DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.18203/2320-6012.ijrms20213086

A retrospective study to analyse the rate of caesarean section according to Robson's 10 group classification in a peripheral hospital in a metropolitan city

Siddhi S. Kore, Fatema Shams, Jayanth Chilkund, Gauri Kore

Abstract


Background: In the past several decades, a pattern of rapid increases in Caesarean section (CS) delivery rates has been observed worldwide, as also in India. It is important to identify the reason behind the rising rates of CS since they can pose unnecessary risks to the mother and the neonate. The aim of the study was to analyse the CS rate in the ten groups as per Robson’s ten group classification, in a peripheral hospital in a metropolitan city. By this study we have tried to identify specific groups of women to be targeted to reduce CS rates.

Methods: This is a retrospective study carried out at a peripheral hospital in Mumbai, India. It included all women who had delivered in the hospital from January, 2019 to December, 2019. The sample size was 2603.

Results: Under this study, we found out that the rate of CS delivery is higher than what is recommended by WHO in Robson’s group 2, 5 and 6.

Conclusions: This study will help us carry out targeted interventions so as to reduce the CS rates in these groups.


Keywords


Birth, Caesarean section, 10-group classification, Labor

Full Text:

PDF

References


Boerma T, Ronsmans C, Melesse DY. Global epidemiology of use of and disparities in caesarean sections. Lancet. 2018;392(10155):1341-8.

Guilmoto CZ, Dumont A. Trends, Regional Variations, and Socioeconomic Disparities in Cesarean Births in India, 2010-2016. JAMA Netw Open. 2019;2(3):e190526.

Althabe F, Belizán JM. Caesarean section: the paradox. (comment). Lancet. 2006;368(9546):1472-3.

Villar J, Carroli G, Zavaleta N, Donner A, Wojdyla D, Faundes A, et al. Maternal and neonatal individual risks and benefits associated with caesarean delivery: multicentre prospective study. BMJ. 2007;335:1025.

McCarthy FP, Rigg L, Cady L, Cullinane F. A new way of looking at Caesarean section births. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 2007;47:316-20.

Robson, M. Classification of caesarean sections. Fetal and Maternal Medicine Review. 2001;12(1):23-39.

Robson M. Classification of caesarean sections. Fetal Matern Med Rev. 2001;12:23-39.

Tan JK, Tan EL, Kanagalingan D, Tan LK. Rational dissection of a high institutional cesarean section rate: An analysis using the Robson Ten Group Classification System. J Obstet Gynaecol Res. 2015;41:534-9.

Koteshwara S, Sujatha MS. Analysis of caesarean section rates using Robsons ten group classification: the first step. Int J Reprod Contracept Obstet Gynecol. 2017;6:3481-5.

Le Ray C, Blondel B, Prunet C, Khireddine I, Deneux-Tharaux C, Goffinet F. Stabilising the caesarean rate: which target population? BJOG. 2015;122:690-9.

Kelly S, Sprague A, Fell DB, Murphy P, Aelicks N, Guo Y et al. Examining Caesarean Section Rates in Canada Using the Robson Classification System. J Obstet Gynecol Can. 2013;35(3):206-14.

Varija T, Kumar VCM, Tarihalli C. Analysis of caesarean section rate in tertiary care hospital according to Robson`s 10 groups classification. Int J Reprod Contracept Obstet Gynecol. 2018;7:1380-4.

Neff MJ. ACOG Releases Guidelines for Vaginal Birth After Cesarean Delivery [Internet]. American Family Physician. 2004. https://www.aafp.org/afp/2004/1001/p1397.html . Accessed on 22nd February, 2021.

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.