Manny-Zitle AI, Tovar-Rodríguez JM

Language: Spanish
References: 20
Page: 261-269
PDF size: 271.55 Kb.

ABSTRACT

Introduction: The increase of cesarean sections worldwide has increased significantly, our country is no exception, in some places it exceeds 60% of cesarean sections in relation to vaginal delivery, there is no adequate classification for the analysis of this increase. The classification of the 10 groups of Robson is based on four pillars: a) obstetric history; b) progress of labor; c) category of pregnancy; and d) gestational age. We suggest using Robson’s classification to determine which group of pregnant women contribute most to the total number of cesareans in our institution. Method: This retrospective, descriptive, cross-sectional, observational study was conducted from 2014 to 2016, all pregnant women with more than 27 weeks’ gestation were included. Pregnancy was resolved in 706 women with a caesarean section of 65.29%, mean age was 31 ± 4.2 years, and gestational age 38.5 ± 6.7 weeks. 46.74% were primiparous. The most frequent maternal indication for surgery was by iterative cesarean section and the fetal one was due to presentation dystocia, as for the location of the patients within the Robson classification was group 5 with 21.24%, group 2 with 13.88% and the 1 with 9.6%. Conclusion: The previous uterine scarring was the determining factor in most of the cesarean sections, we suggest to influence the indication of the first cesarean section and thus to avoid uterine scars.

REFERENCES

1. Palean L, Gibbons L, Chacón S, Ramil V, Belizan J. Tasa de cesáreas en dos hospitales privados con normativas diferentes: abierto y cerrado. Ginecol Obstet Mex. 2012;80:263-9.

2. Ruiz SJ, Espino SS, Vallejos PA, Duran AL. Cesárea: tendencias y resultados. Perinatol Reprod Hum. 2014;28:33-40.

3. Vélez PE, Tovar GVJ, Méndez VF, López LCR, Bustos ER. Incidencia, indicaciones y complicaciones de la operación cesárea en el Hospital de Ginecopediatría del IMSS de Hermosillo, Sonora. Bol Clin Hosp Infant Edo Son. 2012;29 58-64.

4. Schnapp CS, Sepúlveda E, Robert SJA. Operación cesárea. Rev Med Clin Condes. 2014;25:987-92.

5. Cabeza VPJ, Calvo PA, Betrán AP, Mas MMM, Febles BMM, Alcocer PX, et al. Clasificación de cesáreas por grupos de Robson en dos periodos comparativos en el Hospital de Manacor. Prog Obstet Ginecol. 2010;53:385-90.

6. Kazmi T, Saiseema S, Khan S. Analysis of cesarean section rate-according to Robson’s 10-group classification. Oman Med J. 2012;27: 425-7.

7. Barcaite E, Kemekliene G, Railatete R, Bartuservicius A, Maleckliene L, Naisanskiene R. Cesarean section rates in Lithuania using Robson ten group classification system. Medicine. 2015;51:280-5.

8. Farine D, Shepherd D, Robson M. Classification of cesarean sections in Canada: the modified Robson criteria. J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2012; 34:1133.

9. Ferreira EC, Costa ML, Cecattli JG, Haddad SM, Parpinelli MA, Robson MS. Robson ten group classification system applied to woman with severe maternal morbidity. Birth. 2015;42:1.

10. Betrán AP, Vindevoghel N, Souza JP, Guimezoglua AM, Torioni AM, Bhattacharya S. A systematic review of the Robson classification for cesarean section: what works, doesn’t work and how to improve it. PLoS One. 2014;9 e97769.

11. Litorp H, Kidanto HL, Nystrom L, Darje E, Essen B. Increasing caesarean section rates among low-risk groups: a panel study classifying deliveries according to Robson at a University hospital in Tanzania. BMC Pregnancy. 2013;13:1-10.

12. Vogel JP, Betrán AP, Vindevoghel N, Souza JP, Torloni MR, Zhang J, et al. Use of the Robson classification to assess caesarean section trends in 21 countries: a secondary analysis of two WHO multicounty surveys. Lancet Global Health. 2015;3:260-7.

13. Betrán AP, Torloni MR, Zhang JJ, Guimezoglu AM, for the WHO working group on caesarean section. WHO statement on caesarean section rates. BJOG. 2016;123:667-70.

14. Muñoz-Enciso JM, Rosales Anjang E, Domínguez-Ponce G, Serrano- Díaz CL. Operación cesárea: ¿indicación justificante o preocupación justificada? Ginecol Obstet Mex. 2011;79:67-70.

15. Cyr RM. Myth of the ideal cesarean section rate: commentary and historic perspective. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2006;194:932-6.

16. Zhang J, Troendle J, Reddy UM, Laughon SK, Branch DW, Burkman R, et al. Contemporary cesarean delivery practice in United States. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2010; 203:326.e1-10.

17. Betrán AP, Vindenvoghel Nadia, Souza JP Gulmezoglu M, Torloni MR, et al. A systematic review of the Robson classifications for cesarean section. PLoS One. 2014;9:e97769.

18. Van Dillen J, Diesch M, Schutte J, Zwart J, Wolterbeek R, van Roosmalen J. Comparing grades of urgency for classification of cesarean delivery. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2009;107:16-8.

19. Althabe F, Belizán JM, Villar J, Alexander S, Bergel E, Ramos S, et al. Mandatory second opinion to reduce rates of unnecessary caesarean sections in Latin America: a cluster randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2004;363:1934-40.

20. Anderson GM, Lomas J. Determinants of the increasing cesarean birth rate. Ontario data 1979 to 1982. N Engl J Med. 1984;311:887-92.