Analysis of Caesarean-Section rates according to Robson's ten group classification system and evaluating the indications within the groups

Amita Ray, Sumy Jose


Background: With Caesarean sections on the rise WHO proposes that health care facilities use the Robson's 10 group classification system to audit their C-sections rates. This classification would help understand the internal structure of the CS rates at individual health facilities identify key population groups, indications in each group and formulate strategies to reduce these rates.

Methods: This was a cross sectional study for a period of 24 months at a tertiary care hospital in a tribal area of Kerala South India. Women who delivered during this period were included and classified into 10 Robson's classes and percentages were calculated for the overall rate, the representation of groups, contribution of groups and Caesarean percentage in each group.

Results: Highest contribution was by Group 5 and Group 2. Together these two groups contributed to 38% of the total Caesareans. Followed by Group 8 and 10. All four added contributed to 63% of the section rate The least contribution was by Group 3. Groups 6, 7 and 9 by themselves did not contribute much but within their groups had a 100% C-Section rate.

Conclusions: The contribution of the various Robson's Group to the absolute C-Section rates needs to be looked into. Reducing primary section rates, adequate counselling and encouraging for VBAC, changing the norms for dystocia and non-reassuring fetal status, training and encouraging obstetricians to perform versions when not contraindicated could reduce the contribution of Robson's groups towards the absolute C-Section rates.


C-Section, Human Development Index (HDI), Robson's Classification

Full Text:



Betram AP, Merialdi M, Lauer JA, Bing-Shun W, Thomas J, Van Look P, et al. Rates of caesarean section: analysis of global, regional and national estimates. Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol. 2007;21:98-113.

Zizza A, Tinelli A, Malvasi A, Barbone E, Stark M, De Donno A, et al. Caesarean section in the world: a new ecological approach. J Prev Med Hyg. 2011;52:161-73.

Litorp H, Kidanto H, Nystrom L, Darj E, Esse´n 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.

Martin JA, Hamilton BE, Ventura SJ, Osterman MJ, Mathews TJ. Births: Final data for 2011. Natl Vital Stat Rep. 2013:62:1-90.

Stanton CK, Holtz SA. Levels and trends in cesarean birth in the developing world. Stud Fam Plann. 2006;37:41-8.

Ribeiro V, Figueiredo F, Silva A, Bettiol H, Batista R, Coimbra L, et al. Why are the rates of cesarian section in Brazil higher in more developed cities than in less developed ones? Brazilian Journal of Medical and Biological Research. 2007;40:1211-20.

Cavallaro FL, Cresswell JA , França GVA, Victora CG, Barros AJD, Ronsmans C. Trends in caesarean delivery by country and wealth quintile: cross-sectional surveys in southern Asia and sub Saharan Africa. Bulletin of World Health Organization published on line on August 2013. Obtained from accessed on August 2014.

Horton R, Das P. Indian health: The path from crisis to progress the Lancet. 2011;377:181-3.

Kapil U, Choudhury P. National Rural Health Mission (NRHM): Will it make a Difference? Indian Pediatrics; 2005;42:783.

Ray A, Vadvagi N. Assessment and comparison of Caesarean section rates to WHO recommendations Authors. The Online Journal of Clinical Audits. 2015;7(4):1-8.

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

Robson M. Can we reduce the caesarean section rate? Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2001;15:179-94.

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

Hartmann K, Andrews J, Jerome R, Lewis R, Likis F, McKoy J, et al. Strategies to reduce cesarean birth in low-risk women. Agency Healthcare Res Qual (US) Rep. No. 2012;12(13)-EHC128-EF.

Guidelines for antenatal care at birth -National Health Portal accessed on September 2014

MacDorman MF, Menacker F, Declercq E. Cesarean birth in the United States: epidemiology, trends, and outcomes. Clin Perinatol. 2008 Jun;35(2):293-307.

Stavrou EP, Ford JB, Shand AW, Morris JM, Roberts CL. Epidemiology and trends for Caesarean section births in New South Wales, Australia: a population-based study. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2011;11:8.

Laws PJ, Sullivan EA. Australia's mothers and babies. Sydney 2007;2009.

Kolås T, Hofoss D, Daltveit AK, Nilsen ST, Henriksen T, Häger R, et al. Indications for cesarean deliveries in Norway. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2003;188(4):864-870.

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. Lancet; 2007-08:490-499.

Joshua PV, Betrán AP, Vindevoghel N, Souza JP, Torloni MR, Zhang J, et al. On behalf of the 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 multi country surveys. Lancet; 2015;(3):260-270.

Caughey AB, Cahill AG. Safe prevention of the primary caesarean delivery. Obstetric Care Consensus. 2014;1:2-19.