medigraphic.com
Boletín Clínico de la Asociación Médica del Hospital Infantil del Estado de Sonora

2007, Number 2

<< Back Next >>

Bol Clin Hosp Infant Edo Son 2007; 24 (2)

Caesarean Tendency Since 1995 to August of 2006 in the Hospital Integral de la Mujer del Estado de Sonora and its Relation with National Rate.

Méndez VF, Ruiz DRH, Fonseca CI, Valenzuela GM

Language: Spanish
References: 28
Page: 50-56
PDF size: 68.24 Kb.


ABSTRACT

Objective: The objective of this study is to know the incidence Caesarean in the Hospital Integral de la Mujer del Estado de Sonora (HIMES), its tendency in the last years and their relation with the rate of caesarean at National level, Secretaría de Salud (SSA) and State of Sonora. To determine which were the medical indications of the caesarean ones. To apply a control chart to monitor the rates of caesarean of the HIMES. Methods: Study of retrospective collection of data, of registered obstetrical events in clinical file and biostatistics of the HIMES from 1995 to 2005. The rate of caesarean was observed, its impact and their indication reasons why the caesareans were made in 2005. Results: Of 1995 to August of the 2006, 64,008 obstetrical events were taken care of in the HIMES, of which 44,932 were vaginal childbirths and 19,076 were caesarean. The rate of caesarean in 1995 was of 24.93% and the reported one until august of the 2006 was of 32.30%. In the year of 2005, 6927 obstetrical events were registered, of which 4833 were vaginal childbirths y 2094 were caesarean operation. The indications by which caesarean operation was made were caesarean previous with 43%, preeclampsia 7%, pelvic presentation 5%, cefalopélvica disproportion (DCP) 5%. The reported rate of caesarean in 2005 at National level was of 35.71%, in the Secretaria de Salud (SSA) it was of 30.92% and the reported one in the state of Sonora was of 27.79%. Conclusions: The tendency of the rates of caesarean of the HIMES has increased. The rate of caesarean of the HIMES is below of the National one, nevertheless HIMES was above of the Sonora rate and the double of the rate of caesarean that the WHO proposes (15%). The process of caesarean of the HIMES was monitored applying a control graph of proportions.


REFERENCES

  1. Ruiz V. La evolución de la operación cesárea. La prensa Médica Mexicana. 1971; 1:3-7.

  2. Villanueva E. Operación cesárea: Una perspectiva integral. Rev Fac Med UNAM 2004; 47: 246-50.

  3. Karchmer K., Fernández del Castillo S. Obstetricia y Medicina Perinatal. Colegio Mexicano de Especialistas en Ginecología y Obstetricia A.C. 2006; 57: 587-94.

  4. Cabero Roura, Cabrillo R. Tratado de Ginecología, Obstetricia y Medicina de la Reproducción. Sociedad Española de Ginecología y Obstetricia 2003; 106: 840-3.

  5. World Health Organization. Appropriate technology for birth. Lancet 1985; 2: 436-7.

  6. Menard M. Cesarean delivery rates in the United States. Obstet Gynecol Clin North Am 1999; 26: 275.

  7. Clarke SC, Taffel S. Changes in cesarean delivery in the United States, 1988 and 1993. Birth 1995; 22: 63-7.

  8. Dobson R. Caesarean section rate in England and Walles hits 21%. BMJ 2001; 323: 951-3.

  9. Editorial (anon). Caesarean section on the rise. Lancet 2000; 356: 1697.

  10. González GJ, Vega MG, Cabrera C, Muñoz A, Valle A. Caesareans sections in México: are there too many? Health Policy & Planning 2001; 16: 62-7.

  11. González González NL, Medina V, Suárez MN, Clemente C. Base de datos perinatales nacionales en España del año 2000. Prog Obstet Ginecol (en prensa).

  12. Norma Oficial Mexicana NOM-007-SSA2-1993, atención de la mujer durante el embarazo, parto, puerperio y del recién nacido. Criterios y procedimientos para la presentación del servicio. México: Diario Oficial de la Federación; 1995: 19-38.

  13. Juárez OS. Tendencia de los embarazos terminados en operación cesárea en México durante el periodo 91-95. Ginecol Obstet Mex 1999; 67: 308-17.

  14. Lira PJ. Cesárea de repetición: ¿una cesárea necesaria? Ginecol Obstet Mex 2000; 68: 353-5.

  15. Dodd J, Crowher C, Huertas E, Planned elective repeat caesarean section versus planned vaginal birth for women with previous caesarean birth (review). The Cochrane Collaboration 2006.

  16. Secretaría de Salud. Boletín de información estadística en México 2001; 19.

  17. Norma Oficial Mexicana NOM – 007 – SSA2 – 1993. Atención de la mujer durante el embarazo, parto y puerperio y del recién nacido. Criterios y procedimientos para la presentación del servicio.

  18. Crespo E, Rodríguez J, Manejo activo del trabajo de parto con índice de cesárea de 6.4% y muy buenos resultados materno-fetales. Ginecol Obstet 2002; 70: 551-7.

  19. Sereno J, Razones en pro y en contra de la operación cesárea. Ginecol Obstet Mex 1999; 67: 353-5.

  20. Douglas C. Montgomery y George C. Runger. Probabilidad y Estadística aplicadas a la Ingeniería 1996; 1: 33-34.

  21. Douglas C. Montgomery. Introduction to Statistical Quality Control 2005; 4: 147-69.

  22. Rev Chil Obstet Ginecol 2006; 71(3): 196-200.

  23. Savage W, Francome C: British caesarean section rates: have we reached a plateau? Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1993; 100: 493-6.

  24. Farmer A: Medical practice guidelines: lessons from the United States. BMJ 1993; 307: 313-7.

  25. Kassirer JP: Clinical trials and meta-analysis: what do they do for us? N Engl J Med 1992; 327: 273-4.

  26. Secretaries of State for Health Wales, Northern Ireland, and Scotland. Medical audit. London: Her Majesty’s Stationery Office, 1989.

  27. Lee Santos I, Operación cesárea: estudio de causas y tendencias en un Hospital de segundo nivel. Rev Med IMSS 2004; 42(3): 199-204.

  28. William H. Woodall, The Use of Control Charts in Health - Care and Public - Health Surveillance. Journal of Quality Technology 2006; 38(2): 89-104.




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com