DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.18203/2320-1770.ijrcog20202519

Changing trends of indication of caesarean section

Neelam Goyal, Harshita Pandey

Abstract


Background: Percentage of previous C-section undergoing repeat section is close to 90%-92%, morbidity associated with repeat surgery is bringing an altogether new set of challenges for the upcoming future obstetricians. Object of this study is to highlight high incidence of repeat section required and also growing new indications of C-section due to advanced availability of investigative tools.

Methods: Retrospective study of 500 patients who underwent C-section and their indications from April 2019 to July 2019 in Govt Doon Medical college, Dehra Dun.

Results: Out of total 500 C-sections carried from April 2019 to July 2019, patients with previous section were found to undergo a repeat C-section in 95% of the cases. Another common indication being oligohydramnios followed by cephalopelvic disproportion and failed induction.

Conclusions: After assessing the results it is hereby concluded that the commonest indication of C-section in present time is having a previous C-section, which alarms us to take careful judicious decision in performing primi C-sections in order to prevent patients into entering a vicious cycle of repeat surgeries.


Keywords


Indications for C-section, Previous C-section, Rising C-section rates

Full Text:

PDF

References


Boema T, Ronsmans C, Melesse, DY, Barros AJ, Barros FC, Juan L, et al. Global epidemiology of use and disparities in caesarean sections. Lancet. 2018;392(10155):1341.

Gregory KD, Jackson S, Korst L. Caesarean versus vaginal delivery; whose risks? whose benefits? Am J Perinatal. 2012;29:7-18.

Editorial. Stemming the global caesarean Section epidemic. Lancet. 2018;392(10155):1279.

National family health survey (NFHS-4) 2015-16, International Institute for population sciences, Mumbai, India; 2017.

Catherine Y, Sponge MD. Prevention of first caesarean delivery. Obstet Gynecol Clin North Am. 2015:4292);377-80.

Desai G, Anand A, Modi D, Shah S, Shah K, Shah A, et al. Rates, indications and outcomes of caesarean deliveries: a comparison of tribal and non-tribal women in Gujarat, India. PLoS One. 2017:12(12):e0189260.

Caughey AB, Cahill AG, Guise JM, Rouse DJ. Safe prevention of primary caesarean delivery. Am J Obset Gynecol. 2014:201(3):179-93.

Zhang J, Landy H, Branch W, Burkman R, Haberman S, Gregory KD, et al. Contemporary patterns of spontaneous labor with normal neo natal outcomes. Obstet Gynecol. 2010:116:1281-7.

Wiklund I, Malata M, Cheung NF, Cadee F. Appropriate use of caesarean section globally requires a different approach. Lancet. 2018:392:1288-9.

Visser GHA, Ayres-de-Campos D, Barnea ER, Bernis LD, Carlo G, Renzo D, et al. FIGO position paper; how to stop the caesarean section epidemic. Lancet. 2015:392(10155):1286-7.

Robson M, Murphy M, Byrne F. Quality assurance the 10-group classification system (Robson classification), induction of labour and caesarean delivery. Int J Gynecol Obstet. 2015;131:S23-7.

Mc Carthy FP, Rigg L, Cady L, Cullinane FA. New way of looking at caesarean section births. Aust NZJ Obstet Gynecol. 2007;47(4):316-20.

Tapia V, Betran AP, Gonzales GF. Caesarean section in Peru, analysis of trends using the Robson classification system. PLoS One. 2016;11(2):e0148138.