Published: 2016-12-15

Changing trends in cesarean delivery: rate and indications

Manju Agarwal, Madhureema Verma, Apurva Garg


Background: Caesarean section is a time honoured approach which was introduced in clinical practice as a lifesaving procedure both for the mother and the baby. The study was to compare the cesarean delivery rates over last 7 years and to examine the indications contributing to changed trends, if any.

Methods: To compare the rate and indications of cesarean delivery over last 7 years. Data were collected in a retrospective manner from all the deliveries that occurred between January 1 and December 31 in 2009, 2012, 2015, in the Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology at Jhalawar Medical College, Jhalawar, Rajasthan, India. The rate and indications of primary and repeat cesarean sections were analyzed among the live births to estimate the relative contribution of each indication to the overall increase in rate. Repeat caesarean delivery rate increased from 24.66/1000 live births in 2009 to 46.56/1000 live births in 2015. FD, scar tenderness, NPOL mainly contributed to it.

Results: The cesarean delivery rate increased from 149.33/1000 live births in 2009 to 234.03/1000 live births in 2015, with an increase in primary cesarean delivery rate from 124.66/1000 live births in 2009 to 187.46/1000 live births in 2015. Fetal distress, non-progression of labor, obstetric indications contributed to this increase.

Conclusions: There is significant increase in the total cesarean rate with primary cesarean due to fetal distress accounting for most of the increase.


Cesarean rate, Primary cesarean birth, Repeat cesarean birth, Indications

Full Text:



Turner MJ. Delivery after one previous cesarean section. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1997;176:741-4.

Oladapo OT, Sotunsu JO, Sule OAO. The rise in cesarean birth rate in Sagamu, Nigeria: reflection of changes in obstetrics practice. J Obstet Gynaecol. 2004;24:377-81.

World Health Organization. Monitoring emergency obstetric care: a handbook. Geneva, Switzerland. 2009.

Althabe F, Belizon JM. LSCS: the paradox. (comment). Lancet. 2006;368(9546):1472-3.

Tollanes MC. Increased rate of Cesarean Sections-causes and consequences. Tidsskr Nor Laegeforen. 2009;129(13):1329-31.

Barber EL, Lundsberg LS, Belanger K. Indications contributing to the increasing cesarean delivery rate. Obstet Gynecol. 2011;118(1):29-38.

Baaqeel HS. Cesarean delivery rates in Saudi Arabia: a ten-year review. Ann Saudi Med. 2009;29(3):179-83.

Mehta A, Apers L, Verstraelen H. Trends in cesarean section rates at maternity hospital in Mumbai. India J Health Popul Nutr. 2001;19(4):306-12.

Saha S, Saha S, Das R, Chakraborty M, Bala HS, Naskar P. A paradigm shift to check the increasing trend of cesarean delivery is the need of hour: but how? J Obstet Gynecol India. 2012;62(4):391-7.

Stavrou EP, Ford JB, Shand AW. Epidemiology and trends for cesarean section births in New South Wales, Australia: a population-based study. BMC Preg Child Birth. 2011;20(11):8.

Liu S, Rusen ID, Joseph KS. Recent trends in cesarean delivery rates and indications for cesarean delivery in Canada. J Obstet Gynecol Can. 2004;26(8):735-42.

Krychowska A, Kosinska K, Karwan A. Comparison of indications for cesarean sections in 1985-86 and 2000-01:analysis of changes. Ginekol Pol. 2004;75(12):926-31.

Choudhary AP, Dawson AJ. Trends in indications for cesarean sections over 7 years in a Welsh district general hospital. J Obstet Gynecol. 2009;29(8):714-7.

Chanthasenanont A, Pongrojpaw D. Indications for LSCS at a Thammasat University Hospital. J Med Assoc. 2007;90:1733-7.

Abu HA, Zayed F. Primary and repeat cesarean sections: comparison of indications. J Obstet Gynecol. 1998;18(5):432-4.