Classifications for cesarean section: a systematic review

Maria Regina Torloni, Ana Pilar Betran, Joao Paulo Souza, Mariana Widmer, Tomas Allen, Metin Gulmezoglu, Mario Merialdi, Maria Regina Torloni, Ana Pilar Betran, Joao Paulo Souza, Mariana Widmer, Tomas Allen, Metin Gulmezoglu, Mario Merialdi

Abstract

Background: Rising cesarean section (CS) rates are a major public health concern and cause worldwide debates. To propose and implement effective measures to reduce or increase CS rates where necessary requires an appropriate classification. Despite several existing CS classifications, there has not yet been a systematic review of these. This study aimed to 1) identify the main CS classifications used worldwide, 2) analyze advantages and deficiencies of each system.

Methods and findings: Three electronic databases were searched for classifications published 1968-2008. Two reviewers independently assessed classifications using a form created based on items rated as important by international experts. Seven domains (ease, clarity, mutually exclusive categories, totally inclusive classification, prospective identification of categories, reproducibility, implementability) were assessed and graded. Classifications were tested in 12 hypothetical clinical case-scenarios. From a total of 2948 citations, 60 were selected for full-text evaluation and 27 classifications identified. Indications classifications present important limitations and their overall score ranged from 2-9 (maximum grade =14). Degree of urgency classifications also had several drawbacks (overall scores 6-9). Woman-based classifications performed best (scores 5-14). Other types of classifications require data not routinely collected and may not be relevant in all settings (scores 3-8).

Conclusions: This review and critical appraisal of CS classifications is a methodologically sound contribution to establish the basis for the appropriate monitoring and rational use of CS. Results suggest that women-based classifications in general, and Robson's classification, in particular, would be in the best position to fulfill current international and local needs and that efforts to develop an internationally applicable CS classification would be most appropriately placed in building upon this classification. The use of a single CS classification will facilitate auditing, analyzing and comparing CS rates across different settings and help to create and implement effective strategies specifically targeted to optimize CS rates where necessary.

Conflict of interest statement

Competing Interests: Academic conflict of interest: Five authors of the present study have published a study on CS in Latin America using one of the classifications evaluated in the present systematic review. Betran AP, Gulmezoglu AM, Robson M, Merialdi M, Souza JP et al. (2009) WHO global survey on maternal and perinatal health in Latin America: classifying caesarean sections. Reprod Health 6: 18.

Figures

Figure 1. Flow chart of the process…
Figure 1. Flow chart of the process of identifying and selecting classifications.

References

    1. Belizan JM, Althabe F, Cafferata ML. Health consequences of the increasing caesarean section rates. Epidemiology. 2007;18:485–486.
    1. Sachs BP, Kobelin C, Castro MA, Frigoletto F. The risks of lowering the cesarean-delivery rate. N Engl J Med. 1999;340:54–57.
    1. Wagner M. Fish can't see water: the need to humanize birth. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2001;75(Suppl 1):S25–S37.
    1. Thomas J, Paranhothy S. The National Sentinel Caesarean Section Audit Report. 2001.
    1. Betran AP, Merialdi M, Lauer JA, Bing-Shun W, Thomas J, et al. Rates of caesarean section: analysis of global, regional and national estimates. Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol. 2007;21:98–113.
    1. Robson MS. Classification of caesarean sections. Fetal and Maternal Medicine Review. 2001;12:23–39.
    1. Anderson GM, Lomas J. Determinants of the increasing cesarean birth rate. Ontario data 1979 to 1982. N Engl J Med. 1984;311:887–892.
    1. National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. Cesarean childbirth. Report of a consensus Development conference. DDHS publication. 1981:82–2067.
    1. Notzon FC, Cnattingius S, Bergsjo P, Cole S, Taffel S, et al. Cesarean section delivery in the 1980s: international comparison by indication. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1994;170:495–504.
    1. O'Driscoll K, Foley M, MacDonald D. Active management of labor as an alternative to cesarean section for dystocia. Obstet Gynecol. 1984;63:485–490.
    1. Paterson CM, Chapple JC, Beard RW, Joffe M, Steer PJ, et al. Evaluating the quality of the maternity services–a discussion paper. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1991;98:1073–1078.
    1. Robson MS, Scudamore IW, Walsh SM. Using the medical audit cycle to reduce cesarean section rates. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1996;174:199–205.
    1. Nicopoullos JDM, Karrar S, Gour A, Panter K. Significant improvement in quality of caesarean section documentation with dedicated operative proforma - Completion of the audit cycle. Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology. 2003;23:381–386.
    1. van DJ, Diesch M, Schutte J, Zwart J, Wolterbeek R, et al. Comparing grades of urgency for classification of cesarean delivery. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2009;107:16–18. PII: S0020-7292(09)00253-7; DOI: 10.1016/j.ijgo.2009.05.001.
    1. Althabe F, Belizan JM, Villar J, Alexander S, Bergel E, et al. Mandatory second opinion to reduce rates of unnecessary caesarean sections in Latin America: a cluster randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2004;363:1934–1940. PII: S0140-6736(04)16406-4; DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(04)16406-4.
    1. Calvo A, Campillo C, Juan M, Roig C, Hermoso JC, et al. Effectiveness of a multifaceted strategy to improve the appropriateness of cesarean sections. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2009;88:842–845. PII: 911868164; DOI: 10.1080/00016340903015313.
    1. Cisse CT, Faye EO, De BL, Dujardin B, Diadhiou F. Cesarean sections in Senegal: coverage of needs and quality of services. Sante 8: 369-377. Medline Unique Identifier. 1998;9854015
    1. Gregory KD, Henry OA, Gellens AJ, Hobel CJ, Platt LD. Repeat cesareans: How many are elective? Obstetrics and Gynecology. 1994;84:574–578.
    1. Kushtagi P, Guruvare S. Documenting indications for cesarean deliveries. J Postgrad Med. 2008;54:52–53.
    1. National Collaborating Centre for Women's and Childern's Health. Caesarean Section Clinical Guideline. 2004. pp. 1–142.
    1. Nico R. New proposal for classification of caesareans. Obstet Ginecol Lat Americ. 1990;48:242–247.
    1. Prytherch H, Massawe S, Kuelker R, Hunger C, Mtatifikolo F, et al. The unmet need for emergency obstetric care in Tanga Region, Tanzania. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2007;7:16. PII: 1471-2393-7-16; DOI: 10.1186/1471-2393-7-16.
    1. Stanton C, Ronsmans C, Bailey P, Belizan J, Buekens P, et al. Recommendations for routine reporting on indications for cesarean delivery in developing countries. Birth. 2008;35:204–211.
    1. UON Network. Tackling Unmet Need for Major Obstetric Interventions. 2000. pp. 1–22.
    1. Huissoud C, du MP, Sayegh I, Dupuis O, Clement HJ, et al. [Color-codes implementation shortens the decision-to-delivery interval of emergency C-sections]. J Gynecol Obstet Biol Reprod (Paris) 2009;38:51–59. PII:S0368-2315(08)00316-5; DOI: 10.1016/j.jgyn.2008.09.011.
    1. Lucas DN, Yentis SM, Kinsella SM, Holdcroft A, May AE, et al. Urgency of caesarean section: A new classification. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine. 2000;93:346–350.
    1. Cleary R, Beard RW, Chapple J, Coles J, Griffin M, et al. The standard primipara as a basis for inter-unit comparisons of maternity care. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1996;103:223–229.
    1. Denk CE, Kruse LK, Jain NJ. Surveillance of cesarean section deliveries, New Jersey, 1999-2004. Birth. 2006;33:203–209.
    1. Lieberman E, Lang JM, Heffner LJ, Cohen A. Assessing the role of case mix in cesarean delivery rates. Obstet Gynecol. 1998;92:1–7. PII: S0029-7844(98)00113-6.
    1. Department of RHR. WHO Global Survey on Maternal and Perinatal Health Project A25176- Operational Manual. 2004. unpublished.
    1. Guidotti R. Safety of CS in resource poor settings. 2008. unpublished.
    1. World Health Organization. International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems- Tenth Revision. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization; 1992. Pregnancy, childbirth and the puerperium. pp. 721–764.

Source: PubMed

Szponzorok és közreműködők

Egészségi állapot

Kábítószer-beavatkozások

3
Iratkozz fel