Management of labor after external cephalic version

Gabriel Levin*, Amihai Rottenstreich, Raanan Meyer, Yishay Weill, Raphael N. Pollack

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review


Current literature evaluating the role of induction of labor (IOL) following successful external cephalic version (ECV) attempt as compared to expectant management is limited. We aim to assess the risk of cesarean delivery in those undergoing immediate IOL following successful ECV as compared to those who were expectantly managed. A retrospective cohort study of successful external cephalic versions. The study group included 57 women that were induced after procedure in the lack of maternal or fetal indications for induction of labor. These women were compared to 341 expectantly managed women. Maternal and fetal characteristics and outcomes were compared. Gestation age at delivery was higher among the expectant management group (401/7 vs. 384/7, median, p=0.002) as compared to the induction group. Cesarean delivery rates were similar between both groups (28 [8.2%] vs. 3 [5.3%], p=0.44). In a multivariate logistic regression analysis, only nulliparity was significantly associated with cesarean delivery (adjusted odds ratio 3.42, confidence interval 1.61-7.24, p=0.001). No correlation was found between the version-to-delivery interval and the risk for cesarean delivery. Induction of labor after successful ECV was not shown to influence cesarean delivery rates. As immediate IOL may result in higher rate of early-term deliveries, and in light of the lack of clinical benefit, we advocate against elective IOL following successful ECV.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)30-35
Number of pages6
JournalJournal of Perinatal Medicine
Issue number1
StatePublished - 2020


  • breech
  • expectant management
  • external cephalic version
  • induction of labor
  • nulliparity


Dive into the research topics of 'Management of labor after external cephalic version'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this