Assessment of the frequency of cesarean section according to the criteria of M. Robson in the Regional perinatal center №1 of Turkestan region

Objective. To identify and analyze the groups of women who contribute the greatest and least to the frequency of caesarean sections in general. Conducting an assessment of the frequency of caesarean sections in the Regional Perinatal Center №1 of the Turkestan region according to the classification of M. Robson.

Materials and methods. We conducted a retrospective analysis of the history of 5286 births in the Regional Perinatal Center No. 1. The history of childbirth of women who gave birth in 2022 was taken into account. According to the history of each birth to complete the table: method of delivery (delivery through the birth canal, caesarean section); parity (first time , repeated); number of fetuses (one, two, three or more); delivery period (up to 37 weeks., 37-40 weeks., 41-42 or more); type of fetal malformation (head, pelvis, transverse/ oblique); induction of labor (induction was carried out, induction was not carried out); spontaneous childbirth; the number of caesarean sections in the history (one or more) was taken into account.

Results and discussion. The group contributed the most to the total CS frequency were 5 groups – with a history of one or more CSs, one fetal head arrival, ≥37 weeks – 24.1%; the group contributed the least to the total CS frequency was 9 groups – single fetal pregnancy, women with a horizontal or oblique fetal position, including women with a history of one or more CSs – 2.2%.

Conclusion. The largest share of the group in the total frequency of CSwas Group 5 – 22.1% of all births, 888 (75.9%) of 1,170 women in this group underwent surgery, all pregnant women with scars on the uterus ; group 9 – 0.7% of births accounted for the smallest share of the group in the total frequency of CS, 100% of 38 women gave birth with CS.

1. «Denі sau ұlt» әrbіr azamat үshіn sapaly zhәne қolzhetіmdі densaulyқ saқtau» ұlttyқ zhobasy. Қazaқstan Respublikasy Үkіmetіnің 2021 zhylғy 12 қazandaғy № 725 қaulysymen bekіtіlgen //http://gp19.kz/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/deni-sau-%D2%B1lt.pdf (Zhүgіngen kүnі: 23.05.2024)

2. Betrán A. P. A systematic review of the Robson classification for caesarean section: What works, doesn’t work and how to improve it /A. P. Betrán, N. Vin devoghel, J. P. Souza //PLoS One. – 2014. – V. 9 (6). – e97769. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0097769.

3. Moore B. Appropriate technology for birth // The Lancet. – 1985. – T. 326. – №8458. – P. 787. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(85)90673-7.

4. Mylonas I. Indications for and risks of elective cesarean section /I. Mylonas, K. Friese //Dtsch. Arztebl. Int. – 2015. – V. 112 (29-30). – P. 489-495. doi: 10.3238/arztebl.2015.0489.

5. Robson M. Classification of caesarean sections //Fetal Matern. Med. Rev. – 2001. – V. 12 (1). – P. 23-39. doi: 10.1017/S0965539501000122.

6. Robson M. The Ten Group Classification System (TGCS)-a common starting point for more detailed analysis //BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology. – 2015. – V. 122, №5. – P. 701.

7. Robson M. S. Using the medical audit cycle to reduce cesarean section rates /M. S. Robson, I. W. Scudamore, S. M. Walsh //Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. – 1996. – V. 174. – P. 199-205. doi: 10.1016/ s0002-9378(96)70394-0.

8. SOGC COMMITTEE OPINION. Classification of caesarean sections in Canada: The modified Robson criteria //J. Obstet. Gynaecol. Can. – 2012. – V. 34 (10). – P. 976-979. doi: 10.1016/S17012163(16)35412-3.

9. Souza J. P. Caesarean section without medical indications is associated with an increased risk of adverse shortterm maternal outcomes: The 2004-2008 WHO Global Survey on Maternal and Perinatal Health /J. P. Souza, A. Gülmezoglu, P. Lumbiganon //BMC Med. – 2010. – V. 8. – P. 71. doi: 10.1186/1741-7015-8-71.

10. Thomas J. The national sentinel caesarean section audit /J. Thomas, A. Callwood, P. Brocklehurst //BJOG. – 2000. – V. 107 (5). – P. 579-580. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.2000.tb13296.

11. Torloni M. R. Classifications for cesarean section: A systematic review /M. R. Torloni, A. P. Betran, J. P. Souza //PLoS One. – 2011. – V. 6 (1). – e14566. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0014566.