Abstract
Background: Robson’s Ten Group Classification System (RTGCS) is widely used to evaluate, monitor, and compare cesarean delivery (CD) rates within and between delivery service centers. This study aimed to investigate the causes of CD in Shiraz teaching hospitals using RTGCS.
Materials and Methods: A cross-sectional study on 1787 pregnant women who underwent CD in selected teaching hospitals in Shiraz, Iran, was selected via convenience sampling within 3 months. The data collection tool was a demographic, midwifery, and fertility information questionnaire completed through interviews and medical records. Subjects’ classification was performed based on midwifery concepts and parameters described in RTGCS. The Robson's 10-group classification is based on simple obstetrical parameters (parity, previous CS, gestational age, onset of labour, fetal presentation, and number of fetuses). Data were analyzed using SPSS software and descriptive tests were used to describe the data.
Results: Of the 1787 subjects, 455 (25.5%) had planned CS and 1332 (74.5%) had emergency CS. The most common causes of CD were previous CD (58.6%) and fetal distress (27.6%). Overall, 823 (46.1%) had fetal and placental causes, 1268 (71%) had uterine causes, and 78 (4.4%) had maternal causes.
Conclusion: The biggest factors that played a role in the CD rate in the present study were termed multipara women with a history of previous CD. The CD rate and the overall size of this group are still increasing, and as a result, women with a history of a previous CD must be motivated more effectively to have a vaginal birth after cesarean delivery (VBAC).
Graphical Abstract
[1]
Alkema, L.; Chou, D.; Hogan, D.; Zhang, S.; Moller, A.B.; Gemmill, A.; Fat, D.M.; Boerma, T.; Temmerman, M.; Mathers, C.; Say, L. Global, regional, and national levels and trends in maternal mortality between 1990 and 2015, with scenario-based projections to 2030: A systematic analysis by the UN maternal mortality estimation inter-agency group. Lancet, 2016, 387(10017), 462-474.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(15)00838-7] [PMID: 26584737]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(15)00838-7] [PMID: 26584737]
[2]
Akbarzadeh, M.; Alipanahpour, S.; Tayebi, N.; Zarshenas, M. Therapeutic abortion methods in women referring to educational and medical centers in Shiraz. Curr. Womens Health Rev., 2022, 18(3), e031121193865.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.2174/1573404817666210604110357]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.2174/1573404817666210604110357]
[3]
Esteves-Pereira, A.P.; Deneux-Tharaux, C.; Nakamura-Pereira, M.; Saucedo, M.; Bouvier-Colle, M.H.; Leal, M.C. Caesarean delivery and postpartum maternal mortality: A population-based case control study in Brazil. PLoS One, 2016, 11(4), e0153396.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0153396] [PMID: 27073870]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0153396] [PMID: 27073870]
[4]
Di Giovanni, P.; Garzarella, T.; Di Martino, G.; Schioppa, F.S.; Romano, F.; Staniscia, T. Trend in primary caesarean delivery: A five-year experience in ABRUZZO, ITALY. BMC Health Serv. Res., 2018, 18(1), 514.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12913-018-3332-2] [PMID: 29970095]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12913-018-3332-2] [PMID: 29970095]
[5]
Quibel, T.; Rozenberg, P.; Bouyer, C.; Bouyer, J. Variation between hospital caesarean delivery rates when Robson’s classification is considered: An observational study from a French perinatal network. PLoS One, 2021, 16(8), e0251141.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0251141] [PMID: 34415907]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0251141] [PMID: 34415907]
[6]
World Health Organization Human Reproduction Programme, 10 April 2015. WHO Statement on caesarean section rates. Reprod. Health Matters, 2015, 23(45), 149-150.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rhm.2015.07.007] [PMID: 26278843]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rhm.2015.07.007] [PMID: 26278843]
[7]
Betrán, A.P.; Ye, J.; Moller, A.B.; Zhang, J.; Gülmezoglu, A.M.; Torloni, M.R. The increasing trend in caesarean section rates: Global, regional and national estimates: 1990-2014. PLoS One, 2016, 11(2), e0148343.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0148343] [PMID: 26849801]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0148343] [PMID: 26849801]
[8]
Mazzoni, A.; Althabe, F.; Liu, N.H.; Bonotti, A.M.; Gibbons, L.; Sánchez, A.J.; Belizán, J.M. Women’s preference for caesarean section: A systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies. BJOG, 2011, 118(4), 391-399.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-0528.2010.02793.x] [PMID: 21134103]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-0528.2010.02793.x] [PMID: 21134103]
[9]
Nakamura-Pereira, M.; do Carmo Leal, M.; Esteves-Pereira, A.P.; Domingues, R.M.S.M.; Torres, J.A.; Dias, M.A.B.; Moreira, M.E. Use of robson classification to assess cesarean section rate in brazil: The role of source of payment for childbirth. Reprod. Health, 2016, 13(S3), 128.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12978-016-0228-7] [PMID: 27766941]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12978-016-0228-7] [PMID: 27766941]
[10]
Paranjothy, S.; Frost, C.; Thomas, J. How much variation in CS rates can be explained by case mix differences? BJOG, 2005, 112(5), 658-666.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-0528.2005.00501.x] [PMID: 15842293]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-0528.2005.00501.x] [PMID: 15842293]
[11]
Coulm, B.; Ray, C.; Lelong, N.; Drewniak, N.; Zeitlin, J.; Blondel, B. Obstetric interventions for low-risk pregnant women in France: Do maternity unit characteristics make a difference? Birth, 2012, 39(3), 183-191.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-536X.2012.00547.x] [PMID: 23281900]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-536X.2012.00547.x] [PMID: 23281900]
[12]
Plough, A.C.; Galvin, G.; Li, Z.; Lipsitz, S.R.; Alidina, S.; Henrich, N.J.; Hirschhorn, L.R.; Berry, W.R.; Gawande, A.A.; Peter, D.; McDonald, R.; Caldwell, D.L.; Muri, J.H.; Bingham, D.; Caughey, A.B.; Declercq, E.R.; Shah, N.T. Relationship between labor and delivery unit management practices and maternal outcomes. Obstet. Gynecol., 2017, 130(2), 358-365.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/AOG.0000000000002128] [PMID: 28697107]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/AOG.0000000000002128] [PMID: 28697107]
[13]
Keag, O.E.; Norman, J.E.; Stock, S.J. Long-term risks and benefits associated with cesarean delivery for mother, baby, and subsequent pregnancies: Systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS Med., 2018, 15(1), e1002494.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1002494] [PMID: 29360829]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1002494] [PMID: 29360829]
[14]
Moraitis, A.A.; Oliver-Williams, C.; Wood, A.M.; Fleming, M.; Pell, J.P.; Smith, G.C.S. Previous caesarean delivery and the risk of unexplained stillbirth: retrospective cohort study and meta-analysis. BJOG, 2015, 122(11), 1467-1474.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1471-0528.13461] [PMID: 26033155]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1471-0528.13461] [PMID: 26033155]
[15]
Torloni, M.R.; Betran, A.P.; Souza, J.P.; Widmer, M.; Allen, T.; Gulmezoglu, M.; Merialdi, M. Classifications for cesarean section: A systematic review. PLoS One, 2011, 6(1), e14566.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0014566] [PMID: 21283801]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0014566] [PMID: 21283801]
[16]
Vogel, J.P.; Betrán, A.P.; Vindevoghel, N.; Souza, J.P.; Torloni, M.R.; Zhang, J.; Tunçalp, Ö.; Mori, R.; Morisaki, N.; Ortiz-Panozo, E.; Hernandez, B.; Pérez-Cuevas, R.; Qureshi, Z.; Gülmezoglu, A.M.; Temmerman, M. 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(5), e260-e270.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S2214-109X(15)70094-X] [PMID: 25866355]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S2214-109X(15)70094-X] [PMID: 25866355]
[17]
Bracic, T.; Pfniß, I.; Taumberger, N.; Kutllovci-Hasani, K.; Ulrich, D.; Schöll, W.; Reif, P. A 10 year comparative study of caesarean deliveries using the Robson 10 group classification system in a university hospital in Austria. PLoS One, 2020, 15(10), e0240475.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0240475] [PMID: 33064735]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0240475] [PMID: 33064735]
[18]
Robson, M. The ten group classification system (TGCS) - a common starting point for more detailed analysis. BJOG, 2015, 122(5), 701.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1471-0528.13267] [PMID: 25600521]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1471-0528.13267] [PMID: 25600521]
[19]
Abubeker, F.A.; Gashawbeza, B.; Gebre, T.M.; Wondafrash, M.; Teklu, A.M.; Degu, D.; Bekele, D. Analysis of cesarean section rates using robson ten group classification system in a tertiary teaching hospital, addis ababa, ethiopia: A cross-sectional study. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth, 2020, 20(1), 767.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12884-020-03474-x] [PMID: 33298012]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12884-020-03474-x] [PMID: 33298012]
[20]
Paixao, E.S.; Bottomley, C.; Smeeth, L.; da Costa, M.C.N.; Teixeira, M.G.; Ichihara, M.Y.; Gabrielli, L.; Barreto, M.L.; Campbell, O.M.R. Using the Robson classification to assess caesarean section rates in Brazil: An observational study of more than 24 million births from 2011 to 2017. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth, 2021, 21(1), 589.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12884-021-04060-5] [PMID: 34461851]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12884-021-04060-5] [PMID: 34461851]
[21]
Colomar, M.; Colistro, V.; Sosa, C.; de Francisco, L.A.; Betrán, A.P.; Serruya, S.; De Mucio, B. Cesarean section in Uruguay from 2008 to 2018: Country analysis based on the Robson classification. An observational study. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth, 2022, 22(1), 471.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12884-022-04792-y] [PMID: 35672663]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12884-022-04792-y] [PMID: 35672663]
[22]
Dadipour, S.; Madani, A.H.; Alvai, A.; Rozbeh, N.; Safari-Moradabadi, A. Survey of the growing trend of cesarean section in Iran and the world. Majallah-i Zanan, Mamai va Nazai-i Iran, 2016, 19, 8-17.
[23]
Crosby, D.A.; Murphy, M.M.; Segurado, R.; Byrne, F.; Mahony, R.; Robson, M.; McAuliffe, F.M. Cesarean delivery rates using Robson classification system in Ireland: What can we learn? Eur. J. Obstet. Gynecol. Reprod. Biol., 2019, 236, 121-126.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ejogrb.2019.03.011] [PMID: 30904815]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ejogrb.2019.03.011] [PMID: 30904815]
[24]
Brennan, D.J.; Robson, M.S.; 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(3), 308.e1-308.e8.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2009.06.021] [PMID: 19733283]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2009.06.021] [PMID: 19733283]
[25]
Racusin, D.; Antony, K.; Haase, J.; Bondy, M.; Aagaard, K. Mode of delivery in premature neonates: Does it matter? AJP Rep., 2016, 6(3), e251-e259.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1055/s-0036-1585577] [PMID: 27468363]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1055/s-0036-1585577] [PMID: 27468363]
[26]
Ghi, T.; Maroni, E.; Arcangeli, T.; Alessandroni, R.; Stella, M.; Youssef, A.; Pilu, G.; Faldella, G.; Pelusi, G. Mode of delivery in the preterm gestation and maternal and neonatal outcome. J. Matern. Fetal Neonatal Med., 2010, 23(12), 1424-1428.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.3109/14767051003678259] [PMID: 20230325]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.3109/14767051003678259] [PMID: 20230325]
[27]
Werner, E.F.; Han, C.S.; Savitz, D.A.; Goldshore, M.; Lipkind, H.S. Health outcomes for vaginal compared with cesarean delivery of appropriately grown preterm neonates. Obstet. Gynecol., 2013, 121(6), 1195-1200.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/AOG.0b013e3182918a7e] [PMID: 23812452]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/AOG.0b013e3182918a7e] [PMID: 23812452]
[28]
Smith, D.C.; Phillippi, J.C.; Lowe, N.K.; Breman, R.B.; Carlson, N.S.; Neal, J.L.; Gutierrez, E.; Tilden, E.L. Using the robson 10-Group classification system to compare cesarean birth utilization between US centers with and without midwives. J. Midwifery Womens Health, 2020, 65(1), 10-21.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/jmwh.13035] [PMID: 31553129]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/jmwh.13035] [PMID: 31553129]
[29]
Grobman, W.A.; Rice, M.M.; Reddy, U.M.; Tita, A.T.N.; Silver, R.M.; Mallett, G.; Hill, K.; Thom, E.A.; El-Sayed, Y.Y.; Perez-Delboy, A.; Rouse, D.J.; Saade, G.R.; Boggess, K.A.; Chauhan, S.P.; Iams, J.D.; Chien, E.K.; Casey, B.M.; Gibbs, R.S.; Srinivas, S.K.; Swamy, G.K.; Simhan, H.N.; Macones, G.A. Labor induction versus expectant management in low-risk nulliparous women. N. Engl. J. Med., 2018, 379(6), 513-523.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1800566] [PMID: 30089070]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1800566] [PMID: 30089070]
[30]
Einarsdóttir, K.; Sigurðardóttir, H.; Ingibjörg Bjarnadóttir, R.; Steingrímsdóttir, Þ.; Smárason, A.K. The Robson 10-group classification in Iceland: Obstetric interventions and outcomes. Birth, 2019, 46(2), 270-278.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/birt.12415] [PMID: 30628120]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/birt.12415] [PMID: 30628120]
[31]
Roberge, S.; Dubé, E.; Blouin, S.; Chaillet, N. Reporting caesarean delivery in quebec using the robson classification system. J. Obstet. Gynaecol. Can., 2017, 39(3), 152-156.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jogc.2016.10.010] [PMID: 28343556]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jogc.2016.10.010] [PMID: 28343556]
[32]
Lafitte, A.S.; Dolley, P.; Le Coutour, X.; Benoist, G.; Prime, L.; Thibon, P.; Dreyfus, M. Rate of caesarean sections according to the Robson classification: Analysis in a French perinatal network – Interest and limitations of the French medico-adminis- trative data (PMSI). J. Gynecol. Obstet. Hum. Reprod., 2018, 47(2), 39-44.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jogoh.2017.11.012] [PMID: 29208502]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jogoh.2017.11.012] [PMID: 29208502]
[33]
Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. Birth after previous caesarean birth; R Coll Obstet Gynaecol. , 2015. Available from: https://www.rcog.org.uk/media/kpkjwd5h/gtg_45.pdf
[34]
Betrán, A.P.; Vindevoghel, N.; Souza, J.P.; Gülmezoglu, A.M.; Torloni, M.R. 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.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0097769] [PMID: 24892928]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0097769] [PMID: 24892928]
