Investigating women’s views on the management of a breech pregnancy V1
Research type
Research Study
Full title
How do women with a breech presentation view the management options available to them, including the use of analgesia or anaesthesia for external cephalic version?
IRAS ID
145042
Contact name
Steve Yentis
Contact email
Sponsor organisation
Chelsea and Westminster Hospital
Research summary
Background
Women undergo external cephalic version (ECV) in order to turn a baby in a breech (bottom, or feet down) presentation to a head down position. The procedure traditionally has about a 40% success rate and may be painful, issues that recent literature suggests puts some women off.
Pain relief using a short acting morphine-like painkiller, called remifentanil, can significantly reduce the pain experienced but does not seem to improve ECV success rates. Alternatively, a spinal anaesthetic (similar to that used for a caesarean section) can be used. This increases success rates to around 60% and very effectively reduces pain; however, it is an invasive procedure with potential complications and requires a hospital stay of at least half a day.Aims and objectives
We aim to perform a qualitative study to explore the views of women with a breech presentation on their management in general, and the use of anaesthesia or analgesia for ECV in particular.
Methods
We will use a semi-structured interview to explore the views of 10-15 expectant mothers recruited from the Breech Clinic at Chelsea and Westminster Hospital. Interviews will be recorded and then transcribed for thematic analysis by two researchers.
Dissemination of output
To our knowledge, this will be the first report on how women view the use of regional anaesthesia and remifentanil analgesia for ECV. In addition, we will add the views of our patient population to the existing literature concerning the management of ECV in general. We anticipate that this information will be used to plan services and to guide future research.
REC name
London - City & East Research Ethics Committee
REC reference
14/LO/0235
Date of REC Opinion
27 Jan 2014
REC opinion
Favourable Opinion