• Mohammad Naeem Department of Community Medicine, Khyber Medical College, Peshawar
  • Muhammad Zia Ul Islam Khan
  • Syed Hussain Abbas
  • Ayasha Khan
  • Muhammad Adil
  • Muhammad Usman Khan


Background: The study was conducted to determine the rate and clinical indications for emergency and elective caesarean section. Methods: This was a cross-sectional descriptive study conducted from December 2010 to January 2011 in Gynaecology unit-A of Lady Reading Hospital Peshawar. Consecutive patients who gave birth in the hospital during the study period were included in the study. There were a total of 966 patients. Mode of delivery and basic demographics of the patients who underwent elective and emergency caesarean section were noted down. Clinical indications were recorded. Results: Out of 966 patients, 210 underwent caesarean section. Therefore, the rate of caesarean section was 21.7 per 100. Among those 78% (n=164) were emergency caesarean sections and others were elective caesarean sections. Top six indicators for caesarean sections were foetal distress 17.1 % (n=36), obstructive labour/failure to progress 16.1% (n=34), previous caesarean section 15.2% (n=32), breech presentation 9.5% (n=20), cephalopelvic disproportion 6.1% (n=13), failed induction 5.7% (n=12) and pregnancy induced hypertension (PIH) 5.7% (n=12). Conclusion: The rate of caesarean section was only slightly higher than recommended by the WHO. Most of caesarean sections were emergency caesarean sections.Keywords: Caesarean section, rate, indications, Elective, Emergency


Tampakoudis P, Assimakopoulos E, Grimbizis G, Zafrakas M, Tampakoudis G, Mantalenakis S, et al. Caesarean section rates and indications in Greece: data from a 24 year period in a teaching hospital. Clin Exp Obstet Gynecol 2004;31:289–92.

Husslein P. Elective caesarean section versus vaginal delivery. Whither the end of traditional obstetrics? Arch Gynecol Obstet 2001;265(4):169–74.

Betrán AP, Merialdi M, Lauer JA, Bing-Shun W, Thomas J, Van Look P, et al. Rates of caesarean section: analysis of global, regional and national estimates. Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol 2007;21(2):98–113.

Lee SI, Khang YH, Lee Ms. Women attitude towards mode of delivery in South Korea: A society with high caesarean section rates. Birth 2004;31(2);108–16

Haider G. Frequency and indications of caesarean section in a tertiary care hospital. Pak J Med Sci 2009;25(5):791–6

World Health Organization. Appropriate technology for birth. Lancet 1985;2:436–7.

Hamilton BE, Martin JA, Sutton PD; Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics. Births: preliminary data for 2003. Natl Vital Stat Rep. 2004 Nov 23;53(9):1-17.

Dobson R. Caesarean section rate in England and Wales hits 21. BMJ 2001;323(7319):951

Cheng YM, Yuan W, Cai WD, Zhang WM, Wang TY, Wang Y, et al. [Study on the occurrence of cesarean section (CS) and factors related to CS in China]. Zhonghua Liu Xing Bing Xue Za Zhi. 2003;24(10):893–6.

Bailey P, Lobis S, Maine D, Fortney J. Monitoring emergency obstetric care: a handbook: World Health Organization; 2009

Qin C, Zhou M, Callaghan WM, Posner SF, Zhang J, Berg CJ, et al. Clinical Indications and Determinants of the Rise of Caesarean Section in Three Hospitals in Rural China. Matern Child Health J 2012;16(7):1484–90.

Shamshad. Factors leading to increased caesarean section rate. Gomal J Med Sci 2008;6(1):1–4

Sreevidya S, Sathiyasekaran BW. High caesarean rates in Madras (India): a population-based cross sectional study. BJOG 2003;110(2):106–11.

Tang CH, Wang HI. Risk-adjusted Caesarean Section rate for the assessment of physician performance in Taiwan: a population based study. BMC Public Health 2006;6:246

Rayburn WF. Minimising the risk from elective induction of labour. J Reprod Med 2007;52:671–6.

Lydon-Rochelle MT, Gardella C, Cárdenas V, Easterling TR. Repeat caesarean delivery: what indications are recorded in the medical chart? Birth. 2006;33(1):4–11.

Ali L, Tayyab S. Caesarean section rate: curremt trends. J Surg Pak 2007;12:64–6.

Kugler E, Shoham-Vardi I. The safety of a trial of labour after caesarean section in a grand multiparous population. Arch Gynecol Obstet 2008;277:339–44.

Coughlan C, Kearney R. Turner MJ. What are implications for the next delivery in primigravidae who have an elective Caesarean Section for breech presentation? BJOG 2002;109:624–6.

Favilli A, Pericoli S, Acanfora MM, Bini V, Di Renzo GC, Gerli S. Pregnancy outcome in women aged 40 years or more. J Matern Foetal Neonatal Med 2012;25(8):1260–3.

Leitch CR, Walker JJ. The rise in caesarean section rate: the same indications but a lower threshold. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1998;105(6):621–6.

Oyelese Y, Smulian JC. Placenta previa, placenta accreta, and vasa previa. Obstet Gynecol 2006;107(4):927–41.

Robinson BK, Grobman WA. Effectiveness of timing strategies for delivery of individuals with placenta previa and accreta. Obstet Gynecol 2010;116(4):835–42.

Zhang J, Liu Y, Meikle S, Zheng J, Sun W, Li Z. Caesarean delivery on maternal request in southeast China. Obstet Gynecol 2008;111(5):1077–82.

Bettes BA, Coleman VH, Zinberg S, Spong CY, Portnoy B, DeVoto E, et al. Caesarean delivery on maternal request: obstetrician-gynecologists' knowledge, perception, and practice patterns. Obstet Gynecol 2007;109(1):57–66.

Souza JP, Gülmezoglu A, Lumbiganon P, Laopaiboon M, Carroli G, Fawole B, et al. WHO Global Survey on Maternal and Perinatal Health Research Group. Caesarean section without medical indications is associated with an increased risk of adverse short-term maternal outcomes: the 2004-2008 WHO Global Survey on Maternal and Perinatal Health. BMC Med 2010;8:71.



Most read articles by the same author(s)