Prevalence of Cesarean Section According to Robson Classification in Selaphum Hospital
Keywords:
cesarean section, Robson classification, associated factorsAbstract
Background and Objectives: Cesarean section (CS) is a life-saving procedure for both mothers and neonates when medically indicated. However, it also poses various health risks, increases resource utilization, and has short- and long-term consequences for both mothers and infants, as well as for subsequent pregnancies. This study aimed to determine the prevalence and associated factors of cesarean section using the Robson Classification system.
Material and method: A retrospective descriptive study was conducted among pregnant women who received intrapartum care and delivered at Selaphum Hospital during the 2021 fiscal year (October 2020 – September 2021). A total of 364 cases, including both vaginal and cesarean deliveries, were reviewed using hospital medical records. Pregnant women were categorized into 10 groups according to the Robson Classification, and statistical analysis was performed using descriptive statistics, Chi-square test.
Results: A total of 364 participants were included in the study, consisting of 188 vaginal deliveries (51.6%) and 176 cesarean sections (48.4%). According to the Robson classification, the majority were multiparous women (63.2%), with deliveries occurring at a gestational age of ≥ 37 weeks (90.6%). Most pregnancies were singleton (99.7%), with cephalic presentation of the fetus (96.4%), and spontaneous onset of labor (74.2%). A history of previous cesarean section was reported in 11.5% of cases. The overall cesarean section rate was 48.4%, and the prevalence of cesarean section according to the Robson classification was 48.4%.
Conclusions: The Robson Classification system provides a structured approach to analyzing factors influencing CS rates. Its application can support strategic planning to reduce unnecessary cesarean sections, particularly in cases where medical indications can be optimized, such as labor induction and the management of women with a history of prior cesarean section.
References
World Health Organization Human Reproduction Programme A. WHO Statement on caesarean section rates. Reprod Health Matters 2015;23(45):149-50. doi:10.1016/j.rhm.2015.07.007.
Curtin SC, Gregory KD, Korst LM, Uddin SF. Maternal morbidity for vaginal and cesarean deliveries, according to previous cesarean history: new data from the Birth Certificate, 2013.Natl Vital Stat Rep 2015;64(4):1-13.
Riskin-Mashiah S. Maternal morbidity associated with vaginal versus cesarean delivery. Obstet Gynecol 2004;104(3):633. doi:10.1097/01.AOG.0000139325.73244.7b.
Lumbiganon P, Laopaiboon M, Gulmezoglu AM, Souza JP, Taneepanichskul S, Ruyan P, et al. Method of delivery and pregnancy outcomes in Asia: the WHO global survey on maternal and perinatal health 2007-08. Lancet 2010;375(9713):490-9. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(09)61870-5.
Villar J, Carroli G, Zavaleta N, Donner A, Wojdyla D, Faundes A, et al. Maternal and neonatal individual risks and benefits associated with caesarean delivery: multicentre prospective study. BMJ 2007;335(7628):1025. doi:10.1136/bmj.39363.706956.55.
Villar J, Valladares E, Wojdyla D, Zavaleta N, Carroli G, Velazco A, et al. Caesarean delivery rates and pregnancy outcomes: the 2005 WHO global survey on maternal and perinatal health in Latin America. Lancet 2006;367(9525):1819-29. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(06)68704-7.
Ferreira EC, Pacagnella RC, Costa ML, Cecatti JG. The Robson ten-group classification system for appraising deliveries at a tertiary referral hospital in Brazil. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2015;129(3):236-9. doi:10.1016/j.ijgo.2014.11.026.
Paleari L, Gibbons L, Chacon S, Ramil V, Belizan JM.[ Rates of caesarean sections tn two types of private hospitals: restriced-access and open-access]. Ginecol Obstet Mex 2012;80(4):263-9.
Ross S. An illustration of the "inverse care law": A commentary on giving birth in Canada: providers of maternity and infant care. J Obstet Gynaecol Can 2005;27(1):51-3. doi:10.1016/s1701-2163(16)30172-4.
Lynch CM, Sexton DJ, Hession M, Morrison JJ. Obesity and mode of delivery in primigravid and multigravid women. Am J Perinatol 2008;25(3):163-7. doi:10.1055/s-2008-1061496.
Poobalan AS, Aucott LS, Gurung T, Smith WC, Bhattacharya S. Obesity as an independent risk factor for elective and emergency caesarean delivery in nulliparous women--systematic review and meta-analysis of cohort studies. Obes Rev 2009;10(1):28-35. doi:10.1111/j.1467-789X.2008.00537.x.
Roman H, Goffinet F, Hulsey TF, Newman R, Robillard PY, Hulsey TC. Maternal body mass index at delivery and risk of caesarean due to dystocia in low risk pregnancies. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2008;87(2):163-70. doi:10.1080/00016340701762975.
Bell JS, Campbell DM, Graham WJ, Penney GC, Ryan M, Hall MH. Do obstetric complications explain high caesarean section rates among women over 30? A retrospective analysis. BMJ 2001;322(7291):894-5. doi:10.1136/bmj.322.7291.894.
Callaway LK, Lust K, McIntyre HD. Pregnancy outcomes in women of very advanced maternal age. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol 2005;45(1):12-6. doi:10.1111/j.1479-828X.2005.00333.x.
Lin HC, Sheen TC, Tang CH, Kao S. Association between maternal age and the likelihood of a cesarean section: a population-based multivariate logistic regression analysis. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2004;83(12):1178-83. doi:10.1111/j.0001-6349.2004.00506.x.
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(3):308.e1-8. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2009.06.021.
Minkoff H, Chervenak FA. Elective primary cesarean delivery. N Engl J Med 2003;348(10):946-50. doi:10.1056/NEJMsb022734.
Robson S, Carey A, Mishra R, Dear K. Elective caesarean delivery at maternal request: a preliminary study of motivations influencing women's decision-making. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol 2008;48(4):415-20. doi:10.1111/j.1479-828X.2008.00867.x.
Wax JR, Cartin A, Pinette MG, Blackstone J. Patient choice cesarean: an evidence-based review. Obstet Gynecol Surv 2004;59(8):601-16 doi:10.1097/01.ogx.0000133942.76239.57.
Martin JA, Hamilton BE, Osterman MJ. Births in the United States, 2015. NCHS Data Brief 2016;(258):1-8.
Betran AP, Ye J, Moller AB, Zhang J, Gulmezoglu AM, Torloni MR. The Increasing Trend in Caesarean Section Rates: Global, Regional and National Estimates: 1990-2014. PLoS One 2016;11(2):e0148343. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0148343
No authors listed. Cesarean childbirth: an NIH consensus development conference. Clin Pediatr (Phila) 1981;20(9):555-60.
Anderson GM, Lomas J. Determinants of the increasing cesarean birth rate. Ontario data 1979 to 1982. N Engl J Med 1984;311(14):887-92. doi:10.1056/NEJM198410043111405.
O'Driscoll K, Foley M, MacDonald D. Active management of labor as an alternative to cesarean section for dystocia. Obstet Gynecol 1984;63(4):485-90.
Paterson CM, Chapple JC, Beard RW, Joffe M, Steer PJ, Wright CS. Evaluating the quality of the maternity services--a discussion paper. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1991;98(11):1073-8. doi:10.1111/j.1471-0528.1991.tb15357.x.
Notzon FC, Cnattingius S, Bergsjo P, Cole S, Taffel S, Irgens L, et al. Cesarean section delivery in the 1980s: international comparison by indication. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1994;170(2):495-504. doi: 10.1016/s0002-9378(94)70217-9.
Robson MS, Scudamore IW, Walsh SM. Using the medical audit cycle to reduce cesarean section rates. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1996;174(1 Pt 1):199-205. doi:10.1016/s0002-9378(96)70394-0.
Turcot L, Marcoux S, Fraser WD. Multivariate analysis of risk factors for operative delivery in nulliparous women. Canadian Early Amniotomy Study Group. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1997;176(2):395-402. doi:10.1016/s0002-9378(97)70505-2.
Thomas J, Callwood A, Brocklehurst P, Walker J. The National Sentinel Caesarean Section Audit. BJOG 2000;107(5):579-80. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.2000.tb13296.x.
Robson MS. Can we reduce the caesarean section rate? Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol 2001;15(1):179-94. doi:10.1053/beog.2000.0156.
Betran AP, Vindevoghel N, Souza JP, Gulmezoglu AM, Torloni MR. 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. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0097769.
Savchenko J, Ladfors L, Hjertberg L, Hildebrand E, Brismar Wendel S. A step towards better audit: The Robson Ten Group classification system for outcomes other than cesarean section. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2022;101(7):827-835. doi:10.1111/aogs.14350.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Srinagarind Medical Journal
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
