Robson groups and prevalence of cesarean section
Keywords:
delivery, obstetric, classification, natural childbirth, cesarean section, labour, induced, obstetric labor, prematureAbstract
Introduction: The analysis of the incidence of caesarean classically has been made based on indications. However, as these vary according to the assisted population, to protocols and to the medical staff, their comparison is difficult. Eighteen years ago, a new classification was proposed based on the patients’ profile, aiming at answering the question: who is being operated? Objective: To evaluate the association of this classification with the caesarean rates. Methods: Population of assisted patients in motherhood for high-risk pregnancy. The design was a cross-sectional study, comparing the Robson’s classification groups with the caesarean section rates. Database has been built with the Epi Info, version 7, also used for statistical analysis. Data were extracted from the medical records. Results: 138 patients were observed and the global prevalence of Cesarean section was 70/138 (50.72%). The participation of Robson groups in the prevalence of Ces arean section was thus observed: Group 1, 32.65%; Group 2, 55.55; Group 3, 45.45%; Group4, 33.33%; Group 5, 76.67%; Group 6, 100%; Group 7, 100%; Group 8, 22.22%; Group 9, 100%; Group 10, 62.51%. However, the final analysis showed that the relative contribution by each group to the Caesarean rate was 22.9%, respectively, 7.1, 14.3, 1.4, 32.9, 5.7, 4.3, 2.9, 1.4 and 7.1%. Conclusion: Robson’s classification proved itself to be useful to evaluate the participation in the prevalence of Cesarean section in accordance with the patients’ profile, allowing for a possible intervention approach to reduce the rate of caesarean section according to the group.
Downloads
References
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(3):206-14.
Robson MS. Classification of Caesarean Sections. Fetal Matern Rev. 2001;12(1):23-9.
Betrán AP, Gulmezoglu AM, Robson M, Merialdi M, Souza JP, Wojdyla D, et al. WHO global survey on maternal and perinatal health in Latin America: classifying caesarean sections. Reprod Health. 2009;6:18.
Le Ray C, Blondel B, Prunet C, Khireddine I, Deneux-Tharaux C, Goffinet F. Stabilising the caesarean rate: which target population? BJOG. 2015;122(5):690-9.
Vogel JP, Betrán AP, Gülmezoglu AM. Use of the Robson classification has improved understanding of caesarean section rates in France. BJOG. 2015;122(5):700.
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(5):e260-70.
Nakamura-Pereira M, do Carmo Leal M, Esteves-Pereira AP, Domingues RM, Torres JA, Dias MA, 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(Supl. 3):128.
Bjellmo S, Andersen GL, Martinussen MP, Romundstad PR, Hjelle S, Moster D, et al. Is vaginal breech delivery associated with higher risk for perinatal death and cerebral palsy compared with vaginal cephalic birth? Registry-based cohort study in Norway. BMJ Open. 2017;7(4):e014979.
Bin YS, Roberts CL, Nicholl MC, Ford JB. Uptake of external cephalic version for term breech presentation: an Australian population study, 2002-2012. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2017;17(1):244.
Burgos J, Arana I, Garitano I, Rodríguez L, Cobos P, Osuna C, et al. Induction of labor in breech presentation at term: a retrospective cohort study. J Perinat Med. 2017;45(3):299-303.
Fonseca A, Silva R, Rato I, Neves AR, Peixoto C, Ferraz Z, et al. Breech Presentation: Vaginal Versus Cesarean Delivery, Which Intervention Leads to the Best Outcomes? Acta Med Port. 2017;30(6):479-84.
Macharey G, Gissler M, Rahkonen L, Ulander VM, Väisänen-Tommiska M, Nuutila M, et al. Breech presentation at term and associated obstetric risks factors-a nationwide population based cohort study. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2017;295(4):833-8.
Parissenti TK, Hebisch G, Sell W, Staedele PE, Viereck V, Fehr MK. Risk factors for emergency caesarean section in planned vaginal breech delivery. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2017;295(1):51-8.
Louwen F, Daviss BA, Johnson KC, Reitter A. Does breech delivery in an upright position instead of on the back improve outcomes and avoid cesareans? Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2017;136(2):151-61.
Bannister-Tyrrell M, Patterson JA, Ford JB, Morris JM, Nicholl MC, Roberts CL. Variation in hospital caesarean section rates for preterm births. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 2015;55(4):350-6.
Danieli-Gruber S, Maayan-Metzger A, Schushan-Eisen I, Strauss T, Leibovitch L. Outcome of preterm infants born to overweight and obese mothersdagger. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2017;30(4):402-5.
Kuper SG, Sievert RA, Steele R, Biggio JR, Tita AT, Harper LM. Maternal and Neonatal Outcomes in Indicated Preterm Births Based on the Intended Mode of Delivery. Obstet Gynecol. 2017;130(5):1143-51.
Lorthe E, Quere M, Sentilhes L, Delorme P, Kayem G. Incidence and risk factors of caesarean section in preterm breech births: A population-based cohort study. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2017;212:37-43.
Ciriello E, Locatelli A, Incerti M, Ghidini A, Andreani M, Plevani C, et al. Comparative analysis of cesarean delivery rates over a 10-year period in a single Institution using 10-class classification. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2012;25(12):2717-20.
Amatya A, Paudel R, Poudyal A, Wagle RR, Singh M, Thapa S. Examining stratified cesarean section rates using Robson classification system at Tribhuvan University Teaching Hospital. J Nepal Health Res Counc. 2013;11(25):255-8.
Delbaere I, Cammu H, Martens E, Tency I, Martens G, Temmerman M. Limiting the caesarean section rate in low risk pregnancies is key to lowering the trend of increased abdominal deliveries: an observational study. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2012;12:3.
Paleari L, Gibbons L, Chacón S, Ramil V, Belizán JM. [Rates of caesarean sections tn two types of private hospitals: restriced-access and open-access]. Ginecol Obstet Mex. 2012;80(4):263-9.
Torres JA, Domingues RMSM, Sandall J, Hartz Z, Gama SGN, Theme Filha MM, et al. Cesariana e resultados neonatais em hospitais privados no Brasil: estudo comparativo de dois diferentes modelos de atenção perinatal. Cad Saúde Pública. 2014;30(Supl. 1):S220-31.
Chung WH, Kong CW, To WW. Secular trends in caesarean section rates over 20 years in a regional obstetric unit in Hong Kong. Hong Kong Med J. 2017;23(4):340-8.
Agência Nacional de Saúde Suplementar. Nova organização do cuidado ao parto e nascimento para melhores resultados de saúde Rio de Janeiro: Agência Nacional de Saúde Suplementar; 2016.
Torloni MR. Classificação de Robson. In: Workshop Parto Adequado, Hospital Albert Einstein. São Paulo: Prefeitura de São Paulo; 2016.
