Changing trends of cesarean section using Robson’s Ten-group classification in tertiary centre: a retrospective study
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.18203/2320-1770.ijrcog20191974Keywords:
Caesarean rate, Robson’s Ten-group classificationAbstract
Background: The aim of this study was to investigate and compare the CS rates at a tertiary care medical college setting centre which has a high referral rate of complicated pregnancies and make analysis based on the 10-group classification.
Methods: This is a retrospective study carried out department obstetrics and gynecology of a tertiary care medical college hospital in Mangalore and includes all deliveries over a period of five years from Jan 14 to Dec 2018 and it was compared with the c-section from January 2007 to December 2011.
Results: The overall CS (cesarean section) during the period 2014-18 was 31.85 which were significantly greater then 2007-11 period (20.59%). The main contributing groups to the overall CS rate were the previous CS (Group 5) and Primigravida groups, (Groups 1 and 2) 80%.
Conclusions: It is important that efforts to reduce the overall CS rate should focus on reducing the primary CS rate. The application of Robson’s Ten-group classification (TGCS) in centre has helped to identify the main groups of subjects who had the overall maximum CSR.
References
Ye J, Betrán AP, Guerrero Vela M, Souza JP, Zhang J. Searching for the optimal rate of medically necessary caesarean delivery. Birth. 2014;41(3):237-44.
Timor-Tritsch IE, Monteagudo A. Unforeseen consequences of the increasing rate of caesarean deliveries: early placenta accreta and caesarean scar pregnancy. A review. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2012;207(1):14-29.
Gregory KD, Jackson S, Korst L, Fridman M. Caesarean versus vaginal delivery: whose risks? Whose benefits? Am J Perinatol. 2012;29(1):7-18.
WHO. Monitoring obstetric care: a handbook. Geneva: WHO Press, World Health Organization. 2009.
Kazmi T, Sarva Saiseema V, Khan S. Analysis of Cesarean section rate-according to Robson’s 10-group classification. Oman Med J. 2012;27(5):415.
World Health Organization. Monitoring emergency obstetric care: a handbook. Geneva, Switzerland. 2009.
World Health Organization Human Reproduction Programme, 10 April 2015. WHO statement on caesarean section rates. Reprod Health Matters. 2015;23:149-50.
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 M. Classification of caesarean sections. Fetal Matern Med Rev. 2001;12:23-39.
Brennan DJ, Robson MS, Murphy M, O'Herlihy C. Comparative analysis of international caesarean delivery rates using 10-group classification identifies significant variation in spontaneous labor. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2009;201(308):e301-8.
Thomas J, Paranjothy S and the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, clinical effectiveness support unit. The national sentinel caesarean section audit report. London; RCOG press, 2001.
Qazi M, Saqib N. Rising trend of caesarean section in a tertiary hospital over half decade: a retrospective study. Int J Reprod Contracept Obstet Gynecol. 2018;7:4097-102.
Anderson GM, Lomas J. Determinants of the increasing caesarean birth rate. N Eng J Med. 1984;311;87-892.
Brennan DJ, Robson MS, Murphy M, O'Herlihy C. Comparative analysis of international caesarean delivery rates using 10-group classification identifies significant variation in spontaneous labor. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2009;201(308):e301-8.
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.
The National Maternity Hospital Dublin. Ireland. Annual Clinical Report. Dublin; The National Maternity Hospital. 2000;98-100.
