Write your message
Volume 7, Issue 3 (May & June - Volume 07 - Issue 03 2022)                   J Obstet Gynecol Cancer Res 2022, 7(3): 213-220 | Back to browse issues page

XML Print


Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:

Charoonwatana T, Suwanbamrung C, Saengow U. Cesarean Section According to Robson Classification in a Tertiary Hospital, Southern Thailand. J Obstet Gynecol Cancer Res. 2022; 7 (3) :213-220
URL: http://jogcr.com/article-1-494-en.html
1- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Maharaj Nakhon Si Thammarat Hospital, Nakhon Si Thammarat, Thailand , tipn29@hotmail.com
2- School of Public Health, Walailuk University, Nakhon Si Thammarat, Thailand
Abstract:   (205 Views)

Background and Objective: Cesarean section (CS) rates have increased continuously worldwide in the past decades while not being associated with significant benefits for mothers and newborns. According to Robson's classification, the present research aimed to analyze the associating factor to cesarean section to set the practice system and decrease the cesarean section rate in the near future.
Methods:  This is a retrospective cross-sectional analytic study of the medical record of pregnant women who delivered in 2019 at MNST Hospital. The logistic regression model carried out the adjusted odds ratio (OR) of cesarean section rate and 95% confidence intervals.
Results: A total of 5,360 medical records were recruited. Of all birth, 55.4% occurred by cesarean section, most of whom were categorized in R1 to R4 of Robson classification (23.3%), followed by R5 (21.1%) and R10 (5.4%). The subgroup R1-R4 analysis demonstrated that obesity, Bachelor’s education, and private obstetrician were significantly related to the cesarean section in the group of spontaneous labor (R1, R3) and Bachelor’s education and private obstetrician were significantly related to the cesarean section in the group without spontaneous labor (R2, R4) (adjust OR 13.50, P<0.001 and adjust OR 2.11, P<0.001, respectively).
Conclusion: Private obstetrician and education level were factors related to the obstetric indication of unnecessary cesarean section.

Full-Text [PDF 398 kb]   (38 Downloads) |   |   Full-Text (HTML)  (13 Views)  
Systematic Review: Original Research | Subject: Obstetrics and Gynecology
Received: 2021/09/10 | Accepted: 2021/11/19 | Published: 2022/01/12

References
1. Betran AP, Ye J, Moller AB, Zhang J, Gulmezoglu AM, Torloni MR. The Increasing Trend in Caesarean Section Rates: Global, Regional and National Estimates: 1990-2014. PloS One. 2016;11(2):e0148343. [DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0148343] [PMID] [PMCID]
2. Senanayake H, Piccoli M, Valente EP, Businelli C, Mohamed R, Fernando R, et al. Implementation of the WHO manual for Robson classification: an example from Sri Lanka using a local database for developing quality improvement recommendations. BMJ Open. 2019;9(2):e027317. [DOI:10.1136/bmjopen-2018-027317] [PMID] [PMCID]
3. Entringer AP, Pinto M, Gomes M. Cost-effectiveness analysis of natural birth and elective C-section in supplemental health. Rev Saude Publica. 2018;52:91. [DOI:10.11606/S1518-8787.2018052000373] [PMID] [PMCID]
4. Yukaew N. Cesarean Section Rate According to Robson's Classification. J Prev Med Assoc Thai. 2017;7(3):262-71.
5. Cunningham F, Leveno K, Bloom S, Spong CY, Dashe J. Williams obstetrics, 25e: Mcgraw-hill New York, NY, USA; 2018.
6. Clark SL, Belfort MA, Dildy GA, Herbst MA, Meyers JA, Hankins GD. Maternal death in the 21st century: causes, prevention, and relationship to cesarean delivery. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2008;199(1):36 e1-5; discussion 91-2 e7-11. [DOI:10.1016/j.ajog.2008.03.007] [PMID]
7. Villar J, Carroli G, Zavaleta N, Donner A, Wojdyla D, Faundes A, et al. Maternal and neonatal individual risks and benefits associated with caesarean delivery: multicentre prospective study. BMJ. 2007;335(7628):1025. [DOI:10.1136/bmj.39363.706956.55] [PMID] [PMCID]
8. Padawer JA, Fagan C, Janoff‐Bulman R, Strickland BR, Chorowski M. Women's psychological adjustment following emergency cesarean versus vaginal delivery. Psychol Women Q. 1988;12(1):25-34. [DOI:10.1111/j.1471-6402.1988.tb00925.x]
9. Mutryn CS. Psychosocial impact of cesarean section on the family: a literature review. Soc Sci Med. 1993;37(10):1271-81. [DOI:10.1016/0277-9536(93)90338-5]
10. Gallagher AC, Hersh AR, Scrivner KJ, Tilden E, Caughey AB. 579: Operative vaginal delivery compared to cesarean section modeled for a second pregnancy: a cost-effectiveness analysis. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2018;218(1):S347. [DOI:10.1016/j.ajog.2017.11.107]
11. WHO. Appropriate technology for birth. Lancet. 1985;2:436-7. [DOI:10.1016/S0140-6736(85)92750-3]
12. Betran AP, Torloni MR, Zhang JJ, Gulmezoglu AM, Section WHOWGoC. WHO Statement on Caesarean Section Rates. BJOG. 2016;123(5):667-70. [DOI:10.1111/1471-0528.13526] [PMID] [PMCID]
13. 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 Glob Health. 2015;3(5):e260-e70. [DOI:10.1016/S2214-109X(15)70094-X]
14. Charoonwatana T, Assawaphadungsit J. The Trend of Cesarean Section Rate According to Robson 10-Group Classification in Maharaj Nakhon Si Thammarat Hospital, Thailand since 2011 to 2018. Maharaj Nakhon Si Thammarat Medical Journal. 2021;5(1).
15. Patel RR, Peters TJ, Murphy DJ, Team AS. Prenatal risk factors for Caesarean section. Analyses of the ALSPAC cohort of 12,944 women in England. Int J Epidemiol. 2005;34(2):353-67. [DOI:10.1093/ije/dyh401] [PMID]
16. Wehberg S, Guldberg R, Gradel KO, Kesmodel US, Munk L, Andersson CB, et al. Risk factors and between-hospital variation of caesarean section in Denmark: a cohort study. BMJ Open. 2018;8(2):e019120. [DOI:10.1136/bmjopen-2017-019120] [PMID] [PMCID]
17. Souza JP, Betran AP, Dumont A, de Mucio B, Gibbs Pickens CM, Deneux-Tharaux C, et al. A global reference for caesarean section rates (C-Model): a multicountry cross-sectional study. BJOG. 2016;123(3):427-36. [DOI:10.1111/1471-0528.13509] [PMID] [PMCID]
18. Anekpornwattana S, Yangnoi J, Jareemit N, Borriboonhiransan D. Cesarean section rate in Siriraj hospital according to the Robson classification. Thai J Obstet and Gynaecol. 2020:6-15.
19. Khornwong S, Kovavisarach E. Cesarean section rate based on the Robson 10-group classification at Rajavithi hospital from 2015-2018. Thai J Obstet and Gynaecol. 2021.
20. Miazga E, Reed C, Tunde-Byass M, Cipolla A, Shapiro J, Shore EM. Decreasing Cesarean Delivery Rates Using a Trial of Labour After Cesarean (TOLAC) Bundle. J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2020;42(9):1111-5. [DOI:10.1016/j.jogc.2020.02.113] [PMID]
21. Rezai S, Labine M, Gottimukkala S, Karp S, Sainvil L. Trial of Labor after Cesarean (TOLAC) for Vaginal Birth after Previous Cesarean Section (VBAC) versus repeat cesarean section: a review. Obstet Gynecol Int J. 2016;4(6):00135. [DOI:10.15406/ogij.2016.04.00135]
22. Obstetricians ACo, Gynecologists. ACOG Practice bulletin no. 115: Vaginal birth after previous cesarean delivery. Obstet Gynecol. 2010;116(2 Pt 1):450-63. [DOI:10.1097/AOG.0b013e3181eeb251] [PMID]
23. Barber EL, Lundsberg LS, Belanger K, Pettker CM, Funai EF, Illuzzi JL. Indications contributing to the increasing cesarean delivery rate. Obstet Gynecol. 2011;118(1):29-38. [DOI:10.1097/AOG.0b013e31821e5f65] [PMID] [PMCID]
24. Declercq E, Menacker F, MacDorman M. Rise in "no indicated risk" primary caesareans in the United States, 1991-2001: cross sectional analysis. BMJ. 2005;330(7482):71-2. [DOI:10.1136/bmj.38279.705336.0B] [PMID] [PMCID]
25. Gossman GL, Joesch JM, Tanfer K. Trends in maternal request cesarean delivery from 1991 to 2004. Obstet Gynecol. 2006;108(6):1506-16. [DOI:10.1097/01.AOG.0000242564.79349.b7] [PMID] [PMCID]
26. Menacker F, Declercq E, Macdorman MF, editors. Cesarean delivery: background, trends, and epidemiology. Seminars in perinatology; 2006: Elsevier. [DOI:10.1053/j.semperi.2006.07.002] [PMID]
27. Cheesman K, Brady JE, Flood P, Li G. Epidemiology of anesthesia-related complications in labor and delivery, New York State, 2002-2005. Anesth Analg. 2009;109(4):1174-81. [DOI:10.1213/ane.0b013e3181b2ef75] [PMID] [PMCID]
28. Hawkins JL, Chang J, Palmer SK, Gibbs CP, Callaghan WM. Anesthesia-related maternal mortality in the United States: 1979-2002. Obstet Gynecol. 2011;117(1):69-74. [DOI:10.1097/AOG.0b013e31820093a9] [PMID]
29. 1. Betrán AP, Ye J, Moller A-B, Zhang J, Gülmezoglu AM, Torloni MR. The increasing trend in caesarean section rates: global, regional and national estimates: 1990-2014. PloS one. 2016;11(2):e0148343. 2. Senanayake H, Piccoli M, Valente EP, Businelli C, Mohamed R, Fernando R, et al. Implementation of the WHO manual for Robson classification: an example from Sri Lanka using a local database for developing quality improvement recommendations. BMJ open. 2019;9(2):e027317. 3. Entringer AP, Pinto M, Gomes MAdSM. Cost-effectiveness analysis of natural birth and elective C-section in supplemental health. Revista de saude publica. 2018;52:91. 4. Maneein M. Comparative Study of Postpartum Quality of Life between Patients Having Normal Vaginal Delivery and Cesarean Section. Journal of Health Science. 2017;24(4):648-58. 5. Yukaew N. Cesarean Section Rate According to Robson’s Classification. Journal of Preventive Medicine Association of Thailand. 2017;7(3):262-71. 6. Cunningham F, Leveno K, Bloom S, Spong CY, Dashe J. Williams obstetrics, 25e: Mcgraw-hill New York, NY, USA; 2018. 7. Clark SL, Belfort MA, Dildy GA, Herbst MA, Meyers JA, Hankins GD. Maternal death in the 21st century: causes, prevention, and relationship to cesarean delivery. American journal of obstetrics and gynecology. 2008;199(1):36. e1-. e5. 8. Villar J, Carroli G, Zavaleta N, Donner A, Wojdyla D, Faundes A, et al. Maternal and neonatal individual risks and benefits associated with caesarean delivery: multicentre prospective study. Bmj. 2007;335(7628):1025. 9. Padawer JA, Fagan C, Janoff‐Bulman R, Strickland BR, Chorowski M. Women's psychological adjustment following emergency cesarean versus vaginal delivery. Psychology of Women Quarterly. 1988;12(1):25-34. 10. Mutryn CS. Psychosocial impact of cesarean section on the family: a literature review. Social Science & Medicine. 1993;37(10):1271-81. 11. Gallagher AC, Hersh AR, Scrivner KJ, Tilden E, Caughey AB. 579: Operative vaginal delivery compared to cesarean section modeled for a second pregnancy: a cost-effectiveness analysis. American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology. 2018;218(1):S347. 12. WHO. Appropriate technology for birth. Lancet. 1985;2:436-7. 13. Betrán AP, Torloni MR, Zhang J-J, Gülmezoglu A, Section WWGoC, Aleem H, et al. WHO statement on caesarean section rates. BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology. 2016;123(5):667-70. 14. 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. The Lancet Global Health. 2015;3(5):e260-e70. 15. Charoonwatana T, Assawaphadungsit J. The Trend of Cesarean Section Rate According to Robson 10-Group Classification in Maharaj Nakhon Si Thammarat Hospital, Thailand since 2011 to 2018. Maharaj Nakhon Si Thammarat Medical Journal. 2021;5(1). 16. Patel RR, Peters TJ, Murphy DJ. Prenatal risk factors for Caesarean section. Analyses of the ALSPAC cohort of 12 944 women in England. International journal of epidemiology. 2005;34(2):353-67. 17. Wehberg S, Guldberg R, Gradel KO, Kesmodel US, Munk L, Andersson CB, et al. Risk factors and between-hospital variation of caesarean section in Denmark: a cohort study. BMJ open. 2018;8(2):e019120. 18. Souza J, Betran A, Dumont A, De Mucio B, Gibbs Pickens C, Deneux‐Tharaux C, et al. A global reference for caesarean section rates (C‐Model): a multicountry cross‐sectional study. BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology. 2016;123(3):427-36. 19. Anekpornwattana S, Yangnoi J, Jareemit N, Borriboonhiransan D. Cesarean section rate in Siriraj hospital according to the Robson classification. Thai Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology. 2020:6-15. 20. Khornwong S, Kovavisarach E. Cesarean section rate based on the Robson 10-group classification at Rajavithi hospital from 2015-2018. Thai Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology. 2021. 21. Miazga E, Reed C, Tunde-Byass M, Cipolla A, Shapiro J, Shore EM. Decreasing Cesarean Delivery Rates Using a Trial of Labour After Cesarean (TOLAC) Bundle. Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Canada. 2020;42(9):1111-5. 22. Rezai S, Labine M, Gottimukkala S, Karp S, Sainvil L. Trial of Labor after Cesarean (TOLAC) for Vaginal Birth after Previous Cesarean Section (VBAC) versus repeat cesarean section: a review. Obstet Gynecol Int J. 2016;4(6):00135. 23. Obstetricians ACo, Gynecologists. ACOG Practice bulletin no. 115: Vaginal birth after previous cesarean delivery. Obstetrics and gynecology. 2010;116(2 Pt 1):450-63. 24. Barber EL, Lundsberg LS, Belanger K, Pettker CM, Funai EF, Illuzzi JL. Indications contributing to the increasing cesarean delivery rate. Obstetrics and gynecology. 2011;118(1):29-38. 25. Declercq E, Menacker F, MacDorman M. Rise in “no indicated risk” primary caesareans in the United States, 1991-2001: cross sectional analysis. Bmj. 2005;330(7482):71-2. 26. Gossman GL, Joesch JM, Tanfer K. Trends in maternal request cesarean delivery from 1991 to 2004. Obstetrics & Gynecology. 2006;108(6):1506-16. 27. Menacker F, Declercq E, Macdorman MF, editors. Cesarean delivery: background, trends, and epidemiology. Seminars in perinatology; 2006: Elsevier. 28. Cheesman K, Brady JE, Flood P, Li G. Epidemiology of anesthesia-related complications in labor and delivery, New York State, 2002-2005. Anesthesia and analgesia. 2009;109(4):1174. 29. Hawkins JL, Chang J, Palmer SK, Gibbs CP, Callaghan WM. Anesthesia-related maternal mortality in the United States: 1979–2002. Obstetrics & Gynecology. 2011;117(1):69-74. 30. Jenabi E, Khazaei S, Bashirian S, Aghababaei S, Matinnia N. Reasons for elective cesarean section on maternal request: a systematic review. The Journal of Maternal-Fetal & Neonatal Medicine. 2019:1-6. [DOI:10.1080/14767058.2019.1587407] [PMID]

Add your comments about this article : Your username or Email:
CAPTCHA

Send email to the article author


Rights and permissions
Creative Commons License Journal of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Cancer Research by Farname Inc is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. Based on a work at http://jogcr.com/.

© 2022 CC BY-NC 4.0 | Journal of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Cancer Research (JOGCR)

Designed & Developed by : Yektaweb | Piblisher: Farname Inc.