Beta We are building this new website to better deliver information. Learn more about this site.
Pregnancy Care Guidelines

61 Fetal presentation

Identifying fetal presentation and discussing management options with women who have a malpresentation late in pregnancy enables informed planning for the birth.

61.1 Background

Fetal presentation refers to the part of the baby that is overlying the maternal pelvis. Fetal lie refers to the relationship between the longitudinal axis of the baby with respect to the longitudinal axis of the mother (longitudinal lie, transverse lie, oblique lie).

Most babies present with the crown of the head at the cervix (vertex presentation). Less optimal situations are when the presenting part is the face or brow; the buttocks (breech presentation); or foot or feet (footling presentation). Babies that are in a transverse lie may present the fetal back or shoulders, arms or legs, or the umbilical cord (funic presentation). In an oblique lie, generally no palpable fetal part is presenting. This lie is usually transitory and occurs as the baby is moving.

Fetal presentation can be identified by palpation of the maternal abdomen, and confirmed by ultrasound if there is any doubt.

61.1.1 Fetal presentation at birth

Among women who gave birth in Australia in 2010, most fetal presentations were vertex (94.4%). Malpresentations included breech (3.9%), face or brow presentation (0.2%) and shoulder/transverse and compound presentations (0.7%) (Li et al 2012).

61.2 Abdominal palpation

Abdominal palpation is accurate in identifying presentation, especially if carried out by an experienced health professional (Webb et al 2011). In Australia, it is recommended that all health professionals providing antenatal care be experienced in palpation of the pregnant abdomen including identification of the presenting part (RANZCOG 2009). While the positive effects of abdominal palpation are difficult to quantify, no risks have been identified and it provides a point of engagement with the mother and baby. Assessment of presentation by abdominal palpation before 36 weeks is not always accurate.


  • Grade C
  • 59

Assess fetal presentation by abdominal palpation at 36 weeks or later, when presentation is likely to influence the plans for the birth.

Approved by NHMRC in June 2014; expires June 2019

Where there is any doubt as to the presenting part, obstetric ultrasound should be used to confirm the palpation findings. Ultrasound can also exclude fetal anomaly, low-lying placenta, hyperextension of the baby’s head and the presence of umbilical cord around the fetal neck (RANZCOG 2009).


  • Practice point
  • III

Suspected non-cephalic presentation after 36 weeks should be confirmed by an ultrasound assessment.

Approved by NHMRC in June 2014; expires June 2019

61.3 Breech presentation

Breech presentation is common in mid pregnancy, with incidence decreasing as the pregnancy approaches term. Turning the baby (eg using external cephalic version [ECV]) reduces the number of babies who are breech at term, thereby improving the chance of a vaginal birth.

The optimal mode of birth for women who have a baby in the breech position is the subject of much controversy. Following the initial findings of the Term Breech Trial of fewer adverse outcomes among babies following planned caesarean section than planned vaginal birth (Hannah et al 2000), breech birth is now more likely to occur by caesarean section. Rates of singleton vaginal breech births in Australia fell from 23.1% in 1991 (Sullivan et al 2009) to 4.0% in 2010 (Li et al 2012).

However, several studies have shown that with careful selection criteria and involvement of experienced health professionals in centres that are supportive, vaginal breech birth can be successful in 49–83% of women, with rates of morbidity equal to that of birth by caesarean section and higher success rates among multiparous women (Sibony et al 2003; Alarab et al 2004; Kumari & Grundsell 2004; Oboro et al 2004; Ulander et al 2004; Krupitz et al 2005; Uotila et al 2005; Goffinet et al 2006; Daskalakis et al 2007; Hopkins et al 2007; Jadoon et al 2008).

Evidence into neonatal or maternal outcomes associated with mode of breech birth is inconsistent:

  • Risks to the infant: Some cohort studies (Kumari & Grundsell 2004; Doyle et al 2005; Molkenboer et al 2007) found no differences in mortality and morbidity between vaginal births and caesarean sections, while others found higher rates of morbidity following vaginal birth (Gilbert et al 2003; Herbst 2005; Rietberg et al 2005; Daskalakis et al 2007; Hopkins et al 2007; Toivonen et al 2012) and one found a higher risk of neonatal mortality among babies of 1,000–1,500 g following vaginal birth but no significant difference in neonatal mortality above these weights (Demirci et al 2012). An observational study found that the risk of adverse perinatal outcomes following vaginal birth was increased among babies with a birthweight below the 10th percentile and a gestational age of less than 39 weeks (Azria et al 2012). A systematic review of cohort studies found a lower risk of developmental dysplasia of the hip following caesarean section compared with vaginal birth (Panagiotopoulou et al 2012). Importantly, the follow-up study from the babies born in the Term Breech Trial showed that risk of death or developmental delay at 2 years of age did not differ with mode of birth (Whyte et al 2004).
  • Risks to the mother: Some studies have found lower rates of maternal morbidity following vaginal birth (Kumari & Grundsell 2004; Oboro et al 2004; Hopkins et al 2007; Toivonen et al 2012), while another found a lower risk of maternal complications following caesarean section (Krebs & Langhoff-Roos 2003).

Identifying breech presentation at around 36 weeks gestation enables timely discussion of ECV and referral as required (eg to a health professional with expertise in ECV) or referral to a health professional and centre with expertise in vaginal breech birth.

61.4 External cephalic version

Offering ECV when clinically appropriate is recommended in the United Kingdom (RCOG 2010), the United States (ACOG 2006) and Australia (RANZCOG 2009).

61.4.1 Effectiveness

The reported success rate of ECV is in the range of 36.7–72.3% (Hutton et al 2003; Fok et al 2005; Nor Azlin et al 2005; Nassar et al 2006; El-Toukhy et al 2007; Weiniger et al 2007; Grootscholten et al 2008; Kok et al 2008c; Rijnders et al 2010; Buhimschi et al 2011; Burgos et al 2011; Gottvall & Ginstman 2011; Obeidat et al 2011; Bogner et al 2012; Cho et al 2012; Cluver et al 2012).

A spontaneous reversion rate of 3–14% has been reported after 36 weeks (Nassar et al 2006; El-Toukhy et al 2007; Buhimschi et al 2011; Cho et al 2012).

61.4.2 Benefits and risks

Successful ECV reduces the rate of caesarean sections, with vaginal birth following ECV being successful in 71–84% of women (El-Toukhy et al 2007; Buhimschi et al 2011; Gottvall & Ginstman 2011; Bogner et al 2012; Reinhard et al 2013).

ECV is a safe procedure when performed in a setting where an urgent caesarean section can be performed (Nassar et al 2006; Grootscholten et al 2008; Gottvall & Ginstman 2011; Bogner et al 2012; Cho et al 2012). In a systematic review, the most frequently reported complications of ECV were transient abnormal cardiotocography patterns (5.7%), persisting pathological cardiotocography (0.37%), vaginal bleeding (0.47%) and placental abruption (0.12%) (Collaris & Oei 2004). Caesarean section was performed in 0.43% of all procedures and perinatal mortality was 0.16%.

Small studies have shown that the moderate degree of pain associated with ECV is well tolerated by the majority of women because of its short duration (Fok et al 2005) and that most women rate ECV as a good experience, whether it is successful (94%) or unsuccessful (71%) (Rijnders et al 2010).

61.4.3 Factors influencing success of ECV

Factors predicting successful ECV include posterior placental location, complete breech position, amniotic fluid index >10, unengaged presenting part, maternal weight <65 kg and thicker fundal myometrium on ultrasound (Hutton et al 2008; Kok et al 2008b; Kok et al 2009; Buhimschi et al 2011; Burgos et al 2011; Obeidat et al 2011; Bogner et al 2012; Burgos et al 2012; Cho et al 2012). ECV is also more successful in multiparous (57–78% than primiparous (27–53%) women (Nassar et al 2006; El-Toukhy et al 2007; Kok et al 2008c; Rijnders et al 2010; Burgos et al 2011; Cho et al 2012), and if the health professional performing the ECV is experienced. ECV at 34–35 weeks versus ≥37 weeks increased the likelihood of cephalic version but did not decrease the rate of caesarean section (Hutton et al 2011).

The use of tocolytics (uterine relaxants) to facilitate ECV has been shown to increase cephalic presentations (RR: 1.38; 95% CI: 1.03–1.85) and reduce the rate of caesarean sections (RR: 0.82; 95% CI: 0.71–0.94) in both nulliparous and multiparous women (Cluver et al 2012). The available evidence supports the use of beta mimetics for tocolysis (Kok et al 2008a; Wilcox et al 2011; Cluver et al 2012).

A small non-randomised study suggested that clinical hypnosis combined with tocolysis before ECV may increase success rates (Reinhard et al 2012).


  • Grade B
  • 60

Offer external cephalic version to women with uncomplicated singleton breech pregnancy after 37 weeks of gestation.

Approved by NHMRC in June 2014; expires June 2019


  • Consensus-based
  • LVI

Relative contraindications for external cephalic version include a previous caesarean section, uterine anomaly, vaginal bleeding, ruptured membranes or labour, oligohydramnios, placenta praevia and fetal anomalies or compromise. 

Approved by NHMRC in June 2014; expires June 2019


  • Practice point
  • JJJ

External cephalic version should be performed by a health professional with appropriate expertise.

Approved by NHMRC in June 2014; expires June 2019

61.4.4 Other interventions

  • Acupoint stimulation: The evidence for the effectiveness and safety of moxibustion (a Chinese medicine treatment that involves burning of Artemisia argyi close to the skin at an acupuncture point) is inconsistent and largely based on small studies, many of which are of poor quality with high heterogeneity. Some systematic reviews (van den Berg et al 2008; Li et al 2009; Vas et al 2009), RCTs (Habek et al 2003; Neri et al 2004) and a cohort study (Grabowska & Manyande 2009) have reported a higher rate of cephalic version with moxibustion and other acupuncture point stimulation methods, while others have found no beneficial effect (Cardini et al 2005; Guittier et al 2009). Although small studies have not observed significant maternal or fetal side effects associated with moxibustion (Neri et al 2007; Guittier et al 2008), a recent Cochrane review identified a need for further evidence on its safety and effectiveness (Coyle et al 2012).
  • Posture: A Cochrane review (n=417) found insufficient evidence to support the use of posture management to turn a breech baby (Hofmeyr & Kulier 2011). Combined with moxibustion, postural techniques may reduce the number of non-cephalic presentations at birth (RR: 0.73; 95% CI: 0.57–0.94) (Coyle et al 2012).

61.5 Discussing fetal presentation

If a woman has a baby that is in the breech position, she should be given information in a calm, reassuring manner using appropriate terminology so that she can decide which options are most suitable to her situation. Points for discussion include that:

  • for babies in the breech position, ECV may be offered (this involves a health professional using his or her hands on the woman’s abdomen to gently turn the breech baby and is successful in approximately half of women, with success more likely if medications to relax the uterus are used)
  • ECV is not appropriate in some situations (eg when there is vaginal bleeding, a low level of amniotic fluid or fetal or uterine anomalies)
  • ECV has low complication rates but should be carried out where there are facilities for emergency caesarean section
  • other interventions to turn a breech baby (posture and acustimulation) are less effective than ECV and the evidence on their safety is limited
  • if a woman chooses not to have ECV, the procedure is unsuccessful or the baby returns to breech position, vaginal birth may still be possible depending on the individual situation.

61.6 Practice summary: fetal presentation


At around 36 weeks gestation.


  • Midwife
  • GP
  • obstetrician
  • Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Health Practitioner
  • Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Health Worker
  • multicultural health worker.


  • Discuss the risks associated with malpresentation
    Explain that, while most babies turn to present with the crown of the head before labour, the birth process can be complicated if this does not occur.
  • Discuss ECV with women with a breech baby
    Explain that turning the baby before the birth reduces the need for caesarean section. Discuss the benefits and risks of the procedure and where it would take place.
  • Discuss plans for the birth
    Explain the risks and benefits associated with planned vaginal birth and caesarean section.
  • Take a holistic approach
    Encourage women to attend with family members to discuss plans for ECV and birthing options.

61.7 Resources 


  • ACOG (2006) Mode of term singleton breech delivery. Obstet Gynecol 108(1): 235–37.
  • Alarab M, Regan C, O’Connell MP et al (2004) Singleton vaginal breech delivery at term: still a safe option. Obstet Gynecol 103(3): 407–12.
  • Azria E, Le Meaux JP, Khoshnood B et al (2012) Factors associated with adverse perinatal outcomes for term breech fetuses with planned vaginal delivery. Am J Obstet Gynecol 207(4): 285 e1–9.
  • Bogner G, Xu F, Simbrunner C et al (2012) Single-institute experience, management, success rate, and outcome after external cephalic version at term. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 116(2): 134–37.
  • Buhimschi CS, Buhimschi IA, Wehrum MJ et al (2011) Ultrasonographic evaluation of myometrial thickness and prediction of a successful external cephalic version. Obstet Gynecol 118(4): 913–20.
  • Burgos J, Melchor JC, Pijoan JI et al (2011) A prospective study of the factors associated with the success rate of external cephalic version for breech presentation at term. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 112(1): 48–51.
  • Burgos J, Cobos P, Rodriguez L et al (2012) Clinical score for the outcome of external cephalic version: a two-phase prospective study. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol 52(1): 59–61.
  • Cardini F, Lombardo P, Regalia AL et al (2005) A randomised controlled trial of moxibustion for breech presentation. BJOG 112(6): 743–47.
  • Cho LY, Lau WL, Lo TK et al (2012) Predictors of successful outcomes after external cephalic version in singleton term breech pregnancies: a nine-year historical cohort study. Hong Kong Med J 18(1): 11–19.
  • Cluver C, Hofmeyr GJ, Gyte GM et al (2012) Interventions for helping to turn term breech babies to head first presentation when using external cephalic version. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 1: CD000184.
  • Collaris RJ & Oei SG (2004) External cephalic version: a safe procedure? A systematic review of version-related risks. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 83(6): 511–18.
  • Coyle ME, Smith CA, Peat B (2012) Cephalic version by moxibustion for breech presentation. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 5: CD003928.
  • Daskalakis G, Anastasakis E, Papantoniou N et al (2007) Cesarean vs. vaginal birth for term breech presentation in 2 different study periods. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 96(3): 162–66.
  • Demirci O, Tugrul AS, Turgut A et al (2012) Pregnancy outcomes by mode of delivery among breech births. Arch Gynecol Obstet 285(2): 297–303.
  • Doyle NM, Riggs JW, Ramin SM et al (2005) Outcomes of term vaginal breech delivery. Am J Perinatol 22(6): 325–28.
  • El-Toukhy T, Ramadan G, Maidman D et al (2007) Impact of parity on obstetric and neonatal outcome of external cephalic version. J Obstet Gynaecol 27(6): 580–84.
  • Fok WY, Chan LW, Leung TY et al (2005) Maternal experience of pain during external cephalic version at term. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 84: 748–51.
  • Gilbert WM, Hicks SM, Boe NM et al (2003) Vaginal versus cesarean delivery for breech presentation in California: a population-based study. Obstet Gynecol 102(5 Pt 1): 911–17.
  • Goffinet F, Carayol M, Foidart JM et al (2006) Is planned vaginal delivery for breech presentation at term still an option? Results of an observational prospective survey in France and Belgium. Am J Obstet Gynecol 194(4): 1002–11.
  • Gottvall T & Ginstman C (2011) External cephalic version of non-cephalic presentation; is it worthwhile? Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 90(2011): 1443–45.
  • Grabowska C & Manyande A (2009) Management of breech presentation with the use of moxibustion in the UK: A preliminary study. Eur J Orient Med 6(1): 38–42.
  • Grootscholten K, Kok M, Oei SG et al (2008) External cephalic version-related risks: a meta-analysis. Obstet Gynecol 112(5): 1143–51.
  • Guittier MJ, Klein TJ, Dong H et al (2008) Side-effects of moxibustion for cephalic version of breech presentation. J Altern Complement Med 14(10): 1231–33.
  • Guittier MJ, Pichon M, Dong H et al (2009) Moxibustion for breech version: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol 114(5): 1034–40.
  • Habek D, Cerkez Habek J, Jagust M (2003) Acupuncture conversion of fetal breech presentation. Fetal Diagn Ther 18: 418–21.
  • Hannah ME, Hannah WJ, Hewson SA et al (2000) Planned caesarean section versus planned vaginal birth for breech presentation at term: a randomised multicentre trial. Term Breech Trial Collaborative Group. Lancet 356(9239): 1375–83.
  • Herbst A (2005) Term breech delivery in Sweden: mortality relative to fetal presentation and planned mode of delivery. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 84(6): 593–601.
  • Hofmeyr GJ & Kulier R (2011) Cephalic version by postural management for breech presentation. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2000(Issue 3): DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD000051.
  • Hopkins LM, Esakoff T, Noah MS et al (2007) Outcomes associated with cesarean section versus vaginal breech delivery at a university hospital. J Perinatol 27(3): 141–46.
  • Hutton EK, Kaufman K, Hodnett E et al (2003) External cephalic version beginning at 34 weeks’ gestation versus 37 weeks’ gestation: a randomized multicenter trial. Am J Obstet Gynecol 189(1): 245–54.
  • Hutton EK, Saunders CA, Tu M et al (2008) Factors associated with a successful external cephalic version in the early ECV trial. J Obstet Gynaecol Can 30(1): 23–28.
  • Hutton EK, Hannah ME, Ross SJ et al (2011) The Early External Cephalic Version (ECV) 2 Trial: an international multicentre randomised controlled trial of timing of ECV for breech pregnancies. BJOG 118(5): 564–77.
  • Jadoon S, Khan Jadoon SM, Shah R (2008) Maternal and neonatal complications in term breech delivered vaginally. J Coll Physicians Surg Pak 18(9): 555–58.
  • Kok M, Bais JM, van Lith JM et al (2008a) Nifedipine as a uterine relaxant for external cephalic version: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol 112(2 Pt 1): 271–76.
  • Kok M, Cnossen J, Gravendeel L et al (2008b) Clinical factors to predict the outcome of external cephalic version: a metaanalysis. Am J Obstet Gynecol 199(6): 630 e1–7; discussion e1–5.
  • Kok M, Van Der Steeg JW, Mol BW et al (2008c) Which factors play a role in clinical decision-making in external cephalic version? Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 87(1): 31–35.
  • Kok M, Cnossen J, Gravendeel L et al (2009) Ultrasound factors to predict the outcome of external cephalic version: a meta-analysis. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 33(1): 76–84.
  • Krebs L & Langhoff-Roos J (2003) Elective cesarean delivery for term breech. Obstet Gynecol 101(4): 690–96.
  • Krupitz H, Arzt W, Ebner T et al (2005) Assisted vaginal delivery versus caesarean section in breech presentation. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 84(6): 588–92.
  • Kumari AS & Grundsell H (2004) Mode of delivery for breech presentation in grandmultiparous women. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 85(3): 234–39.
  • Li X, Hu J, Wang X et al (2009) Moxibustion and other acupuncture point stimulation methods to treat breech presentation: a systematic review of clinical trials. Chin Med 4: 4.
  • Li Z, Zeki R, Hilder L et al (2012) Australia’s Mothers and Babies 2010. Cat. no. PER 57. Sydney: Australian Institute for Health and Welfare National Perinatal Epidemiology and Statistics Unit.
  • Molkenboer JF, Vencken PM, Sonnemans LG et al (2007) Conservative management in breech deliveries leads to similar results compared with cephalic deliveries. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 20(8): 599–603.
  • Nassar N, Roberts CL, Barratt A et al (2006) Systematic review of adverse outcomes of external cephalic version and persisting breech presentation at term. Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol 20(2): 163–71.
  • Neri I, Airola G, Contu G et al (2004) Acupuncture plus moxibustion to resolve breech presentation: a randomized controlled study. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 15(4): 247–52.
  • Neri I, De Pace V, Venturini P et al (2007) Effects of three different stimulations (acupuncture, moxibustion, acupuncture plus moxibustion) of BL.67 acupoint at small toe on fetal behavior of breech presentation. Am J Chin Med 35(1): 27–33.
  • Nor Azlin MI, Haliza H, Mahdy ZA et al (2005) Tocolysis in term breech external cephalic version. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 88(1): 5–8.
  • Obeidat N, Lataifeh I, Al-Khateeb M et al (2011) Factors associated with the success of external cephalic version (ECV) of breech presentation at term. Clin Exp Obstet Gynecol 38(4): 386–89.
  • Oboro VO, Dare FO, Ogunniyi SO (2004) Outcome of term breech by intended mode of delivery. Nigerian J Med 13(2): 106–09.
  • Panagiotopoulou N, Bitar K, Hart WJ (2012) The association between mode of delivery and developmental dysplasia of the hip in breech infants: a systematic review of 9 cohort studies. Acta Orthop Belg 78(6): 697–702.
  • RANZCOG (2009) Management of Term Breech Presentation (C-Obs 11). Melbourne: Royal Australia and New Zealand College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists.
  • RCOG (2010) External Cephalic Version and reducing the Incidence of Breech Presentation. Guideline no. 20a. London: Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists.
  • Reinhard J, Heinrich TM, Reitter A et al (2012) Clinical hypnosis before external cephalic version. Am J Clin Hypn 55(2): 184–92.
  • Reinhard J, Sanger N, Hanker L et al (2013) Delivery mode and neonatal outcome after a trial of external cephalic version (ECV): a prospective trial of vaginal breech versus cephalic delivery. Arch Gynecol Obstet 287(4): 663–68.
  • Rietberg CC, Elferink-Stinkens PM, Visser GH (2005) The effect of the Term Breech Trial on medical intervention behaviour and neonatal outcome in The Netherlands: an analysis of 35,453 term breech infants. BJOG 112(2): 205–09.
  • Rijnders M, Offerhaus P, van Dommelen P et al (2010) Prevalence, outcome, and women’s experiences of external cephalic version in a low-risk population. Birth 37(2): 124–33.
  • Sibony O, Luton D, Oury J-F et al (2003) Six hundred and ten breech versus 12,405 cephalic deliveries at term: is there any difference in the neonatal outcome? Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 107(2): 140–44.
  • Sullivan EA, Moran K, Chapman M (2009) Term breech singletons and caesarean section: a population study, Australia 1991- 2005. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol 49(5): 456–60.
  • Toivonen E, Palomaki O, Huhtala H et al (2012) Selective vaginal breech delivery at term - still an option. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 91(10): 1177–83.
  • Ulander VM, Gissler M, Nuutila M et al (2004) Are health expectations of term breech infants unrealistically high? Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 83(2): 180–86.
  • Uotila J, Tuimala R, Kirkinen P (2005) Good perinatal outcome in selective vaginal breech delivery at term. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 84(6): 578–83.
  • van den Berg I, Bosch JL, Jacobs B et al (2008) Effectiveness of acupuncture-type interventions versus expectant management to correct breech presentation: a systematic review. Complement Ther Med 16(2): 92–100.
  • Vas J, Aranda JM, Nishishinya B et al (2009) Correction of nonvertex presentation with moxibustion: a systematic review and metaanalysis. Am J Obstet Gynecol 201(3): 241–59.
  • Webb SS, Plana MN, Zamora J et al (2011) Abdominal palpation to determine fetal position at labor onset: a test accuracy study. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 90(11): 1259–66.
  • Weiniger CF, Ginosar Y, Elchalal U et al (2007) External cephalic version for breech presentation with or without spinal analgesia in nulliparous women at term: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol 110(6): 1343–50.
  • Whyte H, Hannah ME, Saigal S et al (2004) Outcomes of children at 2 years after planned cesarean birth versus planned vaginal birth for breech presentation at term: the International Randomized Term Breech Trial. Am J Obstet Gynecol 191(3): 864–71.
  • Wilcox CB, Nassar N, Roberts CL (2011) Effectiveness of nifedipine tocolysis to facilitate external cephalic version: a systematic review. BJOG 118(4): 423–28.
Last updated: 
20 November 2018