Caesarean section audit in a tertiary hospital of North India using Robson’s classification


  • Ruchi Gupta Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Maulana Azad Medical College and Lok Nayak Hospital, Delhi, India



Bishop score, Caesarean section rate, Robson classification, VBAC


Background: In view of upsurging Caesarean section (CS) rate worldwide WHO conducted two multicountry surveys to diagnose the driving determinants. In two WHO surveys increased overall CS rate was observed from 26.4% to 31.2% worldwide except Japan. Both WHO 2014 and FIGO 2016 recommend Robson ten- group classification for monitoring caesarean rate over time because of its clarity, tenacity, resilience and pliability. Our Aim is to classify women delivered in our Hospital as per Robson ten –group classification and access the factor driving caesarean rate in each group.

Methods: This is a retrospective study 1671 caesarean section conducted in tertiary hospital over 6 months (July- December) 2018. All the delivering women were classified according to Robson ten-group classification and data was analyzed using Microsoft excel and SPSS 23 software.

Results: During the study period there were 5917 deliveries. Of these 1671 deliveries were CS accounting for CS rate of 28.24% . The major contributor to CS rate were women in group 5 followed by primigravida’s in group 1 and 2. Increasing  CS rate was observed in group 1 ,2, 3 and 5. Most common indication for caesarean section was fetal distress , failed induction , previous caesarean , breech and Antepartum hemorrhage.

Conclusions: Increasing trend in CS rate is observed in group 1,2 ,3 and 5. In order to reduce CS rate among group 2 better patient selection is required for induction of labour based on Bishop score. In order to reduce CS rate in group 5 promotion of  VBAC deliveries should be encouraged. By classifying women according to Robson group 10 classification  helps in identification of women likely to deliver by caesarean  and to identify effective strategies to optimize the CS rate.


Souza JP, Gülmezoglu AM, Lumbiganon P, Laopaiboon M, Carroli G, Fawole B. Caesarean section without medical indications is associated with an increased risk of adverse short-term maternal outcomes: the 2004-2008 WHO Global Survey on Maternal and Perinatal Health. BMC Med. 2010;8(1):71.

Souza JP, Tuncalp O, Vogel JP, Bohren M, Widmer M, Oladapo OT et al. Obstetric transition: the pathway towards ending preventable maternal deaths. BJOG: An Int J Obstet Gynaecol. 2014;121(1):1-4.

WHO 2017, Robson classification: Implementation manual. Available at

WHO statement on caesarean section rates; WHO/RHR/15.02

Tapia V, Betran AP, Gonzales GF. Caesarean Section in Peru: Analysis of Trends Using the Robson Classification System. PLoS One. 2016 PLoS One. 2016;11(2):e0148138.

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 Global Health. 2015;3(5):e260-70.

Koteshwara S, Sujatha MS. Analysis of caesarean section using Robsons ten group classification: the first step. Int J Reproduct Contracept Obstet Gynecol.2017;6(8):3481-5

Prabhavathi V, Krishnamma B, Prasad DKV, Bhavya K, Satyavathi R. Audit of caesarean deliveries in a tertiary care hospital of northern Andhra Pradesh using modified Robson criteria. Int J Reproduct Contracept Obstet Gynecol.2018;7(7):2796-2801.

Lesieur E, Blanc J, Loundou A, Claquin A, Marcot M, Heckenroth H, Bretelle F. Teaching and performing audits on caesarean delivery reduce the caesarean delivery rate. PloS one. 2018;13(8):e0202475.

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(1):432.

Brennan DJ, Robson MS, Murphy M, O'Herlihy C. Comparative analysis of international caesarean delivery rates using 10-group classification identifies significant variation in spontaneous labor. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2009;201(308):e301-8

Costa ML, Cecatti JG, Souza JP, Milanez HM, Gülmezoglu MA. Using a Caesarean Section Classification System based on characteristics of the population as a way of monitoring obstetric practice. Reproduct Health. 2010;7(1):13.

McCarthy FP, Rigg L, Cady L, Cullinane F: A new way of looking at Caesarean section births. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 2007, 47(4):316-20.

Harper LM, Macones GA: Predicting success and reducing the risks when attempting vaginal birth after cesarean. Obstet Gynecol Surv. 2008;63(8): 538-45.

Rossi AC, D'Addario V: Maternal morbidity following a trial of labor after cesarean section vs elective repeat cesarean delivery: a systematic review with metaanalysis. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2008;199 (3):224-31.

Kazmi T, Saiseema S, Khan S. Analysis of Cesarean Section Rate - According to Robson’s 10-group Classification. Oman Med J. 2012;27(5):415-7.

Thomas J, Paranjothy S. The national sentinel caesarean section audit report. National Sentinel Caesarean Section Audit Report. 2001.






Original Research Articles