Joy you raised some very interesting questions. Firstly the numbers of women 
included in the trial were actually quite small (130 in each arm), so the 
percentages translate to even smaller numbers (the 75% of moxa treated women 
with cepalic fetuses at term reprsents 98 women and the 62.3% of women in the 
control group with option of ECV represented 81 women with fetuses in 
cephalic presentation. The stats given for these numbers were P=.02;RR 1.21; 
95% CI, 1.02-1.43. 

Second was the timing of the moxa. My comment here is I think we are all 
reluctant to change our traditions. According to this paper, the standard of 
care for breech babies in China (or at least the hospitals were the trial 
took place) is moxa early in the 3rd trimester followed by ECV around 36-37 
weeks. In the introduction the authors present research on the probability of 
breech fetuses of primips, multips with prior breech, and multips with no 
prior breech turning spontaneously before 33 weeks, 35 weeks, etc..  They 
then decide to do the moxa treatment trial in the 33-35 week window ( which 
is not surprising to me because this is when it is done anyway). They appear 
to believe that spontaneous turning of a primip breech after 35 weeks in 
unlikely and so they want to use the moxa to enhance the likelihood of 
spontaneous turning (they give a figure of 15.5% for spontaneous correction 
of breech in primiparous women based on and article by Gottlicher and 
Madjaric, which is in a German publication (if anyone wants the name of it I 
will copy it later).  

Since moxa is traditionally done relatively early in the 3rd trimester, there 
is actually nothing in the literature to suggest that it is better than doing 
nothing at all later in the third trimester. Even though it is a procedure 
that the woman can do at home, it takes a lot of time and preparation to do 
right (or at least in the way it is done in the trial: 2 half hour 
stimulation per day for one to two weeks or until the baby is confirmed 
cephalic presentation). I realise that women who are making there own herbal 
preparations etc. may have no trouble with this but, I have worked with women 
who found it difficult to tolerate the smoke etc., not to mention the 
considerable irritation on their toes, and one client whose husband did not 
realise he had to extinguish the moxa stick and created a small fire in the 
kitchen. I don't know (because I have never offered it before 36 weeks) but I 
tend to think the discomforts would be more tolerable at 33 weeks than 37 
weeks. Then ECV is your back up. 


I have only worked with 4 clients who had breech presentations. 2 turned with 
ECV and were born vaginally and 2 were born vaginally in breech presentation. 
Of the 2 breeches at birth, one was undetected until labor and was born at 
home, the other refused to turn with 2 attempted ECV's [plus moxa daily from 
37 weeks and was born in the hospital with a necessary forceps lift out. The 
home birth was a multip, the hospital birth was a primip. My second daughter 
was breech (24 yrs ago and the dx was not made until 37 weeks, after which I 
had to change care providers (since my GP was recommending a c/s), get u/s, 
educate myself, and run around in a flap without appearing to be in a flap). 
I would have preferred to know earlier I think with full disclosure of all 
options, I don't know. I think it should be the woman's choice ultimately. 
But how can she choose if she doesn't have all of the information. 

Oh! The awareness of increased fetal movement: the paper admits it doesn't 
know how it (moxa) works, but they assume since increased awareness of fetal 
movement occured in the moxa subjects then that is related to how it works. 
They call for further investigation.  The paper states: "since moxabustion 
and ECV must be performed at different gestational ages, we may regard them 
as completmentary therapies to be used in succession".

Interestingly enough both of the groups in the trial had a high c/s rate even 
amongst babies cephalic at term. In the treatment group the c/s rate was 
35.4% (26 for breech at term) and in the control group 36.2% were c/s, again 
26 for breech at term. And this was apparently at hospitals wher the routine 
for breech birth was vaginal delivery.

Sorry this is so long. Marilyn
--
This mailing list is sponsored by ACE Graphics.
Visit <http://www.acegraphics.com.au> to subscribe or unsubscribe.

Reply via email to