Analysis of caesarean section rates over time in a single Swiss centre using a ten-group classification system

Prevalence and causes of cesarean births among women residing at high altitude in Lhasa, Tibet: A retrospective observational study of 7365 women

Cesarean delivery on maternal request is one of the important public health issues in China. Our study aimed to apply the theory of planned behaviour to comprehensively determine the factors regarding pregnant women's preference for cesarean section and to provide references for establishing measures to reduce cesarean delivery on maternal request. This cross-sectional analysis was conducted in four women's and children's hospitals in China from May to June 2018. Eligible women arriving for routine antenatal visits at these hospitals were recruited to answer a structured questionnaire. A total of 1853 pregnant women consented to participate in the investigation, with a response rate of 88.75%. Finally, 1677 pregnant women (984 nulliparae and 693 multiparae) were involved in the analysis. Descriptive statistics and logistic regression analyses were used. Of the study participants, 20.39% preferred cesarean section. For both nulliparae and multiparae, those who had lower scores of attitudes towards vaginal delivery, lower scores of childbirth self-efficacy and higher scores of subjective norms were more likely to prefer cesarean section. Pregnant women's birth preferences were significantly associated with their attitudes towards the delivery mode, childbirth self-efficacy and subjective norms, which is consistent with the theory of planned behaviour. Interventions to reduce cesarean delivery on maternal request can be developed based on the theory of planned behaviour.

BackgroundGlobally, Caesarean section (CS) rates are mounting and currently exceed the safe upper limit of 15%. Monitoring CS rates using clinical indications and obstetric sub-group analysis could confirm that women in need have been served. In Bangladesh, the reported CS rate was 31% in 2016, and almost twice that rate in urban settings. Delivering in the private healthcare sector was a strong determinant. This study uses Robson Ten Group Classification System (TGCS) to report CS rates in urban Bangladesh. The clinical causes and determining factors for CS births have also been examined.MethodsThis record linkage cross-sectional survey was undertaken in 34 urban for-profit private hospitals having CS facilities during the period June to August 2015. Data were supplied by inpatient case records and operation theatre registers. Descriptive analyses were performed to calculate the relative size of each group; the group-specific CS rate, and group contribution to total CS and overall CS rate. CS indications were grouped into eleven categories using ICD 10 codes. Binary logistic regression was performed to explore the determinants of CS.ResultsOut of 1307 births, delivery by CS occurred in 1077 (82%). Three obstetric groups contributed the most to overall CS rate: previous CS (24%), preterm (23%) and term elective groups (22%). The major clinical indications for CS were previous CS (35%), prolonged and obstructed labor (15%), fetal distress (11%) and amniotic fluid disorder (11%). Multiple gestation, non-cephalic presentation, previous bad obstetric history were positive predictors while oxytocin used for labour induction and increased parity were negative predictors of CS.ConclusionsAs the first ever study in urban private for-profit health facilities in Bangladesh, this study usefully identifies the burden of CS and where to intervene. Engagement of multiple stakeholders including the private sector is crucial in planning effective strategies for safe reduction of CS.

Changing trends in caesarean section rate in Ireland's four largest maternity hospitals 2015-2021: which groups account for the rising caesarean section rate?

Objective To assess changes in caesarean section (CS) in Europe from 2015-2019 and utilise the Robson Ten Group Classification System (TGCS) to evaluate the contribution of different obstetric populations to overall CS rates and trends Methods This was an observational study utilising routine population birth data from 28 European countries participating in the Euro-Peristat network. We included all births ≥22 weeks gestational age, from 2015 to 2019. A federated model used individual-level data from routine sources in each country formatted to common data model to generate anonymous, aggregate data tables on yearly CS rates and the Robson TGCS classification. We computed the Robson group-specific relative size, CS rate, relative and absolute contribution to overall CS rate Results Among the 28 European countries, CS rates (2015: 16.0-55.9%; 2019: 16.0-52.2%) and trends varied (-3.7-+4.7%; 9 countries decreasing, 7 stable [ ≤ ±0.2], 12 increasing). Using the Robson Classification (17 countries), in most countries, labour induction increased (Groups 2a, 4a), while multiple pregnancies (Group 8) decreased. In countries with decreasing overall CS rates, CS tended to decrease in most Robson groups, while in countries with increasing overall CS rates, CS tended to increase in most Robson groups. In countries with the greatest increase in CS rates (>1%), absolute contributions of Groups 1 (nulliparous term cephalic singletons, spontaneous labour), 2a and 4a, 2b and 4b (prelabour CS), and 10 (preterm cephalic singletons) to overall CS tended to increase. Conclusions Analysis of the Robson Classification shows varying CS trends and rates across Europe. Comparisons between European countries, particularly those with divergent trends, could provide insight into strategies to reduce CS without indication.

Objective To explore the effect of epidural block for labor analgesia on the rate of Cesarean section after parturiency.Methods We summaried 2,885 pregnant women who gave full-term childbirth in our hospital in the years of 1999 and 2009.We analyzed variation of the rate of epidural block for labor analgesia and Cesarean section.The latter included the variation of the total rate of Cesarean section and of the rate of Cesarean section failing to deliver after parturiency.Results The rate of epidural block for labor analgesia was 17.99％ in 1999 but 51.23％ in 2009.The rate of Cesarean section was 40.80％ in 1999 but 27.81％ in 2009.There were significant differences in the rates of epidural block for labor analgesia and Cesarean section between the two years( P＜ 0.001 ).The rate of Cesarean section failing to deliver after parturiency was 6.78％ in 1999 and 3.78％ in 2009,with a significant difference ( P＜ 0.05 ).The average time to parturiency to Cesarean section and the average degree of cervical dilatation were both increased.The average time to parturiency to Cesarean section was ( 164.11 ± 55.35 ) minutes and the dilation degree was ( 5.3 ± 2.05 ) cm in 1999 while it was ( 284.50 ± 84.66 ) minutes and ( 7.0 ± 1.83 ) cm in 2009,respectively; there was a significant difference between the two years ( P ＜ 0.05 ).The rates of ephalic dystocia and Cesarean section because of social factors were decreased after epidural block for labor analgesia.Conclusions Epidural block for labor analgesia can decrease the rates of Cesarean section and cephalic dystocia. Key words: Epidural block for labor analgesia; Rate of Cesarean section; Rate of Cesarean section after parturiency

Objective To use the Robson Ten Group Classification (RTGC) to analyze cesarean section (CS) rates in a Honduran maternity hospital, with focus in groups that consider induction of labor.Methods Cross-sectional study. Women admitted for childbirth (August 2017 to October 2018) were classified according to the RTGC. The CS rate for each group and the contribution to the overall CS rate was calculated, with further analyses of the induction of labor among term primiparous (group 2a), term multiparous (group 4a), and cases with one previous CS (group 5.1).Results A total of 4,356 women were considered, with an overall CS rate of 26.1%. Group 3 was the largest group, with 38.6% (1,682/4,356) of the cases, followed by Group 1, with 30.8% (1,342/4,356), and Group 5, with 10.3% (450/4,356). Considering the contribution to overall CS rates per group, Group 5 contributed with 30.4% (345/1,136) of the CSs and within this group, 286/345 (82.9%) had 1 previous CS, with a CS rate > 70%. Groups 1 and 3, with 26.6% (291/1,136) and 13.5% (153/1,136), respectively, were the second and third larger contributors to the CS rate. Groups 2a and 4a had high induction success, with low CS rates (18.4 and 16.9%, respectively).Conclusion The RTGC is a useful tool to assess CS rates in different healthcare facilities. Groups 5, 1, and 3 were the main contributors to the CS rate, and groups 2 and 4 showed the impact and importance of induction of labor. These findings may support future interventions to reduce unnecessary CS, especially among primiparous and in women with previous CS.

In 1985 when a group of experts convened by the World Health Organization in Fortaleza, Brazil, met to discuss the appropriate technology for birth, they echoed what at that moment was considered an unjustified and remarkable increase of caesarean section (CS) rates worldwide.1 Based on the evidence available at that time, the experts in Fortaleza concluded: 'there is no justification for any region to have a caesarean section rate higher than 10–15%'.1 Over the years, this quote has become ubiquitous in scientific literature, being interpreted as the ideal CS rate. Although this reference range was intended for 'populations', which are defined by geopolitical boundaries, in many instances it has been mistakenly used as the measurement for healthcare facilities regardless of their complexity or other characteristics. In addition to the case mix of the obstetric population served, the use of CS at healthcare facilities is also affected by factors such as their capacity to handle cases, availability of resource and the clinical management protocols used locally. Since its publication and for the last 30 years, this reference rate for CS has received intense criticism and has led to controversy, concern, polarised opinions and heated debates, while in parallel, the use of CS as a mode of delivery has continued its worrying rise worldwide. The need to revisit the recommended CS rate has been considered more and more necessary in view of the significant improvements in clinical obstetric care and in the methodology to assess evidence and issue recommendations in the last three decades. The global concern around CS rates is understandable. When medically justified, a CS can prevent maternal and perinatal mortality and morbidity. There is no evidence, however, showing the benefits of the procedure for women or infants where it is not required. CS is associated with short- and long-term risk, which can extend beyond the current delivery and affect future pregnancies. In addition, the increase in CS rates seems uncontrollable, with no signs that it is slowing down. The situation is aggravated by the fact that the causes of the rise are not fully understood but emerge as a complex multifactorial labyrinth involving health systems, health care providers, women, societies, and even fashion and media.2-6 Lastly, non-clinical interventions to reduce unnecessary CS have shown limited effectiveness to date.7 In light of these issues, WHO convened a meeting in Geneva, Switzerland, on 8–9 October 2014 with the objective of (1) establishing the current WHO position on the CS rate or range for optimal maternal and perinatal outcomes at population level, and (2) agreeing on a proposal for a tool to monitor CS rates at facility level. The Statement on Caesarean Section Rates recently released by WHO summarises the results of the systematic reviews and analyses conducted for this purpose and conveys the thinking emerging from the discussions of the meeting.8 A systematic review and an ecological analysis were performed and concluded that at population level, CS rates higher than 10% were not associated with reductions in maternal and newborn mortality rates.9, 10 The Statement notes, however, that the association between CS rates and other relevant outcomes such as stillbirths, maternal and perinatal morbidity, paediatric outcomes and psychological or social well-being could not be determined due to the lack of data on these other outcomes at the population level. This lack of data represents a limitation of these analyses that needs to be borne in mind. Beyond numbers and rates, the Statement emphasises that the critical role played by the quality of care in this equation cannot be overstated. As with any surgery, CS is associated with short- and long-term risks, particularly in settings that lack the facilities or capacity to conduct safe surgery or treat surgical complications properly, or where access to labour care or repeat CS in subsequent pregnancies cannot be taken for granted. On the other hand, inadequate access to timely CS may result in perinatal asphyxia, stillbirth, uterine rupture or obstetric fistula, a marker for exceptionally prolonged, obstructed labour.11 Thus, CS should be undertaken when medically necessary, and rather than striving to achieve a specific rate, efforts should focus on providing caesarean section to all women in need. How to define the woman 'in need' can only be ascertained by the health care providers caring for the woman on a case-by-case basis. Most importantly, at the healthcare facility level, clinicians and administrators struggle to monitor CS rates in a meaningful, reliable and action-oriented manner. Historically, caesarean sections have often been categorised using its indications as the unit being classified. Using indications to classify CS has always been problematic due to the lack of uniform definitions for most common indications and has resulted in poor reproducibility and unsatisfactory comparisons.12 In 2001, Dr Michael Robson proposed a system of 10 groups that classifies all women admitted for delivery (and not indications) according to five obstetric characteristics that are generally routinely collected in most maternities.13 Two systematic reviews conducted at WHO identified this classification as the most appropriate system to fulfil current international and local needs.12, 14 The WHO Statement proposes the use of the Robson classification as the global standard for assessing, monitoring and comparing CS rates within healthcare facilities over time, and between facilities. In the last decade, this classification has witnessed an extraordinary expansion in its use worldwide, particularly in healthcare facilities, due to its intrinsic appealing characteristics: simplicity of design, validity of purpose, ease of implementation and directness of initial interpretation.14 WHO envisions that the information stemming from the classification can be a powerful tool to inform practice. The classification will allow not only for stratification of CS rates in more uniform groups of women but also the assessment of CS rates in relation to other perinatal outcomes and processes (e.g. rates of oxytocin usage, postpartum haemorrhage, newborn outcomes, length of labour). WHO will guide and support countries in the use, implementation and interpretation of the classification so that we can start comparing CS rates in a meaningful, targeted, transparent and useful manner. By endorsing the Robson classification, this Statement should become a catalyst for action. The time has come to put the debate about the preferable rate of CS on hold. Let's start to collect data uniformly so that in the near future we will be able to move our focus from CS rates at population level to monitoring and discussing CS rates and outcomes in each group of the Robson classification. Only then will we have the data and evidence that will lead us more clearly to actions to improve care.15 Ultimately, we hope the debate can recommence with more valuable, solid and informative data to support our discussions. None declared. Completed disclosure of interests form available to view online as supporting information. All authors contributed to the writing of the commentary. This commentary has been written without any external funding. No ethical approval was sought for the writing of this commentary. The authors alone are responsible for the views expressed in this publication and they do not necessarily represent the decisions or policies of the World Health Organization or other organizations. WHO Working Group on Caesarean Section: HA Aleem (Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Women's Health Center, Assiut University Hospital, Assiut, Egypt), F Althabe (Institute for Clinical Effectiveness and Health Policy, Buenos Aires, Argentina), T Bergholt (Department of Obstetrics, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark), L de Bernis (United Nations Population Fund, Geneva, Switzerland), G Carroli (Centro Rosarino de Estudios Perinatales, Rosario, Argentina), C Deneux-Tharaux (INSERM U1153, Obstetrical, Perinatal and Pediatric Epidemiology Research Team, Center for Epidemiology and Statistics Sorbonne Paris Cité, Paris Descartes University, Paris, France), R Devlieger (UZLeuven, Campus Gasthuisberg, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Leuven, Belgium), S Debonnet (International Confederation of Midwives, 2517 AN The Hague, the Netherlands), T Duan (Shanghai No.1 Maternal & Infant Health Hospital, Shanghai, China), C Hanson [International Federation of Gynecology & Obstetrics (FIGO), London, UK], J Hofmeyr (Department of Health, Effective Care Research Unit, University of Fort Hare, East London, Eastern Cape, South Africa), R Gonzalez Pérez (Department of Maternal and Gynaecological Health, Pontificia Universidad Catolica de Chile, Santiago de Chile, Chile), A de Jonge (Midwifery Science, AVAG and the EMGO Institute of Health and Care Research, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, the Netherlands), K Khan (Women's Health Research Unit, Multi-disciplinary Evidence Synthesis Hub, The Blizard Institute, London, UK), S Lansky (Ministry of Health, Belo Horizonte Minas Gerais, Brazil), G Lazdane (WHO Regional Office for Europe, Copenhagen, Denmark), P Lumbiganon (Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Faculty of Medicine, Khon Kaen University, Khon Kaen, Thailand), D Mackeen (Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Division of Maternal–Fetal Medicine, Geisimger Health System, Danville, PA, USA), R Mahaini (WHO Office for the Eastern Mediterranean Region, Cairo, Egypt), S Manyame (Department of Obstetrics & Gynaecology, Harare Hospital & University of Zimbabwe, Harare, Zimbabwe), M Mathai (Department of Maternal and Child Health, World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland), R Mikolajczyk (ESME – Epidemiological and Statistical Methods Research Group, Helmholtz Centre for Infection Research, Braunschweig, Germany), R Mori (Department of Health Policy, National Center for Child Health and Development, Tokyo, Japan), B De Mucio (Latin American Center for Perinatology, Women and Reproductive Health (CLAP/WR), WHO Regional Office for the Americas, Montevideo, Uruguay), OT Oladapo (UNDP-UNFPA-UNICEF-WHO-World Bank Special Programme of Research, Development and Research Training in Human Reproduction, Department of Reproductive Health and Research, WHO, Geneva, Switzerland), E Ortiz-Panozo (Center for Population Health Research, National Institute of Public Health, Cuernavaca, Mexico), L Ouedraogo (WHO Regional Office for Africa, Brazzaville, Congo), C Parker (Obstetrics and Gyneacology Department, Baragwanath Maternity Hospital, Johannesburg, South Africa), M Robson (National Maternity Hospital, Dublin, Ireland), S Serruya (Latin American Center for Perinatology, Women and Reproductive Health (CLAP/WR), WHO Regional Office for the Americas, Montevideo, Uruguay), JP Souza [Department of Social Medicine, Ribeirão Preto Medical School, University of São Paulo, Ribeirão Preto (SP), Brazil], CY Spong (Deputy Director, Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA), C Stanton (Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, USA), ME Stanton (USAID, Washington DC, USA), EA Sullivan (Faculty of Health, University of Technology, Sydney, Australia), M Temmerman (UNDP-UNFPA-UNICEF-WHO-World Bank Special Programme of Research, Development and Research Training in Human Reproduction, Department of Reproductive Health and Research, WHO, Geneva, Switzerland), A Tita (Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Division of Maternal–Fetal Medicine, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL, USA), Ӧ Tunçalp (UNDP-UNFPA-UNICEF-WHO-World Bank Special Programme of Research, Development and Research Training in Human Reproduction, Department of Reproductive Health and Research, WHO, Geneva, Switzerland), P Velebil (Perinatal Center of the Institute for the Care of Mother and Child, Prague, Czech Republic), JP Vogel (UNDP-UNFPA-UNICEF-WHO-World Bank Special Programme of Research, Development and Research Training in Human Reproduction, Department of Reproductive Health and Research, WHO, Geneva, Switzerland), M Weber (WHO Regional Office for Europe, Copenhagen, Denmark), D Wojdyla (Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham, NC, USA), J Ye (Ministry of Education–Shanghai Key Laboratory of Children's Environmental Health, Xinhua Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China), K Yunis (Department of Pediatrics & Adolescent, Medicine and Department of Pediatrics, American University of Beirut, Beirut, Lebanon), J Zamora (Clinical Biostatistics Unit, Hospital Ramón y Cajal, Madrid, Spain), A Zongo (Research Institute for Development, Université Paris Descartes, Sorbonne Paris Cité, UMR 216, Paris, France and Direction de la santé de la famille, Ministère de la Santé, Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso) Please note: The publisher is not responsible for the content or functionality of any supporting information supplied by the authors. Any queries (other than missing content) should be directed to the corresponding author for the article.

The study assessed the value of currently-available data on the rates of caesarean section as an indicator of safe-motherhood programmes. Data, collected through the routine health information system of the Ministry of Health, Kenya, were used for analyzing the available process indicators. The methodology of this study illustrates both usefulness and limitations of readily-available healthcare information. The rate of hospital-based caesarean section was 6.3% of all births (range 0.3-37%), whereas the rate of population-based caesarean section was 0.95% (range 0.1%-4%). The rate of population-based caesarean section indicates a significant unmet need for obstetric care in the rural areas and may be a useful tool for monitoring progress on safe-motherhood initiatives in poor settings. Rates of population-based caesarean section are low in Kenya, especially in the rural areas. The rate of caesarean section may be a valuable process indicator for identifying the gaps in obstetric care and may be used for advocating improvements for healthcare to the relevant authorities.

The prevalence of caesarean section (CS) is rising rapidly. However, it should be carried out only under valid obstetric indications due to the various complications associated with it. Therefore, to record CS incidences, Robson's Ten Group Classification System (TGCS) was implemented. This review focuses on the prevalence of CS rates found in various studies and identifies the clinically important groups that were most involved in CS deliveries. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Extension for Scoping Review (PRISMA-ScR) guidelineswere followed in this review. "Caesarean delivery" OR "Robson's Ten Group" OR "Classification System" were keywords used tosearch literature. Twenty-one studieswere included in this review based on eligibilitycriteria. We concluded that group 5 was the major contributing factor for the increase in CS rates followed by group 10, group 4, group 2, and group 1. Previous CS was the most common factor responsible for increasing CS rates. We emphasize that Robson's TGCS is an essential parameter for recording CS ratesand is simple to use for CS rate comparison.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the effect of recommendations to reduce the cesarean section rate issued by the National Consensus Conference on Aspects of Cesarean Birth in 1986 on obstetric practices and to identify current patient factors that predict cesarean section. DESIGN: Descriptive retrospective cross-sectional study. SETTING: A tertiary care perinatal referral centre and a general teaching hospital with a level 2 nursery in Hamilton, Ont. PATIENTS: All patients who gave birth at the two hospitals in 1982 (4121 women) and 1990 (4431). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Cesarean section rates and indications and predictors of cesarean section. RESULTS: Although a trial of vaginal delivery after cesarean section was offered 93% more often in 1990 than in 1982 (p = 0.0002), the rate of vaginal delivery increased only 2.6%, for a reduction of 8.7% in the total cesarean section rate and of 15% in the repeat cesarean section rate. The incidence rate and treatment of dystocia did not change. The rate of cesarean section for breech presentation remained unchanged, and fetal distress was rarely confirmed with pH measurement in scalp blood before cesarean section. The most important predictors of cesarean section in 1990 were previous cesarean section and labour induction. For the nulliparous women and the multiparous women with no previous cesarean section labour induction was the most important predictor. CONCLUSIONS: The rate at which patients with previous cesarean section are offered a trial of vaginal delivery has increased significantly since 1982; however, the total and repeat cesarean section rates have not decreased proportionally. Induction of labour is currently the most important correctable predictor of cesarean section. The active management of dystocia, efforts to increase the rate of vaginal breech delivery and appropriate methods to diagnose fetal distress need to be improved; such improvements should reduce the cesarean section rate further.

To identify factors that are associated with a relatively low caesarean section (CS) rate by examining the CS rate in various subgroups in the Netherlands. Cross-sectional analysis. the Netherlands. A total of 685452 births in the Netherlands Perinatal Registry from 2007 to 2010. A modified classification system for CS was used to categorise all women into ten groups. Labour management, mode of delivery, maternal and neonatal morbidity and mortality were assessed according to these ten groups. Caesarean section, labour induction, instrumental delivery, postpartum haemorrhage, perineal laceration, duration of second stage of labour, Apgar score, fetal and neonatal mortality. Total CS rate was 15.6%. Term, nulliparous and parous women with a singleton pregnancy of a fetus in cephalic position and spontaneous onset of labour had CS rates of 9.6 and 1.9% and instrumental birth rates of 19.4 and 2.4%, respectively; 17.3% of births were induced. Among women with a previous CS and term, singleton pregnancies with a fetus in cephalic presentation, 71% had trial of labour, of which 75% had a successful vaginal birth. Of women with multiple gestation, 43% had CS. Women with CS due to 'failure to progress' in the second stage of labour had a median duration of second-stage pushing of almost 2hours in nulliparas and >90minutes in parous women. Several obstetric practice patterns may have contributed to the relatively low overall CS rate in the Netherlands: a relatively low CS rate in term, singleton pregnancies of a fetus in cephalic position and spontaneous onset of labour, relatively low rate of labour induction, a high rate of a trial of labour after a previous CS, the use of vacuum and forceps, and a high proportion of women being taken care of by midwives. The Netherlands has several practice patterns that may have contributed to its relatively low CS rate.

Caesarean section (CS) rates have been increasing worldwide and have caused concerns. For meaningful comparisons to be made World Health Organization recommends the use of the Ten-Group Robson classification as the global standard for assessing CS rates. 2625 women who birthed over a 12-month period were analysed using this classification. Women with previous CS (group 5) comprised 10.9% of the overall 23.5% CS rate. Women with one previous CS who did not attempt VBAC contributed 5.3% of the overall 23.5% CS rate. Second largest contributor was singleton nulliparous women with cephalic presentation at term (5.1% of the total 23.5%). Induction of labour was associated with higher CS rate (groups 1 and 3) (24.5% versus 11.9% and 6.2% versus 2.6%, resp.). For postdates IOL we recommend a gatekeeper booking system to minimise these being performed <41 weeks. We suggest setting up dedicated VBAC clinic to support for women with one previous CS. Furthermore review of definition of failure to progress in labour not only may lower CS rates in groups 1 and 2a but also would reduce the size of group 5 in the future.

IntroductionReasons for rising CS rates in the UK include rising maternal age at first pregnancy, improved safety of the procedure, changes in women's preferences and growing proportion of women with...

To explore the appropriate approach of delivery after cesarean section of Uyghur women in primary hospitals in Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region. A total of 5 154 women delivered in Luopu County People Hospital, Hetian Prefecture, Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region from January 2011 to December 2012. Among them, 178 Uyghur women had cesarean section history. The interval between the previous cesarean section and this delivery varied from 1 year to 17 years. The number of cases attempting vaginal labor and the indications of the previous cesarean section were recorded. The indications for the second cesarean section were analyzed. The gestational weeks at delivery, blood loss in 2 hours after delivery, neonatal birth weight, newborn asphyxia, the rate of postpartum fever (≥ 38 °C) and hospitalization days were compared between the two approaches of delivery. (1) Among the 178 cases, 119 cases attempted vaginal labor, the rate of attempting vaginal labor was 66.9% (119/178). A total of 113 cases succeeded in vaginal delivery (the vaginal delivery group), with the successful rate of attempting vaginal delivery of 95.0% (113/119), and the successful rate of vaginal delivery was 63.5% (113/178). For those 119 women succeeded in vaginal delivery, the indications of the previous cesarean sections were as following: pregnancy complications (68.1%, 81/119), macrosomia(5.0%, 6/119), dystocia (14.3%, 17/119), pregnancies complicated with other diseases (5.0%, 6/119) and cesarean section on maternal request (7.6%, 9/119). (2) 15 cases in the cesarean section group had postpartum hemorrhage, with the incidence of 13.3% (15/113). The mean total labor time was (507 ± 182) minutes. 6 cases attempting vaginal delivery failed and turned to cesarean section. (3) 59 cases received the second cesarean section (the cesarean section group). The rate of second cesarean section was 33.1% (59/178). The indications of the second cesarean section were as following: contracted pelvis (5%, 3/59), pregnancy complications (42%, 25/59), macrosomia (20%, 12/59), short interval between the two cesarean sections (≤ 2 years); (12%, 7/59) and cesarean section on maternal request (20%, 12/59). (4) Gestational weeks at delivery, rates of newborn asphyxia in the vaginal delivery and cesarean section groups showed no significant statistical difference (P > 0.05). In the vaginal delivery group, the average blood loss in 2 hours after delivery was (259 ± 213) ml, the rate of postpartum fever was 10.6%, the mean fetal birth weight was (3 272 ± 477)g and the mean hospitalization was (1.8 ± 1.6) d. In the cesarean section group, they were (400 ± 320) ml, 54.2%, (3 539 ± 500)g and (8.7 ± 2.2)d, respectively. There was significant statistical difference (P < 0.01) between the two groups. Vaginal delivery after cesarean section could be attemped in Uyghur pregnant women in Xinjiang primary hospitals, if doctors could choose the indications strictly and monitor closely. These could increase the success rate and safety of vaginal delivery and therefore reduce the cesarean section rate.