Abstract

Background: Even though the caesarean section is an essential component of comprehensive obstetric and new born care for reducing maternal and neonatal mortality, higher rates do not necessarily imply better quality of care. Primary caesarean section rate is one of the main indicators of quality of care and hospital rankings are usually based on it, therefore lower rates reflect more appropriate clinical practice. The aim of this study is to describe the demographics and one-year trend of Caesarean rate in a border static hospital in India from January 2019 to December 2019. 

Methods: Details of 440 deliveries occurring from January 2019 to December 2019 were collected from hospital records from statistics section of a border static hospital in India and analysed.

Results: 337 patients (76.59%) had normal vaginal deliveries whilst 103 patients (23.40%) underwent Caesarean section. 

Conclusion: Antenatal Care visit is an opportune time to explain the indications and hazards associated with CS birth and women should be educated and encouraged for normal vaginal delivery rather than drifting woman towards profit driven unnecessary and unwarranted caesarean sections. The most fertile age group was between 20 - 38 years of age and patients who had normal vaginal were comparatively younger as compared to those who underwent Caesarean section. Multi gravid women had higher rates of Caesarean as compared to primigravida. Urban, educated women from well to do families had higher rates of Caesarean section as compared to rural women from lower socioeconomic strata. The rate of Caesarean section is high and there is a need to maintain a fine balance between a decision to perform a Caesarean section to reduce maternal and perinatal mortality rate and an unnecessary caesarean section causing pulling resources away from other services in an already overloaded and weak health system.

Keywords: Caesarean Section; Normal Delivery; Rate of Caesarean Section; Quality Health Care; Institutional Delivery; Primary Caesarean Section

References

1. Triunfo S., et al. “Identification of obstetric targets for reducing cesarean section rate using the Robson ten Group classification in a tertiary level hospital”. European Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology and Reproductive Biology 189 (2015): 91-95. 
2. World Health Organization Human Reproduction Programme. “WHO statement on caesarean section rates”. Reproductive Health Matters 23.45 (2015): 149-150. 
3. Althabe F., et al. “Caesarean section rates and maternal and neonatal mortality in low-, medium- and high-income countries: an ecological study”. Birth 33 (2006): 270-277. 
4. Souza J., et al. “Cesarean section without medical indications is associated with an increased risk of adverse short-term maternal outcomes: the 2004-2008 WHO global survey on maternal and perinatal health”. BMC Medicine 8 (2010): 71. 
5. Betrán AP., et al. “The increasing trend in cesarean section rates: global, regional and national estimates: 1990-2014”. PLoS One 11.2 (2016): e0148343. 
6. District level household and facility survey (DLHS-3) [Internet]. Mumbai: International Institute for Population Sciences (2017). 
7. Feng XL., et al. “Factors influencing rising cesarean section rates in China between 1988 and 2008”. Bulletin of the World Health Organization 90.1 (2012): 30A-39A. 
8. Lin H-C., et al. “Association between maternal age and the likelihood of a cesarean section: a population-based multivariate logistic regression analysis”. Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica 83 (2004): 1178-1183. 
9. Khanal V., et al. “Adverse obstetric symptoms and rural-urban difference in cesarean delivery in Rupandehi district, western Nepal: a cohort study”. Reproductive Health 13 (2016): 17. 
10. Ronsmans C., et al. “Socioeconomic differentials in cesarean rates in developing countries: a retrospective analysis”. Lancet 368.9546 (2006): 1516-1523. 
11. Boatin AA., et al. “Within country inequalities in caesarean section rates: observational study of 72 low and middle income countries”. British Medical Journal 360 (2018): k55. 
12. Horowitz BJ., et al. “Once a cesarean... Always a cesarean”. Obstetrical and Gynecological Survey 36.10 (1981): 592. 
13. Ashimi AO., et al. “Knowledge and attitude of pregnant women to cesarean section in a semi-urban community in Northwest Nigeria”. Journal of the West African College of Surgeons 3.2 (2013): 46.
14. Bashoura H., et al. “Syrian Women’s perceptions and experiences of ultrasound screening in pregnancy: implications for antenatal policy”. Reproductive Health Matters 13 (2005): 147-154. 
15. Fuglenes D., et al. “Obstetricians' choice of cesarean delivery in ambiguous cases: is it influenced by risk attitude or fear of complaints and litigation?” American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 200.1 (2009): 48.e1-48.e8.