Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Rising Cesarean Rates: Are Primary Sections Overused?

  • Review Article
  • Published:
The Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology of India Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Doubling of C-section rates from year 2000 to 2015 globally was declared an eye-opener on October 13, 2018, in FIGO World Congress. Rapid increase in rates without clear evidence of concomitant decrease in maternal or neonatal morbidity or mortality raises significant concern that cesarean delivery is overused. This review addresses issues related to exponentially rising rates, reasons for it, and strategies to reduce. Previous cesarean delivery has main contribution to rising rates as per evidence from the literature search in last 5 years. Focus on optimizing indications of primary C-section resulted in making us rethink modifiable indications like labor dystocia, indeterminate fetal heart rate tracing, suspected fetal macrosomia, malposition, risk-adapted obstetrics, litigation fears, on demand cesarean in literate women and overuse of labor induction. Use of uniform classification system (Robson/WHO classification) with recommendations of WHO, FIGO and annual audits with cloud-based anonymous registry will streamline decisions for cesarean in nullipara and help to control the situation.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Gregory KD, Jackson S, Korst L, et al. Caesarean versus vaginal delivery: whose risks? Whose benefits? Am J Perinatol. 2012;29:7–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. WHO statement on caesarean section rates. Geneva: World Health Organisation. 2015.

  4. Clark SL, Belfort MA, Dildy GA, et al. Maternal death in the 21st century: causes, prevention, and relationship to caesarean delivery. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2008;199:36e1–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. National Family Health Survey (NFHS-4) 2015-16. International Institute for Population Sciences, Mumbai, India.

  7. Singh P, Hashmi G, Swain PK. High prevalence of cesarean section births in private sector health facilities- analysis of district level household survey-4 (DLHS-4) of India. BMC Public Health. 2018;18:613.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Desai G, Anand A, Modi D, et al. Rates, indications, and outcomes of caesarean section deliveries: A comparison of tribal and non-tribal women in Gujarat, India. PLoS ONE. 2017;12(12):e0189260. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0189260.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Tanaka K, Mahomed K. The ten-group Robson classification: a single centre approach identifying strategies to optimise caesarean section rates. Obst Gynecol Int 2017, 5648938, 5 p. https://doi.org/10.1155/2017/5648938.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Torloni MR, Betran AP, Souza JP, et al. Classifications for Cesarean section: a systematic review. PLoS ONE. 2011;6(1):14566. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0014566.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Zimmo MW, Laaine K, Hassan S, et al. Caesarean section in Palestine using the Robson Ten Group Classification System: a population-based birth cohort study. BMJ Open. 2018;1:2. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2018-022875.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Nakamura-Pereira M, do Carmo Leal M, Esteves-Pereira AP, et al. Use of Robson classification to assess cesarean section rate in Brazil: the role of source of payment for childbirth. Reprod Health. 2016;13(3):128. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12978-016-0228-7.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Farine D, Shepherd D. Classification of Caesarean Sections in Canada: the modified Robson Criteria. A Comm Opin Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2012;34(10):976–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Betran AP, Vindevoghel N, Souza JP, et al. 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. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0097769.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Jacob KJ, Jayaprakash M, Hibina KP. TMC (Thrissur Medical College) modified Robson criteria for caesarean sections. Int J Reprod Contracept Obstet Gynecol. 2017;6:5038–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Voge JP, Betrán AP, Vindevoghel N, et al. Use of the Robson classification to assess caesarean section trends in 21 countries: a secondary analysis on behalf of the WHO Multi-Country Survey on Maternal and Newborn Health Research Network. Lancet. 2015;3(5):e260–70.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Catherine Y, Sponge MD. Prevention of the first cesarean delivery. Obstet Gynecol Clin North Am. 2015;42(2):377–80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ogc.2015.01.010.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Souza JP, Betran AP, Dumont A, et al. A global reference for caesarean section rates (:c-model) a multicountry cross-sectional study. BJOG. 2016;123:427–36.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Liu S, Liston RM, Joseph KS, et al. Maternal mortality and severe morbidity associated with low- risk planned caesarean delivery versus planned vaginal delivery at term. Maternal Health Study Group of the Canadian Perinatal Surveillance System. CMAJ. 2007;176:455–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Rajbhandary S, Shrivastava VR. Study of Indications and post-operative complications of primary caesarean section in tertiary care hospital in Nepal. Int J Reprod Contracept Obstet Gynecol. 2018;7(3):835–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Bhowmik J, Kyal A, Das I, et al. Pregnancy with previous caesarean section: an overview of adverse of fetomaternal sequelae. Int J Reprod Contracept Obstet Gynecol. 2018;7(5):1817–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Caughey AB, Cahill AG, Guise J-M, et al. Safe prevention of the primary caesarean delivery. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2014;201(3):179–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Zhang J, Landy H, Branch W, et al. Contemporary patterns of spontaneous labor with normal neonatal outcomes. Obstet Gynecol. 2010;116:1281–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Spong CY, Berghella V, Wenstrom K, et al. Preventing the first Cesarean delivery; summary of a Joint Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute Of Child Health And Human Development, Society For Maternal- Fetal Medicine, and American College Of Obstetrician And Gynecologists Workshop. Obstet Gynecol. 2012;120:1181–93.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. Nelson K, Sartwelle T, Rouse D. Electronic fetal monitoring, cerebral palsy, and caesareans: assumptions versus evidence. BMJ. 2016;355:16405.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Obstetric Care Consensus ACOG number 1, March 2014.

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. http://www.fogsi.org.

  29. Visser GHA, Ayres-de-Campos D, Barnea ER, et al. FIGO position paper: how to stop the caesarean section epidemic. Lancet. 2015;392(10155):1286–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(18)32113-5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Main EK, Chang S-C, et al. Safety assessment of a large-scale improvement collaborative to reduce nulliparous Cesarean delivery rates. Obstet Gynecol. 2019. https://doi.org/10.1097/AOG.0000000000003109.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, R. D. Gardi Medical College, Ujjain, 456006, India

    Kalpana Mahadik

Authors
  1. Kalpana Mahadik
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kalpana Mahadik.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Kalpana Mahadik, Professor, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, at R. D. Gardi Medical College, Ujjain, India.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Mahadik, K. Rising Cesarean Rates: Are Primary Sections Overused?. J Obstet Gynecol India 69, 483–489 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13224-019-01246-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13224-019-01246-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation