, Volume 36, Issue 9, pp 2074-2079
Date: 25 Apr 2012

Ratio of Cesarean Sections to Total Procedures as a Marker of District Hospital Trauma Capacity

Rent the article at a discount

Rent now

* Final gross prices may vary according to local VAT.

Get Access

Abstract

Background

There are few established metrics to define surgical capacity in resource-limited settings. Previous work hypothesizes that the relative frequency of cesarean sections (CS) at a hospital, expressed as a proportion of total operative procedures (%CS), may serve as a proxy measure of surgical capacity. We attempted to evaluate this hypothesis as it specifically relates to hospital capacity for emergency interventions for injury.

Methods

We conducted a WHO survey of emergency surgical capacity at 40 Rwandan district hospitals in November 2010 and extracted annual operative volume for 2010 from the Ministry of Health centralized statistical system. We dichotomized the 40 hospitals into low and high %CS groups below and above the median proportion of CS performed. We compared low and high %CS groups across self-reported capabilities related to facility characteristics, trauma supplies, procedural capacity, and surgical training using bivariate χ2 statistics with significance indicated at p ≤ 0.05. We evaluated herniorrhaphy proportion of total procedures (%Hernia) as a representative general surgery procedure in the same manner.

Results

High %CS hospitals were less likely to report capability related to blood banking (p = 0.05), amputation (p = 0.04), closed fracture repair (p = 0.04), inhalational anesthesia (p = 0.05), and chest tube insertion (p = 0.05). Availability of reliable electricity was the only measure that showed statistical significance with the %Hernia measure (p = 0.02).

Conclusions

Cesarean section proportion shows some utility as a marker for district hospital injury-care capacity in resource-limited settings.

Previously presented at: Annual General Meeting, College of Surgeons of East, Central, and Southern Africa (COSECSA) Lusaka, Zambia, December 2011.
An erratum to this article can be found at http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00268-012-1824-5.