Results of Using the Robson Classification in Kazakhstan

Assel Askarovna Altayeva; Saule Shaykenovna Issenova; Egle  Machtejeviene; Gani Zhandiyarovich  Bodykov; Balzira Nagashibaevna  Bishekova

doi:10.3889/oamjms.2021.6398

Authors

Assel Askarovna Altayeva Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, National Medical University Named After S. D. Asfendiyarov, Almaty, Kazakhstan
Saule Shaykenovna Issenova Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, National Medical University Named After S. D. Asfendiyarov, Almaty, Kazakhstan
Egle Machtejeviene Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Lithuanian University of Health Sciences, Kaunas, Lithuania
Gani Zhandiyarovich Bodykov Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, National Medical University Named After S. D. Asfendiyarov, Almaty, Kazakhstan; Center for Perinatology and Pediatric Cardiac Surgery, Almaty, Kazakhstan
Balzira Nagashibaevna Bishekova Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, National Medical University Named After S. D. Asfendiyarov, Almaty, Kazakhstan

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.3889/oamjms.2021.6398

Keywords:

World Health Organization, Cesarean Section Frequency, Audit, Ten Group Classification, Uterine Scar

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Over the past few decades, the cesarean section frequency has increased significantly in many countries around the world, especially in the countries with high and medium income. The World Health Organization recommends 10–15% as the optimum cesarean section frequency. In Kazakhstan, the frequency of operative delivery in 2018 was 23.5%.

AIM: The article is aimed at analyzing the caesarean section frequency following the Robson classification in Kazakhstan at Level II and III obstetric institutions, identifying the groups that make the greatest contribution to the overall cesarean section frequency, studying the clinical reasons in these groups, and identifying the ways to reduce unneeded cesarean sections.

METHODS: A prospective study was performed at the Level II and III obstetric facilities in Almaty. On admission for delivery, all women were assigned following the Robson classification. The indices of cesarean section in each of 10 groups and the absolute and relative contribution to the overall cesarean section frequency were calculated. The patient data were prospectively entered into a computer application and processed in MS Excel and Statistica version 23. The results were presented using the Robson classification. The odds ratios were calculated with a confidence interval of 95%.

RESULTS: For the period from January 1, 2019, to December 31, 2019, 12,395 women parturiated at Level II and III obstetric facilities. The main contributors to the overall cesarean section frequency at Level II and III obstetric facilities were Group 5 (multiparous women with uterine scars) – 46.3% (Level II facility) and 37.5% (Level III facility), Group 2 (12.4%) and (12.4%), Group 1 (12%) and (9.6%), and Group 10 (11.4%) at the Level III facility.

CONCLUSION: The Robson classification has been used for the 1^sttime in Kazakhstan which has made it possible to identify the reasons that make the greatest contribution to the overall cesarean section frequency. The use of monitoring for analyzing the cesarean section frequency will make it possible to compare the Kazakhstan data with the foreign data and determine the organizational measures aimed at reducing the frequency of operative delivery. The strategies to reduce unneeded cesarean section should focus on reducing the cesarean section frequency in nulliparous women. In the absence of contraindications, natural delivery should be advised to the women with uterine scars.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Metrics

Metrics Loading ...

Plum Analytics Artifact Widget Block

References

Betrán AP,Ye J, Zhang J, Gülmezoglu AM, Torloni MR. The increasing trend in caesarean section rates: Global, regional and national estimates: 1990-2014. PLoS One. 2016:11(2):e0148343. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0148343 PMid:26849801 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0148343

Sandall J, Tribe RM, Avery L, Mola G, Visser GH, Homer CS, et al. Short-term and long-term effects of caesarean section on the health of women and children. Lancet. 2018;392(10155):1349-57. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(18)31930-5 PMid:30322585 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(18)31930-5

Boerma T, Ronsmans C, Melesse DY, Barros AJ, Barros FC, Juan L, et al. Global epidemiology of use of and disparities in caesarean sections. Lancet. 2018;392(10155):1341-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(18)31928-7 PMid:30322584 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(18)31928-7

Ye J, Betrán AP, Vela MG, Souza JP, Zhang J. Searching for the optimal rate of medically necessary cesarean delivery. Birth. 2014;41(3):237-44. https://doi.org/10.1111/birt.12104 PMid:24720614 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/birt.12104

Molina G, Weiser TG, Lipsitz SR, Esquivel MM, Uribe-Leitz T, Azad T, et al. Relationship between cesarean delivery rate and maternal and neonatal mortality. JAMA. 2015;314(21):2263-70. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2015.15553 PMid:26624825 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2015.15553

Betrán AP, Torloni MR, Zhang JJ, Gülmezoglu AM. WHO statement on caesarean section rates. BJOG. 2016;123(5):667-70. https://doi.org/10.1111/1471-0528.13592 PMid:26681211 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/1471-0528.13592

Ministry of National Economy of the Republic of Kazakhstan. Statistics Committee; 2018. Available from: http://www.stat.gov.kz. [Last accessed on 2021 Apr 20].

World Health Organization. WHO Statement on Caesarean Section Rates. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2015.

Betran AP, Torloni MR, Zhang J, Ye J, Mikolajczyk R, Deneux- Tharaux C, et al. What is the optimal rate of caesarean section at population level? A systematic review of ecologic studies. Reprod Health. 2015;12:57. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12978-015-0043-6 PMid:26093498 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12978-015-0043-6

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;367:1819-29. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(06)68704-7 PMid:16753484 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(06)68704-7

Liu S, Liston RM, Joseph KS, Heaman M, Sauve R, Kramer MS. Maternal mortality and severe morbidity associated with low-risk planned caesarean delivery versus planned vaginal delivery at term. CMAJ. 2007;176(4):455-60. https://doi.org/10.1503/cmaj.060870 PMid:17296957 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1503/cmaj.060870

Publications Committee, Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine; Belfort MA. Placenta accreta. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2010;203(5):430-9. PMid:21055510 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2010.09.013

Robson MS. Classification of caesarean sections. Fetal Matern Med Rev. 2001;12:23-39. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0965539501000122 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0965539501000122

Betrán AP, Vindevoghel N, Souza JP, Gülmezoglu 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. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0097769 PMid:24892928 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0097769

Torloni MR, Betrán AP, Souza JP, Widmer M, Allen T, Gulmezoglu M, et al. Classifications for caesarean section: A systematic review. PLoS One. 2011;6:e14566. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0014566 PMid:21283801 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0014566

FIGO Working Group on Challenges in Care of Mothers and Infants during Labour and Delivery. Best practice advice on the 10-group classification system for caesarean deliveries. Int J Gynecol Obstet. 2016;135(2):232-3. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijgo.2016.08.001 PMid:27609739 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijgo.2016.08.001

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 multicountry surveys. Lancet Glob Health. 2015;3(5):e260-70. https://doi.org/10.1016/s2214-109x(15)70094-x PMid:25866355 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S2214-109X(15)70094-X

Devane D, Lalor JG, Daly S, McGuire W, Smith V. Cardiotocography versus intermittent auscultation of fetal heart on admission to labour ward for assessment of fetal wellbeing. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012;1(1):CD005122. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.cd005122.pub4 PMid:28125772 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD005122.pub4

Robson M, Hartigan L, Murphy M. Methods of achieving and maintaining an appropriate caesarean section rate. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2013;27(2):297-308. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bpobgyn.2012.09.004 PMid:23127896 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bpobgyn.2012.09.004