Changing trends and determinants of caesarean section using robson criteria in a government tertiary level hospital
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.18203/2320-1770.ijrcog20210737Keywords:
Caesarean section, Changing trend in caesarean rate, Robson criteriaAbstract
Background: Robson Ten group classification system (TGCS) was proposed by World Health Organisation in 2014 for assessing, monitoring and comparing caesarean section rate between and within healthcare facilities. This tool was used in this study to analyse the determinants of caesarean section and compare with data of past.
Methods: This observational comparative study was conducted at tertiary level hospital and included in study group A, 300 women delivered by caesarean section from November 2018 to November 2019 and in study group B, 300 women delivered by caesarean section from November 2015 to December 2016. The caesarean sections were classified as per TGCS to determine relative and absolute contribution made by each group to the overall caesarean section rate. The results were analysed to for determinants and change in trend.
Results: In this study, the caesarean section rate in group A was 29.32% and group B was 28.03%. Group 2, 5, 1, 10 made the maximum contributions to overall caesarean section rate in both study groups. Group 2 was the largest contributor (25.00%) in study group A and 27.33% in study group B to overall caesarean sections.
Conclusions: Implementing Robsons TGCS can help in comparing caesarean in an institution over a period of time and also among different institution at national and international level as a method of internal auditing, paving a way to rationalise and decrease Caesarean rate.
References
Torloni MR, Betran AP, Souza JP, Widmer M, Allen T, Gulmezoglu M, et al. Classifications for caesarean section: a systematic review. PloS One. 2011;6(1):e14566.
Maternal health. Available at: https://www.who.int/reproductivehealth/publications/maternal_perinatal_health/robson-classification/en/. Accessed on 30 October 2020.
Betran AP, Vindevoghel N, Souza JP, Guelmezoglu AM, Torloni MR. A systematic review of the Robson classification for caesarean section: What works, doesn’t work and how to improve it. PloS one. 2014;9(6):e97769.
Robson M, Murphy M, Byrne F. Quality assurance: the 10‐group classification system (robson classification), induction of labour, and caesarean delivery. Int J Gynaecol Obst. 2015;131:S1.
Vogel JP, Betrán AP. Use of the Robson classification to assess caesarean section trends in 21 countries: a secondary analysis of two WHO multicounty surveys. Lancet Glob Health. 2015;3:e260-70.
Martin JA, Hamilton Be, Ventura SJ, Osterman M, Mathews TJ. Births: final data for 2011. Nat Vital Stat Rep. 2013;62(2):1-90.
Koteshwara S, Sujatha MS. Analysis of caesarean section rates using Robsons ten group classification: the first step. IJRCOG. 2017;6(8):3481-5.
Patel RV, Gosalia EV, Deliwala KJ. Indications and trends of caesarean birth delivery in the current practice scenario. IJRCOG. 2014;3:575-80.
Mittal P, Pandey D, Suri J, Bharti R. Trend prediction for cesarean deliveries based on robson classifcation system at a tertiary referral unit of North India. J Obst Gynecol India. 2020;70:111-8.
Candel RV, Martin A, Sanchez EEC, Soriano FJ. Analysis of caesarean section rates using robson classification system at a University hospital in Spain. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020;17(5):1575.
Roberge S, Dube E, Blouin S, Chaillet N. Reporting caesarean delivery in Quebec using the Robson classification system. J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2017;39(3):152-6.
Keepanasseril A, Anand K, Soundara Raghavan S. Matched cohort study of external cephalic version in women with previous cesarean delivery. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2017;138(1):79-83.
