Acta medica portuguesa · 2015
Prediction of Success in External Cephalic Version under Tocolysis: Still a Challenge.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Vaz de Macedo Carolina, Clode Nuno, Mendes da Graça Luís
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: External cephalic version is a procedure of fetal rotation to a cephalic presentation through manoeuvres applied to the maternal abdomen. There are several prognostic factors described in literature for external cephalic version success and prediction scores have been proposed, but their true implication in clinical practice is controversial. We aim to identify possible factors that could contribute to the success of an external cephalic version attempt in our population.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: We retrospectively examined 207 consecutive external cephalic version attempts under tocolysis conducted between January 1997 and July 2012. We consulted the department's database for the following variables: race, age, parity, maternal body mass index, gestational age, estimated fetal weight, breech category, placental location and amniotic fluid index. We performed descriptive and analytical statistics for each variable and binary logistic regression.
RESULTS: External cephalic version was successful in 46.9% of cases (97/207). None of the included variables was associated with the outcome of external cephalic version attempts after adjustment for confounding factors.
DISCUSSION: We present a success rate similar to what has been previously described in literature. However, in contrast to previous authors, we could not associate any of the analysed variables with success of the external cephalic version attempt. We believe this discrepancy is partly related to the type of statistical analysis performed.
CONCLUSIONS: Even though there are numerous prognostic factors identified for the success in external cephalic version, care must be taken when counselling and selecting patients for this procedure. The data obtained suggests that external cephalic version should continue being offered to all eligible patients regardless of prognostic factors for success.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: We retrospectively examined 207 consecutive external cephalic version attempts under tocolysis conducted between January 1997 and July 2012. We consulted the department's database for the following variables: race, age, parity, maternal body mass index, gestational age, estimated fetal weight, breech category, placental location and amniotic fluid index. We performed descriptive and analytical statistics for each variable and binary logistic regression.
RESULTS: External cephalic version was successful in 46.9% of cases (97/207). None of the included variables was associated with the outcome of external cephalic version attempts after adjustment for confounding factors.
DISCUSSION: We present a success rate similar to what has been previously described in literature. However, in contrast to previous authors, we could not associate any of the analysed variables with success of the external cephalic version attempt. We believe this discrepancy is partly related to the type of statistical analysis performed.
CONCLUSIONS: Even though there are numerous prognostic factors identified for the success in external cephalic version, care must be taken when counselling and selecting patients for this procedure. The data obtained suggests that external cephalic version should continue being offered to all eligible patients regardless of prognostic factors for success.