Literature DB >> 26216434

Caesarean section rates in subgroups of women and perinatal outcomes.

J Zhang1, C Geerts2, C Hukkelhoven3, P Offerhaus4, J Zwart5, A de Jonge2.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To identify factors that are associated with a relatively low caesarean section (CS) rate by examining the CS rate in various subgroups in the Netherlands.
DESIGN: Cross-sectional analysis. SETTINGS: the Netherlands. POPULATION: A total of 685 452 births in the Netherlands Perinatal Registry from 2007 to 2010.
METHODS: A modified classification system for CS was used to categorise all women into ten groups. Labour management, mode of delivery, maternal and neonatal morbidity and mortality were assessed according to these ten groups. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Caesarean section, labour induction, instrumental delivery, postpartum haemorrhage, perineal laceration, duration of second stage of labour, Apgar score, fetal and neonatal mortality.
RESULTS: Total CS rate was 15.6%. Term, nulliparous and parous women with a singleton pregnancy of a fetus in cephalic position and spontaneous onset of labour had CS rates of 9.6 and 1.9% and instrumental birth rates of 19.4 and 2.4%, respectively; 17.3% of births were induced. Among women with a previous CS and term, singleton pregnancies with a fetus in cephalic presentation, 71% had trial of labour, of which 75% had a successful vaginal birth. Of women with multiple gestation, 43% had CS. Women with CS due to 'failure to progress' in the second stage of labour had a median duration of second-stage pushing of almost 2 hours in nulliparas and >90 minutes in parous women.
CONCLUSIONS: Several obstetric practice patterns may have contributed to the relatively low overall CS rate in the Netherlands: a relatively low CS rate in term, singleton pregnancies of a fetus in cephalic position and spontaneous onset of labour, relatively low rate of labour induction, a high rate of a trial of labour after a previous CS, the use of vacuum and forceps, and a high proportion of women being taken care of by midwives. TWEETABLE ABSTRACT: The Netherlands has several practice patterns that may have contributed to its relatively low CS rate.
© 2015 Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Caesarean section; classification; labour; maternal; the Netherlands

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 26216434     DOI: 10.1111/1471-0528.13520

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  BJOG        ISSN: 1470-0328            Impact factor:   6.531


  13 in total

1.  What is an appropriate caesarean delivery rate for China: a multicentre survey.

Authors:  Y Zhang; A P Betran; X Li; D Liu; N Yuan; L Shang; W Lin; S Tu; L Wang; X Wu; T Zhu; Y Zhang; Z Lu; L Zheng; C Gu; J Fang; Z Liu; L Ma; Z Cai; X Yang; H Li; H Zhang; X Zhao; L Yan; L Wang; X Sun; Q Luo; L Liu; J Zhu; W Qin; Q Yao; S Dong; Y Yang; Z Cui; Y He; X Feng; L He; H Zhang; L Zhang; X Wang; J P Souza; H Qi; T Duan; J Zhang
Journal:  BJOG       Date:  2021-10-26       Impact factor: 7.331

2.  Use of Robson classification to assess cesarean section rate in Brazil: the role of source of payment for childbirth.

Authors:  Marcos Nakamura-Pereira; Maria do Carmo Leal; Ana Paula Esteves-Pereira; Rosa Maria Soares Madeira Domingues; Jacqueline Alves Torres; Marcos Augusto Bastos Dias; Maria Elisabeth Moreira
Journal:  Reprod Health       Date:  2016-10-17       Impact factor: 3.223

3.  Regional variations in childbirth interventions in the Netherlands: a nationwide explorative study.

Authors:  A E Seijmonsbergen-Schermers; D C Zondag; M Nieuwenhuijze; T Van den Akker; C J Verhoeven; C Geerts; F Schellevis; A De Jonge
Journal:  BMC Pregnancy Childbirth       Date:  2018-06-01       Impact factor: 3.007

4.  Reintroducing vacuum extraction in primary health care facilities: a case study from Tanzania.

Authors:  Sunday Dominico; Patricia E Bailey; Nguke Mwakatundu; Mkambu Kasanga; Jos van Roosmalen
Journal:  BMC Pregnancy Childbirth       Date:  2018-06-19       Impact factor: 3.007

5.  Implementation of the WHO manual for Robson classification: an example from Sri Lanka using a local database for developing quality improvement recommendations.

Authors:  Hemantha Senanayake; Monica Piccoli; Emanuelle Pessa Valente; Caterina Businelli; Rishard Mohamed; Roshini Fernando; Anshumalie Sakalasuriya; Fathima Reshma Ihsan; Benedetta Covi; Humphrey Wanzira; Marzia Lazzerini
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2019-02-19       Impact factor: 3.006

6.  Dissecting the current caesarean section rate in Shanghai, China.

Authors:  Yanhong Ming; Meng Li; Fei Dai; Rong Huang; Jinwen Zhang; Lin Zhang; Ming Qin; Liping Zhu; Hongping Yu; Jun Zhang
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2019-02-14       Impact factor: 4.379

7.  A cluster-randomized field trial to reduce cesarean section rates with a multifaceted intervention in Shanghai, China.

Authors:  Lulu Zhang; Lin Zhang; Meng Li; Jie Xi; Xiaohua Zhang; Zhenni Meng; Ying Wang; Huaping Li; Xiaohua Liu; Feihua Ju; Yuping Lu; Huijun Tang; Xianju Qin; Yanhong Ming; Rong Huang; Guohong Li; Hongying Dai; Rong Zhang; Min Qin; Liping Zhu; Jun Zhang
Journal:  BMC Med       Date:  2020-02-14       Impact factor: 8.775

8.  Modest Rise in Caesarean Section from 2000-2010: The Dutch Experience.

Authors:  Yanjun Zhao; Jun Zhang; Chantal Hukkelhoven; Pien Offerhaus; Joost Zwart; Ank de Jonge; Caroline Geerts
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2016-05-18       Impact factor: 3.240

9.  In which groups of pregnant women can the caesarean delivery rate likely be reduced safely in the USA? A multicentre cross-sectional study.

Authors:  Jin-Wen Zhang; Ware Branch; Matthew Hoffman; Ank De Jonge; Sheng-Hui Li; James Troendle; Jun Zhang
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2018-08-05       Impact factor: 2.692

10.  Use of Cesarean Birth among Robson Groups 2 and 4 at Mizan-Tepi University Hospital, Ethiopia.

Authors:  Margo S Harrison; Tewodros Liyew; Ephrem Kirub; Biruk Teshome; Andrea Jimenez-Zambrano; Margaret Muldrow; Teklemariam Yarinbab
Journal:  Obstet Gynecol Int       Date:  2020-09-04
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.