Analysis of caesarean section using Robson’s ten group classification in a tertiary care centre

Authors

  • Gopika Ambat Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Heritage Institute of Medical Sciences, Varanasi, Uttar Pradesh, India
  • Madhu Jain Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Heritage Institute of Medical Sciences, Varanasi, Uttar Pradesh, India
  • Lavanya Anuranjani Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Heritage Institute of Medical Sciences, Varanasi, Uttar Pradesh, India
  • Yashi Srivastava Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Heritage Institute of Medical Sciences, Varanasi, Uttar Pradesh, India
  • Anita Thakur Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Heritage Institute of Medical Sciences, Varanasi, Uttar Pradesh, India
  • Prerna Priya Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Heritage Institute of Medical Sciences, Varanasi, Uttar Pradesh, India

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.18203/2320-1770.ijrcog20231928

Keywords:

Caesarean section, Delivery, Robson ten group classification system

Abstract

Background: Caesarean section is the most common obstetric operation that saves lives of countless mother and babies. In the past few decades, caesarean section rates have been continuously increasing worldwide. WHO declared that there is no justification for any region to have a caesarean section rate higher than 10-15% and added that CS rates higher than 10% is not associated with reduction in newborn and maternal mortality rates. In 2015, WHO proposed Robson classification as a global standard of assessing, monitoring comparing and auditing the determinants of caesarean sections rates.

Methods: This Retrospective study was done in the department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Heritage institute of medical Sciences, Varanasi. The study duration was from July 2021 to June 2022.

Results: A total of 2039 cases underwent delivery during the study duration. The caesarean rate calculated was 46.3%. Group 5 (previous CS, single, cephalic, >37weeks) made the greatest contributor to total CS rate followed by Group 1 (nulliparous, single, cephalic, >37 weeks in spontaneous labor). 100% of women with abnormal lie (group 9) and 87.9% women with breech presentation underwent CS.

Conclusions: The overall rate of Caesarean sections is on an increasing trend. Robson’s Group 5 and 1 were the major contributors to caesarean section in this study. RTGCS is a simple useful tool which is a starting point for meaningful analysis of CS both at facility level and across different facilities.

References

World Health Organization. Appropriate technology for birth. Lancet. 1985;2:436-7.

Robson M. Classification of caesarean sections. Fetal Maternal Med Rev. 2001;12(1):23-39.

World Health Organization. WHO Statement on Caesarean Section Rates. WHO/RHR/15.02;2015.

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 Gynaecol Obstet. 2016;135:232-3.

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(1):e14566.

Robson MS. Classification of caesarean sections. Fetal and maternal medicine review. 2001;12(1):23-39.

Yadav RG, Maitra N. Examining cesarean delivery rates using the Robson’s ten group classification. J Obstet Gynaecol India. 2016;66:16.

Neuman M, Alcock G, Azad K, Kuddus A, Osrin D, More NS, et al. Prevalence and determinants of caesarean section in private and public health facilities in underserved South Asian communities: Cross sectional analysis of data from Bangladesh, India and Nepal. BMJ Open. 2014;4(12):e005982.

Robson MS, Scudamore IW, Walsh SM. Using the medical audit cycle to reduce cesarean section rates. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1996;174(1):199-205.

Le Ray C, Blondel B, Prunet C, Khireddine I, Deneux‐Tharaux C, Goffinet F. Stabilising the caesarean rate: which target population?. BJOG: An Int J Obstet Gynaecol. 2015;122(5):690-9.

Koteshwara S, Sujatha MS. Analysis of caesarean section rates using Robsons ten group classification: the first step. Int J Reprod Contracept Obstet Gynecol. 2017;6(8):3481-6.

Robson M, Murphy M, Byrne F. Quality assurance: the 10 group classification system (Robson classification), induction of labor, and cesarean delivery. Int J Gynecol Obstet. 2015;131:S23.

Neuman M, Alcock G, Azad K, Kuddus A, Osrin D, More NS, et al. Prevalence and determinants of caesarean section in private and public health facilities in underserved South Asian communities: Cross sectional analysis of data from Bangladesh, India and Nepal. BMJ Open. 2014;4(12):e005982.

Royal College of Obstetricians & Gynaecologists. Birth after previous caesarean birth. Green-top Guideline No. 45. 2015.

Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada. SOGC clinical practice guidelines. Guidelines for vaginal birth after previous caesarean birth. Number 155 (Replaces guideline Number 147), February 2005. Int J Gynaecol Obstet Int Fede Gynaecol Obstet. 2005;89(3):319-31.

American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Vaginal birth after previous cesarean delivery. ACOG Pract Patt Bull. 1999;5:1-8.

Grobman WA, Lai Y, Landon MB, Spong CY, Rouse DJ, Varner MW, et al. The change in the VBAC rate: an epidemiologic analysis. Paed perin Epidemiol. 2011;25(1):37.

Yeh J, Wactawski-Wende J, Shelton JA, Reschke J. Temporal trends in the rates of trial of labor in low-risk pregnancies and their impact on the rates and success of vaginal birth after cesarean delivery. Am J obstet gynecol. 2006;194(1):144-e1.

Daviss BA, Johnson KC, Lalonde AB. Evolving evidence since the term breech trial: Canadian response, European dissent, and potential solutions. J Obstet Gynaecol Canada. 2010;32(3):217-24.

Kotaska A. Inappropriate use of randomised trials to evaluate complex phenomena: case study of vaginal breech delivery. BMJ. 2004;329(7473):1039-42.

Glezerman M. Five years to the term breech trial: the rise and fall of a randomized controlled trial. Ame J Obstet Gynecol. 2006;194(1):20-5.

Downloads

Published

2023-06-28

Issue

Section

Original Research Articles