Classification of caesarean section based on Robson ten group classification system in our hospital
Keywords:Caesarean section, Robson Ten Group Classification System
Background: Recent data indicate that one in five women undergo caesarean section (CS). In the last decade, there has been a dramatic increase in the caesarean section rate worldwide, which now exceeds 30% in some regions. Thus, the increasing rate of caesarean section became a matter of international public health concern. Our study aimed to classify the CS-based on Robson ten group classification system (RTGCS) criteria which will subsequently enable us to standardise the indication of CS and establish protocols to reduce the number of CS in our set up.
Method: A retrospective study was conducted in ESI Hospital, New Delhi wherein Robson TGCS was used to classify CS for 15 months (January 2019 to April 2020).
Results: Overall CS rate in our hospital over the specified period was 34.5%. All women with one or more previous cesareans (group V) had the maximum number of cesareans, 37%, followed by nulliparous, single, cephalic, term pregnancy (induced) i.e group II, 22.1% and nulliparous women more than 37 weeks in spontaneous labour (group I), 9.5%.
Conclusions: RTGCS is easy to comprehend and reproduce. All deliveries and cesareans should be universally categorized by the Robsons TGCS. An attempt should be made to evaluate the group contributing most to the CS rate and interventions should be made accordingly.
Betran AP, Ye J, Moller AB, Zhang J, Gulmezoglu AM, Torloni MR. The Increasing trend in caesarean section rates: global, regional and national estimates: 1990–2014. PLo. ONE 2016;11:e0148343.
National Institutes of Health state-of-the-science conference statement. Cesarean delivery on maternal request. Obstet Gynecol. 2006;107:1386–97.
World Health Organization. Monitoring emergency obstetric care: a handbook. Geneva, Switzerland; 2009.
Althabe F, Belizán JM. Caesarean section: the paradox. (comment). Lanc. 2006;368(9546):1472-3
Marshall NE, Fu R, Guise JM. Impact of multiple cesarean deliveries on maternal morbidity: a systematic review. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2011;205(3):262-8.
Robson MS. Can we reduce the cesarean section rate? Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2001;15:179-94.
Torloni MR, Betran AP, Souza JP, Widmer M, Allen T, et al. Classifications for cesarean section: a systematic review. PLo One. 2011;6:14566-7.
Best practice advice on the 10-Group Classification System for cesarean deliveries. FIGO Working Group on Challenges in Care of Mothers and Infants during Labour and Delivery. 2016;135:232-3
Betran AP, Vindevoghel N, Souza JP, Gulmezoglu AM, Torloni MR. A systematic review of the Robson Classification for caesarean section: what works, doesn’t work and how to improve it. PLo On. 2014;9:97769.
Robson M. Classification of caesarean sections. Fetal Matern Med Rev. 2001;12:23-39.
Lumbiganon P, Laopaiboon M, Gulmezoglu AM, Souza JP, Taneepanichskul S, Ruyan P, et al. Method of delivery and pregnancy outcomes in Asia: the WHO global survey on maternal and perinatal health 2007-08. Lancet. 2010;375(9713):490-9.
MacDorman MF, Menacker F, Declercq E. Cesarean birth in the United States: epidemiology, trends, and outcomes. Clin Perinatol. 2008;35(2):293-307.
Vogel JP, Betrán 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 multicountry surveys. Lanc Glob Heal. 2015;3(5):260-70.
Rudey EL, Leal MDC, Rego G. Cesarean section rates in Brazil: Trend analysis using the Robson classification system. Medici. 2020;99(17):19880.
Tapia V, Betran AP, Gonzales GF. Caesarean Section in Peru: Analysis of Trends Using the Robson Classification System. PLo On. 2016; 11(2):e0148138.
Vila-Candel R, Martín A, Escuriet R, Castro-Sánchez E, Soriano-Vidal FJ. Analysis of Caesarean Section Rates Using the Robson Classification System at a University Hospital in Spain. Int J Environ Res Pub Heal. 2020;17(5):1575.
Nelson K, Sartwelle T, Rouse D. Electronic fetal monitoring, cerebral palsy, and caesareans: assumptions versus evidence. Brits Med J. 2016;355:16405.
Souza JP, Betran AP, Dumont A, De Mucio B, Gibbs Pickens CM, Deneux‐Tharaux C, et al. A global reference for caesarean section rates (C‐Model): a multicountry cross‐sectional study. Int J Obstetr Gynaecol. 2016;123(3):427-36.
Al-Zirqi I, Stray-Pedersen B, Forsen L, Vangen S. Uterine rupture after previous caesarean section. Int J Obstetr Gynaecol. 2010;117(7):809-20.