# Persistent occiput posterior position: predictive factors of spontaneous rotation of the fetal head

Thomas Parsy, Celia Bettiol, Fabien Vidal, Mickaël Allouche, Lola Loussert-Chambre, Paul Guerby

## ► To cite this version:

Thomas Parsy, Celia Bettiol, Fabien Vidal, Mickaël Allouche, Lola Loussert-Chambre, et al., Persistent occiput posterior position: predictive factors of spontaneous rotation of the fetal head. Journal of Maternal-Fetal & Neonatal Medicine, 2023, 36 (1), pp.2192854. 10.1080/14767058.2023.2192854. hal-05038002

HAL Id: hal-05038002

https://ut3-toulouseinp.hal.science/hal-05038002v1

Submitted on 17 Apr 2025

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
# Persistent occiput posterior position: predictive factors of spontaneous rotation of the fetal head

Thomas Parsy, Celia Bettiol, Fabien Vidal, Mickaël Allouche, Lola Loussert-Chambre & Paul Guerby

**To cite this article:** Thomas Parsy, Celia Bettiol, Fabien Vidal, Mickaël Allouche, Lola Loussert-Chambre & Paul Guerby (2023) Persistent occiput posterior position: predictive factors of spontaneous rotation of the fetal head, The Journal of Maternal-Fetal & Neonatal Medicine, 36:1, 2192854, DOI: 10.1080/14767058.2023.2192854

**To link to this article:** https://doi.org/10.1080/14767058.2023.2192854

<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>

© 2023 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group

<figure><img src="image_3.png" /></figure>

View supplementary material 🌐

<figure><img src="image_4.png" /></figure>

Published online: 09 Apr 2023.

<figure><img src="image_5.png" /></figure>

Submit your article to this journal 🌐

<figure><img src="image_6.png" /></figure>

Article views: 2992

<figure><img src="image_7.png" /></figure>

View related articles 🌐

<figure><img src="image_8.png" /></figure>

CrossMark

View Crossmark data 🌐

<figure><img src="image_9.png" /></figure>

Citing articles: 3 View citing articles 🌐
ORIGINAL ARTICLE

<figure><img src="image_10.png" /></figure>

OPEN ACCESS

<figure><img src="image_11.png" /></figure>

Check for updates

# Persistent occiput posterior position: predictive factors of spontaneous rotation of the fetal head

Thomas Parsyª, Celia Bettiolª, Fabien Vidalª, Mickaël Alloucheª, Lola Loussert-Chambreª and Paul Guerbyª,ᵇ

ªGynecology and Obstetrics Departement, Paule de Viguier Maternity, CHU Toulouse, France; ᵇToulouse Institute for Infectious and Inflammatory Diseases, Inserm UMR 1291 - CNRS UMR 5051 - University Toulouse III, France

## ABSTRACT

**Objectives:** To assess factors associated with spontaneous rotation in the occiput anterior position for fetuses in persistent occiput posterior (OP) during the second stage of labor. To evaluate maternal and fetal outcomes after spontaneous rotation of persistent OP.

**Methods:** This is a prospective cohort of 495 women with fetuses in persistent OP position, confirmed with ultrasonography during the second stage of labor. We performed simple logistic regressions, followed by multiple logistic regressions.

**Results:** Among 495 women with fetuses in persistent OP position, 78 fetuses (16%) underwent a spontaneous rotation during the second stage of labor. The multivariate analysis found that a short duration of the first stage of labor (<7 h) was associated with a spontaneous rotation of the fetal head in the second stage of labor (OR 0.43 [0.23; 0.76. There were fewer episiotomies (25.6% vs 52.3%, *p* < .01), cesarean sections (0% v. 5.4%, *p* = .03), and instrumental deliveries (8.9% vs. 50%, *p* < .01) in the "spontaneous rotation" group, and the two groups were similar regarding post-partum hemorrhage.

**Results:** The newborns in the "spontaneous rotation" group had a higher Apgar score at 1 min (10 v. 9, *p* = .02). The two groups did not differ for other neonatal parameters, such as arterial pH value, Apgar score at 5 min, birth trauma, or transfer into the pediatric unit.

**Conclusion:** A shorter duration of the first stage of labor (< 7 h) is a predictive factor of spontaneous rotation in the occiput anterior position for fetuses in persistent OP position. A spontaneous rotation in case of an OP position is associated with better maternal and fetal outcomes.

## ARTICLE HISTORY

Received 13 April 2022

Revised 14 March 2023

Accepted 14 March 2023

## KEYWORDS

Persistent occiput posterior position; spontaneous rotation; manual rotation; delivery

## Introduction

The occiput posterior (OP) position is common in early labor (around 20% of fetuses), but the majority of fetuses initially in OP position rotate spontaneously during labor, and some of these spontaneous rotations occur during the second stage of labor [1-5].

The OP position is known as persistent when this presentation persists in the second stage of labor. These persistent OP positions are associated with more prolonged labor, more frequent use of uterotonics, higher risks of operative deliveries, more frequent and severe vaginal and perineal tears, increased risk of postpartum hemorrhage and postpartum infections [3,4,6-15]. These newborns have lower Apgar scores at birth, are more often admitted to the neonatal care unit and stay longer in the hospital [3,4,7,9,15,16]

Despite the frequency of these situations, there is currently no recommendation for the management of persistent OP positions. During the second stage of labor, different options are available to correct persistent OP position: expectative management with a potential spontaneous rotation, manual rotation or instrumental rotation [2,17-23]. Use of ultrasonography is helpful in the case of manual or instrumental rotation [17,18,24,25].

Currently, some centers suggest the possibility of a "prophylactic" manual rotation at full dilation in order to reduce perinatal risks [26-30]. However, this manual rotation is not without risks, and some of these fetuses could have performed a spontaneous rotation. There are few data on factors associated with spontaneous rotation of the fetal head.

CONTACT Paul GUERBY

<figure><img src="image_12.png" /></figure>

guerby.p@chu-toulouse.fr

<figure><img src="image_13.png" /></figure>

Gynecology and Obstetrics Departement, Paule de Viguier Hospital, CHU Toulouse, 330 Avenue de Grande Bretagne, Toulouse, 70034 31059, TSA, France Toulouse Institute for Infectious and Inflammatory Diseases, Inserm UMR 1291 - CNRS UMR 5051 - University Toulouse III, France.

<figure><img src="image_14.png" /></figure>

Supplemental data for this article is available online at https://doi.org/10.1080/14767058.2023.2192854.

© 2023 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. The terms on which this article has been published allow the posting of the Accepted Manuscript in a repository by the author(s) or with their consent.
<figure><img src="image_15.png" /></figure>

The purpose of this study is therefore to assess pre-
dictive factors of spontaneous rotation in the occiput
anterior position of persistent OP positions during the
second stage of labor, and to describe the maternal
and fetal outcomes after these deliveries.

Methods

This is a prospective cohort study, conducted at
Toulouse University Hospital, in the tertiary maternity
ward, from September 2015 to October 2016 [21].

We included all women with a singleton pregnancy,
with the fetus in persistent OP position at full dilation.
The type of presentation was systematically checked
by ultrasound at the beginning of the second stage of
labor.

Exclusion criteria were: stillbirth; medical termina-
tions of pregnancy; non-cephalic presentations.
Cesarean deliveries due to non-reassuring fetal condi-
tion in the first hour of the second stage were
excluded as the rapid execution of the cesarean could
not allow the fetus to spontaneously rotate. The indi-
cation of a cesarean section for non-progression, with
a fetus in OP position, was not an exclusion criterion.

In our maternity ward, any clinical suspicion of a persistent OP position is confirmed by ultrasound. If this type of presentation is confirmed, a one-hour delay is allowed at full dilation. If the fetal head has progressed, a manual rotation is not performed. If after one or two hours the spontaneous rotation has not occurred, in the absence of progression of the fetal head, a correction of uterine contractility with oxytocin if necessary is performed, or a manual rota- tion if the uterine contractility is sufficient. An attempt at manual rotation is systematically performed in case of instrumental delivery. The variety of presentation is then attested by ultrasound.

We compared the patients whose fetuses under-
went a spontaneous rotation in the occiput anterior
position in the second stage of labor with the rest of
the fetuses in the persistent OP position.

The two groups were compared on the following
factors: weight, height, BMI (body mass index), gesta-
tional age, parity, scarred uterus, gestational diabetes,
epidural analgesia modality, fetal sex, fetal biometrics,
duration of the first stage of labor, delay between full
dilation and the beginning of expulsive efforts, dur-
ation of the second stage of labor.

For maternal and fetal outcomes, the groups were
compared on the following factors: perineal tear,
episiotomy, mode of delivery (spontaneous vaginal
delivery, instrumental delivery, cesarean section), post-

partum hemorrhage; Apgar scores at 5 min, arterial pH
at birth, shoulder dystocia, head trauma, transfer to
the neonatal care unit.

Quantitative variables were described in terms of
means (± standard deviation). Normality was validated
graphically and using a Shapiro-Wilk test. Categorical
variables were described in terms of numbers and pro-
portions. Data were analyzed for quantitative variables
with Student's or Mann-Whitney's tests according to
the normality and homogeneity of variances between
the two compared groups. For qualitative variables, the
Chi2 test (or Fisher's test in the event of theoretical
numbers of less than 5) was used. A significance level
of 5% was chosen.

Multivariate analysis was performed to identify fac-
tors associated with spontaneous rotation within the
first hour of the second stage of labor.

First, simple logistic regressions were implemented
for each predictive explanatory variable. This allowed
us to check the log-linearity of continuous variables
and transform them into quartiles if this condition was
not met. Finally, a multiple logistic regression was
implemented with all the predictive variables, with a
descending stepwise selection to obtain the final
model. Statistical analyses were performed using R
version 4 and the R Studio software.

This study was approved by the Comité d’Ethique
de la Recherche en Gynécologie Obstétrique under
the IRB number (CEROG OBS 2013-11-02) and
informed consent was obtained.

Results

Between September 2015 and October 2016, among 5265 births, 495 women (9.4%) presented with a fetus in persistent OP position confirmed by ultrasound (Figure 1). Seven patients were excluded because of an emergency cesarean section for a non-reassuring fetal condition during the first hour of the second stage. The characteristics of these patients were not different from the rest of the included population.

We observed 78 spontaneous rotations before
delivery (16% of included patients) and 410 patients
(84%) whose fetuses did not perform spontaneous
rotations before delivery (delivery in OP position, man-
ual or instrumental rotation, a cesarean section in pos-
terior variety, or instrumental delivery in OP position).
76% (59/78) of the spontaneous rotations occurred
during the first hour of the second stage of labor.

Among the variables studied, there was a signifi-
cant difference between the two groups for maternal
height and parity. The height difference between the
<figure><img src="image_16.png" /></figure>

two groups was not clinically relevant (about 2 centimeters). The maternal characteristics are shown in Table 1.

The duration of each stage of labor (first and second stage) were significantly shorter in the "spontaneous rotation" group. These durations are shown in Table 2. Regarding maternal outcomes, there were fewer episiotomies (25.6% vs. 52.3%, *p* < .01) and fewer instrumental deliveries in the "spontaneous rotation" group (8.9% vs. 50.0%, *p* < .01).

In the "non-spontaneous rotation" group, 194 patients (50%) had an instrumental delivery, for the arrest of progression, or non-reassuring fetal status, in comparison with 8.9% (7 out of 78 patients) in the

"spontaneous rotation" group (*p* < .01). In the "non-spontaneous rotation" group, the proportion of cesarean sections for non-engagement was 5.4%, compared to 0% in the "spontaneous rotation" group (*p* = .03). Thus there were significantly fewer operative deliveries in the spontaneous rotation group compared to the "non-spontaneous rotation" group (8.9% vs 52.7%, *p* < .001). We did not find any difference between the two groups for post-partum hemorrhage or neonatal outcomes (Apgar score at 5 min, arterial pH, shoulder dystocia, head trauma, neonatal transfers). In addition, birth weight, birth size, and head circumference were similar between the two groups.

Maternal and neonatal outcomes are shown in Table 3.

In bivariate analyses, we observed a significant difference between the two groups for the following variables: parity, maternal height and duration of the first stage of labor. After multiple logistic regressions, the multivariate analysis found only one variable involved in the prediction of spontaneous rotation: the duration of the first stage.

A duration of the first stage of labor greater than 7 h reduces the probability of spontaneous rotation (OR 0.39 [0.19; 0.77]), compared to women who had labor during less than 3 h (reference group). For other groups (duration between 3 and 5 h; and duration between 5 and 7 h), there was no difference with the reference group. A survival analysis showing probability of spontaneous rotation depending on the duration of first stage of labor is available as supplementary material.

Then, patients were separated into two groups depending on the duration of the first stage of labor: shorter than 7 h; or longer than 7 h. We found a similar result: a first stage of labor longer than 7 h reduces the probability of spontaneous rotation (OR 0.43 [0.23; 0.76]), compared to women who had labor during less than 7 h. These results are detailed in Table 4 and Figure 2.

<figure><img src="image_17.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 1.** Flowchart. OPP: Occiput Posterior Position; NRFC: Non-Reassuring Fetal Condition.</figcaption></figure>

<table><caption>**Table 1.** Demographic and obstetrical outcomes.</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th>Spontaneous rotation<br>n = 78</th><th>No spontaneous rotation<br>n = 410</th><th>p</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Maternal weight (kg)</td><td>64.7 (13.5)</td><td>64.6 (14.2)</td><td>.73</td></tr><tr><td>Maternal height (cm)</td><td>165.7 (6.9)</td><td>163.9 (5.7)</td><td>.02</td></tr><tr><td>Maternal BMI (kg/m<sup>2</sup>)</td><td>23.5 (4.4)</td><td>24.1 (5.2)</td><td>.57</td></tr><tr><td>Maternal Age (years)</td><td>30.2 (5.5)</td><td>29.8 (5.2)</td><td>.54</td></tr><tr><td>Parity, n (%)</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Nulliparous</td><td>33 (42%)</td><td>230 (56%)</td><td>.03</td></tr><tr><td>Parous</td><td>45 (58%)</td><td>180 (44%)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Unscarred uterus, n (%)</td><td>74 (95%)</td><td>380 (93%)</td><td>.65</td></tr><tr><td>No gestational diabetes, n (%)</td><td>67 (86%)</td><td>365 (89%)</td><td>.55</td></tr><tr><td>Epidural analgesia, n (%)</td><td>71 (91.0%)</td><td>391 (95%)</td><td>.16</td></tr><tr><td>Term (WG)</td><td>39.6 (1.6)</td><td>39.5 (2.0)</td><td>.83</td></tr><tr><td>Male fetus, n (%)</td><td>44 (56%)</td><td>215 (52%)</td><td>.60</td></tr></tbody></table>

Continuus data are shown in mean (standard deviation).

Abbreviations: WG: Weeks of Gestation; BMI: Body Mass Index.
<table><caption>**Table 2.** Duration of the different stages of labor (means, in hours and in minutes).</caption><thead><tr><th>Durations (mean, standard deviation)</th><th>Spontaneous rotation n = 78</th><th>No spontaneous rotation n = 410</th><th>p</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>First stage duration (minutes)</td><td>236.7 (138.3)</td><td>334.2 (210.6)</td><td>&lt;.01</td></tr><tr><td>First stage duration (hours)</td><td>3.9 (2.3)</td><td>5.5 (3.5)</td><td>&lt;.01</td></tr><tr><td>Delay FD - start of EE (minutes)</td><td>76.9 (55.3)</td><td>91.6 (53.1)</td><td>.02</td></tr><tr><td>Delay FD - start of EE (hours)</td><td>1.3 (0.92)</td><td>1.5 (0.88)</td><td>.02</td></tr><tr><td>Duration of EE (minutes)</td><td>11.8 (9.4)</td><td>17.0 (10.6)</td><td>&lt;.01</td></tr><tr><td>Total duration of second stage (minutes)</td><td>88.8 (61.4)</td><td>108.0 (58.1)</td><td>&lt;.01</td></tr></tbody></table>

Abbreviations: FD: Full Dilation; EE: Expulsive Efforts.

<table><caption>**Table 3.** Maternal and fetal outcomes.</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th>Spontaneous rotation n = 78</th><th>No spontaneous rotation n = 410</th><th>p</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Episiotomy, n (%)</td><td>20/78 (25.6%)</td><td>203/388<sup>a</sup> (52.3%)</td><td>&lt;.01</td></tr><tr><td>Post-partum hemorrhage, n (%)</td><td>2/78 (2.6%)</td><td>36/410 (8.8%)</td><td>.1</td></tr><tr><td>Instrumental delivery, n (%)</td><td>7/78 (8.9%)</td><td>194/388<sup>a</sup> (50.0%)</td><td>&lt;.01</td></tr><tr><td>Cesarean section, n (%)</td><td>0/78 (0%)</td><td>22/410 (5.4%)</td><td>.03</td></tr><tr><td>Apgar score &lt;7 at 5 min, n (%)</td><td>1/78 (0.01%)</td><td>3/410 (0.0%)</td><td>.5</td></tr><tr><td>Umbilical arterial pH &lt;7.0, n (%)</td><td>1/78 (0.01%)</td><td>2/410 (0.0%)</td><td>.41</td></tr><tr><td>Shoulder dystocia, n (%)</td><td>1/78 (1.3%)</td><td>4/410 (1%)</td><td>.58</td></tr><tr><td>Cephalic trauma, n (%)</td><td>0/78 (0%)</td><td>5/410 (0.1%)</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>Transfer in neonatal care unit, n (%)</td><td>2/78 (2.6%)</td><td>23/410 (5.6%)</td><td>.40</td></tr></tbody></table>

Continuous data are shown in mean (standard deviation).

<sup>a</sup>388 vaginal deliveries.

<figure><img src="image_18.png" /><figcaption>Probability of spontaneous rotation during second stage of labor.</figcaption></figure>

<caption>**Figure 2.** Probability of spontaneous rotation at full dilation, depending on the duration of the first stage of labor.</caption>

In addition, we compared the maternal and fetal outcomes between the women who had a spontaneous rotation and those in whom manual rotation was performed. There were more instrumental deliveries and episiotomies (*p* < .01) for the group "manual rotation"; there were no difference for the other outcomes.

This posthoc analysis is shown in Table 5.

## Discussion

In our study, 16 % of fetuses in persistent OP position spontaneously rotated in occiput anterior position

during the second stage of labor. Most of the spontaneous rotations occurred during the first hour of the second stage. This result is consistent with previous studies [2–5].

The main significant data in the bivariate analysis found in this study are the duration of the first stage of labor, and parity, with a higher probability of observing spontaneous rotation for multiparous women. These characteristics are also found in other studies [4,5,7,10]. However, in the multivariate model, parity is no longer a significant variable. In the multivariate model from our study, the duration of the first stage of labor of more than 7 h reduces the
<figure><img src="image_19.png" /><figcaption>**Table 4.** Univariable analysis by simple logistic regressions for the probability of spontaneous rotation; then multivariable analysis by multiple logistic regression (step-by-step descending selection).</figcaption></figure>

<table><thead><tr><th>Variables analyzed</th><th>OR [CI 95%]</th><th>Adjusted OR [CI 95%]</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Maternal weight (kg) in quartiles</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>[38; 55[</td><td>1</td><td>NS</td></tr><tr><td>[55; 62[</td><td>1.30 [0.65; 2.65]</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>[62; 71[</td><td>1.21 [0.59; 2.51]</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>[71; 149]</td><td>1.04 [0.51; 2.17]</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Maternal height (cm) in quartiles</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>[140; 160[</td><td>1</td><td>NS</td></tr><tr><td>[160; 164.5[</td><td>0.77 [0.35; 1.69]</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>[164.5; 168[</td><td>1.11 [0.50; 2.52]</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>[168; 178]</td><td>1.76 [0.89; 3.66]</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Maternal BMI (kg/m²) in quartiles</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>[15.9; 18.5[</td><td>1</td><td>NS</td></tr><tr><td>[18.5; 25[</td><td>1.08 [0.45; 3.30]</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>[25; 30[</td><td>1.56 [0.58; 4.98]</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>[30; 48.7]</td><td>0.56 [0.14; 2.16]</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Maternal age (years) in quartiles</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>[16; 26]</td><td>1</td><td>NS</td></tr><tr><td>[26; 29]</td><td>1.45 [0.70; 3.15]</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>[30; 33]</td><td>1.47 [0.69; 3.27]</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>[33; 44]</td><td>1.27 [0.60; 2.81]</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Parity</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Nulliparous</td><td>1</td><td>NS</td></tr><tr><td>Parous</td><td>1.74 [1.07; 2.86]</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Unscarred uterus</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>No</td><td>1</td><td>NS</td></tr><tr><td>Yes</td><td>0.68 [0.20; 1.80]</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Gestational diabetes</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>No</td><td>1</td><td>NS</td></tr><tr><td>Yes</td><td>1.33 [0.63; 2.62]</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Epidural analgesia</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>No</td><td>1</td><td>NS</td></tr><tr><td>Yes</td><td>0.49 [0.21; 1.30]</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Term (WA)</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>&lt; 37</td><td>1</td><td>NS</td></tr><tr><td>[37; 40]</td><td>1.58 [0.53; 6.83]</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>&gt; 40</td><td>1.29 [0.40; 5.76]</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Fetal sex</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Male</td><td>1</td><td>NS</td></tr><tr><td>Female</td><td>0.85 [0.52; 1.39]</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Birth weight (g) in quartiles</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>[805,3028]</td><td>1</td><td>NS</td></tr><tr><td>[3028,3340]</td><td>0.86 [0.44; 1.69]</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>[3340,3650]</td><td>0.78 [0.39; 1.54]</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>[3650,4700]</td><td>0.83 [0.42; 1.63]</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Birth size (cm) in quartiles</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>[42.5; 48]</td><td>1</td><td>NS</td></tr><tr><td>[48; 49]</td><td>1.06 [0.49; 2.23]</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>[49; 50]</td><td>0.68 [0.30; 1.48]</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>[50; 54]</td><td>0.89 [0.48; 1.66]</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Cephalic perimeter (cm) in quartiles</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>[24; 33]</td><td>1</td><td>NS</td></tr><tr><td>[33; 34]</td><td>0.73 [0.31; 1.77]</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>[34; 35]</td><td>0.68 [0.30; 1.57]</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>[35; 39]</td><td>0.90 [0.43; 1.99]</td><td>NS</td></tr><tr><td>Duration of first stage (hours)</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>[0; 3[</td><td>1</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>[3; 5[</td><td>1.19 [0.65; 2.23]</td><td>1.19 [0.65; 2.23]</td></tr><tr><td>[5; 7[</td><td>0.47 [0.20; 1.02]</td><td>0.47 [0.20; 1.02]</td></tr><tr><td>[7; 18]</td><td>0.39 [0.19; 0.77]</td><td>0.39 [0.19; 0.77]</td></tr><tr><td>Duration of first stage (hours)</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>&lt; 7</td><td>1</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>≥ 7</td><td>0.43 [0.23; 0.76]</td><td>0.43 [0.23; 0.76]</td></tr></tbody></table>

Abbreviations: NS: not significant. BMI: Body Mass Index; WG: Weeks of Gestation.

This model included every factor statistically associated with spontaneous rotation. Our model was based on a descending stepwise multivariate analysis which retained no other adjustment variable than the duration of the 2nd stage in the final analysis. This explains why the OR and adjusted OR are identical.
<table><caption>**Table 5.** Posthoc analysis: comparison of maternal and neonatal outcomes, between "spontaneous rotation" and "manual rotation."</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th>Spontaneous rotation<br>n = 78</th><th>Manual<br>rotation<br>n = 219</th><th>p</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Episiotomy, n (%)</td><td>20/78 (25.6%)</td><td>100/219 (45.7%)</td><td>&lt;.01</td></tr><tr><td>Post-partum hemorrhage,<br>n (%)</td><td>2/78 (2.6%)</td><td>18/219 (8.2%)</td><td>.15</td></tr><tr><td>Instrumental delivery, n (%)</td><td>7/78 (8.9%)</td><td>83/219 (37.9%)</td><td>&lt;.01</td></tr><tr><td>Cesarean section, n (%)</td><td>0/78 (0%)</td><td>0/219 (0%)</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>Apgar score at 5 min &lt; 7,<br>n (%)</td><td>1/78 (0.01%)</td><td>0/219 (0%)</td><td>.26</td></tr><tr><td>Umbilical arterial pH &lt;7.0,<br>n (%)</td><td>1/78 (0.01%)</td><td>0/219 (0%)</td><td>.26</td></tr><tr><td>Shoulder dystocia, n (%)</td><td>1/78 (1.3%)</td><td>0/219 (0%)</td><td>.26</td></tr><tr><td>Cephalic trauma, n (%)</td><td>0/78 (0%)</td><td>1/219 (0.5%)</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>Transfer in neonatal care unit, n (%)</td><td>2/78 (2.6%)</td><td>13/219 (5.9%)</td><td>.37</td></tr><tr><td>Birth weight (grams)</td><td>3284.5 (480.7)</td><td>3375.6 (550.9)</td><td>.20</td></tr><tr><td>Birth size (cm)</td><td>48.7 (2.1)</td><td>49.2 (1.99)</td><td>.07</td></tr><tr><td>Cephalic perimeter at birth (cm)</td><td>34.2 (1.5)</td><td>34.2 (0.7)</td><td>.97</td></tr></tbody></table>

Abbreviations: NS: not significant.

Continuous data are shown in mean (standard deviation).

probability of spontaneous rotation in the second stage of labor by almost 50%.

Regarding the duration of each stage of labor, women in the "spontaneous rotation" group had significantly shorter stages of labor. However, we cannot retain the durations of the second stage of labor ("time between full dilation and expulsive efforts," "duration of active second stage," and "total duration of the second stage of labor") as being predictive factors of spontaneous rotation at one hour of full dilation. Indeed, the duration of these phases can be shortened by the fact that a fetus in the anterior position (after spontaneous rotation) is associated with faster labor [1,2,5,6].

Regarding demographic and obstetrical data, our study also shows that women whose fetuses spontaneously rotated were significantly taller. This variable is not significant in the final multivariate model.

Epidural analgesia may decrease the chances of spontaneous rotation. Some authors suggest that epidural analgesia decreases the mobility of the parturient and the possibilities of maternal postures, which would be associated with a lower probability of rotation, although this causal relationship is disputed [5,31]. However, these data are not statistically significant in our study.

Regarding maternal outcomes, our study shows a decreased rate of episiotomies and operative deliveries in the "spontaneous rotation" group. This reduction is classically explained by better cephalic flexion, which facilitates obstetrical mechanics [1,2], but this decrease is also found when we compared them with women who only had a manual rotation. Spontaneous rotation

is less associated with instrumental deliveries even compared with manual rotation. This result may be partly due to the fact that in our service protocol, a manual rotation is offered in the setting of the absence of progression of the fetal head, and before operative deliveries in case of OP position.

For newborns in the "spontaneous rotation" group, their Apgar scores at 1 min are significantly higher; but this difference is clinically negligible as the 5 min Apgar scores are not different. The occurrence of other neonatal complications was not significantly different between the two groups. This lack of significance can, however, be explained by the low number of neonatal complications collected in our study.

The management of persistent OP position is currently debated.

The persistent OP position is the source of obstetrical complications, as the rates of cesarean section, instrumental deliveries and severe perineal tears are greatly increased [6–8,12]. Some interventions were used in order to have a rotation of the fetal head. Maternal postures are safe but their effectiveness has not been proven [32]. Moreover, instrumental rotation can be a substantial help but is more invasive [19–20].

Manual rotation seems to be an effective and safe way to get an occiput anterior position from a fetus initially in an OP position, and with fewer complications than instrumental rotation [33]. Recent works tend to show the superiority of manual rotation over other managements of the persistent OP position, but there is no definitive optimal management for the
<figure><img src="image_20.png" /></figure>

persistent OP position yet [26-30]. In particulary, inter-
rogations remain about the optimal timing for per-
forming a manual rotation, between "prophylactic"
rotation in the beginning of the second stage of labor
and "therapeutic" rotation (i.e. in case of non-progres-
sion of the fetal head or before operative delivery).

In our study, we showed that the chances of spon-
taneous rotation during the second stage of labor are
non-negligible, especially during the first hour. The
opportunity to provide a one-hour expectative delay
for women whose fetuses are in persistent OP position
with correction of uterine dynamics is an alternative
option, allowing some of these fetuses to undergo
spontaneous rotation.

The strengths of our study are its prospective
design and a large number of women included, and
the homogeneity of practices in the delivery room at
the Toulouse University Hospital. The type of presenta-
tion was also systematically confirmed by ultrasound
in the delivery room. The limitations to this study are
the unicentric nature of the analysis, and the frequent
performance of manual rotations in the absence of
progression, mechanically lowering the rate of spon-
taneous rotation.

Conclusion

In our prospective study, 1 out of 6 fetuses in persist-
ent OP position spontaneously rotated in the occiput
anterior position during the second stage of labor.
Most of the spontaneous rotations occurred during
the first hour of the second stage. The only factor
associated with spontaneous rotation at full dilation
was the duration of the first stage of labor. A short
duration of the first stage of labor (<7 h) was predict-
ive of spontaneous rotation in the second stage of
labor.

Maternal and fetal outcomes were better when
spontaneous rotation occurred than in the other situa-
tions in our cohort. These data suggest that we should
consider waiting for spontaneous rotation before man-
ual rotation, especially for patients with a short first
stage of labor. This study may help to refine the man-
agement of these frequent situations, and possibly
avoid a rotation maneuver in patients with a higher
probability of spontaneous rotation.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the
author(s).

Funding

The author(s) reported there is no funding associated with
the work featured in this article.

References

[1] Schaal JP, Benoit S, Eyraud JL, et al. [Normal delivery with vertex presentation]. Rev Prat. 15 févr. 1997; 47(4):435-449.

[2] Castel P, Bretelle F, D'Ercole C, et al. [Pathophysiology, diagnosis and management of occiput posterior presentation during labor]. Gynecol Obstet Fertil Senol. 2019;47(4):370-377.

[3] Simkin P. The fetal occiput posterior position: state of the science and a new perspective. Birth. 2010;37(1): 61-71.

[4] Othenin-Girard V, Boulvain M, Guittier M-J. Accouchement en variété occipito-postérieure : issues materno-fœtales et facteurs prédictifs de la rotation. Gynecol Obstet Fertil Senol. 2018;46(2):93-98.

[5] Blanc-Petitjean P, Le Ray C, Lepleux F, et al. Factors affecting rotation of occiput posterior position during the first stage of labor. J Gynecol Obstet Hum Reprod. 2018;47(3)119-125.

[6] Barth WH. Persistent occiput posterior. Obstet Gynecol. 2015;125(3):695-709.

[7] Cheng YW, Shaffer BL, Caughey AB. Associated factors and outcomes of persistent occiput posterior position: a retrospective cohort study from 1976 to 2001. J Matern-Fetal Neonatal Med off J Eur Assoc Perinat Med Fed Asia Ocean Perinat Soc Int Soc Perinat Obstet. 2006;19(9):563-568.

[8] Fitzpatrick M, McQuillan K, OHerlihy C. Influence of persistent occiput posterior position on delivery outcome. Obstet Gynecol. 2001;98(6):1027-1031.

[9] Riethmuller D, Teffaud O, Eyraud JL, et al. Maternal and fetal prognosis of occipito-posterior presentation. J Gynecol Obstet Biol Reprod févr. 1999;28(1):41-47.

[10] Sizer AR, Nirmal DM. Occipitoposterior position: associated factors and obstetric outcome in nulliparas. Obstet Gynecol. 2000;96(5 Pt 1):749-752.

[11] Ducarme G, Pizzoferrato AC, de Tayrac R, et al. Perineal prevention and protection in obstetrics: CNGOF clinical practice guidelines. J Gynecol Obstet Hum Reprod. 2019;48(7):455-460.

[12] Ponkey SE, Cohen AP, Heffner LJ, et al. Persistent fetal occiput posterior position: obstetric outcomes. Obstet Gynecol. 2003;101(5, Part 1):915-920.

[13] Fitzgerald MP, Weber AM, Howden N, et al. Pelvic floor disorders network. Risk factors for anal sphincter tear during vaginal delivery. Obstet Gynecol. 2007; 109(1):29-34.

[14] Pergialiotis V, Bellos I, Fanaki M, et al. Risk factors for severe perineal trauma during childbirth: an updated meta-analysis. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2020;247:94-100.

[15] Pearl ML, Roberts JM, Laros RK, et al. Vaginal delivery from the persistent occiput posterior position. Influence on maternal and neonatal morbidity. J Reprod Med. 1993;38(12):955-961.
<figure><img src="image_21.png" /></figure>

[16] Cheng YW, Shaffer BL, Caughey AB. The association between persistent occiput posterior position and neonatal outcomes. Obstet Gynecol. avr. 2006;107(4): 837-844.

[17] Vayssière C, Beucher G, Dupuis O, et al. Instrumental delivery: clinical practice guidelines from the French College of Gynaecologists and Obstetricians. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2011;159(1):43-48.

[18] Masturzo B, Farina A, Attamante L, et al. Sonographic evaluation of the fetal spine position and success rate of manual rotation of the fetus in occiput posterior position: a randomized controlled trial. J Clin Ultrasound. 2017;45(8):472-476.

[19] Vidal F, Simon C, Cristini C, et al. Instrumental rotation for persistent fetal occiput posterior position: a way to decrease maternal and neonatal injury? PLOS One. 2013;8(10):e78124.

[20] Guerby P, Allouche M, Simon-Toulza C, et al. Management of persistent occiput posterior position: a substantial role of instrumental rotation in the setting of failed manual rotation. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2 Janv. 2018;31(1):80-86.

[21] Guerby P, Parant O, Chantalat E, et al. Operative vaginal delivery in case of persistent occiput posterior position after manual rotation failure: a 6-month follow-up on pelvic floor function. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2018;298(1):111-120.

[22] Marguier Blanchard I, Metz J-P, Eckman Lacroix A, et al. [Manual rotation in occiput posterior position: a systematic review in 2019]. Gynecol Obstet Fertil Senol. 2019;47(9):672-679.

[23] Le Ray C, Goffinet F. [Manual rotation of occiput posterior presentation]. Gynecol Obstet Fertil. 2011; 39(10):575-578.

[24] Gaudineau A, Vayssière C. Place de l'échographie en salle de naissance. Gynécologie Obstétrique Fertil. mars. 2008;36(3):261-271.

[25] Tao H, Wang R, Liu W, et al. The value of intrapartum ultrasound in the prediction of persistent occiput

posterior position: systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. juill. 2019;238: 25-32.

[26] Blanc J, Castel P, Mauviel F, et al. Prophylactic manual rotation of occiput posterior and transverse positions to decrease operative delivery: the PROPOP randomized clinical trial. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2021;225(4): 444.e1-444.e8.

[27] Verhaeghe C, Corroenne R, Spiers A, et al. Delivery mode after manual rotation of occiput posterior fetal positions: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol. 2021;137(6):999-1006.

[28] Phipps H, Hyett JA, Kuah S, et al. Persistent occiput posterior position outcomes following manual rotation: a randomized controlled trial. Am J Obstet Gynecol MFM. 2021;3(2):100306.

[29] De Vries B, Phipps H, Kuah S, et al. Transverse position. Using rotation to aid normal birth-OUTcomes following manual rotation (the TURN-OUT trial): a randomized controlled trial. Am J Obstet Gynecol MFM. 2022;Sep 174(1):100488.

[30] Bertholdt C, Piffer A, Pol H, et al. Management of persistent occiput posterior position: the added value of manual rotation. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2022;157(3): 613-617.

[31] Anim-Somuah M, Smyth RM, Cyna AM, et al. Epidural versus non-epidural or no analgesia for pain management in labour. Cochrane Database Syst Rev [Internet]. 2018;5(5):CD000331.

[32] Hunter S, Hofmeyr GJ, Kulier R, Hands and knees position in late pregnancy or labour for fetal malposition (lateral or posterior). Cochrane Database Syst Rev [Internet]. 2007;2007(4):CD001063.

[33] Bertholdt C, Morel O, Zuily S, et al. Manual rotation of occiput posterior or transverse positions: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2022;226(6):781-793.