Sara Ooi
Liverpool Hospital


Title: Reproductive outcomes in women after Caesarean section for breech presentation: The experience of a regional Australian centre
S. Craig1, S. Ooi2
1 Albury-Wodonga Health, Wodonga, Australia
2 Liverpool Hospital, Sydney, Australia

Aims: To retrospectively identify all women having a Caesarean section (CS) for a breech presentation and assess mode of delivery and maternal recollections of delivery options in the next pregnancy with a cephalic presentation.

Methods: This study identified every woman who had a CS for a breech presentation after 34 weeks, between 1998 and 2012, and then had a subsequent pregnancy by 2014. A questionnaire was sent to each woman inquiring about the deliveries, recollections of delivery options given, and maternal desires for mode of delivery after the index pregnancy.

Results: A total of 427 women had a CS for a breech, and of these 183 had further pregnancies with a cephalic presentation at term, thus meting our study criteria. 112 (61%) were delivered by ERCS while 71 (39%) attempted a VBAC.  The VBAC success rate was 87% overall. There was no difference in birth weight between the ERCS and VBAC groups. 38% of women wanted a VBAC but were delivered by ERCS.  58% of women who were delivered by ERCS believed that this was a safer option than VBAC.

Conclusion: Women who have had one CS for a breech are often excellent VBAC candidates. Many women prefer delivery by ERCS due to concerns over safety, whilst others interested in VBAC were not offered it, perhaps highlighting a need for improvement in the delivery planning and counselling process.


1.     Hehir MP.  J Epidemiol Comm Health 2015;0;1-3.

2.     Walker SP, McCarthy EA, Ugoni A, Lee A, Lim S, Permezel M.  Cesarean delivery or vaginal birth: A survey of patient and clinician thresholds. Obstet Gynecol 2007;109:67-72.

3.     Lee YY, Roberts CL, Patterson JA, Simpson JM, Nicholl MC, Morris JM et al. Unexplained variation in hospital caesarean section rates. MJA 2013;199:348-353.

4.     Metz, Stoddard How do good candidates for trial of labor after caesarean (TOLAC) who undergo repeat caesarean differ from those who choose TOLAC? Am J Obstet Gynecol 2013;208:458e1-6.

5.     Shipp TD, Zelop CM, Repke JT, Cohen A, Caughey AB, Lieberman E. Labor after previous caesarean: Influence of prior indication and parity. Obstet Gynecol 2000;95:913-6.

6.     Hannah ME, Hannah WJ, Hewson SA, Hodnett ED, Saigal S, Willan AR. Planned caesarean section versus planned vaginal birth for breech presentation at term: a randomised multicentre trial. Lancet 2000;356:1375-83.

7.     McDorman MF, Declerq E, Menacker F.  Recent trends and patterns in caesarean and vaginal birth after caesarean (VBAC) deliveries in the United States. Clin Perinatol 2011;38:179-92.

8.     McMahon MJ, Luther ER, Bowes WA, Olshan AF. Comparison of a trial of labor with an elective second caesarean section. NEJM 1996;335:689-95.

9.     Taylor LK, Simpson JM, Roberts CL, Olive EC, Henderson-Smart DJ. Risk of complications in a second pregnancy following caesarean section in the first pregnancy: a population-based study. MJA 2005;183:515-19.

10. Landon MB, Hauth JC, Leveno KJ, Spong CY, Leindecker S, Varner MW et al. Maternal and perinatal outcomes associated with a trial of labor after prior caesarean delivery. NEJM 2004;351:2581-9.

11. Brill Y, Windrim R. Vaginal birth after caesarean section: review of antenatal predictors of success. J Obstet Gynaecol Can 2003;25(4):275-86.

12. Grobman WA, Lai Y, Landon MB, Spong CY, Leveno KJ, Rouse DJ et al. Development of as nomogram for prediction of vaginal birth after caesarean delivery. Obstet Gynecol 2007;109:806-12.

13. Grobman WA, Lai Y, Landon MB, Spong CY, Leveno KJ, Rouse DJ et al. Can a prediction model for vaginal birth after caesarean also predict the probability of morbidity related to a trial of labour? Am J Obstet Gynecol 2009;200:56.e1-56.e6.

14. Chaillet N, Bujold E, Dube E, Grobman WA. Validation of a prediction model for predicting the probability of morbidity related to a trial of labour in Quebec. J Obstet Gynaecol Can 2012;34(9):820-825.

15. Silver RM, Landon MB, Rouse DJ, Leveno KJ, Spong CY, Thom EA, et al. Maternal morbidity associated with multiple repeat caesarean deliveries. Obstet Gynecol 2006;107:1226-32.

16. Pare E, Quinones JN, Macones GA. Vaginal birth after caesarean section versus elective repeat caesarean section: assessment of maternal downstream health outcomes. BJOG 2006;113:75-85.

17. Gilbert SA, Grobman WA, Landon MB, Varner MW, Wapner RJ, Sorokin Y, et al. Lifetime Cost-effectiveness of trial of labor after caesarean in the United States. Value in Health 2013;16:953-64.

18. Emmett CL, Shaw ARG, Montgomery AA, Murphy DJ. Women’s experience of decision making about mode of delivery after a previous caesarean section: the role of health professionals and information about health risks. BJOG 2006;113:1438-45.

19. Dodd J, Pearce E, Crowther C. Women’s experiences and preferences following caesarean birth. ANZJOG 2004;44:521-24.

20. Asch DA,  Jedrziewski MK, Christakis NA. Response rates to mail surveys published in medical journals. J Clin Epidemiol 1997;50;10:1129-1136.

21. Kwee A, Bots ML, Visser GH, Bruinse HW. Obstetric management and outcome of pregnancy in women with a history of caesarean section in the Netherlands. Eur J Obst Gynecol Reprod Biol 2007;132(2):171-6.