RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN CERVICAL DILATATION AT WHICH WOMEN PRESENT IN LABOR AND SUBSEQUENT RATE OF CAESARIAN SECTION
Abstract
Background: Increasing rate of caesarean section is becoming an epidemic worldwide. This study was conducted to compare rate of caesarean section between women presenting in labor with cervical dilatation less than 4 cm to those with cervical dilatation 4 cm or more. Methods: This study was conducted at Aga Khan Hospital for Women, Karimabad. Women with singleton pregnancy and cephalic presentation at term in spontaneous labour were included. Patients were divided in two groups: early presenters with cervical dilatation less than 4 cm and late presenters with cervical dilatation of 4 cm or more. Primary outcome measured was rate of caesarean section, while secondary outcomes were duration of labour, APGAR score and any neonatal complication. Results: Medical records of 442 women were reviewed. Difference in mean age of women presenting early in labour was of 2 years (26.8±4.7 vs 28.4±4.5) which was significant (p-value 0.01). More than two thirds of primiparas presented early (69.0% vs 31%) in labour and early presenters had longer labour (p-value <0.001). 62% of early presenters had artificial rupture of membrane compared to 41% of late presenters and nearly 73% required analgesia (p-value <0.001). Caesarean section rate was 10.5% in early and 1.8% in late presenters that was significant (p-value <0.001). APGAR score of both groups was comparable. Conclusion: Integrated midwifery services and antenatal classes may help in education of labouring women and their understanding of labour process and so that low risk women can be monitored at home and come to hospital in active labour.Keywords: Caesarean section; Cervical dilatation; Spontaneous laborReferences
Barber EL, Lundsberg L, Belanger K, Pettker CM, Funai EF, Illuzzi JL. Contributing indications to the rising cesarean delivery rate. Obstet Gynecol 2011;118(1):29.
Taffel SM, Placek PJ, Liss T. Trends in the United States cesarean section rate and reasons for the 1980-85 rise. Am J Public Health 1987;77(8):955–9.
Kochanek KD, Murphy SL, Xu J. National vital statistics reports. Natl Vital Stat Rep 2016;65(4):1.
Curtin SC, Gregory K, Korst L, Uddin S. Maternal Morbidity for Vaginal and Cesarean Deliveries, According to Previous Cesarean History: New Data From the Birth Certificate, 2013. National vital statistics reports: from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics. Natl Vital Stat Syst 2015;64(4):1–13.
Yudkin PL, Redman CW. Caesarean section dissected, 1978–1983. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1986;93(2):135–44.
Cnattingius R, Cnattingius S, Notzon FC. Obstacles to reducing cesarean rates in a low-cesarean setting: the effect of maternal age, height, and weight. Obstet Gynecol 1998;92(4 Pt 1):501–6.
Souza J, Betran AP, Dumont A, De Mucio B, Gibbs Pickens C, Deneux‐Tharaux C, et al. A global reference for caesarean section rates (C‐Model): a multicountry cross‐sectional study. BJOG 2016;123(3):427–36.
Sreevidya S, Sathiyasekaran BW. High caesarean rates in Madras (India): a population‐based cross-sectional study. BJOG 2003;110(2):106–11.
Najmi RS, Rehan N. Prevalence and determinants of caesarean section in a teaching hospital of Pakistan. J Obstet Gynaecol 2000;20(5):479–83.
Betran AP, Torloni MR, Zhang J, Ye J, Mikolajczyk R, Deneux-Tharaux C, et al. What is the optimal rate of caesarean section at population level? A systematic review of ecologic studies. Reprod Health 2015;12(1):57.
Vogel JP, Betrán AP, Vindevoghel N, Souza JP, Torloni MR, Zhang J, et al. Use of the Robson classification to assess caesarean section trends in 21 countries: a secondary analysis of two WHO multicountry surveys. Lancet Glob Health 2015;3(5):e260–70.
Nippita TA, Lee YY, Patterson JA, Ford JB, Morris JM, Nicholl MC, et al. Variation in hospital caesarean section rates and obstetric outcomes among nulliparae at term: a population‐based cohort study. BJOG 2015;122(5):702–11.
Häger RM, Daltveit AK, Hofoss D, Nilsen ST, Kolaas T, Øian P, et al. Complications of cesarean deliveries: rates and risk factors. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2004;190(2):428–34.
Mone F, Harrity C, Mackie A, Segurado R, Toner B, McCormick TR, et al. Vaginal birth after caesarean section prediction models: a UK comparative observational study. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2015;193:136–9.
Van der Voet L, Bij de Vaate A, Veersema S, Brölmann H, Huirne J. Long‐term complications of caesarean section. The niche in the scar: a prospective cohort study on niche prevalence and its relation to abnormal uterine bleeding. BJOG 2014;121(2):236–44.
Holmes P, Oppenheimer LW, Wu Wen S. The relationship between cervical dilatation at initial presentation in labour and subsequent intervention. BJOG 2001;108(11):1120–4.
Kjærgaard H, Olsen J, Ottesen B, Nyberg P, Dykes AK. Obstetric risk indicators for labour dystocia in nulliparous women: a multi-centre cohort study. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 2008;8(1):45.
Janna JR, Chowdhury SB. Impact of timing of admission in labour on subsequent outcome. Community Based Med J 2013;2(1):21–8.
Albassam AN. The outcome of latent phase vs. Active phase admission to labour room of low risk nulliparous women in labour. J Fac Med 2010;52(2):149–53.
Tanaka K, Mahomed K. The ten-group robson classification: a single centre approach identifying strategies to optimise caesarean section rates. Obstet Gynecol Int 2017;2017:5648938.
Robson MS. Can we reduce the caesarean section rate? Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol 2001;15(1):179–94.
Caughey AB, Cahill AG, Guise JM, Rouse DJ. Safe prevention of the primary cesarean delivery. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2014;210(3):179–93.
NICE. Clinical Guideline 190: Intrapartum Care for Healthy Women and Babies. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence 2014.
Neal JL, Lamp JM, Buck JS, Lowe NK, Gillespie SL, Ryan SL. Outcomes of nulliparous women with spontaneous labor onset admitted to hospitals in preactive versus active labor. J Midwifery Womens Health 2014;59(1):28–34.
Cantone D, Lombardi A, Assunto DA, Piccolo M, Rizzo N, Pelullo CP, et al. A standardized antenatal class reduces the rate of cesarean section in southern Italy: A retrospective cohort study. Medicine (Baltimore) 2018;97(16):e0456.
Published
Issue
Section
License
Journal of Ayub Medical College, Abbottabad is an OPEN ACCESS JOURNAL which means that all content is FREELY available without charge to all users whether registered with the journal or not. The work published by J Ayub Med Coll Abbottabad is licensed and distributed under the creative commons License CC BY ND Attribution-NoDerivs. Material printed in this journal is OPEN to access, and are FREE for use in academic and research work with proper citation. J Ayub Med Coll Abbottabad accepts only original material for publication with the understanding that except for abstracts, no part of the data has been published or will be submitted for publication elsewhere before appearing in J Ayub Med Coll Abbottabad. The Editorial Board of J Ayub Med Coll Abbottabad makes every effort to ensure the accuracy and authenticity of material printed in J Ayub Med Coll Abbottabad. However, conclusions and statements expressed are views of the authors and do not reflect the opinion/policy of J Ayub Med Coll Abbottabad or the Editorial Board.
USERS are allowed to read, download, copy, distribute, print, search, or link to the full texts of the articles, or use them for any other lawful purpose, without asking prior permission from the publisher or the author. This is in accordance with the BOAI definition of open access.
AUTHORS retain the rights of free downloading/unlimited e-print of full text and sharing/disseminating the article without any restriction, by any means including twitter, scholarly collaboration networks such as ResearchGate, Academia.eu, and social media sites such as Twitter, LinkedIn, Google Scholar and any other professional or academic networking site.
