Abstract
Background
To examine Cesarean delivery rates based on the Robson’s Ten-group classification system (TGCS), over a 10-year period.
Methods
All Vaginal Deliveries and cesarean sections (CSs) performed over a 10-year period from 2004 to 2013 were included in the analysis. The data were compiled according to Robson’s TGCS of cesarean section for every year. Risk Ratios (crude RRs) with 95 % confidence intervals for delivery by cesarean section were calculated for each Robson’s group.
Results
The TGCS was easily applied in this large dataset of 40,086 deliveries. The 10-year overall cesarean section rate (CSR) was 25.17 %. Groups 1 and 3 represented 60 % of the total obstetric population. The largest contributions to the total CSR are group 1 (37.62 %) and group 5 (17.06 %). Group 3 which was the second largest group contributed 15 % to the overall CSR. Group 2 and group 4 had high group CSRs of 47.28 and 34.74 % respectively, although the total group size was small (n = 1375;3.43 %). Maternal age and presentation were found to have an independent association with mode of delivery on logistic regression.
Conclusion
The Ten-group classification helped to identify the main groups of subjects who contribute most to the overall CSR. It also helped to identify subgroups requiring closer monitoring for more in-depth analyses of the indications for caesarean section. It is important to focus on the first four TGCS groups which constitute about 75 % of all deliveries. It is in the low-risk groups that one is likely to find the highest and most inappropriate indications for cesarean sections.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
National Institutes of Health state-of-the-science conference statement. Cesarean delivery on maternal request. Obstet Gynecol. 2006;107:1386–97.
Appropriate technology for birth. Lancet 1985;2:436–7.
Department of Health and Human Services; Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; National Center for Health Statistics. Healthy People 2000: national health promotion and disease prevention objectives: Full report, with commentary (DHHS publication no. (PHS) 91–50212). Washington: Government Printing Office; 1990:378.
Robson MS. Can we reduce the cesarean section rate? Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2001;15:179–94.
Torloni MR, Betran AP, Souza JP, et al. Classifications for cesarean section: a systematic review. PLoS ONE. 2011;6(1):e14566. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0014566.
Perinatal Services BC (2011). Examining caesarean delivery rates in British Columbia using the Robson Ten Classification. Part 1: Understanding the Ten Groups. Vancouver.
Sachs BP, Kobelin C, Castro MA, et al. The risk of lowering the caesarean delivery rate. N Engl J Med. 1999;340(1):54–7.
Denk CE, Kruse LK, Jain NJ. Surveillance of caesarean section deliveries, New Jersey 1999–2004 New Jersey Department of health and SeniorServices; 2005.
Betran AP, Gulmezoglu AM, Robson M, et al. WHO global survey on maternal and perinatal health in Latin America: classifying caesarean sections. Reproductive Health. 2009;6:18. doi:10.1186/1742-4755-6-18.
Litorp H, Kidanto HL, Nystrom L, et al. Increasing caesarean section rates among low-risk groups: a panel study classifying deliveries according to Robson at a university hospital in Tanzania. BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth. 2013;13:107.
Howell S, Johnston T, Macleod S-L. Trends and determinants of caesarean sections births in Queensland, 1997–2006. ANZJOG. 2009;49(6):606–11.
Brennan DJ, Robson MS, Murphy M, et al. Comparative analysis of international caesarean delivery rates using 10-group classification identifies significant variation in spontaneous labor. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2009;201:308.e1–8.
Barber EL, Lundsberg LS, Belanger K, et al. Contributing indications to the rising delivery rates. Obstet Gynecol. 2011;118(1):29–38.
Gao Y, Xue Q, Chen G, et al. An analysis of the trends in caesarean section in a teaching hospital in China. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2013;170(2):414–8.
Aminu M, Utz B, Halim A, et al. Reasons for performing a caesarean section in public hospitals in rural Bangladesh. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2014;14(1):130.
Goldenberg RL, McClure EM, Bann CM. The relationship of intrapartum and antepartum stillbirth rates to measures of obstetric care in developed and developing countries. ActaObstet Gynecol Scand. 2007;86:1303–9. doi:10.1080/00016340701644876.
Stanton C, Lawn JE, Rahman H, et al. Stillbirth rates: delivering estimates in 190 countries. The Lancet. 2006;367:1487–94. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(06)68586-3.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
Dr. R. G. Yadav has no conflict of interest; Dr. Nandita Maitra has no conflict of Interest.
Ethical standards
All procedures followed were in accordance with the ethical standards of the responsible committee on human experimentation (institutional and national) and with the Helsinki Declaration of 1975, as revised in 2008 (5).
Informed consent
None.
Additional information
Rayshang G. Yadav is a Class 2 Medical Officer and Nandita Maitra is the Professor and Head at Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, The Medical College, Baroda, Vadodara, India.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Yadav, R.G., Maitra, N. Examining Cesarean Delivery Rates Using the Robson’s Ten-group Classification. J Obstet Gynecol India 66 (Suppl 1), 1–6 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13224-015-0738-1
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13224-015-0738-1