Keywords
maternal health services
gestation
How to Cite
Copyright © | All rights reserved.
The journal holds the exclusive copyright for the publication of this article under the terms of Brazilian law 9610/98.
Partial reproduction
The use of parts of the texts, figures and questionnaire of the article is free, being mandatory the citation of the authors and journal.
Total reproduction
It is expressly prohibited and must be authorized by the journal.
Abstract
Objective: To assess the distribution of cesarean deliveries performed at a maternity hospital in Manaus-AM according to the Robson Ten Group Classification System (RTGCS) and to identify which groups contributed most to the institution's overall cesarean rate. Methods: Retrospective cross-sectional descriptive study including all pregnant women assisted at the maternity hospital in the period from January to June 2018. Results: After analyzing 1012 medical records, an overall cesarean rate was 38%. Groups 1, 3 and 5 accounted for 83.5% of the sample, with group 5 being the main contributor to an overall cesarean section rate (34.5%) followed by group 1 (28.8%) and group 2 (18.2%). Groups 2 and 4 had a cesarean section rate of 94.6% and 63%, respectively. Groups 6, 7, 8 and 9 contributed 9.1% to the global cesarean section rate. Conclusion: The global rate of cesarean delivery is above that recommended by the WHO, reflecting a tendency to perform cesarean delivery in patients with previous uterine scarring and reluctance to not offer vaginal delivery in this population. The rates of cesarean sections in groups 2 and 4 indicate the lack or absence of the practice of inducing labor.
References
ABDO AA, et al. Caesarean section rates analysed using Robson’s 10-Group Classification System: a cross-sectional study at a tertiary hospital in Ethiopia. BMJ Open, 2020; 10(10): e039098.
ALMEIDA D, et al. Análise da taxa de cesarianas e das suas indicações utilizando a classificação em dez grupos. Revista de Pediatria do Centro Hospitalar do Porto. [S.l: s.n.]. Disponível em: <http://www.scielo.mec.pt/pdf/nas/v23n3/v23n3a03.pdf>. 2014.
ANS. 2019. Agência Nacional de Saúde Suplementar - Taxas de partos cesáreos por operadora de plano de saúde. Disponível em: http://www.ans.gov.br/planos-de-saude-e-operadoras/informacoes-e-avaliacoes-de-operadoras/taxas-de-partos-cesareos-por-operadora-de-plano-de-saude. Acessado em: 25 de outubro de 2020.
BETRÁN AP, et al. A systematic review of the Robson classification for caesarean section: What works, doesn’t work and how to improve it. PLoS ONE, 2014; 9(6): 1–10.
BÉTRAN AP, et al. Rates of caesarean section: analysis of global, regional and national estimates. Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol., 2007; 21(2): 98-113.
BETRÁN AP, et al. WHO global survey on maternal and perinatal health in Latin America: Classifying caesarean sections. Reproductive Health, 2009; 6(1): 4–11.
BRASIL. DATASUS, SISTEMA DE INFORMAÇÃO DE NATALIDADE. Estatística de partos por Unidade da Federação. 2018. Disponível em:<http://tabnet.datasus.gov.br/cgi/tabcgi.exe?sinasc/cnv/nvuf.def>. Acesso em: 18 out 2020.
CHONG C, et al. Changing trends of cesarean section births by the Robson Ten Group Classification in a tertiary teaching hospital. Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica, 2012; 91(12): 1422–1427.
DIAS MA, et al. Trajetória das mulheres na definição pelo parto cesareo: estudo de caso em duas unidades do sistema de saúde suplementar do Estado do Rio de Janeiro. Cien Saude Colet. 2008;13(5):1521-34.
FREIRE CHE, SOUZARAT. Use of Robson ten group system as a tool for evaluating delivery assistance in a maternity in amazon. Oral/Free Communication Session Abstracts, 2018; 143: 297.
KELLY S, et al. Examining Caesarean Section Rates in Canada Using the Robson Classification System. Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Canada, 2013; 35(3): 206–214.
LE RAY C, et al. Classification de Robson: Unoutil d’évaluationdes pratiques de césarienne en France. Journal de Gynecologie Obstetrique et Biologie de la Reproduction, 2015; 44(7): 605–613.
MOURA VDA, FEITOSA FEL. Avaliação de cesáreas na Maternidade Escola Assis Chateaubriand utilizando o sistema de classificação de Robson em dez grupos. Revista de Medicina da UFC, 2017; 57(1): 25.
NAKAMURA-PEREIRA M, et al. Use of Robson classification to assess cesarean section rate in Brazil: The role of source of payment for childbirth. Reproductive Health, 2016; 13: 128.
ORGANIZAÇÃO MUNDIAL DE SAÚDE. 2015. Declaração da OMS sobre Taxas de Cesáreas. Human Reproduction Programme, p. 1–8, 2015. Disponível em: https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/161442/WHO_RHR_15.02_por.pdf?sequence=3#:~:text=Baseados%20na%20revis%C3%A3o%20sistem%C3%A1tica%20da,valores%20e%20redu%C3%A7%C3%A3o%20da%20mortalidade. Acessado em: 25 de outubro de 2020.
PAULO MC, et al. Aplicabilidade da Classificação de Robson na avaliação das cesarianas na maternidade escola de Valença -RJ. Rev. Saber Digital, 2021; 14(2): 56-68.
ROBERGE S, et al. Reporting Caesarean Delivery in Quebec Using the Robson Classification System. Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Canada, 2017; 39(3): 152–156.
ROBSON M, et al. Methods of achieving and maintaining an appropriate caesarean section rate. Best Practice and Research: Clinical Obstetrics and Gynaecology, 2013; 27(2): 297–308.
ROBSON MS. Can we reduce the caesarean section rate? Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol 2001;15(01):179–194.
ROBSON MS. Classification of caesarean sections. Fetal and Maternal Medicine Review, 2001; 12(1): 23–39.
SILVA CHM, LARANJEIRA CLS. Use of the Robson Classification System for the Improvement and Adequacy of the Ways of Delivery in Maternities and Hospitals. An Opportunity to Reduce Unnecessary Cesarean Rates. Rev Bras Ginecol Obstet 2018; 40:377–378.
TORLONI MR, et al. Classifications for cesarean section: A systematic review. PLoS ONE, 2011; 6(1):e14566.
WHO. Robson Classification: Implementation Manual. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2017. Licence: CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 IGO.
ZHANG J, et al. Caesarean section rates in subgroups of women and perinatal outcomes. BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, 2016; 123(5): 754–761.