Glezerman Marek
Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Wolfson Medical Center, The Helen Schneider Hospital for Women, Holon, Israel.
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2006 Jan;194(1):20-5. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2005.08.039.
On the basis of the end points of neonatal morbidity and death, the authors of the term breech trial concluded unequivocally that cesarean delivery was safer for breech babies.
Analysis of the original and new data gives rise to serious concerns as far as study design, methods, and conclusions are concerned. In a substantial number of cases, there was a lack of adherence to the inclusion criteria. There was a large interinstitutional variation of standard of care; inadequate methods of antepartum and intrapartum fetal assessment were used, and a large proportion of women were recruited during active labor. In many instances of planned vaginal delivery, there was no attendance of a clinician with adequate expertise.
Most cases of neonatal death and morbidity in the term breech trial cannot be attributed to the mode of delivery. Moreover, analysis of outcome after 2 years has shown no difference between vaginal and abdominal deliveries of breech babies.
The original term breech trial recommendations should be withdrawn.
基于新生儿发病率和死亡率的终点指标,足月臀位试验的作者明确得出结论,剖宫产对臀位婴儿更安全。
就研究设计、方法和结论而言,对原始数据和新数据的分析引发了严重担忧。在大量病例中,未遵循纳入标准。各机构间护理标准差异很大;产前和产时胎儿评估方法不足,且很大一部分女性是在活跃期分娩时招募的。在许多计划阴道分娩的病例中,没有具备足够专业知识的临床医生在场。
足月臀位试验中大多数新生儿死亡和发病病例不能归因于分娩方式。此外,对2年后结局的分析表明,臀位婴儿阴道分娩和剖宫产之间没有差异。
应撤销最初的足月臀位试验建议。