Observational Study of the Percentage of Caesarean Sections According to Robson’s Classification in the Departmental Hospital of Huancavelica – Peru during 2019
Observational Study of the Percentage of Caesarean Sections According to Robson’s Classification in the Departmental Hospital of Huancavelica – Peru during 2019 |
||
 |
 |
|
| © 2024 by IJETT Journal | ||
| Volume-72 Issue-4 |
||
| Year of Publication : 2024 | ||
| Author : Lina, Cardenas-Pineda, Isamar De La Cruz Paco, Yovana, Paucar De La Cruz, Tula Guerra-Olivares, Cesia Zarate-Caceres , Claris Pérez-Venegas, Alicia Alva-Mantari |
||
| DOI : 10.14445/22315381/IJETT-V72I4P119 | ||
How to Cite?
Lina, Cardenas-Pineda, Isamar De La Cruz Paco, Yovana, Paucar De La Cruz, Tula Guerra-Olivares, Cesia Zarate-Caceres , Claris Pérez-Venegas, Alicia Alva-Mantari, "Observational Study of the Percentage of Caesarean Sections According to Robson’s Classification in the Departmental Hospital of Huancavelica – Peru during 2019," International Journal of Engineering Trends and Technology, vol. 72, no. 4, pp. 182-191, 2024. Crossref, https://doi.org/10.14445/22315381/IJETT-V72I4P119
Abstract
The objective of this study is to determine the rateof cesarean sections according to Robson’s classification. MATERIAL AND METHOD: Observational, retrospective cross-sectional research, at a descriptive level, in 928 deliveries attendedduring the year 2019 at the Departmental Hospital of Huancavelica. The technique was documentary analysis, and the data collection from the Clinical History was used. The analysis of the results was carried out based on Robson’s classification and descriptive statistics. RESULTS: The 928 deliveries were distributed in greater proportion in the groups: 1: 30%, 3: 25%, 2: 12%, 5: 10%, 10: 10% of Robson; the proportion of cesarean sections in adolescents was 53.1% (93/175), between 20 and 34 years old 52.1% (325/624) and between 35 and 49 years old 61.2%(79/129); among women residing in urban areas 49.2% and rural areas 59%. The overall cesarean section rate was 53.8%. The proportion of cesarean sectionsin each Robson group was: 1: 39%,2: 84.2%, 3: 20%, 4: 85.7%, 5: 80.4%, 6: 100%, 7: 100%, 8: 88.2%, 9: 100%, 10: 72.2%. The groupsthat contributed the most to theoverall absolute and relative rate of cesarean section were groups: 1: 11.6% and 21.6%; 2: 10.3% and 19.3%; 5: 58.4% and 15.6%, 10: 7.0% and 13.0%. Conclusion: The cesarean section rate in the hospital is high, but it is possible to reduce it since a large number ofbirths were located in Robson’s group 1, which very rarely requiresthe operation.
Keywords
Caesarean section, Robson classification, Cesarean section rate.
References
[1] Ties Boerma et al., “Global Epidemiology of Use of and Disparities in Caesarean Sections,” The Lancet, vol. 392, no. 10155, pp. 1341-1348, 2018.
[CrossRef] [Google Scholar] [Publisher Link]
[2] WHO Statement on Caesarean Section Rates, World Health Organization, pp. 1-8, 2015. [Online]. Available: https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/WHO-RHR-15.02
[3] Ana Pilar Betrán et al., “The Increasing Trend in Caesarean Section Rates: Global, Regional and National Estimates: 1990- 2014,” Plos One, vol. 11, no. 2, pp. 1-12, 2016.
[CrossRef] [Google Scholar] [Publisher Link]
[4] Peru: Demographic and Family Health Survey - ENDES 2021, National Institute of Statistics and Informatics, 2022. [Online]. Available: https://www.gob.pe/institucion/inei/informes- publicaciones/2982736-peru-encuesta-demografica-y-de- salud-familiar-endes-2021
[5] Joshua P. Vogel 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, vol. 3, no. 5, pp. e260-e270, 2015.
[CrossRef] [Google Scholar] [Publisher Link]
[6] “Robson’s Classification: Application Manual,” Pan American Health Organization, pp. 1-56, 2018.
[CrossRef] [Publisher Link]
[7] D. Ticona-Huanco et al., “Analysis of Cesarean Section According to Robson’s Classification in a Public Hospital in Peru,” Gynecology and Obstetrics of Mexico, vol. 87, no. 10, pp. 626-636, 2019.
[CrossRef] [Google Scholar] [Publisher Link]
[8] David B. Nelson et al., “‘New or Not-So-New’ Labor Management Practices and Cesarean Delivery for Arrest of Progress,” American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, vol. 222, no. 1, pp. 71.e1-71. e6, 2020.
[CrossRef] [Google Scholar] [Publisher Link]
[9] Barber L. Emma et al., “Indications Contributing to the Increasing Cesarean Delivery Rate,” Obstetrics & Gynecology, vol. 118, no. 1, pp. 29-38, 2011.
[CrossRef] [Google Scholar] [Publisher Link]
[10] Ana Pilar Betran et al., “What is the Optimal Rate of Caesarean Section at Population Level? A Systematic Review of Ecologic Studies,” Reproductive Health, vol. 12, no. 57, pp. 1-10, 2015.
[CrossRef] [Google Scholar] [Publisher Link]
[11] Gallo Antonella et al., “Application of the Robson Classification Model in the Practice of Cesarean Section,” Revista Fasgo, vol. 22, no. 2, pp. 1-156, 2023.
[Google Scholar] [Publisher Link]
[12] Noemi Strambi et al., “Non-Clinical Variables Influencing Cesarean Section Rate According to Robson Classification,” Medicina, vol. 56, no. 4, pp. 1-15, 2020.
[CrossRef] [Google Scholar] [Publisher Link]
[13] Roxana Knobel et al., “Cesarean-section Rates in Brazil from 2014 to 2016: Cross-sectional Analysis Using the Robson Classification,” Brazilian Journal of Gynecology and Obstetrics, vol. 42, no. 9, pp. 522-528, 2020.
[CrossRef] [Google Scholar] [Publisher Link]
[14] Rashida Parveen et al., “Analysis of Cesarean Sections using Robson’s Ten Group Classification System,” Pakistan Journal of Medical Sciences, vol. 37, no. 2, pp. 567-571, 2021.
[CrossRef] [Google Scholar] [Publisher Link]
[15] Shaymaa M. Alsulami et al., “The Rates of Cesarean Section Deliveries According to Robson Classification System during the Year of 2018 among Patients in King Abdul-Aziz Medical City, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia,” Cureus, vol. 12, no. 11, 2020.
[CrossRef] [Google Scholar] [Publisher Link]
[16] Abdella Amano Abdo et al., “Caesarean Section Rates Analysed using Robson’s 10-Group Classification System: A CrossSectional Study at a Tertiary Hospital in Ethiopia,” BMJ Open, vol. 10, no. 10, pp. 1-8, 2020.
[CrossRef] [Google Scholar] [Publisher Link]
[17] Hemantha Senanayake 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, vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 1-13, 2019.
[CrossRef] [Google Scholar] [Publisher Link]
[18] Celina Julia, and Castañeda Guillén, “Caesarean Section Rate Applying the Classification Model of Robson at the National Maternal Perinatal Institute, Period January - December 2015,” Tesis, Universidad Nacional Mayor de San Marcos, 2017.
[Google Scholar] [Publisher Link]
[19] Casey Gray, and Kelly Farrah, “Post-operative Procedures for Caesarean Sections: A Review of Clinical Effectiveness and Guidelines,” Ottawa (ON): Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health, 2019.
[Google Scholar] [Publisher Link]
[20] Cesar G. Victora, and Fernando C. Barros, “Beware: Unnecessary Caesarean Sections may be Hazardous,” The Lancet, vol. 367, no. 9525, pp. 1796-1797, 2006.
[CrossRef] [Google Scholar] [Publisher Link]
[21] Bosede B. Afolabi, and Foluso EA Lesi, “Regional Versus General Anaesthesia for Caesarean Section,” Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, vol. 10, 2012.
[CrossRef] [Google Scholar] [Publisher Link]
[22] Technical Guidelines for Safe Caesarean Section, Secretaría de Salud, Gobierno de Mexico, 2013. [Online]. Available: https://www.gob.mx/salud/documentos/lineamiento- tecnico-de-cesarea-segura
[23] Paula da Silva Charvalho, Mira Hansson Bittár, and Ylva Vladic Stjernholm, “Indications for Increase in Caesarean Delivery,” Reproductive Health, vol. 16, pp. 1-6, 2019.
[CrossRef] [Google Scholar] [Publisher Link]
[24] Nalini Mishra, Ruchi Gupta, and Nomita Singh, “Decision Delivery Interval in Emergency and Urgent Caesarean Sections: Need to Reconsider the Recommendations?,” The Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology of India, vol. 68, no. 1, pp. 20-26, 2018.
[CrossRef] [Google Scholar] [Publisher Link]
[25] Aiste Cerbinskaite et al., “Emergency Caesarean Section: Influences on the Decision-to-Delivery Interval,” Journal Pregnancy, vol. 2011, pp. 1-7, 2011.
[CrossRef] [Google Scholar] [Publisher Link]
[26] Mahnaz Zarshenas et al., “Incidence and Determinants of Caesarean Section in Shiraz, Iran,” International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, vol. 17, no. 16, pp. 1-11, 2020.
[CrossRef] [Google Scholar] [Publisher Link]
[27] Ioannis Mylonas, and Klaus Friese, “Indications for and Risks of Elective Cesarean Section,” Deutsches Ärzteblatt International, vol. 112, no. 29-30, pp. 489-495, 2015.
[CrossRef] [Google Scholar] [Publisher Link]
[28] Anne Kirkeby Hansen et al., “Elective Caesarean Section and Respiratory Morbidity in the Term and Near-Term Neonate,” Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica, vol. 86, no. 4, pp. 389-394, 2007.
[CrossRef] [Google Scholar] [Publisher Link]
[29] Hege Therese Størksen et al., “Fear of Childbirth and Elective Caesarean Section: A Population-based Study,” BMC Pregnancy Childbirth, vol. 15, pp. 1-10, 2015.
[CrossRef] [Google Scholar] [Publisher Link]
[30] G. Justus Hofmeyr, Mary Hannah, and Theresa A Lawrie, “Planned Caesarean Section for Term Breech Delivery,” Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, no. 3, 2003.
[CrossRef] [Google Scholar] [Publisher Link]
[31] Jodie M. Dodd et al., “Elective Repeat Caesarean Section Versus Induction of Labour for Women with a Previous Caesarean Birth,” Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, no. 7, 2012.
[CrossRef] [Google Scholar] [Publisher Link]
[32] Freke A. Wilmink et al., “Timing of Elective Pre-Labour Caesarean Section: A Decision Analysis,” Australian and New Zealand Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, vol. 59, no. 2, pp. 221-227, 2019.
[CrossRef] [Google Scholar] [Publisher Link]
[33] J.P. Souza et al., “Caesarean Section without Medical Indications is Associated with an Increased Risk of Adverse Short-Term Maternal Outcomes: the 2004-2008 WHO Global Survey on Maternal and Perinatal Health,” BMC Medicine, vol. 8, no.71, pp. 1-10, 2010.
[CrossRef] [Google Scholar] [Publisher Link]
[34] L. Maronge, and D. Bogod, “Complications in Obstetric Anaesthesia,” Anaesthesia, vol. 73, no. Sl, pp. 61-66, 2018.
[CrossRef] [Google Scholar] [Publisher Link]
[35] Jenny Bjørnstad, and Johan Ræder, “Post-Operative Pain after Caesarean Section,” Tidsskrift for Den Norske Legeforening, vol. 140, pp. 1-6, 2020.
[CrossRef] [Google Scholar] [Publisher Link]
[36] Thorkild F. Nielsen, and Klas-Henry Hökegård, “Cesarean Section and Intraoperative Surgical Complications,” Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica, vol. 63, no. 2, pp. 103-108, 1984.
[CrossRef] [Google Scholar] [Publisher Link]
[37] Charles M. Stedman, and Richard C. Kline, “Intraoperative Complications and Unexpected Pathology at the Time of Cesarean Section,” Obstetrics and Gynecology Clinics of North America, vol. 15, no. 4, pp. 745-769, 1988.
[CrossRef] [Google Scholar] [Publisher Link]
[38] Xiao-Jing Yang, and Shan-Shan Sun, “Comparison of Maternal and Fetal Complications in Elective and Emergency Cesarean Section: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis,” Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics, vol. 296, pp. 503-512, 2017.
[CrossRef] [Google Scholar] [Publisher Link]
[39] M.S. Robson, “Classification of Caesarean Sections,” Fetal and Maternal Medicine Review, vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 23-39, 2001.
[CrossRef] [Google Scholar] [Publisher Link]
[40] María Vidal Ledo, and Silvia Martínez Calvo, “Epidemiological investigation,” Education Médica Superior, vol. 34, no. 3, 2020.
[Google Scholar] [Publisher Link]
[41] Robson’s classification: Application manual, Pan American Health Organization, 2018. [Online]. Available:
https://www.who.int/es/publications/i/item/9789241513197
[42] Gilberto Bastidas et al., “Methodological Perspectives of Public Health Research, A Brief Look,” Peruvian Journal of Experimental Medicine and Public Health, vol. 35, no. 2, pp. 317-320, 2018.
[CrossRef] [Google Scholar] [Publisher Link]