Analysis of caesarean section rate in tertiary care hospital according to Robson`s 10 groups classification
Keywords:Caesarean section, Robson’s ten group classification
Background: The caesarean section (CS) delivery rate is steadily increasing worldwide, including India. Identifying the proportion of women in various categories as per Robson's ten group classification system and CS rate among them is important to bring down the increasing CS rate.
Methods: This case series study was conducted at Vijayanagar Institute of Medical Sciences (VIMS), a tertiary care teaching hospital in Ballari, Karnataka, India. All pregnant women who have been admitted for delivery were enrolled and the data was collected for the women delivered by CS during January 2016 to December 2016 and proportions in various groups as per Robson’s ten-group classification system were calculated.
Results: Among a total of 6980 women delivered during study period, 2992 (42.8%) delivered by CS. The CS rates among various groups varied from 100% among women with abnormal lies and group 6-95% (all nulliparous breeches) group 5-94% (Previous CS, single cephalic, >37 weeks) to 10 to 15% among multiparous women with spontaneous labour having single cephalic pregnancy (group 3). Among women with previous section, CS rate was very high (89.6%). Women with previous CS (group 5) contributed maximum (40.24%) to the total number of CS.
Conclusions: In the present study, all women with breech presentation and abnormal lies delivered by CS and repeat CS was the highest contributor to all CS deliveries.
National institutes of health state of the-science conference statement. Caesarean delivery on maternal request. Obstet Gynecol. 2006;107:1386-97.
World Health Organization. Appropriate technology for birth. Lancet. 1985;2:436-7.
Robson M, Hartigan L, Murphy M. Methods of achieving and maintaining an appropriate caesarean section rate. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynecol. 2013 Apr 1;27(2):297-308.
Robson MS. Can we reduce the caesarean section rate?. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynecol. 2001;15:179-94.
Torloni MR, Betran AP, Souza JP, Widmer M, Allen T. Classification for caesarean section: a systematic review. PLoS One. 2011;6(1):e14566.
Patel RV, Gosalia EV, KJ, Vasa PB, Pandya VM. Indications and trends of caesarean birth delivery in the current practice scenario. Int J Reprod Contracept Obstet Gynecol. 2014;3:575-80.
Barber EL, Lundsberg L, Belanger K, Pettker CM, Funai EF, Illuzzi JL. Contributing indications to the rising cesarean delivery rate. Obstet Gynecol. 2011 Jul;118(1):29.
Wanjari SA. Rising caesarean section rate: a matter of concern? Int J Reprod Contracept Obstet Gynecol. 2014;3:728-31.
Shirsath A, Risbud N. Analysis of cesarean section rate according to Robson’s 10-groups classification system at a tertiary care hospital. Int J Sci Res. 2014 Jan;3(1):401-2.
Kansara V, Patel S, Aanand N, Muchhadia J, Kagathra B , Patel R. A recent way of evaluation of caesarean birth rate by Robson’s 10-group system. J Med Pharmaceut Allied Sci. 2014;01:62-70.
Abdel-Aleem H, Shaaban OM, Hassanin Al, Ibraheem AA. Analysis of caesarean delivery at Assiut University Hospital using the ten group Classification System. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2013;123(2):119-23.
Vogel JP, Betran AP, Vindevoghel N, Souza JP, Torloni MR, Zhang J, et al. Use of the Robson classification to assess caesarean section trends in 21 countries: a secondary analysis of two WHO multicounty surveys. Lancet Glob Health. 2015;3(5):e260-70.
Howell S, Johnston T, MACLEOD SL. Trends and determinants of caesarean sections births in Queensland, 1997–2006. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology. 2009 Dec 1;49(6):606-11.
Litorp H, Kidanto HL, Nystrom L, Darj E, Essén B. Increasing caesarean section rates among low-risk groups: a panel study classifying deliveries according to Robson at a university hospital in Tanzania. BMC pregnancy and childbirth. 2013 Dec;13(1):107.
Robson M, Hartigan L, Murphy M. Methods of achieving and maintaining an appropriate caesarean section rate. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2013;27:297-308.