Reasons for the Increase and Ways to Reduce the Frequency of Cesarean Sections in Modern Obstetrics

Cover Page


Cite item

Full Text

Open Access Open Access
Restricted Access Access granted
Restricted Access Subscription or Fee Access

Abstract

The progressive increase in the number of cesarean sections, which is not accompanied by a decrease in the perinatal mortality rate, is an urgent problem not only in obstetrics, but in the health care system in general. The frequency of operative delivery is influenced by both medical and non-medical factors. Moreover, the frequency varies across regions of the world and countries with different levels of economic development. At the present stage, the increase in the number of surgical deliveries in developed countries is due to changes in population health indicators (age, morbidity). The attention of WHO and associations of obstetricians and gynecologists is drawn to the development of measures to stabilize and reduce the frequency of cesarean sections. However, the proposed measures to reduce it through administration in obstetric hospitals and non-medical measures do not have an effect. There is evidence of an increase in the incidence of complications for the mother and fetus when indications for cesarean section are limited. A safe reduction in the frequency of caesarean sections is possible only with an integrated approach, including new solutions that improve the quality of medical care in general (social measures to support families, optimization of medical processes, introduction of decision support systems, improvement of medical technologies for pregnancy and childbirth).

Full Text

Restricted Access

About the authors

Oleg R. Baev

Research Center for Obstetrics, Gynecology and Perinatology

Author for correspondence.
Email: metod_obsgyn@hotmail.com
ORCID iD: 0000-0001-8572-1971
SPIN-code: 5058-7295

MD, PhD, Professor

Россия, Moscow

References

  1. Гринин В.М., Шестемирова Э.И. Демографическое старение в России на современном этапе // Вестник РАМН. — 2015. — Т. 70. — № 3. — С. 348–354. [Grinin VM, Shestemirova EI. Demographic ageing in Russia at the present stage. Annals of the Russian Academy of Medical Sciences. 2015;70(3):348–354. (In Russ).] doi: https://doi.org/10.15690/vramn.v70i3.1332
  2. Иванова А.Е., Семенова В.Г., Сабгайда Т.П. Резервы снижения смертности в России, обусловленные эффективностью здравоохранения // Вестник РАН. — 2021. — Т. 91. — № 9. — С. 865–878. [Ivanova AE, Semenova VG, Sabgajda TP. Rezervy snizheniya smertnosti v Rossii, obuslovlennye effektivnost’yu zdravoohraneniya. Annals of the Russian Academy of Sciences. 2021;91(9):865–878. (In Russ.)] doi: https://doi.org/ 10.31857/S086958732109005X
  3. Савельева Г.М. Кесарево сечение и его роль в современном акушерстве // Акушерство и гинекология. — 2008. — № 3. — С. 10–14. [Savel’eva GM. Kesarevo sechenie i ego rol’ v sovremennom akusherstve. Akusherstvo i ginekologiya. 2008;(3):10–14. (In Russ.)].
  4. Molina G, Weiser TG, Lipsitz SR, et al. Relationship between Cesarean Delivery Rate and Maternal and Neonatal Mortality. JAMA. 2015;314(21):2263–2270. doi: https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2015.15553
  5. Betran AP, Ye J, Moller AB, et al. Trends and projections of caesarean section rates: global and regional estimates. BMJ Glob Health. 2021;6(6):005671. doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjgh.2021.005671
  6. Ye J, Zhang J, Mikolajczyk R, et al. Association between rates of caesarean section and maternal and neonatal mortality in the 21st century: a worldwide population-based ecological study with longitudinal data. BJOG. 2016;123(5):745–753. doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjgh-2021-005671
  7. Baron YM. Caesarean Section Rates Versus Stillbirth Rates. Critical Care Obstetrics and Gynecology. 2016;2(1):1–14.
  8. Carter ED, Walker PN. Estimating c-section coverage: Assessing method performance and characterizing variations in coverage. J Glob Health. 2022;12:08002. doi: https://doi.org/10.7189/jogh.12.08002
  9. Alipour A, Hantoushzadeh S, Hessami K, et al. A global study of the association of cesarean rate and the role of socioeconomic status in neonatal mortality rate in the current century. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2022;22(1):821. doi: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12884-022-05133-9
  10. Brown RC, Mulligan A. “Maternal Request” Caesarean Sections and Medical Necessity. Clin Ethics. 2023;18(3):312–320. doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/14777509231183365
  11. Colomar M, Opiyo N, Kingdon C, et al. Do women prefer caesarean sections? A qualitative evidence synthesis of their views and experiences. PLoS One. 2021;16(5):e0251072. doi: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0251072
  12. WHO Recommendations Non-Clinical Interventions to Reduce Unnecessary Caesarean Sections. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2018. 82 p.
  13. Chen I, Opiyo N, Tavender E, et al. Non-clinical interventions for reducing unnecessary caesarean section. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018;9(9):CD005528. doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD005528.pub3
  14. Zhang L, Zhang L, Li M, et al. A cluster-randomized field trial to reduce cesarean section rates with a multifaceted intervention in Shanghai, China. BMC Med. 2020;18(1):27. doi: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12916-020-1491-6
  15. Roberge S, Boutin A, Bujold E, et al. Impact of Audits and Multifaceted Intervention on Vaginal Birth After Caesarean: Secondary Analysis of the QUARISMA Trial. J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2019;41(5):608–615. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jogc.2018.05.044
  16. Johri M, Ng ESW, Bermudez-Tamayo C, et al. A cluster-randomized trial to reduce caesarean delivery rates in Quebec: cost-effectiveness analysis. BMC Med. 2017;15(1):96. doi: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12916-017-0859-8
  17. Sarbaz M, Mousavi Baigi SF, Manouchehri Monazah F, et al. The trend of normal vaginal delivery and cesarean sections before and after implementing the health system transformation plan based on ICD-10 in the northeast of Iran: A cross-sectional study. Health Sci Rep. 2023;6(3):e1131. doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/hsr2.1131
  18. Singh SK, Kumar R, Agarwal A, et al. Intrapartum cardiotocographic monitoring and its correlation with neonatal outcome. J Family Med Prim Care. 2022;11(11):7398–7405. doi: https://doi.org/10.4103/jfmpc.jfmpc_1525_22
  19. Cheng PJ, Cheng YH, Shaw SSW, et al. Reducing primary cesarean delivery rate through implementation of a smart intrapartum surveillance system. NPJ Digit Med. 2023;6(1):126. doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41746-023-00867-y
  20. Dall’Asta A, Angeli L, Masturzo, B et al. Prediction of spontaneous vaginal delivery in nulliparous women with a prolonged second stage of labor: the value of intrapartum ultrasound. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2019;221(6):642.e1–642.e13. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2019.09.045
  21. Katzir T, Brezinov Y, Khairish E, et al. Intrapartum ultrasound use in clinical practice as a predictor of delivery mode during prolonged second stage of labor. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2023;307(3):763–770. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-022-06469-5
  22. Dögl M, Romundstad P, Berntzen LD, et al. Elective induction of labor: A prospective observational study. PLoS One. 2018;13(11):e0208098. doi: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0208098
  23. Middleton P, Shepherd E, Morris J, et al. Induction of labour at or beyond 37 weeks’ gestation. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2020;7(7):CD004945. doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD004945.pub5
  24. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (College); Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine; Caughey AB, Cahill AG, Guise JM, et al. Safe prevention of the primary cesarean delivery. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2014;210(3):179–193. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2014.01.026
  25. Laughon SK, Berghella V, Reddy UM, et al. Neonatal and maternal outcomes with prolonged second stage of labor. Obstet Gynecol. 2014;124(1):57–67. doi: https://doi.org/10.1097/AOG.0000000000000278
  26. Zipori Y, Grunwald O, Ginsberg Y, et al. The impact of extending the second stage of labor to prevent primary cesarean delivery on maternal and neonatal outcomes. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2019;220(2):191.e1–191.e7. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2018.10.028
  27. Pergialiotis V, Bellos I, Antsaklis A, et al. Maternal and neonatal outcomes following a prolonged second stage of labor: A meta-analysis of observational studies. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2020;252:62–69. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejogrb.2020.06.018
  28. Waldenström U. Postponing parenthood to advanced age. Ups J Med Sci. 2016;121(4):235–243. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/03009734.2016.1201553
  29. Rydahl E, Declercq E, Juhl M, et al. Cesarean section on a rise-Does advanced maternal age explain the increase? A population register-based study. PLoS One. 2019;14(1):e0210655. doi: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0210655
  30. Giouleka S, Tsakiridis I, Koutsouki G, et al. Obesity in Pregnancy: A Comprehensive Review of Influential Guidelines. Obstet Gynecol Surv. 2023;78(1):50–68. doi: https://doi.org/10.1097/OGX.0000000000001091
  31. Ma X. Burden and Trend of Macrosomia and Large-for-Gestational-Age Neonates Attributable to High Pre-Pregnancy Body Mass Index in China, 2013–2017: A Population-Based Retrospective Cohort Study. Healthcare (Basel). 2023;11(3):331. doi: https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare11030331
  32. Visser GHA, Ayres-de-Campos D, Barnea ER, et al. FIGO position paper: how to stop the caesarean section epidemic. Lancet. 2018;392(10155):1286–1287. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(18)32113-5
  33. Muraca GM, Joseph KS, Razaz N, et al. Crude and adjusted comparisons of cesarean delivery rates using the Robson classification: A population-based cohort study in Canada and Sweden, 2004 to 2016. PLoS Med. 2022;19(8):e1004077. doi: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1004077
  34. Гурьев Д.Л., Охапкин М.Б., Гурьева М.С., и др. Снижение частоты кесарева сечения и перинатальных потерь в стационаре уровня 3А с использованием классификации Робсона // Доктор.Ру. — 2019. — T. 159. — № 4. — С. 8–13. [Gur’ev DL, Ohapkin MB, Gur’eva MS, i dr. Snizhenie chastoty kesareva secheniya i perinatal’nyh poter’ v stacionare urovnya 3A s ispol’zovaniem klassifikacii Robsona. Doktor.Ru. 2019;159(4):8–13. (In Russ).] doi: https://doi.org/10.31550/1727-2378-2019-159-4-8-13
  35. Piva VMR, Voget V, Nucci LB. Cesarean section rates according to the Robson Classification and its association with adequacy levels of prenatal care: a cross-sectional hospital-based study in Brazil. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2023;23(1):455. doi: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12884-023-05768-2
  36. Кухарчик Ю.В., Гутикова Л.В., Зверко В.Л., и др. Анализ частоты операций кесарева сечения по классификации Робсона // Репродуктивное здоровье. Восточная Европа. — 2020. — T. 10. — № 2. — C. 148–154. [Kuharchik YuV, Gutikova LV, Zverko VL, i dr. Analiz chastoty operaciĭ kesareva secheniya po klassifikacii Robsona. Reproduktivnoe zdorov’e. Vostochnaya Evropa. 2020;10(2):148–154. (In Russ.)]
  37. Чурганова А.А., Гуржиханова М.Х., Алиева Ф.Н., и др. Значение аудита методов родоразрешения в оптимизации показаний к кесареву сечению и снижению его частоты в современном акушерстве // Вопросы гинекологии, акушерства и перинатологии. — 2021. — Т. 20. — № 2. — С. 44–49. [Cнurganova AA, Gurzhihanova MH, Alieva FN, et al. Role of the audit of delivery methods for optimizing the indications for cesarean section and reducing its frequency in clinical practice. Voprosy ginekologii, akusherstva i perinatologii. 2021;20(2):44–49. (In Russ.)] doi: https://doi.org/10.20953/1726-1678-2021-2-44-49
  38. Мирошников А.Е., Жаркин Н.А., Шевцова Е.П., и др. Акушерский аудит частоты кесарева сечения в стационаре II уровня за 2016–2019 гг. на основе классификации М. Робсона // Вестник Волгоградского государственного медицинского университета. — 2020. — T. 76. — № 4. — С. 65–67. [Miroshnikov AE, Zharkin NA, Shevcova EP, i dr. Akusherskij audit chastoty kesareva secheniya v stacionare II urovnya za 2016–2019 gg. na osnove klassifikacii M. Robsona. Vestnik Volgogradskogo gosudarstvennogo medicinskogo universiteta. 2020;76(4):65–67. (In Russ.)] doi: https://doi.org/10.19163/1994-9480-2020-4(76)-65-67
  39. Sosa C, de Mucio B, Colomar M, et al. The impact of maternal morbidity on cesarean section rates: exploring a Latin American network of sentinel facilities using the Robson’s Ten Group Classification System. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2023;23(1):605. doi: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12884-023-05937-3

Supplementary files

Supplementary Files
Action
1. JATS XML
Download
2. Fig. 1. The relationship between the frequency of cesarean section (A), maternal (B) and neonatal (C) mortality and the level of gross domestic product (D) depending on the economic development of the region

Download (234KB)
Indexing metadata
3. Fig. 2. Frequency of caesarean section in the Russian Federation

Download (133KB)
Indexing metadata

Copyright (c) 2025 "Paediatrician" Publishers LLC



This website uses cookies

You consent to our cookies if you continue to use our website.

About Cookies