Incorporating Robsons classification in analysis of caesarean section at rural territory centre for 18 months
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.18203/2320-1770.ijrcog20230676Keywords:
Robsons 10 group classification, Caesarean section, CS rateAbstract
Background: With the rise of caesarean sections (CS) over the last five decades, World Health Organization (WHO) proposed that health care facilities to use the Robsons 10 group classification system to audit their caesarean sections rates. This classification would help understand internal structure of the CS rates at individual health facilities identify population groups, indication in each group and formulate strategies to reduce these rates.
Methods: This is a retrospective study for a period of 18 months at tertiary care hospital in rural area at department of obstetrics and gynaecology, Dr. PSIMS & RF, Chinnoutpalli, Vijayawada, Andhra Pradesh. Women who delivered during this period were analysed and classified into Robsons group 10 classification and percentages were calculated for the overall rate, the representation of groups, contribution of groups and caesarean percentage in each group in rural territory centre during the period of January 2021 to June 2022.
Results: From January 2021 to June 2022 there were total of 547 deliveries. Out of which 224 had caesarean section accounting for a caesarean delivery rate of 40.9%. When data was analysed according to Robsons 10 group classification maximum contribution of caesarean section was with Robsons group 5.1 (36%), which comprised of patients with term cephalic multiparous with one previous scar. Followed by group 2A (21%), which comprised of patients with term cephalic nulliparous with labour induced. Breech pregnancies are completely undergoing caesarean section (groups 6 and 7).
Conclusions: We identified the contribution of each group to the overall CS rate as well as the CS rate within each group. Women with previous caesarean delivery contribute to the increasing proportion of caesarean deliveries. Use of Robson criteria allows standardized comparisons of data and identifies clinical scenarios in caesarean rates. All institutes to audit themselves to evaluate quality of caesarean section rates and to rationalize caesarean rates. Impact of interventions to reduce caesarean rates should be studied and documented. Evaluation of existing management protocols and further studies into indications of CS and outcomes in our setting will helps us to design strategies and improve outcomes.
References
Ye J, Zhang J, Mikolajczyk R, Rorloni MR, Gulmezoglu Am, Betran AP. Association between rates of caesarean section and maternal and neonatal mortality in the 21st century: a worldwide population-based ecological study with longitudinal data. BJOG. 2016;123(5):745-53.
Torloni MR, Betran AP, Souza JP, Widmer M, Allen T, Gulmezoglu M, et al. Classifications for cesarean section:a systematic review. PloS One. 2011;6:e14566.
Mumtaz S, Bahk J, Khang YH. Rising trends and inequalities in cesarean section rates in Pakistan: Evidence from Pakistan Demographic and Health Surveys 1990-2013. PLoS One. 2017;12(10):e0186563.
Khan MA, Sohail I, Habib M. Auditing the cesarean section rate by Robson's ten group classification system at tertiary care hospital. Professional Med J. 2021;37(2):567-71.
Naeem M, Khan MZ, Abbas SH, Khan A, Adil M, Khan MU. Rate and Indication of elective and emergency cesarean section:A study in a Tertiary Care Hospital of Peshawar. J Ayub Med Coll Abbottabad. 2015;27(1):151-4.
Amin N, Malik NJ. Role of antenatal checkup on caesarean section rate –study at CMH Attock. Pak Armed Forces Med J. 2017;67(4).
Jabeen J, Mansoor MH, Mansoor A. Analysis of indications of caesarean sections. J Rawalpindi Med Coll (JRMC) 2013;17(1):101-3.
Stavrou EP, Ford JB, Shand AW, Morris JM, Roberts CL. Epidemiology and trends for Caesarean section births in New South Wales, Australia: A population-based study. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2011;11:8.
MacDorman MF, Menacker F, Declercq E. Cesarean birth in the United States: epidemiology trends, and outcomes. Clin Perinatol. 2008;35(2):293-307.
World Health Organization. Appropriate technology for birth. Lancet. 1985;2:436-7.
World Health Organization, United Nations Population Fund, Mailman School of Public Health. Averting Maternal Death and Disability & United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF). Monitoring emergency obstetric care: a handbook. World Health Organization. Available at: https://apps.who.int/iris/ handle/10665/44121. Accessed on 12 December 2022.
Robson M, Hartigan L, Murphy M. Methods of achieving and maintaining an appropriate caesarean section rate. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2013;27(2):297-308.
Robson MS. Classification of caesarean sections. Fetal Matern Med Rev. 2001;12(1):23-39.
FIGO Working Group on Challenges in Care of Mothers and Infants during Labour and Delivery. Best practice advice on the 10-Group Classification System for cesarean deliveries. Int J Gynecol Obstet. 2016;135(2):232-3.
WHO Expert Committee on Physical Status: the Use and Interpretation of Anthropometry (1993: Geneva, Switzerland) & World Health Organization. (1995). Physical status: the use of and interpretation of anthropometry, report of a WHO expert committee. World Health Organization. Available at: https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/37003. Accessed on 12 December 2022.
World Health Organization. WHO recommendations on antenatal care for a positive pregnancy experience: World Health Organization. 2016. Available at: https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789241549912. Accessed on 12 December 2022.
