info@auctorespublishing.com
+1-(302)-520-2632
+1-(302)-520-2632
logo

Primary caesarean section rates

  1. Home
  2. Journals
  3. Obstetrics Gynecology and Reproductive Sciences
  4. Archives
Submit Guidelines

Mini Review | DOI: https://doi.org/10.31579/2578-8965/115

Primary caesarean section rates

  • Dr. Tazeen Khan 1
  • Dr. Nina Navakumar 1*

1 Department of High risk pregnancy and Perinatology, Kerala Institute of Medical Sciences, Trivandrum, Kerala, India.

*Corresponding Author: Dr. Nina Navakumar, Department of High risk pregnancy and Perinatology, Kerala Institute of Medical Sciences, Trivandrum, Kerala, India.

Citation: Dr. Navakumar N. (2022) Primary caesarean section rates. J. Obstetrics Gynecology and Reproductive Sciences; 6(3) DOI:10.31579/2578-8965/115

Copyright: © 2022, Dr. Nina Navakumar, This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Received: 31 January 2022 | Accepted: 10 February 2022 | Published: 01 March 2022

Keywords: caesarean; NFHS; AVB

Abstract

Rising rates of deliveries by cesarean Section (CS) have been a global concern for over the past few decades. CS delivery not only increases the risk of maternal mortality but also of maternal morbidity by several folds. Maternal concerns include wound site pain, prolonged hospital stay, increased use of antibiotics and analgesics. 

Introduction:

Complications with cesarean deliveries range from hemorrhage, shock, need for transfusion, anesthetic complications, need for assisted ventilation, thromboembolism, major infections, multiple organ dysfunction (MODS) and cardiac arrest. When compared to vaginal delivery, cesarean section is associated with: Threefold increase in maternal morbidity (0.9 versus 2.7%) and Fourfold increase in maternal mortality (3 versus 13.3 per million) respectively [1].

In addition to above, there are social and emotional implications of caesarean birth like poor birth experience, late contact with the baby, non- establishment of breast feeding also several neonatal morbidities like respiratory problems, accidental surgical cuts etc can occur. It influences future operative deliveries and is associated with risk of placenta accreta spectrum [PAS] and hysterectomy as well. Caesarean deliveries require more human resources and also pose a higher financial burden [2] Most of these complications are more serious in resource-limited settings, reinforcing the restraint which should be used in deciding to perform CS [3].

World Health Organization (WHO) in 1985, in a meeting of a panel of Reproductive health experts in Fortaleza, Brazil, recommended that ideal caesarean rates should be between 10 and 15%. [4,5] Later in 2014, WHO concluded that 10-15

References

  1. Liu S, Liston RM, Joseph KS, Heaman M, Sauve R, Kramer MS. (2007) Maternal mortality and severe morbidity associated with low-risk planned cesarean delivery versus planned vaginal delivery at term. Maternal Health Study Group of the Canadian Perinatal Surveillance System. CMAJ; 176:455–60.
    View at Publisher | View at Google Scholar
  2. Roy Choudhary C. (2008) Caesarean births: the Indian scenario. Abstract. Presented at the Population Association of America 2008 Annual meeting. 17-19 April New Orleans, USA.
    View at Publisher | View at Google Scholar
  3. Gibbons L, Belizan JM, Lauer JA, Betran AP, Merialdi M, Althabe F. (2010) The global numbers and costs of additionally needed and unnecessary caesarean sections performed per year: Overuse as a barrier to universal coverage. World Health Report.
    View at Publisher | View at Google Scholar
  4. (1985) WHO Joint interregional conference on appropriate technology for birth. Fortaleza, Brazil, 22-26 April .
    View at Publisher | View at Google Scholar
  5. (1992) World Health Organization. Appropriate technology for birth revisited. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1992;99:709-10.
    View at Publisher | View at Google Scholar
  6. (2015) Department of Reproductive Health and Research. WHO statement on Caesarean Section rates. World Health Organization, Geneva.
    View at Publisher | View at Google Scholar
  7. Molina, G. et al. (2015) Relationship Between Cesarean Delivery Rate and Maternal and Neonatal Mortality. JAMA. 314(21), 2263–70
    View at Publisher | View at Google Scholar
  8. (1993.) Survey summary: India: standard DHS, 1992-93. The DHS Demographic and Health Surveys Program. 
    View at Publisher | View at Google Scholar
  9. (2016) Survey summary: India: standard DHS, 2015-16. The DHS Demographic and Health Surveys Program.  
    View at Publisher | View at Google Scholar
  10. Gregory KD, Jackson S, Korst L, Fridman M. (2012) Cesarean versus vaginal delivery: whose risks? Whose benefits? Am J Perinatol ;29:7–18
    View at Publisher | View at Google Scholar
  11. Khunpradit S, Tavender E, Lumbiganon P, Laopaiboon M, Wasiak J, Gruen RL. (2011) Non-clinical interventions for reducing unnecessary caesarean section. Cochrane Database Syst Rev;(6):CD005528.
    View at Publisher | View at Google Scholar
  12. Hartmann KE, Andrews JC, Jerome RN, Lewis RM, Likis FE, McKoy JN, et al. (2012) Strategies to reduce cesarean birth in low-risk women. AHRQ Publication No. 12(13)-EHC128-EF2012.
    View at Publisher | View at Google Scholar
  13. Safe prevention of the primary cesarean delivery. Obstetric Care Consensus No. 1. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Obstet Gynecol 2014;123:693–711
    View at Publisher | View at Google Scholar
  14. Modified from Zhang J, Landy HJ, Branch DW, Burkman R, Haberman S, Gregory KD, et al. (2010) Contemporary patterns of spontaneous labor with normal neonatal outcomes. Consortium on Safe Labor. Obstet Gynecol 2010;116:1281–7.)
    View at Publisher | View at Google Scholar
  15. Goonewardene M, Manawadu MH, Priyaranjana DV. (2012) Audit: The strategy to reduce the rising caesarean section rates. J South Asain Feder Obstet Gynae. 2012;4(1):5-9.
    View at Publisher | View at Google Scholar
  16. Kiwanuka AI, Moore WMO. (1993) Influence of audit and feedback on use of caesarean section in a geographically-defined population. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol;50:59–64.
    View at Publisher | View at Google Scholar
  17. Kazandjian VA, Lied TR. (1998) Cesarean section rates: effects of participation in a performance measurement project. Jt Comm J Qual Improv 24:187–96.
    View at Publisher | View at Google Scholar
  18. Main EK. (1999) Reducing cesarean birth rates with data-driven quality improvement activities. Pediatrics (1 Suppl E):374–83.
    View at Publisher | View at Google Scholar
  19. Tay SK, Tsakok FH, Ng CS. (1992) The use of intradepartmental audit to contain cesarean section rate. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 39: 99–103.
    View at Publisher | View at Google Scholar
  20. Chaillet N, Dumont A. (2007) Evidence-based strategies for reducing cesarean section rates: a meta-analysis. Birth 2007;34:53–64.
    View at Publisher | View at Google Scholar
  21. Betran AP, Merialdi M, Lauer JA, Bing-shun W, Thomas J, van Look P, et al. (2007) Rates of caesarean section: Analysis of global, regional and national estimates. Pediatric and Perinatal Epidemiology. 21:98-113.
    View at Publisher | View at Google Scholar
  22. Dekker et al. (2018) Caesarean section audit to improve quality of care in a rural referral hospital in Tanzania ; BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth 18:164
    View at Publisher | View at Google Scholar

Dear Editorial Team, Clinical Medical Reviews and Reports. My experience with the journal was highly positive. The peer-review process was rigorous, constructive, and completed in a timely manner. The reviewers provided valuable comments that helped improve the quality and clarity of our manuscript. The editorial office was professional, responsive, and supportive throughout all stages of the publication process. Communication was clear and efficient, and any questions were addressed promptly. Overall, I found the journal to maintain high scientific standards and an excellent publication workflow. I would be pleased to consider submitting future work to this journal. Best wishes from, Elena Popa.

img

Dr Elena Popa

It was my pleasure to submit my testimonial concerning the Reviewer Board of our Scientific Journal “Brain and Neurological Disorders”. The Reviewers focused on some modifications and their contribution was helpful. The ladies of our Editorial Office were also supported my efforts. It was my honor to have such a co-operation and I am looking forward for more collaboration.

img

Dr Nikolaos Andreas Chrysanthakopoulos

Dear Grace Pierce, Editorial Coordinator of Journal of Clinical Research and Reports, Thank you for the speedy and efficient peer review process. I appreciate the fact that your peer reviewers do not take months to respond like with some other journals. I would also like to thank the editorial office for responding quickly to my questions. It is an excellent journal. I plan to submit more manuscripts in the future. Best wishes from, Robert W. McGee

img

Robert W McGee

Dear Grace Pierce, Editorial Coordinator of Journal of Clinical Research and Reports, Working with you and your team on our recent publication in JCRR has been a truly wonderful and enjoyable experience. The responses were prompt, and the reviewers were patient, constructive, and highly professional. One reviewer in particular gave me the feeling that a professor was carefully reading and commenting on my coursework, which was deeply touching. The entire process was straightforward and hassle‑free, with no tedious online forms to complete. I highly recommend this journal. Best wishes from, DR Aibing Rao, Head of R&D

img

Aibing Rao

I Appreciate the Opportunity to Share my Experience with the Journal of Clinical Research and Reports. The peer review process was timely and constructive, and the feedback provided helped improve the quality of our manuscript. The editorial office was professional, responsive, and supportive throughout the process, ensuring smooth communication and efficient handling of the submission. Overall, it was a positive experience collaborating with your team.

img

Kashani Mehdi

Dear Mercy Grace, Editorial Coordinator of Obstetrics Gynecology and Reproductive Sciences, We would like to express our gratitude for your help at all stages of publishing and editing the article. The editors of the magazine answer all the necessary questions and help at every stage. We will definitely continue to cooperate and publish other works in the Obstetrics Gynecology and Reproductive Sciences! Best wishes from, Alla Konstantinovna Politova,

img

Alla Konstantinovna Politova