Cesarean delivery rates based on time and indication using the Robson Ten-Group Classification System: Assessment at a Turkish tertiary center.
Robson classification
cesarean delivery
cesarean rate
health systems
Journal
The journal of obstetrics and gynaecology research
ISSN: 1447-0756
Titre abrégé: J Obstet Gynaecol Res
Pays: Australia
ID NLM: 9612761
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Mar 2023
Mar 2023
Historique:
received:
12
03
2022
accepted:
29
11
2022
pubmed:
13
12
2022
medline:
8
3
2023
entrez:
12
12
2022
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
This study aimed to evaluate increasing cesarean delivery (CD) rates, their causes, and changes over the years in a Turkish tertiary center using the Robson Ten-Group Classification System (RTGCS). Data of deliveries involving birth weight of ≥500 g or ≥24 weeks of gestation period from 2013 to 2020 were retrospectively collected and classified from the hospital digital record system using obstetric concepts and parameters described in the RTGCS. The overall CD rate for all births (69051) from 2013 to 2020 was 55.5%. Groups 3, 5, and 1 were the most represented groups (29.1%, 23.9%, and 19.4%, respectively). The major contributors to the overall CD rate were Groups 5, 2, and 10 (23.8%, 9.9%, and 5.6%, respectively). Groups 2 and 4 (nullipara, multipara, single cephalic at term) had high CD rates associated with high rates of pre-labor CD (88.9% and 73.3%, respectively). The CD rate was 99.7% in Group 5, which showed recurrent CD, and 67.2% in Group 10. The overall CD rate was 60.8% in 2020 owing to the significant increase in the contributions by Groups 5, 8, and 10. The most common indication for CD was previous CD (46.1%), fetal distress (13.2%), and cephalopelvic disproportion (CPD) (8%). Groups 1, 2, 5, and 10 were the major contributors to the overall CD rate at this tertiary center. To reduce overall CD rates, policies that reduce primary CD and support vaginal delivery after cesarean section should be established.
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
883-892Informations de copyright
© 2022 Japan Society of Obstetrics and Gynecology.
Références
Biccard BM, Madiba TE, Kluyts H-L, Munlemvo DM, Madzimbamuto FD, Basenero A, et al. African surgical outcomes study (ASOS) investigators, perioperative patient outcomes in the African surgical outcomes study: a 7-day prospective observational cohort study. Lancet. 2018;391:1589-98. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(18)30001-1
World Health Organization. WHO statement on caesarean section rates. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization; 2015. https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/161442 (accessed December 21, 2021)
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. https://doi.org/10.1111/1471-0528.13199
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;314:2263-70. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2015.15553
Betrán AP, Ye J, Moller A-B, Zhang J, Gülmezoglu AM, Torloni MR. The increasing trend in caesarean section rates: global, regional and National Estimates: 1990-2014. PLoS One. 2016;11:e0148343. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0148343
Eyi EGY, Mollamahmutoglu L. An analysis of the high cesarean section rates in Turkey by Robson classification. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2021;34:2682-92. https://doi.org/10.1080/14767058.2019.1670806
Robson MS. Classification of caesarean sections. Fetal Mater Med Rev. 2001;12:23-39. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0965539501000122
Robson MS. The 10-group classification system-a new way of thinking. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2018;219:1-4. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2018.05.026
Robson MS. Known knowns, unknown unknowns and everything in-between-the ten Group classification system (TGCS). BJOG. 2021;128:1454-5. https://doi.org/10.1111/1471-0528.16679
Robson M. The ten Group classification system (TGCS)-a common starting point for more detailed analysis. BJOG. 2015;122:701-1. https://doi.org/10.1111/1471-0528.13267
Robson M, Hartigan L, Murphy M. Methods of achieving and maintaining an appropriate caesarean section rate. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2013;27:297-308. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bpobgyn.2012.09.004
Vogel JP, Betrán AP, Vindevoghel N, Souza JP, Torloni MR, Zhang J, et al. WHO multi-country survey on maternal and newborn Health Research network, 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2214-109X(15)70094-X
Hehir MP, Ananth CV, Siddiq Z, Flood K, Friedman AM, D'Alton ME. Cesarean delivery in the United States 2005 through 2014: a population-based analysis using the Robson 10-group classification system. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2018;219(105):e1-105.e11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2018.04.012
Ming Y, Li M, Dai F, Huang R, Zhang J, Zhang L, et al. Dissecting the current caesarean section rate in Shanghai, China. Sci Rep. 2019;9:2080. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-38606-7
Einarsdóttir K, Sigurðardóttir H, Ingibjörg Bjarnadóttir R, Steingrímsdóttir Þ, Smárason AK. The Robson 10-group classification in Iceland: obstetric interventions and outcomes. Birth. 2019;46:270-8. https://doi.org/10.1111/birt.12415
Ferreira EC, Pacagnella RC, Costa ML, Cecatti JG. The Robson ten-group classification system for appraising deliveries at a tertiary referral hospital in Brazil. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2015;129:236-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijgo.2014.11.026
Robson MS. Can we reduce the caesarean section rate? Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2001;15:179-94. https://doi.org/10.1053/beog.2000.0156
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 Gynaecol Can. 2013;35:206-14. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1701-2163(15)30992-0
Zhang J, Geerts C, Hukkelhoven C, Offerhaus P, Zwart J, de Jonge A. Caesarean section rates in subgroups of women and perinatal outcomes. BJOG. 2016;123:754-61. https://doi.org/10.1111/1471-0528.13520
Pyykönen A, Gissler M, Løkkegaard E, Bergholt T, Rasmussen SC, Smárason A, et al. Cesarean section trends in the Nordic countries - a comparative analysis with the Robson classification. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2017;96:607-16. https://doi.org/10.1111/aogs.13108
Barčaitė E, Kemeklienė G, Railaitė DR, Bartusevičius A, Maleckienė L, Nadišauskienė R. Cesarean section rates in Lithuania using Robson ten Group classification system. Medicina (Kaunas). 2015;51:280-5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.medici.2015.09.001
Tan JKH, 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. https://doi.org/10.1111/jog.12608
Kacerauskiene J, Bartuseviciene E, Railaite DR, Minkauskiene M, Bartusevicius A, Kliucinskas M, et al. Implementation of the Robson classification in clinical practice:Lithuania's experience. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2017;17:432. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12884-017-1625-9
Robson M, Murphy M, Byrne F. Quality assurance: the 10-group classification system (Robson classification), induction of labor, and cesarean delivery. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2015;131(Suppl 1):S23-7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijgo.2015.04.026
Little SE, Caughey AB. Induction of labor and cesarean: what is the true relationship? Clin Obstet Gynecol. 2015;58:269-81. https://doi.org/10.1097/GRF.0000000000000112
Zenzmaier C, Leitner H, Brezinka C, Oberaigner W, König-Bachmann M. Maternal and neonatal outcomes after induction of labor: a population-based study. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2017;295:1175-83. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-017-4354-4
Caughey AB, Sundaram V, Kaimal AJ, Gienger A, Cheng YW, McDonald KM, et al. Systematic review: elective induction of labor versus expectant management of pregnancy. Ann Intern Med. 2009;151(252-263):W53-63. https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-151-4-200908180-00007
Saccone G, Berghella V. Induction of labor at full term in uncomplicated singleton gestations: a systematic review and metaanalysis of randomized controlled trials. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2015;213:629-36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2015.04.004
Grobman WA, Rice MM, Reddy UM, Tita ATN, Silver RM, Mallett G, et al. Labor induction versus expectant Management in low-Risk Nulliparous Women. New England Journal of Medicine. 2018;379:513-23. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1800566
Monden CWS, Smits J. Mortality among twins and singletons in sub-Saharan Africa between 1995 and 2014: a pooled analysis of data from 90 demographic and health surveys in 30 countries, lancet glob. Health. 2017;5:e673-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2214-109X(17)30197-3
Hanson C, Betrán AP, Opondo C, Mkumbo E, Manzi F, Mbaruku G, et al. Trends in caesarean section rates between 2007 and 2013 in obstetric risk groups inspired by the Robson classification: results from population-based surveys in a low-resource setting. BJOG. 2019;126:690-700. https://doi.org/10.1111/1471-0528.15534
Sonkusare S, Rai L, Naik P. Preterm birth: mode of delivery and neonatal outcome. Med J Malaysia. 2009;64:303-6.
Riskin A, Riskin-Mashiah S, Lusky A, Reichman B. Israel neonatal network, the relationship between delivery mode and mortality in very low birthweight singleton vertex-presenting infants. BJOG. 2004;111:1365-71. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-0528.2004.00268.x
Thanh BYL, Lumbiganon P, Pattanittum P, Laopaiboon M, Vogel JP, Oladapo OT, et al. Mode of delivery and pregnancy outcomes in preterm birth: a secondary analysis of the WHO global and multi-country surveys. Sci Rep. 2019;9:15556. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-52015-w
Alfirevic Z, Milan SJ, Livio S. Caesarean section versus vaginal delivery for preterm birth in singletons. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012;6:CD000078. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD000078.pub2
Senanayake H, Piccoli M, Valente EP, Businelli C, Mohamed R, Fernando R, et al. Implementation of the WHO manual for Robson classification: an example from Sri Lanka using a local database for developing quality improvement recommendations. BMJ Open. 2019;9:e027317. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2018-027317
Ugwumadu A, Steer P, Parer B, Carbonne B, Vayssiere C, Maso G, et al. Time to optimise and enforce training in interpretation of intrapartum cardiotocograph. BJOG. 2016;123:866-9. https://doi.org/10.1111/1471-0528.13846
Topçu S. Caesarean or vaginarean epidemics? Techno-birth, risk and obstetric practice in Turkey. Health, Risk & Society. 2019;21:141-63. https://doi.org/10.1080/13698575.2019.1641588
Roy N, Mishra PK, Mishra VK, Chattu VK, Varandani S, Batham SK. Changing scenario of C-section delivery in India: understanding the maternal health concern and its associated predictors. J Family Med Prim Care. 2021;10:4182-8. https://doi.org/10.4103/jfmpc.jfmpc_585_21
Quezada-Pinedo HG, Cajachagua-Torres KN, Guzman-Vilca WC, Tarazona-Meza C, Carrillo-Larco RM, Huicho L. Flat trend of high caesarean section rates in Peru: a pooled analysis of 3,376,062 births from the national birth registry, 2012 to 2020. The Lancet Regional Health-Americas. 2022;12:100293. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lana.2022.100293
Antoniou E, Orovou E, Iliadou M, Sarella A, Palaska E, Sarantaki A, et al. Factors associated with the type of cesarean section in Greece and their correlation with international guidelines. Acta Inform Med. 2021;29:38-44. https://doi.org/10.5455/aim.2021.29.38-44
Erbaydar N. Mother-friendly hospital programme of Turkey: national intervention to improve the quality of maternity services. East Mediterr Health J. 2021;27:202-10. https://doi.org/10.26719/emhj.20.138
Zhao Y, Zhang J, Hukkelhoven C, Offerhaus P, Zwart J, de Jonge A, et al. Modest rise in caesarean section from 2000-2010: the Dutch experience. PLoS One. 2016;11:e0155565. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0155565
Küçük M. Defensive medicine among obstetricians and gynaecologists in Turkey. J Obstet Gynaecol. 2018;38:200-5. https://doi.org/10.1080/01443615.2017.1340933
Kisa S, Kisa A, Younis MZ. Opinions and attitudes of obstetricians and midwives in Turkey towards caesarean section and vaginal birth following a previous caesarean section. J Int Med Res. 2017;45:1739-49. https://doi.org/10.1177/0300060516663998
Akarsu RH, Mucuk S. Turkish women's opinions about cesarean delivery. Pak J Med Sci. 2014;30:1308-13. https://doi.org/10.12669/pjms.306.5748
Karabulutlu O. Identifying the women's choice of delivery methods of and the factors that affect them, Florence nightingale journal of. Nursing. 2012;20:210-8.
Topçu S, Brown P. The impact of technology on pregnancy and childbirth: creating and managing obstetrical risk in different cultural and socio-economic contexts. Health Risk Soc. 2019;21:89-99. https://doi.org/10.1080/13698575.2019.1649922
WHO | Robson Classification: Implementation Manual, WHO. (2021). http://www.who.int/reproductivehealth/publications/maternal_perinatal_health/robson-classification/en/ (accessed August 23, 2021).