medigraphic.com
Federación Mexicana de Ginecología y Obstetricia, A.C.

2005, Number 06

<< Back Next >>

Ginecol Obstet Mex 2005; 73 (06)

Frequency of cesarean sections in four hospitals of Mexico City: 20 years later

Narro RJ, Hernández TJC, Imaz OV, Silva JAJ, Olea LJ, Soto HG, Ruiz RA

Language: Spanish
References: 17
Page: 291-296
PDF size: 55.28 Kb.


ABSTRACT

Background: This article is an update of a similar study published in 1984 in which the frequency of cesarean sections practiced in four Mexico City hospitals from 1976 to 1983 was analyzed.
Objective: To assess the frequency of cesarean sections practiced in four Mexico City hospitals from 1995 to 2002.
Material and method: Data from these same hospitals corresponding to the 1995-2002 period was again collected.
Results: The frequency of cesarean sections in those four health care centers exceeded by far the internationally accepted standards; this frequency shows an increase, and it now accounts for twice as many operations as the number of interventions originally recorded. In 1976, 10 out of every 68 pregnancies came to end vaginally. By 2002, the same ratio was 10 out of 27.
Conclusions: It is urgent to reduce the frequency of such a practice, as well as to reorganize the obstetric services; furthermore, the corresponding modifications in the training of such medical specialists must be done.


REFERENCES

  1. Narro RJ, Camus-Gómez R, Deliens DC, et al. Tendencia de los embarazos terminados por cesárea en el Distrito Federal. Salud Publica Mex 1984;26:381-8.

  2. Castelazo L. Citado por Ahued-Ahued JR. Operación cesárea: un reto para el futuro. Cesárea, tendencias actuales y perspectivas. México: Comité Promotor por una Maternidad sin Riesgos en México, 1997;pp:9.

  3. Baskett TF, McMillen RM. Cesarean section: trends and morbidity. Can Med Assoc J 1981;125:723-6.

  4. Amirikia H, Zarewych B, Evans T. Cesarean section: a 15-year review of changing incidence, indications and risks. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1981;140:81-90.

  5. Bradly S, Robinson S, Golden J. Cesarean section rate in England and Wales. Lancet 1980;1:1195.

  6. Belizán JM, Althabe F, Barros FC. Rates and implications of cesarean sections in Latin America. BMJ 1999;319:1397-400.

  7. Johanson R, Newburn M, Macfarlane A. Has the medicalisation of childbirth gone too far? BMJ 2002;324:892-5.

  8. Puente-Rosas E, Gómez-Dantés O, Garrido-Latorre F. Las cesáreas en México: tendencias, niveles y factores asociados. Salud Publica Mex 2004;46:16-22.

  9. Martin JA, Hamilton BE, Ventura SJ, et al. Births: final data for 2000. Natl Vital Stat Rep 2002;(5):1-101.

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

  11. SSA. Nacimientos por cesárea en México. México: Síntesis Ejecutiva, 2003.

  12. Myers SA, Gleicher NA. Successful program to lower cesarean section rates. N Engl J Med 1988;319:1511-6.

  13. Robson MS, Scudamore IW, Walsh SM. Using the medical audit cycle to reduce cesarean section rates. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1996;174(1):199-205.

  14. Guzmán S. La reducción de cesáreas de 28 a 13% incrementa o no la mortalidad materna y perinatal: la gran pregunta. Ginecol Obstet Mex 1993;66:122-5.

  15. Flamm BL, Berwick DM, Kabcenell A. Reducing caesarean section rates safety: lessons from a breakthrough series collaborative. Birth 1998;25(2):117-4.

  16. Hall MH, Bewley S. Maternal mortality and mode of delivery. Lancet 1999;354:776.

  17. Wagner M. Choosing cesarean section. Lancet 2000;356: 1677-80.




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com