A clinical audit and confidential enquiry of caesarean section indications at rural tertiary health care centre

Authors

  • Ketki N. Thool Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, MGIMS, Sevagram, Wardha , Maharashtra, India
  • Shuchi M. Jain Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, MGIMS, Sevagram, Wardha , Maharashtra, India
  • Poonam V. Shivkumar Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, MGIMS, Sevagram, Wardha , Maharashtra, India
  • Manish A. Jain Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, MGIMS, Sevagram, Wardha , Maharashtra, India
  • Manjiri R. Podder Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, MGIMS, Sevagram, Wardha , Maharashtra, India

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.18203/10.18203/2320-1770.ijrcog20171413

Keywords:

Caesarean section, Category of CS, Confidential enquiry, Indications, Parity

Abstract

Background: Worldwide CSR has been steadily increasing beyond recommended level of 15 %by WHO. High CSR have been reported in developed and developing countries. Reasons for increase in CSR are not obvious and somewhat complex. Thus, present study was undertaken to analyze various indications for CS performed at rural tertiary health care centre Sewagram, M.S.

Methods: This was prospective study included all women who underwent CS from 1st January 2015 till 30th June 2016. Data was entered in MS excel sheet analyzed with percentage and chi square test using SPSS ver.17.

Results: CSR was 36 .88% in present study. As per NICE guidelines CS were classified in four categories based on urgency, women were distributed in each category. Category I had 22.62%, category II -38.61%, category III - 28.37% and Category IV - 10.40% women. In CAT I common indication was foetal bradycardia (71.53%). In CAT II CS, common indication was non reassuring foetal status (38.82%).  Breech presentation (14.74%) and previous scar with doubtfull scar integrity (14.33) were next common indications. In CAT III (43.43%), IV (41.13%) previous LSCS with inadequate pelvis was the common indication. Confidential enquiry revealed that 26.17% (28/107), 20.3% (40/197), 23.17%, (35/151) and 8.3 % (5/60) of CAT I, II, III and IV CS had questionable indications.

Conclusions: In this study, CSR was higher than WHO standard. Common indications in primipara was foetal distress while in multiparas primary indication previous LSCS

References

Betrán AP, Gulmezoglu AM, Robson M, Merialdi M, Souza JP, Wojdyla D et al. WHO global survey on maternal and perinatal health in latin america: classifying caesarean sections. Reproductive Health. 2009;6(1):18.

Lauer JA, Betrán AP. Decision aids for women with a previous caesarean section. BMJ. 2007;334(7607):1281-2.

Mukherjee S. Rising cesarean section rate. J Obstet Gynecol India. 2006;56(4):298-300.

Wee M, Brown H, Reynolds F. The National Institute of Clinical Excellence (NICE) guidelines for caesarean sections: implications for the anaesthetist. Int J Obst Anesthesia. 2005;14(2):147-58.

Kambo I, Bedi N, Dhillon BS, Saxena NC. A critical appraisal of cesarean section rates at teaching hospitals in India. Int J Gynecol Obst. 2002;79(2):151-8.

Mehta A, Apers L, Verstraelen H, Temmerman M. Trends in caesarean section rates at a maternity hospital in Mumbai, India. J Health Population Nutrition. 2001;19(4):306-12.

Khawaja N, Yousaf T, Tayyeb R. Analysis of caesarean delivery at a tertiary care hospital in Pakistan. J Obst Gynaecol. 2004;24(2):139-41.

David S, Mamelle N, Riviere O. Estimation of an expected caesarean section rate taking into account the case mix of a maternity hospital. Analysis from the AUDIPOG Sentinelle Network (France). Obstetricians of AUDIPOG. Association of Users of Computerised Files in Perinatalogy, Obstetrics and Gynaecology. BJOG. 2001;108(9):919-26.

Cameron B, Cameron S. Outcomes in rural obstetrics, Atherton Hospital 1991-2000. The Australian J Rural Health. 2001;9:39-42.

Perez GJ, Lopez MG, Pivaral C, Munoz A, Valle A. Caesarean sections in Mexico: are there too many? Health Policy Plan. 2001;16(1):62-7.

Ugwu EOV, Obioha KCE, Okezie OA, Ugwu AO. A five-year survey of caesarean delivery at a Nigerian tertiary hospital. Annals Med Health Sci Research. 2011;1(1):77-83.

Litorp H, Kidanto HL, Rööst M, Abeid M, Nyström L, Essén B. Maternal near-miss and death and their association with caesarean section complications: a cross-sectional study at a university hospital and a regional hospital in Tanzania. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2014;14(1):1.

Naeem M, Khan MZ, Abbas SH, Khan A, Adil M, Khan MU. Rate and indications of elective and emergency caesarean section; a study in a tertiary care hospital of Peshawar. JAMC. 2015;27(1):151-4.

Chu K, Cortier H, Maldonado F, Mashant T, Ford N, Trelles M. Cesarean section rates and indications in sub-Saharan Africa: a multi-country study from medecins sans frontieres. PloS one. 2012;7(9):e44484.

Barber EL, Lundsberg L, Belanger K, Pettker CM, Funai EF, Illuzzi JL. Contributing indications to the rising cesarean delivery rate. Obstet Gynecol. 2011;118(1):29.

Jackson V, Irvine N. The influence of maternal request on the elective caesarean section rate. J Obstet Gynaecol. 1998;18(2):115-9.

Quinlivan JA, Petersen RW, Nichols CN. Patient preference the leading indication for elective caesarean section in public patients-results of a 2-year prospective audit in a teaching hospital. Australian New Zealand J Obst Gynaecol. 1999;39(2):207-14.

Gregory KD, Henry OA, Gellens AJ, Hobel CJ, Platt LD. Repeat cesareans: how many are elective? Obst Gynecol. 1994;84(4):574-8.

Downloads

Published

2017-03-30

Issue

Vol. 6 No. 4 (2017): April 2017

Section

Original Research Articles