External Cephalic Version at Term: Is a Tocolytic Necessary?
This prospective investigation evaluates the benefit of a beta-mimetic tocolytic for external cephalic version. From July 1, 1984 to May 15, 1987, 58 patients who had breech presentations between 37–41 weeksʼ gestation were considered for external cephalic version. The patients were randomly assigne...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Obstetrics and gynecology (New York. 1953) 1987-12, Vol.70 (6), p.896-899 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 899 |
---|---|
container_issue | 6 |
container_start_page | 896 |
container_title | Obstetrics and gynecology (New York. 1953) |
container_volume | 70 |
creator | ROBERTSON, ANDREW W KOPELMAN, JEROME N READ, JOHN A DUFF, PATRICK MAGELSSEN, DAVID J DASHOW, EDWARD E |
description | This prospective investigation evaluates the benefit of a beta-mimetic tocolytic for external cephalic version. From July 1, 1984 to May 15, 1987, 58 patients who had breech presentations between 37–41 weeksʼ gestation were considered for external cephalic version. The patients were randomly assigned to one of two groupstocolytic or no tocolytic. An ultrasound examination, serum alphafetoprotein (AFP), Kleihauer-Betke test, and nonstress test (NST) were performed before and after the attempt at version. A version was not attempted if there was evidence of intrauterine growth retardation (IUGR), oligohydramnios, or a nonreactive NST. Patients in the tocolytic group received 200 μg/minute of ritodrine hydrochloride for 20 minutes via continuous intravenous infusion before a version was attempted. Twenty of the 30 patients (66.7%) in the tocolytic group and 19 of the 28 patients (67.8%) in the no-tocolytic group had successful versions, a nonsignificant difference. The nine patients with unsuccessful version attempts in the group without a tocolytic then received intravenous ritodrine and underwent a second attempt. Only one of these nine attempts was successful. There were no serious maternal or fetal complications associated with the attempts at version. In our patient population, use of a tocolytic did not significantly increase the probability of a successful version. |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_pubme</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_77848920</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>77848920</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-p2809-b6eb55b8657f3884195806a76fda09bca39f1f0f6b76698a2447a303f7b304e3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNo9kN1LwzAUxYMoc07_BCEP4lshTdJ8iCAypg6GvhTxrdx2CaumHyYtc_-9kRWfLpfz49x7zgmap0qyhDL2cYrmhFCdSMX5OboI4ZMQkgrNZmjGhOIpFXN0v_oZjG_B4aXpd-DqCr8bH-quxTDg3PjmDq8DBpx3VecOQ9RfTWVCAH94uERnFlwwV9NcoPxplS9fks3b83r5uEl6qohOSmHKLCuVyKRlKh7WmSICpLBbILqsgGmbWmJFKYXQCijnEhhhVpaMcMMW6PZo2_vuezRhKJo6VMY5aE03hkLGhEpTEsHrCRzLxmyL3tdN_LOY0kb9ZtIhVOCsh7aqwz8mJZVK8ojxI7bvXCwnfLlxb3yxM-CGXRFLJIJmJEm1kimNW_LXq2a_PwRr-Q</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>77848920</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>External Cephalic Version at Term: Is a Tocolytic Necessary?</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Journals@Ovid Complete</source><creator>ROBERTSON, ANDREW W ; KOPELMAN, JEROME N ; READ, JOHN A ; DUFF, PATRICK ; MAGELSSEN, DAVID J ; DASHOW, EDWARD E</creator><creatorcontrib>ROBERTSON, ANDREW W ; KOPELMAN, JEROME N ; READ, JOHN A ; DUFF, PATRICK ; MAGELSSEN, DAVID J ; DASHOW, EDWARD E</creatorcontrib><description>This prospective investigation evaluates the benefit of a beta-mimetic tocolytic for external cephalic version. From July 1, 1984 to May 15, 1987, 58 patients who had breech presentations between 37–41 weeksʼ gestation were considered for external cephalic version. The patients were randomly assigned to one of two groupstocolytic or no tocolytic. An ultrasound examination, serum alphafetoprotein (AFP), Kleihauer-Betke test, and nonstress test (NST) were performed before and after the attempt at version. A version was not attempted if there was evidence of intrauterine growth retardation (IUGR), oligohydramnios, or a nonreactive NST. Patients in the tocolytic group received 200 μg/minute of ritodrine hydrochloride for 20 minutes via continuous intravenous infusion before a version was attempted. Twenty of the 30 patients (66.7%) in the tocolytic group and 19 of the 28 patients (67.8%) in the no-tocolytic group had successful versions, a nonsignificant difference. The nine patients with unsuccessful version attempts in the group without a tocolytic then received intravenous ritodrine and underwent a second attempt. Only one of these nine attempts was successful. There were no serious maternal or fetal complications associated with the attempts at version. In our patient population, use of a tocolytic did not significantly increase the probability of a successful version.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0029-7844</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1873-233X</identifier><identifier>PMID: 3684126</identifier><identifier>CODEN: OBGNAS</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>New York, NY: The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists</publisher><subject>Adult ; Biological and medical sciences ; Breech Presentation ; Delivery, Obstetric - methods ; Female ; Genital system. Reproduction ; Gestational Age ; Heart Rate, Fetal ; Humans ; Infusions, Intravenous ; Medical sciences ; Parity ; Pharmacology. Drug treatments ; Pregnancy ; Prospective Studies ; Random Allocation ; Ritodrine - administration & dosage ; Ritodrine - pharmacology ; Uterus - drug effects ; Version, Fetal - methods</subject><ispartof>Obstetrics and gynecology (New York. 1953), 1987-12, Vol.70 (6), p.896-899</ispartof><rights>1987 The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists</rights><rights>1988 INIST-CNRS</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,776,780</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://pascal-francis.inist.fr/vibad/index.php?action=getRecordDetail&idt=7727874$$DView record in Pascal Francis$$Hfree_for_read</backlink><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3684126$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>ROBERTSON, ANDREW W</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>KOPELMAN, JEROME N</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>READ, JOHN A</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>DUFF, PATRICK</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>MAGELSSEN, DAVID J</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>DASHOW, EDWARD E</creatorcontrib><title>External Cephalic Version at Term: Is a Tocolytic Necessary?</title><title>Obstetrics and gynecology (New York. 1953)</title><addtitle>Obstet Gynecol</addtitle><description>This prospective investigation evaluates the benefit of a beta-mimetic tocolytic for external cephalic version. From July 1, 1984 to May 15, 1987, 58 patients who had breech presentations between 37–41 weeksʼ gestation were considered for external cephalic version. The patients were randomly assigned to one of two groupstocolytic or no tocolytic. An ultrasound examination, serum alphafetoprotein (AFP), Kleihauer-Betke test, and nonstress test (NST) were performed before and after the attempt at version. A version was not attempted if there was evidence of intrauterine growth retardation (IUGR), oligohydramnios, or a nonreactive NST. Patients in the tocolytic group received 200 μg/minute of ritodrine hydrochloride for 20 minutes via continuous intravenous infusion before a version was attempted. Twenty of the 30 patients (66.7%) in the tocolytic group and 19 of the 28 patients (67.8%) in the no-tocolytic group had successful versions, a nonsignificant difference. The nine patients with unsuccessful version attempts in the group without a tocolytic then received intravenous ritodrine and underwent a second attempt. Only one of these nine attempts was successful. There were no serious maternal or fetal complications associated with the attempts at version. In our patient population, use of a tocolytic did not significantly increase the probability of a successful version.</description><subject>Adult</subject><subject>Biological and medical sciences</subject><subject>Breech Presentation</subject><subject>Delivery, Obstetric - methods</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Genital system. Reproduction</subject><subject>Gestational Age</subject><subject>Heart Rate, Fetal</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Infusions, Intravenous</subject><subject>Medical sciences</subject><subject>Parity</subject><subject>Pharmacology. Drug treatments</subject><subject>Pregnancy</subject><subject>Prospective Studies</subject><subject>Random Allocation</subject><subject>Ritodrine - administration & dosage</subject><subject>Ritodrine - pharmacology</subject><subject>Uterus - drug effects</subject><subject>Version, Fetal - methods</subject><issn>0029-7844</issn><issn>1873-233X</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>1987</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNo9kN1LwzAUxYMoc07_BCEP4lshTdJ8iCAypg6GvhTxrdx2CaumHyYtc_-9kRWfLpfz49x7zgmap0qyhDL2cYrmhFCdSMX5OboI4ZMQkgrNZmjGhOIpFXN0v_oZjG_B4aXpd-DqCr8bH-quxTDg3PjmDq8DBpx3VecOQ9RfTWVCAH94uERnFlwwV9NcoPxplS9fks3b83r5uEl6qohOSmHKLCuVyKRlKh7WmSICpLBbILqsgGmbWmJFKYXQCijnEhhhVpaMcMMW6PZo2_vuezRhKJo6VMY5aE03hkLGhEpTEsHrCRzLxmyL3tdN_LOY0kb9ZtIhVOCsh7aqwz8mJZVK8ojxI7bvXCwnfLlxb3yxM-CGXRFLJIJmJEm1kimNW_LXq2a_PwRr-Q</recordid><startdate>198712</startdate><enddate>198712</enddate><creator>ROBERTSON, ANDREW W</creator><creator>KOPELMAN, JEROME N</creator><creator>READ, JOHN A</creator><creator>DUFF, PATRICK</creator><creator>MAGELSSEN, DAVID J</creator><creator>DASHOW, EDWARD E</creator><general>The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists</general><general>Elsevier Science</general><scope>IQODW</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>198712</creationdate><title>External Cephalic Version at Term: Is a Tocolytic Necessary?</title><author>ROBERTSON, ANDREW W ; KOPELMAN, JEROME N ; READ, JOHN A ; DUFF, PATRICK ; MAGELSSEN, DAVID J ; DASHOW, EDWARD E</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-p2809-b6eb55b8657f3884195806a76fda09bca39f1f0f6b76698a2447a303f7b304e3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>1987</creationdate><topic>Adult</topic><topic>Biological and medical sciences</topic><topic>Breech Presentation</topic><topic>Delivery, Obstetric - methods</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Genital system. Reproduction</topic><topic>Gestational Age</topic><topic>Heart Rate, Fetal</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Infusions, Intravenous</topic><topic>Medical sciences</topic><topic>Parity</topic><topic>Pharmacology. Drug treatments</topic><topic>Pregnancy</topic><topic>Prospective Studies</topic><topic>Random Allocation</topic><topic>Ritodrine - administration & dosage</topic><topic>Ritodrine - pharmacology</topic><topic>Uterus - drug effects</topic><topic>Version, Fetal - methods</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>ROBERTSON, ANDREW W</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>KOPELMAN, JEROME N</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>READ, JOHN A</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>DUFF, PATRICK</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>MAGELSSEN, DAVID J</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>DASHOW, EDWARD E</creatorcontrib><collection>Pascal-Francis</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Obstetrics and gynecology (New York. 1953)</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>ROBERTSON, ANDREW W</au><au>KOPELMAN, JEROME N</au><au>READ, JOHN A</au><au>DUFF, PATRICK</au><au>MAGELSSEN, DAVID J</au><au>DASHOW, EDWARD E</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>External Cephalic Version at Term: Is a Tocolytic Necessary?</atitle><jtitle>Obstetrics and gynecology (New York. 1953)</jtitle><addtitle>Obstet Gynecol</addtitle><date>1987-12</date><risdate>1987</risdate><volume>70</volume><issue>6</issue><spage>896</spage><epage>899</epage><pages>896-899</pages><issn>0029-7844</issn><eissn>1873-233X</eissn><coden>OBGNAS</coden><abstract>This prospective investigation evaluates the benefit of a beta-mimetic tocolytic for external cephalic version. From July 1, 1984 to May 15, 1987, 58 patients who had breech presentations between 37–41 weeksʼ gestation were considered for external cephalic version. The patients were randomly assigned to one of two groupstocolytic or no tocolytic. An ultrasound examination, serum alphafetoprotein (AFP), Kleihauer-Betke test, and nonstress test (NST) were performed before and after the attempt at version. A version was not attempted if there was evidence of intrauterine growth retardation (IUGR), oligohydramnios, or a nonreactive NST. Patients in the tocolytic group received 200 μg/minute of ritodrine hydrochloride for 20 minutes via continuous intravenous infusion before a version was attempted. Twenty of the 30 patients (66.7%) in the tocolytic group and 19 of the 28 patients (67.8%) in the no-tocolytic group had successful versions, a nonsignificant difference. The nine patients with unsuccessful version attempts in the group without a tocolytic then received intravenous ritodrine and underwent a second attempt. Only one of these nine attempts was successful. There were no serious maternal or fetal complications associated with the attempts at version. In our patient population, use of a tocolytic did not significantly increase the probability of a successful version.</abstract><cop>New York, NY</cop><pub>The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists</pub><pmid>3684126</pmid><tpages>4</tpages></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0029-7844 |
ispartof | Obstetrics and gynecology (New York. 1953), 1987-12, Vol.70 (6), p.896-899 |
issn | 0029-7844 1873-233X |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_77848920 |
source | MEDLINE; Journals@Ovid Complete |
subjects | Adult Biological and medical sciences Breech Presentation Delivery, Obstetric - methods Female Genital system. Reproduction Gestational Age Heart Rate, Fetal Humans Infusions, Intravenous Medical sciences Parity Pharmacology. Drug treatments Pregnancy Prospective Studies Random Allocation Ritodrine - administration & dosage Ritodrine - pharmacology Uterus - drug effects Version, Fetal - methods |
title | External Cephalic Version at Term: Is a Tocolytic Necessary? |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-12T09%3A34%3A36IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_pubme&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=External%20Cephalic%20Version%20at%20Term:%20Is%20a%20Tocolytic%20Necessary?&rft.jtitle=Obstetrics%20and%20gynecology%20(New%20York.%201953)&rft.au=ROBERTSON,%20ANDREW%20W&rft.date=1987-12&rft.volume=70&rft.issue=6&rft.spage=896&rft.epage=899&rft.pages=896-899&rft.issn=0029-7844&rft.eissn=1873-233X&rft.coden=OBGNAS&rft_id=info:doi/&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_pubme%3E77848920%3C/proquest_pubme%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=77848920&rft_id=info:pmid/3684126&rfr_iscdi=true |