Cesarean Section Rate at Lumbini Zonal Hospital, Nepal: An Analysis Using the Robson Ten Group Classification System
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.17140/GOROJ-7-154Keywords:
Cesarean rate, Caesarean section, Robson’s group classificationAbstract
Background
Caesarean section (CS) rates have increased globally. The World Health Organization (WHO) recommends the use of the Ten Group Robson classification as the global standard for assessing appropriateness of CS. Nepal has higher-than-global average rates of CS requiring further investigation into appropriateness.
Aim
This study aims to investigate the caesarean section rates at tertiary care center in Nepal and make analysis based on the group-10 classification.
Methods
A retrospective cross-sectional study was carried out from 2016 April -2017 March in Lumbini Zonal Hospital, Butwal, Rupendehi, Nepal. 3,817 women who birth over a 12-month period were analyzed using this classification. The caesarean rate, its indications were calculated and categorized into groups according to Robson’s 10-group classification.
Results
Women with previous CS (Group 5) comprise the largest proportion (9.4%) of the overall 26.41% CS rate. The second largest contributor was a singleton nulliparous woman with cephalic presentation at term (6.6% of total 26.41%). Caesarean section rates in single breech pregnancies were very high (>65%). Robson’s Group 5 was the highest contributors to overall CS rate contributing 35% of all C-sections, followed by Group 2 (24%), and Group 1 (13%).
Conclusion
The ten-group classification helped to identify the main groups of the subjects who contribute the most to the overall caesarean section rate. This study results suggest that women with previous CS are at risk for having another CS delivery in subsequent pregnancies and therefore there is an urgent need for a dedicated vaginal birth after caesarean section (VBAC) clinic to support this such women to ensure CS are only done when indicated. Furthermore, reducing the CS rate for nulliparous i.e. Group 1 and 2 would, in the long-term, also reduce the size of Group 5 in the future.
References
The World Bank. Birth rate, crude (per 1,000 people). 2015. Web site. https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.DYN.CBRT. IN. Accessed April 17, 2018.
Molina G, Weiser TG, Lipsitz SR, Esquivel MM, Uribe-Leitz T, Azad T, et al. Relationship between cesarean delivery rate and maternal and neonatal mortality. JAMA. 2015; 314(21): 2263-2270. doi: 10.1001/jama.2015.15553
Keag OE, Norman JE, Stock SJ. Long-term risks and benefits associated with cesarean delivery for mother, baby, and subsequent pregnancies: Systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS Med. 2018; 15(1): e1002494. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1002494
Hannah ME, Hannah WJ, Hewson SA, Hodnett ED, Saigal S, Willan AR. Planned caesarean section versus planned vaginal birth for breech presentation at term: A randomised multicentre trial. Term Breech Trial Collaborative Group. Lancet. 2000; 356(9239): 1375-1383. doi: 10.1016/s0140-6736(00)02840-3
Betran AP, Torloni MR, Zhang J, Ye J, Mikolajczyk R, Deneux-Tharaux C, et al. What is the optimal rate of caesarean section at population level? A systematic review of ecologic studies. Reprod Health. 2015; 12: 57. doi: 10.1186/s12978-015-0043-6
Ronsmans C, De Brouwere V, Dubourg D, Dieltiens G. Mea-suring the need for life-saving obstetric surgery in developing countries. BJOG. 2004; 111(10): 1027-1030. doi: 10.1111/j.1471- 0528.2004.00247.x
Betran AP, Merialdi M, Lauer JA, Bing-Shun W, Thomas J, Van Look P, et al. Rates of caesarean section: analysis of global, re-gional and national estimates. Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol. 2007; 21(2): 98-113. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-3016.2007.00786.x
Shearer EL. Cesarean section: Medical benefits and costs. Soc Sci Med. 1993; 37(10): 1223-1231. doi: 10.1016/0277-9536(93)90334-z
Souza JP, Gulmezoglu A, Lumbiganon P, Laopaiboon M, Carroli G, Fawole B, et al. Caesarean section without medical indications is associated with an increased risk of adverse short-term maternal outcomes: The 2004-2008 WHO Global Survey on Maternal and Perinatal Health. BMC Med. 2010; 8: 71. doi: 10.1186/1741-7015- 8-71
Appropriate technology following birth. Lancet. 1986; 2(8520): Retrospective Research | Volume 7 | Number 1| Gautam B et al 1387-1388.
Ye J, Betran AP, Guerrero Vela M, Souza JP, Zhang J, et al. Searching for the optimal rate of medically necessary cesarean de-livery. Birth. 2014; 41(3): 237-244. doi: 10.1111/birt.12104
Cavallaro FL, Cresswell JA, Va Franca G, Victora CG, Jd Bar-ros A, Ronsmans C, et al. Trends in caesarean delivery by country and wealth quintile: Cross-sectional surveys in southern Asia and sub-Saharan Africa. Bull World Health Organ. 2013; 91(12): 914-22d. doi: 10.2471/BLT.13.117598
Prasad A, Bhandari G, Saha R. Profile of caesarean section at Kathmandu Medical College. J Nepal Health Res Counc. 2017; 15(2): 111-113. doi: 10.3126/jnhrc.v15i2.18165
Torloni MR, Betran AP, Souza JP, Widmer M, Allen T, Gul-mezoglu M, et al. Classifications for cesarean section: A system-atic review. PLoS One. 2011; 6(1): e14566. doi: 10.1371/journal. pone.0014566
FIGO Working Group on Challenges in Care of Mothers and Infants during Labour and Delivery. Best practice advice on the 10-group classification system for cesarean deliveries. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2016; 135: 232-233. doi: 10.1016/j.ijgo.2016.08.001
World Health Organization (WHO). WHO Statement on Cae-sarean Section Rates: WHO/RHR/15.02, 2015. Web site. https:// www.who.int/reproductivehealth/publications/maternal_perina-tal_health/cs-statement/en/. Accessed August 31, 2020.
Amatya A, Paudel R, Poudyal A, Wagle RR, Singh M, Thapa S, et al. Examining stratified cesarean section rates using Robson classification system at Tribhuvan University Teaching Hospital. J Nepal Health Res Counc. 2013; 11(25): 255-258.
Neuman M, Alcock G, Azad K, Kuddus A, Osrin D, More NS, et al. Prevalence and determinants of caesarean section in pri-vate and public health facilities in underserved South Asian com-munities: Cross-sectional analysis of data from Bangladesh, India and Nepal. BMJ Open. 2014; 4(12): e005982. doi: 10.1136/bmjo-pen-2014-005982
Betran AP, Ye J, Moller A-B, Zhang J, Gülmezoglu AM, Tor-loni MR. The increasing trend in caesarean section rates: Global, regional and national estimates: 1990-2014. PLoS One. 2016; 11(2): e0148343. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0148343
Kozhimannil KB, Law MR, Virnig BA. Cesarean delivery rates vary tenfold among US hospitals; reducing variation may address quality and cost issues. Health Aff (Millwood). 2013; 32(3): 527-535. doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.2012.1030
Edmonds JK, O'Hara M, Clarke SP, Shah NT. Variation in ce-sarean birth rates by labor and delivery nurses. J Obstet Gynecol Neo-natal Nurs. 2017; 46(4): 486-493. doi: 10.1016/j.jogn.2017.03.009
Delbaere I, Cammu H, Martens E, Tency I, Martens G, Tem-merman M. Limiting the caesarean section rate in low risk preg-nancies is key to lowering the trend of increased abdominal deliv-eries: An observational study. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2012; 12: 3. doi: 10.1186/1471-2393-12-3
Kennare R, Tucker G, Heard A, Chan A. Risks of ad-verse outcomes in the next birth after a first cesarean deliv-ery. Obstet Gynecol. 2007; 109(2 Pt 1): 270-276. doi: 10.1097/01. AOG.0000250469.23047.73
Brennan DJ, Robson MS, Murphy M, O'Herlihy C. Compara-tive analysis of international cesarean delivery rates using 10-group classification identifies significant variation in spontaneous la-bor. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2009; 201(3): 308.e1-e8. doi: 10.1016/j. ajog.2009.06.021
Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. Birth Af-ter Previous Caesarean Birth. RCOG Green-top Guideline No 45, 2015. Web site. https://www.rcog.org.uk/en/guidelines-research-services/guidelines/gtg45/. Accessed August 31, 2020. Submit your article to this journal | https://openventio.org/submit-manuscript/
Rossi AC, D'Addario V. Maternal morbidity following a trial of labor after cesarean section vs elective repeat cesarean delivery: A systematic review with metaanalysis. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2008; 199(3): 224-231. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2008.04.025
Gardner K, Henry A, Thou S, Davis G, Miller T. Improving VBAC rates: The combined impact of two management strategies. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 2014; 54(4): 327-332. doi: 10.1111/ ajo.12229
Vistad I, Cvancarova M, Hustad BL, Henriksen T. Vaginal breech delivery: Results of a prospective registration study. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2013; 13: 153. doi: 10.1186/1471-2393-13-153
Hannah ME, Whyte H, Hannah WJ, Hewson S, Amankwah K, Cheng M, et al. Maternal outcomes at 2 years after planned cesar-ean section versus planned vaginal birth for breech presentation at term: The international randomized Term Breech Trial. Am J Ob-stet Gynecol. 2004; 191(3): 917-927. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2004.08.004
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
All content published in Gynecology and Obstetrics Research (GOR) is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0). This license allows anyone to copy, distribute, transmit, and adapt the work — including for commercial purposes — provided appropriate credit is given to the original author(s) and source.
