Trends of caesarean section: an analytical overview of indications


  • Shruti A. Gavhane Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Smt. Kashibai Navle Medical College, Pune, Maharashtra, India
  • Shilpa N. Chaudhari Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Smt. Kashibai Navle Medical College, Pune, Maharashtra, India



Caesarean section, Caesarean rates, Caesarean section rate, Deliveries, Indications of caesarean section, Lower segment caesarean section


Background: Caesarean section is one of the commonly performed surgical procedures in obstetrics. An increasing trend has been observed in both primary and repeat caesarean sections. The reasons for its increase are multifaceted. So, this study was carried out to compare the rates of caesarean delivery and to analyse various indications contributing to it.

Methods: This retrospective study was conducted over a period of three year from 1st January 2016 to 31st December 2018 at the department of obstetrics and gynaecology, tertiary care hospital Pune, Maharashtra, India. All caesarean delivery (primary and repeat) taken place during the study period. The rate and indications of caesarean section was calculated over the study period to find out the trends in caesarean delivery. The data so collected was presented with graphical representation. Statistical analysis was performed with SPSS software and t-test was used for continuous data and pearson chi square test for discrete data.

Results: There were a total of 12373 deliveries during the study period out of which, 3701 had delivered via Caesarean Section. So, the rate of caesarean section in the study was found to be 29.91%.

Conclusions: Being a tertiary care hospital, a high rate of caesarean deliveries was observed, Individualization of the indication and careful evaluation, following standardized guidelines, practice of evidenced-based obstetrics and audits in the institution, can help us limit caesarean section rates.


Mittal S, Pardeshi S, Mayadeo N, Mane J. Trends in cesarean delivery: rate and indications. J Obstet Gynecol India. 2014;64(4):251-4.

WHO Appropriate technology for birth. Lancet. 1985;2(8452):436-7.

Hamilton BE, Martin JA, Ventura SJ. National vital statistics Report ;2011:60:1.

Martin JA, Hamilton BE, Osterman MJ, Curtin SC, Mathews T. Births: final data for 2013. 2015. Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health Statistics. 2019.

Gibbons L, Belizán JM, Lauer JA, Betrán AP, Merialdi M, Althabe F. The global numbers and costs of additionally needed and unnecessary caesarean sections performed per year: overuse as a barrier to universal coverage. World Health Report. 2010;30:1-31.

Tollanes MC. Increased rate of caesarean sections-causes and consequences. Tidsskr Nor Laegeforen. 2009;129(13):1329-31.

Silver RM, Landon MB, Rouse DJ, Leveo KJ, Spong CY, Thom EA, et al. Risk of placenta previa and accrete to number of previa deliveries. Obstet Gynecol. 2006;107:1226.

Barber EL, Lundsberg LS, Belanger K. Indicationa contributing to the increasing cesarean delivery rate. Obstet Gynecol. 2011;118(1):29-38.

Greene MF. Vaginal delivery after cesarean section-is the risk acceptable? N Engl J Med. 2001;345:54-5.

Lydon-Rochelle M, Holt VL, Easterling TR, Martin DP. Risk of uterine rupture during labor among women with a prior cesarean delivery. N Engl J Med. 2001;345:3-8.

Committee opinion. Induction of labor for vaginal birth after cesarean delivery. Obstet Gynecol. 2002;99:679-80.

Approach VBAC deliveries cautiously, experts say. Hosp Peer Rev. 1998;23:189.

ACOG practice bulletin. Vaginal birth after previous cesarean delivery. Number 5, July 1999 (replaces practice bulletin number 2, October 1998). Clinical management guidelines for obstetrician-gynecologists. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 1999;66:197–204.

ACOG Committee Opinion. Surgery and patient choice: the ethics of decision making. Obstet Gynecol. 2003;102:1101-6.

Beaulieu Beaulieu MD, Fabia J, Leduc B, Brisson J, Bastide A, Blouin D, Gauthier RJ, Lalonde A. The reproducibility of intrapartum cardiotocogram assessments. Can Med Associ J. 1982;127(3):214.

Nielsen PV, Stigsby B, Nickelsen C, Nim J. Intra- and inter-observer variability in the assessment of intrapartum cardiotocograms. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 1987;66:421-4.

Pettker CMTSNE, Buhimschi CS, Raab CA, Copel JA, Kuczynski E, Lockwood CJ, et al. Impact of a comprehensive patient safety strategy on obstetric adverse events. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2009;200(5):492.e1-8.

Murthy K, Grobman WA, Lee TA, Holl JL. Association between rising professional liability insurance premiums and primary cesarean delivery rates. Obstet Gynecol. 2007;110:1264-9.

Ryan K, Schnatz P, Greene J, Curry S. Change in cesarean section rate as a reflection of the present malpractice crisis. Conn Med. 2005;69:139-41.

Zwecker P, Azoulay L, Abenhaim HA. Effect of fear of litigation on obstetric care: a nationwide analysis on obstetric practice. Am J Perinatol. 2011;28(4):277-84.

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.

WHO Euro Health for all database, 2014. Available at:






Original Research Articles