 (8.8%, p=0.041). Special care nursery admissions also increased. In our view, these methods should not continue to be taught unless someone can produce any evidence at all that teaching them improves clinical outcomes.

We would be happy to be corrected. Please do direct us to any available empirical evidence underpinning other breech training or algorithms currently in use across the UK or elsewhere.

— Shawn

Webinar 30 August 5PM: Testicular complications of vaginal breech birth

Join the webinar using this Zoom link: https://us02web.zoom.us/j/88170521832?pwd=U1RUSzhPNTJ3elVRSFRuL3c2bGszQT09

David Coggin-Carr is a UK+US dual-certified obstetrician, Maternal-Fetal Medicine subspecialist and early career physician-scientist at the University of Vermont (UVM). He practices full-spectrum MFM in Vermont and upstate New York and additionally serve as Associate Medical Director of the Birthing Center and Associate Director of Quality for Obstetrics at UVM Medical Center. In recent years he has developed a strong interest in physiological breech birth in response to the local community’s desire for greater autonomy around their birth choices amidst a near-total lack of trained/experienced providers in the region. Accordingly, he now regularly provides consultations and intrapartum support for planned vaginal breech birth.

Image: Book of Traceable Heraldic Art

All births have the potential for injury, whether this be facial markings from forceps delivery or lacerations from a caesarean birth. Vaginal breech birth has its own variations. This webinar will explore how vaginal breech birth affects neonatal genitals, both normal variations in appearance from being born bottom-first, to potential injuries.

We will also discuss what research on genital injuries should be done, and how these should be measured and reported in clinical trials. This discussion will inform the on-going Breech-COS (core outcome set) in the OptiBreech research programme.

We will discuss and consider the statements:

There should be no requirement to report genital injury as a separate category in ALL effectiveness studies of breech birth at term, although it may be reported in some. It should not be included in the Breech-COS composite measure of severe morbidity.

or

The incidence of significant genital injury, defined as one that is likely to have long-term, life-altering consequences, should be reported as a separate category in ALL effectiveness studies of breech birth at term. Significant genital injury should be included in the Breech-COS composite measure of severe neonatal morbidity associated with vaginal breech birth.

For all sites that have expressed an interest in our planned stepped wedge trial of OptiBreech collaborative care: please include your name and hospital in the chat, and we will award one site selection point for every site that participates.

References

Kekki, M., Koukkula, T., Salonen, A., Gissler, M., Laivuori, H., Huttunen, T.T., Tihtonen, K., 2022. Birth injury in breech delivery: a nationwide population-based cohort study in Finland. Arch. Gynecol. Obstet. https://doi.org/10.1007/S00404-022-06772-1

Habek, D., 2023. Traumatic testicular avulsion during amniotomy in vaginal breech delivery. Eur. J. Obstet. Gynecol. Reprod. Biol. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejogrb.2022.12.003

Why use more retrospective data and modelling to support universal third trimester scanning when prospective data suggests the implementation of specialist vaginal breech birth teams is equally likely to impact outcomes? — The OptiBreech Project

Investing in staff and their skill development will achieve the same, if not better, results and should be the priority.

This a response to a recently published report in PLOS Medicine suggesting that implementation of universal third trimester ultrasound scanning in pregnancy improves outcomes for babies and mothers.

Why use more retrospective data and modelling to support universal third trimester scanning when prospective data suggests the implementation of specialist vaginal breech birth teams is equally likely to impact outcomes? — The OptiBreech Project

OptiBreech cluster trial: Call for expressions of interest — The OptiBreech Project

Expressions of interest are invited for sites to collaborate on an HTA funding bid for a stepped wedge cluster trial of OptiBreech care. We are aiming to submit a funding proposal in August 2023 and if successful, plan to begin work on the trial in summer 2024. We hope to include sites from Scotland, Wales, […] OptiBreech cluster trial: Call for expressions of interest — The OptiBreech Project

Breech-first twins

Women with breech presentation at term should now be offered the choice of a vaginal or caesarean birth, benefits and risks of both for her individually, and the implications for future pregnancies (RCOG, 2017). Vaginal breech birth and vaginal twin birth are both made safer by the attendance of specialist, skilled practitioners (Su et al, 2003; Barrett et al, 2013). When it comes to the combination of vaginal breech and twin births, there remains a lack of professional consensus on the safety of vaginal birth compared to planned caesarean. This is particularly true of breech presenting twins, where the first twin is breech at term, compared to twins in a vertex-breech order, which has been subject to more research.

RCOG breech guidance (2017) recommends planned caesarean in cases where the first twin is breech, but not in the case of twins where the second twin is breech. This recommendation is influenced by the Hogle et al paper (2003), which found lower Apgar scores at five minutes for breech-first twins born vaginally. However, the paper did not find any other significant negative outcomes for these babies, such as neonatal unit admissions, need for resuscitation or increased mortality. Women considering a vaginal breech birth are now routinely informed that following a vaginal breech birth, babies are more likely to have lower Apgar scores, but that this does not translate into severe illness or long-term health consequences. Therefore, breech lead twins behave similarly to singleton breech babies who are born vaginally, meaning they should also be suitable for vaginal birth depending on maternal choice.

As with many areas of breech, research studies are mostly retrospective and often reporting on small numbers. Nonetheless, evidence dating from 1998-2022 suggests no significant difference in neonatal morbidity or mortality for lead breech twins born vaginally or by caesarean, or any difference in outcomes for breech lead twins compared to cephalic lead twins (Grisaru et al, 2000). In 2020, Korb et al published their secondary analysis of the JUMODA twin study, which concluded that planned vaginal birth with a breech twin first is not associated with higher neonatal mortality or morbidity for either twin. In their systematic review, Steins Bisschop et al (2012) found no difference in neonatal outcomes between vaginal or caesarean birth for breech first or second twin. Several authors stress the value of practitioners and centres having exposure to and skills in facilitating vaginal breech and vaginal twin birth.

Where caesarean is recommended (Nassar et al, 2005; Hogle et al, 2003), these papers appear to generalize the singleton findings of the Term Breach Trial (Hannah et al, 2000), which have since been called into question. Bourtembourg et al (2012) recommend caesarean for nulliparous clients, but this is based on likelihood of vaginal birth, rather than negative impact on mother or baby. The RCOG breech guideline (2017) mentions the risk of interlocking when the first twin is breech, but the only available evidence on this is from Cohen et al in 1965; none of the studies analysed in this review cited interlocking of twins to be a significant labour complication.

The impact on maternal health was not included in many of these studies, but where this was considered, findings suggest either no difference to maternal morbidity (Bats et al, 2006); a greater incidence of postpartum haemorrhage following planned caesarean (Ghesquière, 2022); or an increased incidence of deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism (Sentilhes, 2007) following planned caesarean. These findings should be incorporated into consultations on the benefits and risks of modes of birth.

According to the evidence reviewed, planning a vaginal birth with breech-presenting twins is a reasonable choice and should be approached in a similar way to singleton breech birth. However, the birth must be facilitated in a unit with staff skilled and experienced in vaginal breech and vaginal twin birth.

Are there any additional considerations?

Estimated fetal weight should be considered. Blickstein et al (2000) found benefits from planned caesarean in cases when the breech twin weighed less than 1500g. As is often the case in breech, babies weighing over 3800g were recommended for caesarean section in many studies, which means they are omitted from the current evidence base.

Jacana Bresson

Reflections on International Day of the Midwife, 2022

Yesterday was International Day of the Midwife. I saw but didn’t participate in the social media celebrations. Not because I wasn’t feeling it, but because my clinical academic midwife life was full to the brim. This included:

This is the dress I made for Professor Jim Thornton’s retirement party, which I couldn’t attend due to another breech birth!
  • Supporting a planned OptiBreech vaginal breech birth through the night and until the birth occurred in the morning;
  • Conducting two interviews for the Wellcome Biomedical Vacation Scholarship at 9.30 and 11.00 — amazing candidates this year!;
  • Receiving the news that the OptiBreech team has been awarded a £15k ESRC Impact Acceleration Grant;
  • Receiving and responding to the news that both my funder and my employer have received complaints that the OptiBreech Project is ‘promoting vaginal breech birth;’
  • Being a keynote speaker in the Virtual International Day of the Midwife 2022 conference at 2 pm;
  • Allowing my little dog to take me for a walk to support my physical and mental health;
  • Taking a massive nap; and
  • Spending a wild evening in on my sofa, knitting a jumper for my son Waldo the Stonemason and listening to a Miss Marple audio book.

If you feel exhausted just reading that list, you’re as human as me!

A team is not a group of people that work together. A team is a group of people that trust each other.

– Simon Sinek, shared by Céline, an attendee at my VIDM presentation

OptiBreech

This feasibility study is undoubtedly the most challenging and most rewarding thing I have ever done in my life. Being a research leader means being a change leader, and change is never easy. The OptiBreech Project is proposing a paradigm change in the way we support vaginal breech birth. This means a change from promoting caesarean section (CS) to supporting each individual women’s choice of mode of birth, in line with NICE Guidance. And it means a change from using unreliable ‘selection criteria,’ which are also inconsistent with the concept of individual choice, to relying on specialist expertise to respond to unfolding and infinitely unique circumstances.

When I sit down to eat some dark chocolate and peanut butter because I’ve worked my butt off today …

Being a breech specialist is not easy. In addition to a lot of time spent on-call, it’s not like working in a low-risk midwifery setting, where you can anticipate 90% of women will have the normal birth that they want. Many women are heart-broken when they find out their baby is breech. We can support them to plan an elective CS, and some women are happy about this, but many are very disappointed, even when they feel this is the best option for them and their baby. For those who want to plan a vaginal birth, but only if the baby is head-down, baby turning (ECV, external cephalic version) is only successful up to 50% of the time. We are still there for women when it does not work.

For those who want to plan a vaginal breech birth, the barriers sometimes seem impossible. It’s not uncommon for women to make an informed decision to plan a physiological breech birth (PBB) and return to clinic in tears because of the way someone has spoken to them, be that another health care professional, a friend or family member, or an unkind stranger on social media with opinions about the wisdom of their choice. The criticism, judgement and stigma can feel very heavy at such a vulnerable time. Our interviews with women on the study indicate they have felt supported to change their minds and plan an elective CS in these circumstances. Of course we can and do facilitate women changing their minds, but we can’t take away the hurt women feel when they wished for more support to make a different choice.

Birthing people who stick with their choice to birth vaginally despite such ubiquitous doubt frequently want reassurance that everything will be okay. Of course, we can never guarantee a perfect outcome. We can only guarantee that we are doing our best to increase the chances we will get professionals with enhanced training and experience to their birth. We believe this will improve outcomes for these births (that is the premise of the research), but we will not know until many OptiBreech births have occurred. And we all have to be prepared for a higher need for intrapartum CS to achieve a safe outcome for breech babies, even when trying for a vaginal birth.

Those of us supporting women who choose physiological breech births face similar criticism and judgement on a regular basis. Sometimes the lack of respect and unkindness feels overwhelming, and it is tempting to succumb to despair. I find it helps to remember that behaviour like this comes from a place of fear, a belief that doing things differently could have disastrous outcomes. Nobody wants this, and nobody wants to be responsible for it. In difficult times, I lean into the support I feel from many wonderful midwifery and obstetric colleagues, who help bring me back to a place of compassionate understanding. Only by opening to understanding each other can we move towards trust and safety — physical, emotional and spiritual safety in each others’ hands.

Listening to my ‘Joy and Love’ playlist helps too. Here’s a mini playlist of my favourite Resistance Revival Chorus songs, for anyone who needs them today.

Continuous cyclic pushing: a non-invasive approach to optimising descent in vaginal breech births — The OptiBreech Project

Shawn Walker, RM PhD, King’s College London and Chelsea and Westminster Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, West Middlesex Hospital Sabrina Das, MB ChB, MRCOG, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust, Queen Charlottes & Chelsea Hospital Emma Spillane, RM MSc, Kingston Hospital NHS Foundation Trust Amy Meadowcroft, RM, Northern Care Alliance NHS Foundation Trust Background In the […]Continuous cyclic pushing: a non-invasive approach to optimising descent in vaginal breech births — The OptiBreech Project