Download PDF
CC BY 4.0 · Rev Bras Ginecol Obstet 2020; 42(06): 310-315
DOI: 10.1055/s-0040-1712127
Original Article
Obstetrics
Thieme Revinter Publicações Ltda Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

Cesarean Section Rate Analysis in a Tertiary Hospital in Portugal According to Robson Ten Group Classification System

Análise de taxa de cesarianas em um hospital terciário em Portugal de acordo com a classificação de Robson
Sara Vargas 
1   Departamento de Ginecologia, Obstetrícia e Medicina da Reprodução, Hospital de Santa Maria, Centro Hospitalar de Lisboa Norte, Lisboa, Portugal
,
Susana Rego 
1   Departamento de Ginecologia, Obstetrícia e Medicina da Reprodução, Hospital de Santa Maria, Centro Hospitalar de Lisboa Norte, Lisboa, Portugal
,
Nuno Clode 
1   Departamento de Ginecologia, Obstetrícia e Medicina da Reprodução, Hospital de Santa Maria, Centro Hospitalar de Lisboa Norte, Lisboa, Portugal
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

04 December 2018

23 March 2020

Publication Date:
30 June 2020 (online)

   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Objective The Robson 10 group classification system (RTGCS) is a reproducible, clinically relevant and prospective classification system proposed by the World Health Organization (WHO) as a global standard for assessing, monitoring and comparing cesarean section (CS) rates. The purpose of the present study is to analyze CS rates according to the RTGCS over a 3-year period and to identify the main contributors to this rate.

Methods We reviewed data regarding deliveries performed from 2014 up to 2016 in a tertiary hospital in Portugal, and classified all women according to the RTGCS. We analyzed the CS rate in each group.

Results We included data from 6,369 deliveries. Groups 1 (n = 1,703), 2 (n = 1,229) and 3 (n = 1,382) represented 67.7% of the obstetric population. The global CS rate was 25% (n = 1,594). Groups 1, 2, 5 and 10 were responsible for 74.2% of global CS deliveries.

Conclusion As expected, Groups 1, 2, 5 and 10 were the greatest contributors to the overall CS rate. An attempt to increase the number of vaginal deliveries in these groups, especially in Groups 2 and 5, might contribute to the reduction of the CS rate.

Resumo

Objetivo A Classificação de Robson é um instrumento reprodutível, clinicamente relevante e prospectivo proposto pela Organização Mundial de Saúde (OMS) para avaliar, monitorar e comparar as taxas de cesarianas. O objetivo do presente estudo é analisar a taxa de cesarianas ao longo de 3 anos de acordo com a Classificação de Robson e identificar os grupos que contribuíram mais significativamente para essa taxa.

Métodos Recolhemos dados relativos aos partos ocorridos entre 2014 e 2016 em um hospital terciário de Portugal e classificamos todas as grávidas de acordo com a Classificação de Robson. Analisamos a taxa de cesarianas em cada grupo.

Resultados Incluímos dados relativos a 6,369 partos. Os grupos 1 (n = 1,703), 2 (n = 1,229) e 3 (n = 1,382) representaram 67.7% da população obstétrica. A taxa de cesarianas foi de 25% (n = 1,594). Os grupos 1, 2, 5 e 10 contribuíram para 74.2% da taxa de cesarianas.

Conclusão Tal como esperado, os grupos 1, 2, 5 e 10 foram os que mais contribuíram para a taxa de cesarianas. Aumentar o número de partos vaginais nestes grupos, principalmente nos grupos 2 e 5, poderá contribuir para a redução da taxa de cesarianas.

Keywords

classification - cesarean section - delivery

Palavras-chave

classificação - cesarianas - parto

Contributors

All of the authors contributed with the project and data interpretation, the writing of the article, the critical review of the intellectual content, and with the final approval of the version to be published.


 

  • References

  • 1 Scarella A, Chamy V, Sepúlveda M, Belizán JM. Medical audit using the Ten Group Classification System and its impact on the cesarean section rate. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2011; 154 (02) 136-140 . Doi: 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2010.09.005
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Barčaitė E, Kemeklienė G, Railaitė DR, Bartusevičius A, Maleckienė L, Nadišauskienė R. Cesarean section rates in Lithuania using Robson Ten Group Classification System. Medicina (Kaunas) 2015; 51 (05) 280-285 . Doi: 10.1016/j.medici.2015.09.001
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Nakamura-Pereira M, do Carmo Leal M, Esteves-Pereira AP, Domingues RMSM, Torres JA, Dias MAB, Moreira ME. Use of Robson classification to assess cesarean section rate in Brazil: the role of source of payment for childbirth. Reprod Health 2016; 13 (Suppl. 03) 128 . Doi: 10.1186/s12978-016-0228-7
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Betran AP, Torloni MR, Zhang JJ, Gülmezoglu AM. ; WHO Working Group on Caesarean Section. WHO statement on caesarean section rates. BJOG 2016; 123 (05) 667-670 . Doi: 10.1111/1471-0528.13526
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 FIGO Working Group On Challenges In Care Of Mothers And Infants During Labour And Delivery. Best practice advice on the 10-Group Classification System for cesarean deliveries. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2016; 135 (02) 232-233 . Doi: 10.1016/j.ijgo.2016.08.001
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Robson MS. Can we reduce the caesarean section rate?. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol 2001; 15 (01) 179-194 . Doi: 10.1053/beog.2000.0156
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Ayres-De-Campos D, Cruz J, Medeiros-Borges C, Costa-Santos C, Vicente L. Lowered national cesarean section rates after a concerted action. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2015; 94 (04) 391-398 . Doi: 10.1111/aogs.12582
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Reynolds A, Ayres-de-Campos D, Costa MA, Santos C, Campos I, Montenegro N. [Influence of three organisational measures on the cesarean section rate in a tertiary care University Hospital]. Acta Med Port 2004; 17 (03) 193-198
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Costa A, Policiano C, Clode N, Graça LM. Indications for cesarean deliveries during a 7-year period in a tertiary hospital. Acta Med Port 2013; 26 (06) 649-654
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Gonçalves IS, Lopes S, Casanova J, Fortuna J, Silva PT. Impact of strategies in reducing cesarean section rate. Acta Obstet Ginecol Port 2014; 8 (01) 29-35
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Direcção-Geral de Saúde [Internet]. Norma no. 1, de 19 de janeiro de 2015. Registo de indicações de cesariana. Lisboa: Direcção-Geral de Saúde; 2015 [cited 2017 Mar 10]. Available from: https://www.saudereprodutiva.dgs.pt/normas-e-orientacoes/gravidez/norma-n-12015-de-19012015-registo-de-indicacoes-de-cesariana-pdf.aspx
    PubMed
  • 12 Betran AP, Torloni MR, Zhang J, Ye J, Mikolajczyk R, Deneux-Tharau C, Oladapo OT. , et al. What is the optimal rate of caesarean section at population level? A systematic review of ecologic studies. Reprod Health 2015; 12: 57 . Doi: 10.1186/s12978-015-0043-6
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Robson M, Hartigan L, Murphy M. Methods of achieving and maintaining an appropriate caesarean section rate. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol 2013; 27 (02) 297-308 . Doi: 10.1016/j.bpobgyn.2012.09.004
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Betrán AP, Gulmezoglu AM, Robson M, Merialdi M, Sousa JP, Wojdyla D. , et al. WHO global survey on maternal and perinatal health in Latin America: classifying caesarean sections. Reprod Health 2009; 6: 18 . Doi: 10.1186/1742-4755-6-18
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Brennan DJ, Robson MS, Murphy M, O'Herlihy C. Comparative analysis of international cesarean delivery rates using 10-group classification identifies significant variation in spontaneous labor. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2009; 201 (03) 308.e1-308.e8 . Doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2009.06.021
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Vogel JP, Betrán AP, Vindevoghel N, Souza JP, Torloni MR, Zhang Jun. , et al; WHO Multi-Country Survey on Maternal and Newborn Health Research Network. 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 (05) e260-e270 . Doi: 10.1016/S2214-109X(15)70094-X
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Le Ray C, Prunet C, Deneux-Tharaux C, Goffinet F, Blondel B. [Robson classification: A tool for assessment of caesarean practices in France]. J Gynecol Obstet Biol Reprod (Paris) 2015; 44 (07) 605-613 . Doi: 10.1016/j.jgyn.2015.02.001 French.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Triunfo S, Ferrazzani S, Lanzone A, Scambia G. Identification of obstetric targets for reducing cesarean section rate using the Robson Ten Group Classification in a tertiary level hospital. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2015; 189: 91-95 . Doi: 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2015.03.030
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Tan JK, Tan EL, Kanagalingan D, Tan LK. Rational dissection of a high institutional cesarean section rate: an analysis using the Robson Ten Group Classification System. J Obstet Gynaecol Res 2015; 41 (04) 534-539 . Doi: 10.1111/jog.12608
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Kelly S, Sprague A, Fell DB, Murphy P, Aelicks N, Guo Y. , et al. Examining caesarean section rates in Canada using the Robson classification system. J Obstet Gynaecol Can 2013; 35 (03) 206-214 . Doi: 10.1016/S1701-2163(15)30992-0
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 MacDorman M, Declercq E, Menacker F. Recent trends and patterns in cesarean and vaginal birth after cesarean (VBAC) deliveries in the United States. Clin Perinatol 2011; 38 (02) 179-192 . Doi: 10.1016/j.clp.2011.03.007
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Mueller M, Kolly L, Bauman M, Imboden S, Surbek D. Analysis of caesarean section rates over time in a single Swiss centre using a ten-group classification system. Swiss Med Wkly 2014; 144: w13921 . Doi: 10.4414/smw.2014.13921
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Yadav RG, Maitra N. Examining cesarean delivery rates using the Robson's Ten-group Classification. J Obstet Gynaecol India 2016; 66 (Suppl. 01) 1-6 . Doi: 10.1007/s13224-015-0738-1
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Policiano C, Pimenta M, Martins D, Clode N. Efficacy and safety of Foley catheter balloon for cervix priming in term pregnancy. Acta Med Port 2017; 30 (04) 281-284 . Doi: 10.20344/amp.8003
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Alfirevic Z, Milan SJ, Livio S. Caesarean section versus vaginal delivery for preterm birth in singletons. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2013; (09) CD000078 . Doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD000078.pub3
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Hickok DE, Gordon DC, Milberg JA, Williams MA, Daling JR. The frequency of breech presentation by gestational age at birth: a large population-based study. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1992; 166 (03) 851-852 . Doi: 10.1016/0002-9378(92)91347-d
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Vaz de Macedo C, Clode N, Mendes da Graça L. Prediction of success in external cephalic version under tocolysis: still a challenge. Acta Med Port 2015; 28 (05) 554-558 . Doi: 10.20344/amp.6179
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Hannah ME, Hannah WJ, Hewson SA, Hodnett ED, Saigal S, Willan AR. ; Term Breech Trial Collaborative Group. Planned caesarean section versus planned vaginal birth for breech presentation at term: a randomised multicentre trial. Lancet 2000; 356 (9239): 1375-1383 . Doi: 10.1016/s0140-6736(00)02840-3
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Fonseca A, Silva R, Rato I, Neves AR, Peixoto C, Ferraz Z. , et al. Breech presentation: vaginal versus cesarean delivery, which intervention leads to the best outcomes?. Acta Med Port 2017; 30 (06) 479-484 . Doi: 10.20344/amp.7920
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar