medigraphic.com
Federación Mexicana de Ginecología y Obstetricia, A.C.

2023, Number 08

<< Back Next >>

Ginecol Obstet Mex 2023; 91 (08)

Robson index, c-section risk in a first level center in Mexico

Ramírez FDA, Ruiz CIL, Moreno LRJ, López SA, Fuentes AZR, Ayala-Yáñez R

Language: Spanish
References: 35
Page: 570-580
PDF size: 205.02 Kb.


ABSTRACT

Objective: To determine, according to the Robson Index, the caesarean section rate in patients attended, over a period of nine months, at the Maternal and Infant Research Centre of the Childbirth Studies Group.
Materials and Methods: Retrospective, cross-sectional, descriptive, single-centre study carried out in pregnant patients attended at the Maternal and Infant Research Centre of the Childbirth Study Group (CIMIGen) who terminated gestation by caesarean section and in whom the Robson index was used for classification. Study parameters: indications for caesarean section, risk of loss of fetal well-being, high labour progression, failure of labour induction, macrosomia, short inter-gestational period (less than 18 months).
Results: We obtained 569 patients of whom 228 terminated pregnancy by caesarean section and 341 by delivery, representing a caesarean section rate of 39.9%. Applying Robson's classification method, the groups with the highest relative contribution to the overall caesarean section rate were: group 1 (17.62%), group 2, subdivided into its two categories: 2a with 19.38% and 2b 17.18%; and group 5.1 (22.91%) and group 5.2 (3.96%). The main indications for caesarean section were 1) risk of loss of fetal well-being (18.9%), 2) failure of labour to progress (16.7%), 3) failure of induction of labour (11.1%), 4) macrosomia (7.2%) and 5) short inter-gestational period (7.2%).
Conclusions: Robson's index pointed to groups 1, 2 and 5 as the largest contributors to the caesarean section rate at CIMIGen. This trend, groups 1 and 2 with high percentages, is also seen in other facilities in Mexico, which may indicate an obstetric care practice that needs to be reviewed. This is also seen in other countries, although the percentages are different but still considerable in groups 1, 2 and 5.


REFERENCES

  1. Caesarean section rates continue to rise, amid growinginequalities in access. WHO. https://www.who.int/news/item/16-06-2021-caesarean-section-rates-continue-torise-amid-growing-inequalities-in-access

  2. Perner MS, Ortigoza A, Trotta A, Yamada G, Braverman-Bronstein A, et al. Cesarean sections and social inequalitiesin 305 cities of Latin America. SMM PopulationHealth 2022; 19: 101239. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssmph.2022.101239

  3. Día Internacional de la Partera 2022. Entornos, habilidades,laborales, normativos y de práctica: valorando yrespetando a las parteras profesionales y a las mujeres.Mayo, 2022. UNFPA México. https://mexico.unfpa.org/es/news/d%C3%ADa-internacional-de-la-partera-2022-entornos-habilitantes-laborales-normativos-y-depractica

  4. Suárez López M, Campero L, De la Vara Salazar E, RiveraRivera L, Hernández Serrato MI, Walker D, et al. Característicassociodemográficas y reproductivas asociadas con elaumento de cesáreas en México. Salud Pública de México2013; 55 (2): 225-34. doi:10.21149/spm.v55s2.5119

  5. Human Reproduction Program. Declaración de la OMSsobre tasas de cesárea. OMS, 2015. https://www.who.int/reproductivehealth/publications/maternal_perinatal_health/cs-statement/es/

  6. La clasificación de Robson: Manual de aplicación. Washington:Organización Panamericana de la Salud, 2018.Licencia: CC BY‐NC‐SA 3.0 IGO. https//creativecommons.org/license/by-nc-sa/3.0/igo

  7. La clasificación de Robson: Ejemplo de informe tabularde Robson y su interpretación. Washington: OrganizaciónPanamericana de la Salud, 2018. Licencia: CC BY-NC-SA 3.0IGO. https://iris.paho.org/handle/10665.2/49657

  8. Censo de Población y Vivienda 2020, INEGI. https://www.inegi.org.mx/app/cpv/2020/resultadosrapidos/default.html?texto=Iztapalapa.

  9. Documento SEGO. Uso inapropiado del término sufrimientofetal. Prog Obstet Ginecol 2002; 45: 359-60.

  10. Alfirevic Z, Devane D, Gyte GM, Cuthbert A. Continuous cardiotocography(CTG) as a form of electronic fetal monitoring(EFM) for fetal assessment during labor. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2017; 2: CD006066. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD006066.pub3.

  11. Recomendaciones para la estimulación del trabajo departo. WHO_RHR_15.05_spa. http.//apps.who.int WHO_RHR_15.05_spa.pdf

  12. Dalma C, Gimenez MA, Veiga MA, López DF, Toffolón N,Campos-Flores J. Guía de Práctica Clínica. Manejo deltrabajo de parto de bajo riesgo. Hosp. Materno InfantilRamón Sardá, 2019: www.sarda.org.ar

  13. ACOG Committee on Practice Bulletins – Obstetrics.ACOG Practice Bulletin No. 107: induction of labor.Obstet Gynecol 2009; 114 (2 Pt 1): 386-97. doi:10.1097/AOG.0b013e3181b48ef5

  14. Peña Salas MS, Escribano Cobalea E, López González C.Macrosomía fetal: factores de riesgo y resultados perinatales.Clínica e Investigación en Ginecología y Obstetricia2021. doi:10.1016/j.gine.2020.09.003

  15. Zavala-García A, Ortiz-Reyes H, Salomón-Kuri J, Padilla-Amigo C, Preciado-Ruíz R. Periodo intergenésico: Revisiónde la literatura. Rev Chil Obstet Ginecol 2018; 83: 52-61.http://dx.doi.org/10.4067/s0717-75262018000100052

  16. American Diabetes Association; 2. Classification and Diagnosisof Diabetes: Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes-2021. Diabetes Care; 44 (Supplement 1): S15-S33. https://doi.org/10.2337/dc21-S002

  17. Alexander EK, Pearce EN, Brent GA, Brown RS, Chen H, etal. 2017 Guidelines of the American Thyroid Association forthe diagnosis and management of thyroid disease duringpregnancy and the postpartum. Thyroid 2017; 27: 315-89.doi:10.1089/thy.2016.0457

  18. Magee LA, Pels A, Helewa M, Rey E, von Dadelszen P;Canadian Hypertensive Disorders of Pregnancy WorkingGroup, diagnosis, evaluation, and management of thehypertensive disorders of pregnancy: executive summary.J Obstet Gynaecol Can 2014; 36: 416-41. doi:10.1016/s1701-2163(15)30588-0

  19. Haemoglobin concentrations for the diagnosis of anemiaand assessment of severity. World Health Organization,Vitamin and Mineral Nutrition Information System.https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/85839/WHO_NMH_NHD_MNM_11.1_eng.pdf

  20. Le Ray C, Blondel B, Prunet C, Khireddine I, Deneux-TharauxC, Goffinet F. Establishing the cesarean rate: which targetpopulation? BJOG 2015; 122: 690-99. doi:10.1111/1471-0528.13199

  21. Martínez-Rodríguez DL, Serrano-Díaz LC, Bravo-AguirreDE, Serna-Vela FJ, Robles-Martínez MC. Utilidad y eficaciade la clasificación de Robson para disminuir la tasa decesáreas. Ginecol Obstet Mex 2018; 86: 627-33. https://doi.org/10.24245/gom.v86i10.1462

  22. Zuleta-Tobón JJ, Quintero-Rincón F, Quiceno-CeballosAM. Aplicación del modelo de Robson para caracterizar larealización de cesáreas en una institución de tercer nivelde atención en Medellín, Colombia. Estudio de cohortetransversal. Rev Colomb Obstet Ginecol 2013; 64: 90-99.https:77doi.org/10.18597/rcog.115

  23. Jarrod KH, Eng LT, Kanagalingan D, Lay KT. Rational dissectionof a high institutional cesarean section rate: An analysisusing the Robson Ten Group Classification System. J ObstetGynaecol Res 2015; 41: 534-9. doi: 10.1111/jog.12608

  24. Paixao ES, Bottomley C, Smeeth L, da Costa MCN, TiexeiraMG, Ichihara MY, et al. Using the Robson classification toassess caeserean section rates in Brazil: an observationalstudy of more than 24 million births from 2011 to 2017.BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 2021; 30 (21): 589. doi:10.1186/s12884-021-04060-5.

  25. Eftekharian C, Husslein PW, Lehner R. Cesarean section rateand perinatal outcome analysis according to Robson’s 10group classification system. Matern Child Health J 2021;25: 1474-81. doi:10.1007/s10995-021-03183-7

  26. Ocampo Torres M, Fernández Vargas PX, Azuara GutiérrezA, Franco Hervert MA, Flores Hernández VM, Hernández delÁngel I, et al. Caracterización de la operación cesárea en elHospital General de la Huasteca, según clasificación de Robson.Gaceta Hidalguense de Investigación en Salud 2021; 9.https://s-salud.hidalgo.gob.mx/contenido/informacion/gaceta/2021/Art%C3%ADculo-Ces%C3%A1rea.Gaceta-2021-1.pdf

  27. Gregory KD. Monitoring, risk adjustment and strategies todecrease cesarean rates. Curr Op Obstet Gynecol 2000; 12:481-6. doi: 10.1097/00001703-200012000-00004

  28. Evidence-based Practice Center Systematic Review Protocol:Strategies to reduce cesarean. May 2011. www.effectivehealtcare.ahrq.gov

  29. Documento SEGO. Uso inapropiado del término sufrimientofetal. Prog Obstet Ginecol 2002; 45: 359-60. https://www.elsevier.es/index.php?p=revista&pRevista=pdf-simple&pii=S0304501302758007&r=151

  30. Álvarez-Zapata EA, González Hernández LM, JiménezArango NB, Zuleta Tobón JJ. Cumplimiento inadecuado delas recomendaciones para el proceso de la inducción deltrabajo de parto como desencadenante de la cesárea enmujeres con embarazo simple a término. Estudio descriptivo.Rev Colomb Obstet Ginecol 2019; 70: 103-114. https://doi.org/10.18597/rcog.3275.

  31. Gobierno de Mexico. Metodología General Para la Evaluaciónde Proyectos de Hospitales de Tercer Nivel. Gobiernode México, 2015. https://www.gob.mx/cms/uploads/attachment/file/21382/Met_Hospitales.pdf

  32. Yanxin Wu, Kataria Y, Wang Z, Ming Wai-Kit, Ellervik C.Factors associated with successful vaginal birth after acesarean section: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 2019; 19, 360. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12884-019-2517-y.

  33. Nirmal D. Clinical Guideline for: The management of vaginalbirth after caesarean (VBAC). 2021. National HealthService. https://www.nnuh.nhs.uk

  34. Middleton P, Shepherd E, Crowther CA. Induction of labourfor improving birth outcomes for women at or beyondterm. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2018; 5: CD004945. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD004945.pub4

  35. Freret TS, Woods GT, James KE, Kaimal AJ, Clapp MA.Incidence of and risk factors for failed induction of laborusing a contemporary definition. Obstet Gynecol 2021; 137:497-504. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000004257




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com