Effect of delivery outcome following primary caesarean section on overall caesarean section rate in Libya
Keywords:
Cesarean delivery, Robson classification, Trial of labor after C/S, LibyaAbstract
The worldwide rise in cesarean section (CS) rates is becoming a major public health concern, and has reached the epidemic level. The aim of this study is to apply the original Robson Ten Group Classification System RTGCS to CS in Tarhuna General Hospital (TGH). This was a descriptive retrospective study, data were collected from the records of 3040 deliveries in the Obstetrics and Gynecology Department at (TGH) during 2016, including patients who had normal vaginal deliveries, and cesarean section deliveries, caesarean data were analyzed using the RTGCS, the contribution of each group to the total caesarean delivery rate, in addition to the contribution of the rate of repeat of CS following previous CS in each group was determined. The rate of CS was 36%, the largest contributor to the overall CS rate was group 5 (58%), The repeat CS for women with a previous one CS comprising (43.5%) of group 5, and this category represents 28% of the overall rate, (40.2%) of previous one CS delivered vaginally, whereas (59.7%) required a repeat CS. The success rate of vaginal birth after a previous CS for each of the following non recurrent indications of primary CS including fetal distress, postdate, prolonged labor, cephalopelvic disproportion, breech presentation, and suspected macrosomia was (37.6%), (50%), (33.3%), (30.1%), (30.7%) and (40%) respectively. Group 5 was found to be the major contributor to the overall CS rates, and a repeat CS after previous one CS make an important contributor in this group.
Downloads
References
[1] Williams 24th edition, section 8, Delivery. 30, 587.
[2] Belizan JM, Althabe F, Cafferata ML (2007) Health consequences of the increasing caesarean section rates. Epidemiol. 18: 485 - 486.
[3] Thomas J, Paranhothy S (2001) The National Sentinel Caesarean Section Audit
a. Report.
[4] National Institutes of Health state-of-the-science conference statement. Cesarean delivery on maternal request. Obstet Gynecol. 2006; 107: 1386 - 97.
[5] Health at a Glance 2011: OECD indicators. OECD Publishing ;2011 Available from: Betran AP, Merialdi M, Lauer JA, Bing-Shun W, Thomas J, et al. (2007) Rates of caesarean section: analysis of global, regional and national estimates. Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol. 21: 98 - 113.
[6] Betrán AP, Merialdi M, Lauer JA, Bing-shun W, Нomas J, et al. (2007) Rates of caesarean section: analysis of global and regional and national estimates. Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol. 21: 98 - 114.
[7] Gibbons L, Belizan JM, Lauer JA, Betran AP, Merialdi M, et al. (2012) Inequities in the use of cesarean section deliveries in the world. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 206: 331.e1-331. e19.
[8] Fuglenes D, Øian P, Kristiansen IS (2009) Obstetricians’ choice of cesarean delivery in ambiguous cases: is it influenced by risk attitude or fear of complaints and litigation? Am J Obstet Gynecol. 200: e1-e8.
[9] WHO (1985) Appropriate technology for birth. Lancet. 24: 4360 - 4370.
[10] Department of Health and Human Services; Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; National Center for Health Statistics. Healthy People 2000: national health promotion and disease prevention objectives: Full report, with commentary (DHHS publication no. (PHS) 91-50212). Washington: Government Printing office.
[11] Robson MS (2001) Can we reduce the caesarean section rate? Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 15: 179 -.194.
[12] World Health Organization: Monitoring obstetric care: a handbook. In Geneva, Switzerland: WHO Press, World Health Organization; 2009.
[13] Miller ES, Hahn K, Grobman WA; Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine Health Policy Committee. Consequences of a primary elective cesarean delivery across the reproductive life. Obstet Gynecol. 2013; 121(4):789 – 797.
[14] Robson M. Classification of caesarean sections. Fetal Matern Med Rev 2001;12: 23 - 39.
[15] 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: e14566.
[16] Pickrell K. An inquiry into the history of cesarean section. Bull Soc Med Hist. 1935; 4: 414.
[17] Cragin EB. Conservatism in Obstetrics. N Y Med J. 1916; 104: 1 - 3.
[18] EURO-PERISTAT. European perinatal health report: the health and care of pregnant women and babies in Europe in 2010. 2013 [http://www.europeristat. com/reports/european-perinatal-health-report-2010.html]. Accessed 23 May 2015.
[19] Federação Brasileira das Associações de Ginecologia e Obstetrícia (Febrasgo) and Associação Médica Brasileira (AMB). Birth route in case of cesarean section in a previous pregnancy. Rev Asso C Med Bras. 2015; 61(3):196 - 202
[20] Vaginal birth after cesarean birth--California, 1996–2000. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2002; 51:996 - 8.
[21] Villar J, Valladares E, Wojdyla D, et al. Caesarean delivery rates and pregnancy outcomes: The 2005 WHO global survey on maternal and perinatal health in Latin America. Lancet 2005; 367 (9525):1819-1829. [http://dx.doi. org/10.1016/S0140-6736(06)68704-7]
[22] Suliman S, Soma-Pillay P, McDonald AP, Pattinson RC. Factors associated with caesarean section using the Robson Ten Group Classification System. Presented at the 29th Priorities in Perinatal Care Conference, Goudini Spa, Western Cape. 9 - 12 March 2010.
[23] Marcos Nakamura-Pereira, Maria do Carmo Leal, Ana Paula Esteves-Pereira, Rosa Maria Soares Madeira Domingues, Jacqueline Alves Torres, Marcos Augusto Bastos Dias and Maria Elisabeth Moreira. Use of Robson classification to assess cesarean section rate in Brazil: the role of source of payment for childbirth. The Author(s) Reprod Health. 2016, 13 (Suppl 3): 128.
[24] Farine D, Shepherd D, Robson M. Classification of caesarean sections in Canada: the modified Robson criteria. J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2012; 34: 1133.
[25] 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.
[26] Allahabadia GN, Ambiye VR, Shanbaug AM. Vaginal birth following caesarean section. J Obstet Gynecol India. 1989; 39: 782 - 6.
[27] Sullivan O MJ, Fumia F, Holsinger K, McLeod AG. Vaginal delivery after caesarean section. Clin Perinatol. 1981; 8: 131 -43.
[28] Landon MB, Leindecker S, Spong CY, Hauth JC, Bloom S, Varner MW, et al. The MFMU caesarean registry: Factors affecting the success of trial of labour after previous caesarean delivery. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2005; 193: 1016 - 23.
[29] Bedoya C, Bartha JL, Rodriguez I, Fontan I, Bedoya JM, Sanchez-Ramos J. A trial of labour after caesarean section in patients with or without prior vaginal delivery. Int J Gynecol Obstet. 1992; 39: 285 - 9.
[30] Cosgrave R. Management of pregnancy and delivery after caesarean section. J Am Med Assoc.1951; 145: 884 - 8.
[31] Nielsen PV, Stigsby B, Nickelsen C, Nim J. Intra- and inter-observer variability in the assessment of intrapartum cardiotocograms. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 1987; 66:421 - 4.
[32] Menacker F, Martin JA. Expanded health data from the new birth certificate, 2005. Natl Vital Stat Rep. 2008; 56:1 - 24.
[33] J. Zhang, J. F. Troendle, and M. K. Yancey, “Reassessing the labor curve in nulliparous women,” American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology, vol. 187, no. 4, pp. 824–828, 2002.
[34] Catling-Paull C, Johnston R, Ryan C, et al. Non-clinical interventions that increase the uptake and success of vaginal birth after caesarean section: a systematic review. J Adv Nurs. 2011; 67: 1662 - 76.
