Conclusion
Obstetrics and maternal-fetal factors should also be considered when comparing CS rates in Robson’s groups. In our study, the woman’s age > 40 years, diabetes, hypertension, fetal macrosomia, obesity, obstetric analgesia, and immigrant status were identified as risk or protective factors with different impact depending on the Robson group. In comparing the CS rate between different institutions, therefore, the meaning of the attribution to the different groups should not disregard the characteristics of the population included.
Acknowledgments : none.
Disclosure of interests : all authors report no conflicts of interests related to this manuscript.
Contribution to authorship : LADV, SM contributed to data acquisition, study design, data analysis, data interpretation and manuscript writing; MF contributed to data analysis, data interpretation and manuscript writing and revision; AMM contributed to study design, data interpretation, manuscript writing and critical manuscript revision. All authors agree with the final version, and agree to be accountable to the integrity of the data published.
Details of ethics approval : this study was approved by the board of the San Paolo Department of Health Sciences.
Source of funding : none.
References
1. WHO. Appropriate technology for birth. Lancet. 1985 Aug 24;2(8452):436-7.
2. Robson MS. Can we reduce the caesarean section rate? Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2001 Feb;15(1):179-94.
3. WHO. Robson Classification: Implementation Manual. Geneva; 2017.
4. Betran AP, Vindevoghel N, Souza JP, Gulmezoglu AM, Torloni MR. 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):e97769.
5. Favilli A, Pericoli S, Acanfora MM, Bini V, Di Renzo GC, Gerli S. Pregnancy outcome in women aged 40 years or more. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2012 Aug;25(8):1260-3.
6. Yücesoy G, Ozkan S, Bodur H, Tan T, Calişkan E, Vural B, et al. Maternal and perinatal outcome in pregnancies complicated with hypertensive disorder of pregnancy: a seven year experience of a tertiary care center. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2005 Nov;273(1):43-9.
7. Ovesen PG, Jensen DM, Damm P, Rasmussen S, Kesmodel US. Maternal and neonatal outcomes in pregnancies complicated by gestational diabetes. a nation-wide study. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2015;28(14):1720-4.
8. Calderon AC, Quintana SM, Marcolin AC, Berezowski AT, Brito LG, Duarte G, et al. Obesity and pregnancy: a transversal study from a low-risk maternity. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2014 Jul 28;14:249.
9. Vidarsdottir H, Geirsson RT, Hardardottir H, Valdimarsdottir U, Dagbjartsson A. Obstetric and neonatal risks among extremely macrosomic babies and their mothers. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2011 May;204(5):423.e1-6.
10. Boulvain M, Senat MV, Perrotin F, Winer N, Beucher G, Subtil D, et al. Induction of labour versus expectant management for large-for-date fetuses: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2015 Jun 27;385(9987):2600-5.
11. Marconi AM, Manodoro S, Cipriani S, Parazzini F. Cesarean section rate is a matter of maternal age or parity? J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2020 Aug 12:1-4.
12. Minsart AF, De Spiegelaere M, Englert Y, Buekens P. Classification of cesarean sections among immigrants in Belgium. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2013 Feb;92(2):204-9.
13. Anim-Somuah M, Smyth RM, Cyna AM, Cuthbert A. Epidural versus non-epidural or no analgesia for pain management in labour. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018 May 21;5(5):Cd000331.
14. Zeki R, Oats JJN, Wang AY, Li Z, Homer CSE, Sullivan EA. Cesarean section and diabetes during pregnancy: An NSW population study using the Robson classification. J Obstet Gynaecol Res. 2018 May;44(5):890-8.
15. Gerli S, Favilli A, Franchini D, De Giorgi M, Casucci P, Parazzini F. Is the Robson’s classification system burdened by obstetric pathologies, maternal characteristics and assistential levels in comparing hospitals cesarean rates? A regional analysis of class 1 and 3. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2018 Jan;31(2):173-7.
16. ACOG. ACOG Practice Bulletin No. 205: Vaginal Birth After Cesarean Delivery. Obstet Gynecol. 2019 Feb;133(2):e110-e27.
17. Merry L, Small R, Blondel B, Gagnon AJ. International migration and caesarean birth: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2013 Jan 30;13:27.
18. Linard M, Deneux-Tharaux C, Luton D, Schmitz T, Mandelbrot L, Estellat C, et al. Differential rates of cesarean delivery by maternal geographical origin: a cohort study in France. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2019 Jun 27;19(1):217.
19. Caughey AB, Cahill AG, Guise JM, Rouse DJ. Safe prevention of the primary cesarean delivery. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2014 Mar;210(3):179-93.
Table 1. Maternal characteristics and type of delivery of both the entire population and divided according to Robson’s groups.
Table 2. Binary logistic regression analysis results.
Figure S1. Supplementary material. Caesarean section rate from 1996 to 2019.