SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Journal of Surgery and Medicine / 2020 / Cilt: 4 - Sayı: 11

An evaluation of cesarean rate in turkey by the Robson ten group classification system: How to reduce cesarean rates?

Türkiye’de sezaryen oranlarının Robson ten group classification sistemi ile değerlendirilmesi; sezeryan oranları nasıl azaltılır?

Emre BAŞER
Demet AYDOĞAN KIRMIZI
Şafak ÖZDEMİRCİ
Taner KASAPOĞLU
Erhan DEMİRDAĞ
Ömer Lütfi TAPISIZ
Ethem Serdar YALVAÇ
Özlem MORALOĞLU TEKİN
Pages
1031–1035
Publication Date
2020-11-01
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

It was determined that the CS rate was 36% in 2011 and increased to 44% in 2014 (P

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Aim: Caesarean section (CS) rates, as is the case in the world, showed a significant increase in Turkey over the last decade.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The World Health Organization has approved the Robson10-Group Classification System (TGCS) as a global standard to facilitate the analysis and comparison of CS rates.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:It was determined that the CS rate was 36% in 2011 and increased to 44% in 2014 (P
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:2011 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Primer sezaryen · Artan sezaryen oranları · Robson sınıflaması

Abstract

Aim: Caesarean section (CS) rates, as is the case in the world, showed a significant increase in Turkey over the last decade. The World Health Organization has approved the Robson10-Group Classification System (TGCS) as a global standard to facilitate the analysis and comparison of CS rates. The present study aimed to analyze the TGCS to CS ratio in Turkey and determine CS reduction strategies. Methods: The data for this retrospective cohort study were collected from the records of women who gave birth between January 1, 2011 and December 31, 2014 in a tertiary center. All data were obtained from the hospital database and patient files. The patients were grouped using TGCS. The contribution of each group to CS ratios was determined. Results: Between 2011 and 2014, a total of 25,653 out of 63,476 deliveries were performed by CS. It was determined that the CS rate was 36% in 2011 and increased to 44% in 2014 (P

Özet

Amaç: Sezaryen (CS) oranları tüm dünyada olduğu gibi Türkiye’de son on yılda ciddi bir artış göstermiştir. Dünya Sağlık Örgütü, CS oranlarının analizini ve karşılaştırılmasını kolaylaştırmak için Robson10- Group Sınıflandırma Sistemini (TGCS) küresel bir standart olarak onaylamıştır. Bu çalışmanın amacı Türkiye’de TGCS ile CS oranlarının analiz edilerek CS’yi azaltma stratejilerinin belirlenmesidir. Yöntemler: Bu çalışma, 1 Ocak 2011 ve 31 Aralık 2014 tarihleri arasında üçüncü basamak bir merkezde doğum yapan kadınların kayıtları toplanarak yapılan retrospektif bir kohort çalışması olarak planlandı. Tüm veriler hastane veri tabanından ve hasta dosyalarından elde edildi. Hastalar TGCS kullanılarak gruplandırıldı. Her grubun CS oranlarına katkısı belirlendi. Bulgular: 2010-2014 tarihleri arasında 63.476 doğumdan 25.653'ü sezaryen ile gerçekleştirildi. CS oranı yıllar içinde istatistiksel olarak anlamlı artış göstermekteydi (P

🔖

Cite This Article

BAŞER, E., KIRMIZI, D. A., ÖZDEMİRCİ, Ş., KASAPOĞLU, T., DEMİRDAĞ, E., TAPISIZ, Ö. L., YALVAÇ, E. S., TEKİN, Ö. M. (2020). An evaluation of cesarean rate in turkey by the Robson ten group classification system: How to reduce cesarean rates?. Journal of Surgery and Medicine, Cilt: 4 - Sayı: 11, 1031–1035. https://ajindex.com/articles/780198

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (15)

  1. Todman D. A history of caesarean section: from ancient world to the modern era. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 2007;47(5):357-61
  2. Sewell JE. Cesarean section–a brief history. A brochure to accompany an exhibition on the history of cesarean section at the National Library of Medicine. 1993;30
  3. Chong C, Su LL, Biswas A. Changing trends of cesarean section births by the Robson Ten Group Classification in a tertiary teaching hospital. Acta Obst Gyn Scand. 2012;91(12):1422-7
  4. Abdel‐Aleem H, Shaaban OM, Hassanin AI, Ibraheem AA. Analysis of cesarean delivery at Assiut University Hospital using the Ten Group Classification System. Int J Gynecol Obstet. 2013;123(2):119-23
  5. Santas G, Santas F. Trends of caesarean section rates in Turkey. J Obstet Gynaecol. 2018;38(5):658-62
  6. Mylonas I, Friese K. Indications for and risks of elective cesarean section. Dtsch Arztebl Int. 2015;112(29-30):489
  7. Clark SL, Belfort MA, Dildy GA, Herbst MA, Meyers JA, Hankins GD. Maternal death in the 21st century: causes, prevention, and relationship to cesarean delivery. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2008;199(1):36. e1-5
  8. Farine D, Shepherd D. Classification of caesarean sections in Canada: the Modified Robson criteria. J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2012;34(10):976-9
  9. Hacettepe University Institute of Populatıon Studies. Turkish Population and HealthSurvey, [Online] Available at: http/www.hips.hacettepe.edu.tr/tnsa2008. 2008
  10. Landon MB, Hauth JC, Leveno KJ, Spong CY, Leindecker S, Varner MW, et al. Maternal and perinatal outcomes associated with a trial of labor after prior cesarean delivery. N Engl J Med. 2004;351(25):2581-9
  11. Tilden EL, Cheyney M, Guise J-M, Emeis C, Lapidus J, Biel FM, et al. Vaginal birth after cesarean: neonatal outcomes and United States birth setting. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2017;216(4):403. e1-8
  12. Boyle A, Reddy UM, editors. Epidemiology of cesarean delivery: the scope of the problem. Semin Perinatol. 2012;36(5):308-14
  13. Martel M-J, MacKinnon CJ, Committee CPO, Obstetricians So, Canada Go. Guidelines for vaginal birth after previous Caesarean birth. J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2005;27(2):164
  14. Nakamura-Pereira M, do Carmo Leal M, Esteves-Pereira AP, Domingues RMSM, Torres JA, Dias MAB, et al. Use of Robson classification to assess cesarean section rate in Brazil: the role of source of payment for childbirth. Reprod Health. 2016;13(3):128
  15. Robson MS. Can we reduce the caesarean section rate? Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2001;15(1):179-94