Keywords
Natural Childbirth
Cesarean Section
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 prevalence of types of delivery in Brazil between 2018 and 2022, with emphasis on distribution according to Robson Groups. Methods: This is an epidemiological study carried out using data provided by the Live Births Monitoring Panel according to Epidemiological Risk Classification. The collected results were stored and tabulated in Microsoft Office Excel®, being presented in absolute and relative frequency. Results: A total of 13,667,735 live births were evaluated, with 56.9% of deliveries being cesarean sections. Groups 9, 6 and 7 had the highest cesarean rates, however, the ones that most contributed to the total rate were Groups 5 (35.43%), 2 (17.15%) and 1 (13.47%). It is noteworthy that cesarean delivery was the most prevalent in 7 Robson Groups, excluding only 1, 3 and 4.8. Conclusion: There was a high rate of cesarean sections in the analyzed period, with Group 5 contributing the most for this, as well as in Groups 1 and 2, and these groups are subject to interventions to reduce the rate of cesarean sections so that it is possible to achieve lower maternal and perinatal morbidity and mortality concomitantly.
References
ALGARVES TR e LIRA FILHO R. Classificação de Robson: uma ferramenta para caracterizar as gestantes submetidas à cesariana. Enfermagem em foco, 2019; 10(5): 148-154.
AMERICAN COLLEGE OF OBSTETRICIANS AND GYNECOLOGISTS (COLLEGE); Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine; CAUGHEY AB, et al. Safe prevention of the primary cesarean delivery. Am J Obstet Gynecol., 2014; 210(3): 179-93.
BEGUM T, et al. Global incidence of caesarean deliveries on maternal request: a systematic review and meta-regression. BJOG, 2021; 128(5): 798-806.
BERGHELLA V. Patient education: C-section (cesarean delivery) (Beyond the Basics). UpToDate, 2023. Disponível em: https://www.uptodate.com/contents/c-section-cesarean-delivery-beyond-the-basics?search=parto%20cesareo&source=search_result&selectedTitle=14~150&usage_type=default&display_rank=13#H8. Acessado em: 16 de abril de 2023.
BERGHELLA V e CAHILL AG. Optimal cesarean birth rate. UpToDate, 2023. Disponível em: https://www.uptodate.com/contents/optimal-cesarean-birth-rate?search=parto%20cesareo&source=search_result&selectedTitle=10~150&usage_type=default&display_rank=9. Acessado em: 16 de abril de 2023.
BRUNO A, et al. Tendências em tentativa e sucesso de trabalho de parto após cesariana nos Estados Unidos de 2010 a 2020. Obstet Gynecol., 2023; 141: 173.
CARNIEL EF, et al. Fatores de risco para indicação do parto cesáreo em Campinas (SP). Rev. Bras. Ginecol. Obstet., 2007; 29(1).
CHEN I, et al. Non-clinical interventions for reducing unnecessary caesarean section. Cochrane Database Syst Rev., 2018; 9(9): CD005528.
CROWTHER CA, et al. Birth After Caesarean Study Group. Planned vaginal birth or elective repeat caesarean: patient preference restricted cohort with nested randomised trial. PLoS Med., 2012; 9(3): e1001192.
DODD JM, et al. Cesariana eletiva planejada de repetição versus parto vaginal planejado para mulheres com cesariana anterior. Cochrane Database Syst Ver., 2013; CD004224.
DOMINGUES RMSM, et al. Process of decision-making regarding the mode of birth in Brazil: from the initial pref-erence of women to the final mode of birth. Cad Saude Publica, 2014; 30(suppl 1): S101–16.
FEDERAÇÃO BRASILEIRA DAS ASSOCIAÇÕES DE GINECOLOGIA E OBSTETRÍCIA (FEBRASGO). Organização Mundial Da Saúde (OMS) Lança 56 Recomendações Para Tentar Diminuir Cesáreas. FEBRASGO.ORG, 2018.
Disponível em: https://www.febrasgo.org.br/pt/noticias/item/402-organizacao-mundial-da-saude-omslanca-56-recomendacoes-para-tentar-diminuir-as-cesareas. Acessado em: 16 de abril de 2023.
GEZE S, et al. Can the Robson 10 Group Classification System help identify which groups of women are driving the high caesarean section rate in major private hospitals in eastern Ethiopia? A cross-sectional study. BMJ Open, 2021; 11(8): e047206.
KACERAUSKIENE J, et al. Implementation of the Robson classification in clinical practice: Lithuania’s experience. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth, 2017; 17: 432.
LAFITTE AS, et al. Rate of caesarean sections according to the Robson classification: Analysis in a French perinatal network - Interest and limitations of the French medico-administrative data (PMSI). J Gynecol Obstet Hum Reprod., 2018; 47(2): 39-44.
MARTINS-COSTA SH, et al. Cesariana- Indicações. FEBRASGO, 2002. Disponível em: https://amb.org.br/files/_BibliotecaAntiga/cesariana-indicacoes.pdf. Acessado em: 16 de abril de 2023.
MAZZONI A, et al. Women's preferences and mode of delivery in public and private hospitals: a prospective cohort study. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth, 2016; 16: 34.
MINISTÉRIO DA SAÚDE (MS). Fundação Oswaldo Cruz. Classificação de Robson. Arca.fiocruz.br, 2018. Disponível em: https://www.arca.fiocruz.br/bitstream/handle/icict/29751/CLASSIFICA%C7%C3O%20DE%20ROBSON.pdf;jsessionid=D1343C7982619BF37AD4CF717338C242?sequence=2/. Acessado em: 16 de abril de 2023.
MINISTÉRIO DA SAÚDE (MS). Plataforma Integrada de Vigilância em Saúde. Painel de Monitoramento de Nascidos Vivos segundo Classificação de Risco Epidemiológico (Grupos de Robson). Plataforma IVISQ, 2022. Disponível em: http://plataforma.saude.gov.br/natalidade/grupos-de-robson/. Acessado em: 16 de abril de 2023.
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(Suppl 3): 128.
ORGANIZAÇÃO MUNDIAL DA SAÚDE (OMS). Programa de Reprodução Humana (PRH). Declaração da OMS sobre as taxas de cesariana. Genebra: OMS, 2015. Disponível em: https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/161442/WHO_RHR_15.02_eng.pdf. Acessado em: 16 de abril de 2023.
ORGANIZAÇÃO MUNDIAL DA SAÚDE (OMS). Classificação de Robson: manual de implementação. Genebra (Suíça): 2017. Disponível em: https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/259512/9789241513197-ita.pdf. Acessado em: 16 de abril de 2023.
PENHA LBC, et al. Avaliação das taxas de cesáreas em hospitais do Distrito Federal por meio da classificação de Robson. Revista Eletrônica Acervo Enfermagem, 2023; 23(1): e11752.
RAMOS GGF, et al. Cesarean rates according to the Robson classification: analysis in a municipal maternity in São Paulo. Einstein (Sao Paulo), 2022; 20: eAO0075.
REBELO F, et al. Alta prevalência de cesariana em um estudo nacional de base populacional no Brasil: o papel da clínica privada. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand., 2010; 89: 903-8.
ROBSON M, et al. Methods of achieving and maintaining an appropriate caesarean section rate. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol., 2013; 27(2): 297-308.
SILVA AP, et al. As indicações de cesáreas no Brasil: uma revisão de literatura integrativa. Revista Eletrônica Acervo Saúde, 2019; 24: e624.
SHINEJIL U, et al. Association between Robson classification groups and cesarean delivery: a longitudinal analysis in Mongolia. AJOG Glob Rep., 2022; 2(3): 100071.
VIEIRA GO, et al. Factors associated with cesarean delivery in public and private hospitals in a city of northeastern Brazil: a cross-sectional study. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth, 2015; 15: 132.