alexa A Review of Caesarean Sections Using the Ten-group Classification System (Robson Classification) in the Korle-Bu Teaching Hospital (KBTH), Accra, Ghana
ISSN: 2161-0932
Gynecology & Obstetrics
Like us on:
Make the best use of Scientific Research and information from our 700+ peer reviewed, Open Access Journals that operates with the help of 50,000+ Editorial Board Members and esteemed reviewers and 1000+ Scientific associations in Medical, Clinical, Pharmaceutical, Engineering, Technology and Management Fields.
Meet Inspiring Speakers and Experts at our 3000+ Global Conferenceseries Events with over 600+ Conferences, 1200+ Symposiums and 1200+ Workshops on
Medical, Pharma, Engineering, Science, Technology and Business

A Review of Caesarean Sections Using the Ten-group Classification System (Robson Classification) in the Korle-Bu Teaching Hospital (KBTH), Accra, Ghana

Samba A* and Mumuni K

Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Ghana School of Medicine and Dentistry (UGSMD), Korle-Bu, Accra, Ghana

*Corresponding Author:
Samba A
Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology
University of Ghana School of Medicine and Dentistry (UGSMD)
Korle-Bu, Accra, Ghana
Tel: 0267647367
E-mail: [email protected]

Received Date: May 04, 2016; Accepted Date: June 11, 2016; Published Date: June 17, 2016

Citation: Samba A, Mumuni K (2016) A Review of Caesarean Sections Using the Ten-group Classification System (Robson Classification) in the Korle-Bu Teaching Hospital (KBTH), Accra, Ghana. Gynecol Obstet (Sunnyvale) 6:385. doi:10.4172/2161-0932.1000385

Copyright: © 2016 Samba A, et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Visit for more related articles at Gynecology & Obstetrics

Abstract

Objectives: To determine the relative contributions of each of the 10 groups to overall caesarean section rate and identify modifiable groups for intervention to reduce caesarean section rates.

Methods: Retrospective record review of the Robson Ten-Group Classification System (RTGCS) for caesarean sections from the statistical department of the Obstetrics and Gynaecology department.

Results: The overall caesarean section rate is 46.9%. The contribution to the overall caesarean section rate in descending order is as follows: Group 5 (previous CS, single, cephalic, >37 weeks), group 2 (nulliparous, single cephalic, >37 weeks, induced or CS before labor), group 4 (multiparous (excluding previous CS), single cephalic, >37 weeks, induced or CS before labor), group 10 (all single cephalic, <36 weeks (including previous CS), group 3 (Multiparous (excluding previous CS), single cephalic, >37 weeks in spontaneous labor), group 7 (All multiparous breeches (including previous CS)), group 1 (Nulliparous, single cephalic, >37 weeks in spontaneous labor), group 6 (All nulliparous breeches), group 8 (All multiple pregnancies (including previous CS)), and group 9 (All abnormal lies (including previous CS).

Conclusion: Groups 2, 4 and 5 were found to be the major contributors to the overall caesarean section rates and the modifiable factors for consideration in reducing caesarean section rates would be to improve the number of successful inductions of labour. This will decrease primary caesarean section rates, and decrease the numbers for trial of labour after caesarean section (TOLAC). TOLAC should be offered as per protocols and not left to individual obstetrician discretion.

Keywords

Caesarean section rate; group; Robson; contribution

Introduction

It is a well acknowledged fact that the caesarean section rates have continued to increase worldwide [1,2] and the rate of increase is highest in low income countries [3].

The worldwide rise in CS is a major public health concern and cause of considerable debate due to potential maternal and perinatal risks, cost issues and inequity in access [4,5]. An increase in the use of CS particularly in the public sector and in low-resource settings may notably affect health services by increased rates of maternal/neonatal complications [6] but also in economic terms [7].

It has been noted that no agreement has been reached on an appropriate caesarean section rate, [1,8-10]. However, WHO and the US Healthy People 2000 initiative, suggested 10-15% as the optimal caesarean section rate [11,12]. It is however difficult to determine optimal rates for institutions, especially referral centers. Setting up optimal rates needs to consider the possibility of unmet need for caesarean sections as well. It has been suggested that caesarean section rates should no longer be thought has been too high or too low but rather whether they are appropriate or not, after taking into consideration all relevant information [13].

To capture all relevant information the Robson criteria with various modifications have been put forward and been used in many centers worldwide.

The Robson classification system allows reflection, research at local, regional and national levels to better guide future care [14] and the modified versions enable comparisons of rate and indications as well [14].

The Robson criteria is a ten group classification system (RTGCS) using 10 mutually exclusive and totally inclusive categories for caesarean section i.e. all women can only be classified into only one group, as shown below (Table 1).

Number Group
1. Nulliparous, single cephalic, >37 weeks in spontaneous labor
2. Nulliparous, single cephalic, >37 weeks, induced or CS before labor
3. Multiparous (excluding previous CS), single cephalic, >37 weeks in spontaneous labor
4. Multiparous (excluding previous CS), single cephalic, >37 weeks, induced or CS before labor
5. Previous CS, single cephalic, >37 weeks
6. All nulliparous breeches
7. All multiparous breeches (including previous CS)
8. All multiple pregnancies (including previous CS)
9. All abnormal lies (including previous CS)
10. All single cephalic, <36 weeks (including previous CS)

Table 1: Robson’s 10-Group Classification [15].

Korle-Bu Teaching Hospital is the main tertiary referral center conducting approximately 10,000 deliveries annually. It has 2 operating obstetric theatres. Over the years various attempts have been made to reduce caesarean section rates with no success. In the last decade the rate has persisted between 40-50%.

It has been noted that obstetricians and midwives may know less about events and outcomes in their own unit compared with their knowledge of published research and that professionals have a responsibility to practice evidence-based medicine but they should not forget their responsibility to collect the evidence to ensure that they are providing good quality care to their patients [2].

Against this background the aim of this study was to apply the original RTGCS to caesarean sections in KBTH, in order to determine the rates in the different groups and the contribution of each group to the over rate. This would then enable the development of appropriate auditing and targeted interventions to reduce caesarean section rates appropriately.

Methods

This is a retrospective record review of the RTGCS for caesarean sections from the statistical unit of the Obstetrics department of KBTH. The statistical department at the beginning of the year used the system to enter the caesarean section data and was able to compile a table for the analysis.

Results

The total number of deliveries over the period was 9215 out of which 4331 were caesarean deliveries, giving an overall caesarean section rate of 46.9% (Table 2).

Classification group Number of caesarean sections(A) Number of deliveries (B) Rate of each group(A/B*100) Relative size in each group(B/total number of deliveries *100) Contribution of each group overall C/S rate(A/total number of deliveries *100)
1 115 981 11.7 10.6 1.2
2 494 659 75.0 7.2 5.4
3 186 2050 9.1 22.2 2.0
4 524 811 64.6 8.8 5.7
5 1034 1271 81.4 13.8 11.2
6 74 107 69.2 1.2 0.8
7 162 236 68.6 2.6 1.8
8 68 164 41.5 1.8 0.7
9 48 48 100 0.5 0.5
10 424 1182 35.9 12.8 4.6
11 1202 1706 70.5 18.5 13.0
Total 4331 9215   100 46.9

Table 2: Rate of caesarean section by Robson classification groups for the year 2015.

The contribution to the overall caesarean section rate in descending order is as follows:

Group 5 (previous CS, single, cephalic, >37 weeks), group 2 (nulliparous, single cephalic, >37 weeks, induced or CS before labor), group 4 (multiparous (excluding previous CS), single cephalic, >37 weeks, induced or CS before labor), group 10 (all single cephalic, <36 weeks (including previous CS)), group 3 (Multiparous (excluding previous CS), single cephalic, >37 weeks in spontaneous labor), group 7 (All multiparous breeches (including previous CS)), group 1 (Nulliparous, single cephalic, >37 weeks in spontaneous labor), group 6 (All nulliparous breeches) and 8 (All multiple pregnancies (including previous CS)), and group 9 (All abnormal lies (including previous CS)) (Tables 3 and 4).

Rank Classification group Contribution of each group overall C/S rate(A/total number of deliveries *100)
1 5 11.2
2 4 5.7
3 2 5.4
4 10 4.6
5 3 2.0
6 7 1.8
7  1 1.2
8  6 0.8
9  8 0.7
10  9 0.5

Table 3: Ranking of Group contributions to overall caesarean section rate

 

Rank Percentage Classification group
1 100 9
2 81.4 5
3 75.0 2
4 69.2 6
5 68.6 7
6 64.6 4
7 41.5  8
8 35.9 10
9 11.7  1
10 9.1  3

Table 4: Ranking Robson class according to rates in each group

Discussion

The caesarean section rates across the globe have been increasing though rates have varied from center to center. In caesarean section rate in KBTH of 46.9% is comparable to rates in the countries with high development index (HDI) such as Brazil, Mexico, China etc., but much higher than country averages of low development index (LDI) countries such as Kenya, Nigeria, Uganda, etc. KBTH being a biggest referral center could be partly responsible for this disparity.

From the Robson classification, groups 2, 4 and 5 contributed nearly half (47.5%) of the overall caesarean section rate. In other studies group 1 replaces group 4 [16-18]. This clearly demonstrates the significance of the Robson criteria, where different institutions and countries would have to develop different strategies to address the caesarean section rates.

There is clear evidence from this finding that unsuccessful inductions of labour is the biggest contribution to the high caesarean section rate, elective caesarean sections for both groups 2 and 4 would have clear indications to avoid vaginal delivery. Therefore a critical review of induction protocols would have to be considered and probably modified or adhered to as much as possible.

Trial of labour after caesarean section (TOLAC) is the only remedy to decreasing group 5s contribution to caesarean section rates but the criteria for TOLAC has never being straight forward and tends to be at the discretion of individual obstetrician and risk taking attitude. And often times counseling of the patient is undirected towards this attitude. And in the event of untoward outcome, labour wards staffs (residents and midwives) are so chastised so severely that it kills their initiative and boldness to manage such cases appropriately and so they tend to intervene too soon. Addressing this would mean consultants who offer TOLAC to clients must also review these clients regularly with junior colleagues.

However, it must be made clear that decreasing the primary caesarean section rates is the key to reducing overall caesarean section rates. And so attempts should be made to perform most caesarean sections for obstetric reasons. For all other groups optimizing maternal health and inducing labour appropriately would work especially for group 10.

Making available blood and blood products as well as emergency drugs would be imperative, not forgetting multidisciplinary approach to patient care.

There has been much concern about the appropriate management of the first stage of labour, when the active phase actually begins and therefore when to intervene. The important thing is to individualize every labour and so long as monitoring is good and mother and fetus are well, don’t set a time limit while patient is in a tertiary center. However, remember to involve patients in the decision-making process. One wonders looking back, how many patients had caesarean sections on account of prolonged latent phase. And therefore, is history not telling us in a subtle way to be careful at setting time limits for labour.

There is the general reluctance to offer ECV despite clear protocols and instruction on the procedure, and yet the surgeon’s knife awaits the breech in labour. Generally the fear and reluctance to carry out ECV is also translated to the fear and reluctance to carry out an assisted vaginal breech delivery. Both skills must be taught and reinforced by whatever means appropriate.

Group 11 which represents unclassified group for various reasons including missing data and hysterectomies contributes a high percentage (13%) to the overall caesarean section rates, this implies the enormous challenge of data collection and cleaning that low resource centers still face. That notwithstanding, excluding group 11 from the analysis did not change the trends and ranking of the groups in their contribution to the overall caesarean section rates, making the forgone discussion still appropriate and valid.

Conclusion

From this Robson classification of caesarean sections in KBTH, groups 2, 4 and 5 were found to be the major contributors to the overall caesarean section rates and the modifiable factors for consideration in reducing caesarean section rates would be a strategy to improve number of inductions of labour as well number of successful inductions. This will decrease primary caesarean section rates, decrease number of previous caesarean sections and obviously decrease the numbers for TOLAC. TOLAC should be offered as per protocols and not left only to individual obstetrician discretion.

References

Select your language of interest to view the total content in your interested language
Post your comment

Share This Article

Relevant Topics

Recommended Conferences

  • 2nd World Congress on Embryology and In Vitro Fertilization March 30-31, 2018 Orlando, USA. Theme: Exploring the Novel Research & Techniques in Reproductive Health
    March 30-31, 2018 Orlando, USA
  • World Congress on Gynecology and Obstetrics
    April 16-17, 2018 Dubai, UAE
  • 7th International Conference on Clinical and Medical Case Reports June 01-02, 2018 Osaka, Japan Theme: Focusing the breakthroughs of case reports in Clinical & Medical Research
    June 01-02, 2018 Osaka, Japan
  • 7th International Conference and Exhibition on Surgery June 21-23, 2018 Dublin, Ireland Theme: Advancements and Endeavours in the Field of Surgery
    June 21-23, 2018 Dublin, Ireland Dublin, Ireland
  • Annual Congress on Research and Innovations in Medicine July 02-03, 2018 Bangkok, Thailand Theme: Current Research and Innovations in Medicine to Improve Human Health
    July 02-03, 2018 Bangkok, Thailand
  • International Conference on Medical and Health Science August 24-25, 2018 Tokyo, JAPAN Theme: Scrutinize the Modish of Medical and Health Science
    August 24-25, 2018 Tokyo, Japan
  • World Summit on Trauma and Reconstructive Surgery Sep 10-11, 2018 Singapore Theme: Expanding new horizons in Trauma and Surgery
    Sep 10-11, 2018 Singapore City, Singapore
  • 6th American Gynecological Surgery Conference September 28-29, 2018 San Antonio | Texas | USA
    September 28-29, 2018 San Antonio, USA
  • World Congress on Fetal and Maternal Medicine October 15-17, 2018 Osaka, Japan Theme: A New Beginning on Fetal, Maternal & Neonatal Medicine
    October 15-17, 2018 Osaka, Japan
  • International Conference on Reproduction and Fertility October 18-19, 2018 Abu Dhabi, UAE
    October 18-19, 2018 Abu Dhabi, UAE

Article Usage

  • Total views: 9630
  • [From(publication date):
    June-2016 - Feb 19, 2018]
  • Breakdown by view type
  • HTML page views : 9344
  • PDF downloads : 286
 

Post your comment

captcha   Reload  Can't read the image? click here to refresh

Peer Reviewed Journals
 
Make the best use of Scientific Research and information from our 700 + peer reviewed, Open Access Journals
International Conferences 2018-19
 
Meet Inspiring Speakers and Experts at our 3000+ Global Annual Meetings

Contact Us

Agri & Aquaculture Journals

Dr. Krish

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9040

Biochemistry Journals

Datta A

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9037

Business & Management Journals

Ronald

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9042

Chemistry Journals

Gabriel Shaw

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9040

Clinical Journals

Datta A

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9037

Engineering Journals

James Franklin

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9042

Food & Nutrition Journals

Katie Wilson

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9042

General Science

Andrea Jason

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9043

Genetics & Molecular Biology Journals

Anna Melissa

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9006

Immunology & Microbiology Journals

David Gorantl

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9014

Materials Science Journals

Rachle Green

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9039

Nursing & Health Care Journals

Stephanie Skinner

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9039

Medical Journals

Nimmi Anna

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9038

Neuroscience & Psychology Journals

Nathan T

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9041

Pharmaceutical Sciences Journals

Ann Jose

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9007

Social & Political Science Journals

Steve Harry

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9042

 
© 2008- 2018 OMICS International - Open Access Publisher. Best viewed in Mozilla Firefox | Google Chrome | Above IE 7.0 version