image                                                                                               image

image

Breech Delivery in Ahmadu Bello University Teaching Hospital, Zaria: 

A Six-Year Retrospective Review.

 

Shafaatu I. Sada, Rabi’at M. Aliyu, Hauwa S. Umar, Abdullahi J. Randawa, 

Polite I. Onwuhafua

 

Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Ahmadu Bello University/Teaching Hospital, 

Zaria, Kaduna, Nigeria.

 

ABSTRACT

Background: Breech delivery is associated with maternal and perinatal morbidity and mortality which may be caused by preterm delivery, congenital abnormalities, and birth asphyxia. The other factors which may influence perinatal outcome include quality of antenatal care, route of delivery and the skill of the accoucheur. Aim: To determine the prevalence, risk factors for breech presentation, and outcome of breech deliveries. Methodology: This was a cross-sectional retrospective study carried out in our hospital from 1st January 2014 to 31st December 2019. The case folders of women who had breech deliveries during the period of review were retrieved. Information on reproductive profile, maternal and perinatal outcomes was extracted and analyzed. The data obtained were analyzed using the statistical package for social sciences (SPSS) statistical software version 23. The chi-square test was used to test for associations and P <0.05 was set as the level of significance. Results: The prevalence rate for breech delivery was 11.9%. The commonest identified risk factor was multiple gestation, and no risk factor was identified in nearly half of the cases (47.9%). Stillbirth occurred in 16.3%. Sex, birth weight, and route of delivery were associated with stillbirth (p<0.05). Low birth weight and male sex doubled the odds of being stillbirth and vaginal delivery quadrupled the odds (OR=2.02, CI 1.00-4.04; OR=2.02, CI 2.02-4.00 and OR=4.67, CI 2.26-9.64 respectively). Babies delivered vaginally were more likely to be asphyxiated (OR=1.5, CI 0.81-2.77). Conclusion: The prevalence of breech delivery was high with an associated increased risk of birth asphyxia in babies delivered via the vaginal route.

 

Keywords: Breech Delivery, Perinatal Outcome, Prevalence, Zaria

 

Corresponding Author: 

 

Dr.  Shafaatu Ismail Sada

Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, 

Ahmadu Bello University Teaching Hospital, Zaria, Kaduna, Nigeria.

+2348057549730

shafasada@gmail.com

 

INTRODUCTION

Breech presentation is when the foetal buttocks occupy the lower uterine pole. Various prevalences of breech presentation at term have been reported globally ranging from 1.4-4%.1Breech presentation may be idiopathic and may occur due to some factors such as congenital uterine anomalies, uterine fibroids, placenta previa, multiple pregnancies, oligohydramnios, polyhydramnios, contracted pelvis, high parity, fetal neuromuscular condition, and fetal congenital anomalies.2 In a study in southwestern Nigeria they found that the majority of breech presentations did not have any anatomical cause.3

Breech delivery is associated with high perinatal morbidity and mortality due to multiple factors such as prematurity, mode of delivery, lethal foetal anomalies, birth asphyxia, and birth trauma.Mode of delivery in breech presentation continues to pose a challenge to obstetricians because of the perinatal outcome vis-à-vis APGAR scores and acid-base status of babies delivered in the breech. It was found that breech babies delivered vaginally had lower pH than those delivered abdominally but the same lower pH was also found in babies delivered vaginally with vertex presentation. Therefore, the lower pH was because of the mode of delivery and not due to the presentation.5

Competence in the skill of assisted vaginal breech delivery cannot be over-emphasized as assisted vaginal breech delivery continues to be an option of management in developing countries because many women have an aversion to caesarean section, with many women not accessing antenatal care and some of them presenting in labour with breech presentation.

This study aimed to determine the prevalence, risk factors for breech presentation, and perinatal outcome of breech deliveries in our hospital.

METHODOLOGY

This was a cross-sectional retrospective study carried out in our hospital from January 1st, 2014, to December 31st, 2019. The case folders of women who had breech deliveries during the period of review were retrieved. Information on socio-demographic variables which included reproductive profile, mode of delivery, and perinatal outcome were extracted. The data obtained were analyzed using the statistical package for social sciences (SPSS) statistical software version 23. Descriptive statistics were used for categorical variables. The chi-square test was used to test for associations and P <0.05 was set as the level of significance.

RESULTS

During the period under review, there were 3523 deliveries of which 421 were breech deliveries, averaging 11.9%. Two hundred and fifty-seven case files were retrieved and analyzed giving a retrieval rate of 61%. The mean age and standard deviation (SD) of the parturients was 29.3 ± 6.6 years. Their parity ranged from 0–13 with a median parity of 3. Only 28% of breech deliveries occurred in grand multiparous women. The majority (73.9%) had booked pregnancies. The mean gestational age at delivery was 35 weeks. See Table 1.

The commonest risk factor for breech presentation identified was multifetal pregnancy (39.7%) and the least was contracted pelvis (0.8%). Nearly half of the parturients had no recognized risk factor for breech presentation as seen in Figure 1.

Over half (59.1%) of the parturients were delivered by caesarean section. The majority, (83.7%) were live births and 55.3% were females. The mean birth weight was 2.4 ± 0.84kg. Intrapartum foetal 

 

Table 1: Age and Reproductive Profile of Parturients

 

image

 

 

image

Figure 1: Risk factor for breech presentation

 

morbidity was seen in only 0.8% of all babies delivered. See Table 2.

Parity did not affect the risk of stillbirth. The mode of delivery was associated with stillbirth (p = <0.001) and the odds of stillbirth increased by almost five-fold in babies delivered vaginally. Babies that weighed < 2.5kg had double odds of being still stillbirths. The odds of stillbirth were also nearly doubled in male babies compared to female babies. See Table 3. The risk of an Apgar score of <7 at the fifth minute was increased by 50% in babies delivered vaginally but this was not significant as seen in Table 4.

 

Table 2: Breech Delivery Outcome

 

image

 

 Table 3: Predictors of Stillbirth in Breech Deliveries

 

image

 

Table 4: Effect of Mode of Delivery on Apgar Score At 5th Minute

image

 

 

DISCUSSION 

This study analyzed the outcome of breech pregnancies both in singleton and multiple breech pregnancies from a tertiary institution in a low-income country. Caesarean delivery accounted for more than half the mode of delivery with vaginal delivery significantly associated with stillbirths and this is consistent with the findings of Obuna et al.1.

The prevalence of breech delivery during the study period was 11.9% which is higher than the general 3-4% at term traditionally reported. 6 This is similarly higher than prevalence rates of 1.7-4.5% from other parts of Nigeria4,7 3.4% from Ethiopia, 4.2% from India10, and 4.6% in England.11 This high prevalence could be explained by the fact that both singleton and twin gestation with term or preterm breech deliveries were included in this study.  The prevalence of breech was reported to be higher at less than 36 weeks gestational age, with 7% at 32 weeks, 25% at 28 weeks or less, and 3-4% at term.The higher prevalence we found could be due to our study's mean gestational age of 35 weeks. 

The mean age of the parturients was like the mean age reported in two southeastern Nigerian studies 1,13 but contrasts with reports from the Indian study that reported a mean age of 23.35 ± 3.6 years.14 Majority of the parturients in this study were multiparous, which was similarly reported by Gaikwad.14 This is likely because multiparity is associated with abdominal laxity that tends to favourmalpresentation. However, this differs from a report by Mandal in India that found breech delivery to be commoner in the nulliparous, likely explained by the fact that most of the women they studied were younger with a mean age of 22 years.15

Most of the deliveries were by caesarean section, similar to the delivery mode reported from Nigeria and Ethiopia.4,12,16,17.However, the commonest mode of delivery was by the vaginal route from Tunau in another part of Nigeria7, and Prabhoo from India.10The high Caesarean rate in this study could be explained by the fact that 40% of the patients were twin gestations with additional (30-40%) increased risk for emergency caesarean section even with pre-planned vaginal delivery.18 According to evidence-based practice, planned caesarean section leads to a small reduction in perinatal mortality compared with planned vaginal breech delivery.19 This coupled with fading competence in conducting an assisted vaginal breech delivery may have led to many obstetricians opting to offer caesarean section for breech presentation in a cohort that may have likely benefited from an assisted vaginal breech delivery. Our study revealed a significantly increased risk for stillbirth in vaginal breech deliveries compared to caesarean breech deliveries, which was like the findings by other researchers.1,9,10,13,15.

Birth asphyxia (Apgar < 7 at 5th minute) was significantly associated with vaginal breech deliveries, which was similarly reported by Obuna1and other authors 7,10,13,14,20. This can be explained by the lack of quality intrapartum care and lack of skills in conducting assisted vaginal delivery by accoucheurs in unbooked women who do not have a planned mode of delivery. 

CONCLUSION

The prevalence of breech delivery was high with an associated increased risk of birth asphyxia in babies delivered via the vaginal route.

 

Source(s) of support: None

 

Acknowledgement: We acknowledge and thank Mr Mukhtar Abdulhameed of the Department of Statistics, Ahmadu Bello University, Zaria for helping with the data analysis.

 

Presentation at a meeting

The manuscript has not been presented at any meeting.

 

Conflicting Interest (If present, give more details): None.

REFERENCES

  1.  Obuna JA, Ugboma HA, Agwu UM, Ejikeme BN. The Prevalence and Outcome of Singleton Breech Delivery in Abakaliki South-East Nigeria. J Med Sci Clin Res 2014; 2:1011-22
  2.  Kenny LC. Antenatal obstetric complications. In Kenny LC, Myers JE, editors. Obstetrics by ten teachers. 20th ed. CRC Press. 2017.169-202
  3. Adeyemi AS, Adekanle DA, Afolabi AF, Fadero FF. Outcome of breech deliveries at a tertiary health institution in southwestern Nigeria. Niger Hosp Pract 2011; 7:3-7
  4. Takai IU, Kwayabura AS, Bukar M, Idrissa A, Obed JY. A 5-year retrospective review of singleton term breech deliveries seen at a tertiary hospital in northern Nigeria. Arch Int Surg 2016; 6:7-11
  5. Glezerman M. Planned vaginal breech delivery: Status and the need to reconsider. Expert review of Obst and Gynae 2012; 7:2159-166
  6.  Gray CJ, Shanahan MM. Breech Presentation. In: StatPearls [Internet]. Treasure Island (FL): StatPearls Publishing; 2020 Jan-. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK448063/ Accessed on 24/09/2020.
  7. Tunau K, Ahmed Y. Breech deliveries in Usmanu Danfodiyo University Teaching Hospital Sokoto, Northwestern Nigeria: A 10-year review: Sahel Med J 2013;16(2):52-5 
  8. Ojiyi EE, Dike EI, Okeudo C, Anolue FC, Uzoma O, Uzoma MJ, et al. Outcome of singleton term breech deliveries at a university teaching hospital in Eastern Nigeria. Webmed Cent Obstet Gynaecol 2011;2: WMC002543
  9. Tilahun T, Mengistie H, Hiko D. Prevalence and Perinatal Outcome of Singleton Term Breech Delivery in Mizan Aman General
    Hospital, Southwest, Ethiopia; A Three-Year Retrospective Hospital based Study. J Women's Health Care 2016; 5: 319.
  10. Prabhoo S, Gadam M. Perinatal outcomes of vaginal and abdominal breech delivery - a comparative study. International Journal of Contemporary Medical Research
    2017;4(4):892-6
  11. Wastlund D, Moraitis AA, Dacey A, Sovio U, Wilson ECF, Smith GCS. Screening for breech presentation using universal late-pregnancy ultrasonography: A prospective cohort study and cost-effectiveness analysis. PLoS Med 2019; 16(4): e1002778. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1002778
  12. Assefa, F., Girma, W., Woldie, M. et al. Birth outcomes of singleton term breech deliveries in Jimma University Medical Center, Southwest Ethiopia. BMC Res Notes 12, 428 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13104-019-4442-6
  13. Igwegbe AO, Monago EN, Ugboaja JO. Caesarean versus vaginal delivery for term breech presentation: a comparative analysis. Afr J Biomed Res 2010; 13:15-8. 
  14. Gaikwad S, Rokade R, Banerjee G. A study of maternal and perinatal outcome of breech presentation in vaginal deliveries in a university hospital. MedPulse –International Medical Journal 2014;1(6):252-8 
  15. Mandal A, Haldar D, Ray N, et al. Outcome of term breech presentation in a peripheral tertiary care center of West Bengal, India. J. Evolution Med. Dent. Sci. 2018;7(31):3476-80, DOI: 10.14260/jemds/2018/783 
  16. Ahmed ZD, Usman H, Adamou N, Galadanci HS. Outcome of breech deliveries in Aminu   Kano Teaching Hospital, Kano State, Nigeria: A 2-year study Pyramid Journal of Medicine 2018; 1(7): 11- 4
  17. Shittu SA, Fasubaa OB, Dare FO, Ogunniyi OS. Five-year review of breech presentation at Ile-Ife, Nigeria. Trop J Obstet Gynaecol 2001; 18:36
  18. Hofmeyr GJ, Barrett JF, Crowther CA. Planned caesarean section for women with a twin pregnancy. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews U2015, Issue12. Art. No.: CD006553.DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD006553.pub3
  19. Impey LWM, Murphy DJ, Griffiths M, Penna LK on behalf of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. Management of Breech Presentation. BJOG 2017; DOI: 10.1111/1471-0528.14465
  20. Pradeep MR, Shivanna L. Route of delivery for term breech presentation; vaginal versus caesarean section; comparative analysis. IOSR J Dent Med Sci (IOSR-JDMS) 2014; 13:1-4