Rates and Indications of Cesarean Section Using the Robson Classification in a University Hospital in Southern Thailand 2014-2016
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.31584/jhsmr.2020750Keywords:
cesarean section rate, indications, Robson classification, trendAbstract
Objective: To identify the rates and indications of cesarean section (CS) using the Robson classification during 2014- 2016 in a university hospital in southern Thailand.
Material and Methods: A cross-sectional study of women who delivered between January 1, 2014 and December 31, 2016 was conducted. The data were analyzed using the Robson classification.
Results: A total of 10,474 births were included in the analysis. The overall CS rate was 55.5%. The trends of CS rates in most Robson classification groups over the 3-year period were static. The CS rates in nulliparous or multiparous women with induction of labor decreased over the 3-year period, while the rate in multiparous women with fetal breech presentation increased. Women with previous cesarean section (Robson group 5) were the largest contributor to the overall CS rate (32.1%), followed by the nulliparous women with a single cephalic pregnancy, ≥37 weeks gestation in spontaneous labor (Robson group 1) (24.5%). Cephalopelvic disproportion and fetal distress were the most common indications for CS in Robson group 1.
Conclusion: The CS rates in our study were high in all groups during the 3-year period, with static trends in most groups. The Robson classification is a feasible tool for monitoring CS rates in our setting. Feedback of these findings to healthcare providers and policy makers is advised.
References
World Health Organization. Appropriate technology for birth. Lancet 1985;2:436–7.
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. Lancet Glob Health 2015; 3:e260-70.
Ye J, Zhang J, Mikolajczyk R, Torloni M, Gülmezoglu A, Betran A. Association between rates of caesarean section and maternal and neonatal mortality in the 21st century: a worldwide population-based ecological study with longitudinal data. BJOG 2016;123:745–53.
Lumbiganon P, Laopaiboon M, Gülmezoglu 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: 490–9.
Allen VM, O’Connell CM, Farrell SA, Baskett TF. Economic implications of method of delivery. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2005;193:192–7.
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. doi: 10.1371/journal. pone.0014566.
Robson MS. Classification of caesarean sections. Fetal Matern Med Rev 2001;12:23–39.
Betran A, Torloni M, Zhang J, Gülmezoglu A, WHO working group on caesarean section. WHO statement on caesarean section rates. BJOG 2016;123:667–70.
Betrán AP, Vindevoghel N, Souza JP, Gülmezoglu AM, Torloni MR. A systematic review of the Robson classification for caesarean section: what works, doesn’t work and how to improve it. PLoS One 2014;9. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone. 0097769.
Kankoon N, Lumbiganon P, Kietpeerakool C, Sangkomkamhang U, Betrán AP, Robson M. Cesarean rates and severe maternal and neonatal outcomes according to the Robson 10-group classification system in Khon Kaen province, Thailand. Obstet Gynecol Int J 2018;140:191–7.
Anekpornwattana S, Yangnoi J, Jareemit N, Borriboonhiransan D. Cesarean section rate in Siriraj hospital according to the Robson classification. Thai J Obstet Gynecol 2020;28:6–15.
Khornwong S, Kovavisarach E. Cesarean section rate based on the Robson 10-group classification at Rajavithi hospital from 2015-2018. Thai J Obstet Gynecol 2020;28. [In press].
Committee on Obstetric Practice, American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine, Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine. Committee opinion no 700: methods for estimating the due date. Obstet Gynecol 2017;129:e150–4.
Baños N, Migliorelli F, Posadas E, Ferreri J, Palacio M. Definition of failed induction of labor and its predictive factors: two unsolved issues of an everyday clinical situation. Fetal Diagn Ther 2015;38:161–9.
Suwanrath-Kengpol C, Pinjaroen S, Krisanapan K, Petmanee P. Effect of a clinical practice guideline on physician compliance. Int J Qual Health Care 2004;16:327–32.
World Health Organization. International statistical classification of diseases and related health problems 10th revision [homepage on the Internet]. Geneva: WHO; 2016 [cited 2020 Apr 7]. Available from: https://icd.who.int/browse10/ 2016/en
World Health Organization. Robson classification: implementation manual [homepage on the Internet]. Geneva: WHO; 2017 [cited 2018 Nov 27]. Available from: http://www.who.int/reproductivehealth/publications/maternal_perinatal_health/ robson-classification/en/
Ferreira EC, Pacagnella RC, Costa ML, Cecatti JG. The Robson ten-group classification system for appraising deliveries at a tertiary referral hospital in Brazil. Obstet Gynecol Int J 2015;129:236–9.
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.
Abdel-Aleem H, Shaaban OM, Hassanin AI, Ibraheem AA. Analysis of cesarean delivery at Assiut university hospital using the ten group classification system. Int J Gynecol Obstet 2013;123:119–23.
Triunfo S, Ferrazzani S, Lanzone A, Scambia G. Identification of obstetric targets for reducing cesarean section rate using the Robson ten group classification in a tertiary level hospital. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2015;189:91–5.
Chong C, Su LL, Biswas A. Changing trends of cesarean section births by the Robson ten group classification in a tertiary teaching hospital: cesarean section trends by Robson classes. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2012;91:1422–7.
Litorp H, Kidanto HL, Nystrom L, Darj E, Essén B. Increasing caesarean section rates among low-risk groups: a panel study classifying deliveries according to Robson at a university hospital in Tanzania. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 2013;13:107.
Tura AK, Pijpers O, de Man M, Cleveringa M, Koopmans I, Gure T, et al. Analysis of caesarean sections using Robson 10-group classification system in a university hospital in eastern Ethiopia: a cross-sectional study. BMJ Open 2018;8. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2017-020520.
Charoenboon C, Srisupundit K, Tongsong T. Rise in cesarean section rate over a 20-year period in a public sector hospital in northern Thailand. Arch Gynecol Obstet 2013;287:47–52.
Chittithavorn S, Pinjaroen S, Suwanrath C, Soonthornpun K. Clinical practice guideline for cesarean section due to cephalopelvic disproportion. J Med Assoc Thai 2006;89:735– 40.
World Health Organization. WHO recommendations for induction of labour [monograph on the Internet]. Geneva: WHO; 2011 [cited 2019 Jan 1]. Available from: http://www. who.int/reproductivehealth/publications/maternal_perinatal_ health/9789241501156/en/
Vogel JP, Souza JP, Gülmezoglu AM. Patterns and outcomes of induction of labour in Africa and Asia: a secondary analysis of the WHO global survey on maternal and neonatal health. PLoS One 2013;8. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0065612.
Hofmeyr GJ, Hannah M, Lawrie TA. Planned caesarean section for term breech delivery. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2015; CD000166.
ACOG committee opinion no. 745: mode of term singleton breech delivery. Obstet Gynecol 2018;132:e60–3.
Committee on Practice Bulletins-Obstetrics. Practice bulletin no.184: vaginal birth after cesarean delivery. Obstet Gynecol 2017;130:e217–33.
Nakamura-Pereira M, do Carmo Leal M, Esteves-Pereira AP, Domingues RMSM, Torres JA, Dias MAB, et al. Use of Robson classification to assess cesarean section rate in Brazil: the role of source of payment for childbirth. Reprod Health 2016;13:128.
Phadungkiatwattana P, Tongsakul N. Analyzing the impact of private service on the cesarean section rate in public hospital Thailand. Arch Gynecol Obstet 2011;284:1375–9.
White ER. Minimum time required to detect population trends: the need for long-term monitoring programs. BioScience 2018;69:40–6.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
