Download PDF
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · Libyan International Medical University Journal 2021; 06(02): 61-68
DOI: 10.4103/liuj.liuj_73_21
Original Article

Contributing indications that provoke C-section: A study from tertiary care hospitals

Nikhil Singh
Department of Pharmacology and Toxicology, Moradabad Educational Trust Group of Institutions, Faculty of Pharmacy, Moradabad, Uttar Pradesh, India
,
Rajnish Srivastava
Department of Pharmacology and Toxicology, Moradabad Educational Trust Group of Institutions, Faculty of Pharmacy, Moradabad, Uttar Pradesh, India
,
Surabhi Srivastava
Department of Pharmacology and Toxicology, Moradabad Educational Trust Group of Institutions, Faculty of Pharmacy, Moradabad, Uttar Pradesh, India
,
Pankaj Patel
Department of Pharmacology and Toxicology, Moradabad Educational Trust Group of Institutions, Faculty of Pharmacy, Moradabad, Uttar Pradesh, India
› Author Affiliations
› Further Information
Also available at
   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Background: Both cesarean-section (CS) delivery (CD) and vaginal delivery (VD) is associated with well-known measurable short- and long-term maternal and neonatal complications and benefits. Objective: The present retrospective observational study was conducted on a preliminary basis to evaluate the contributing factors that provoke CS delivery. Materials and Methods: The short-term (6 months) retrospective study was conducted at the Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Pt. Deen Dayal Upadhyay and Northern Railway divisional hospital Moradabad, Uttar Pradesh, India. The sample size was calculated accordingly with a relative precision of 10.2% of prevalence and was found to be 140 and we have taken the sample size of 345. Results: The prevalence of CD for a particular course of duration was found to be 36.23%. The risk of CD increased (P < 0.001) with increased BMI. However, differential limits of normal BMI signify that lower limit of normal BMI possessed high % of CS. As the education profile was getting high the possibility of CS was found to be increased (P < 0.001). Women with negative Rh factor the probability of CS in terms of percentage was found to be 87.5%. There was a proportionate possibility of CS with an increased gap between parities. The % mortality of new-born by CD and VD was 14.28% and 85.71%, respectively, which signifies that CS prevents infant mortality. There was 99.2% possibility of undergoing CS if a woman possessing medical complications. Conclusion: The present study acknowledged that CD ensures feto-maternal safety. However, the study also highlighted some probable indications that might engender CD.

Key-words:

Body mass index - cesarean delivery - caesarean-section - fetomaternal - mortality - parity - Rh factor - vaginal delivery

Financial support and sponsorship

This works comes under institutional funding and was funded by Moradabad Educational Trust Group of Institutions Faculty of Pharmacy, Moradabad, Uttar Pradesh - 244 001, India.




Publication History

Received: 10 June 2021

Accepted: 03 August 2021

Article published online:
14 June 2022

© 2021. Libyan International Medical University. This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commercial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)

Thieme Medical and Scientific Publishers Pvt. Ltd.
A-12, 2nd Floor, Sector 2, Noida-201301 UP, India

 

  • References

  • 1 Althabe F, Belizán JM. Caesarean section: The paradox. Lancet 2006;368:1472-3.
  • 2 Gabrysch S, Zanger P, Campbell OM. Emergency obstetric care availability: A critical assessment of the current indicator. Trop Med Int Health 2012;17:2-8.
  • 3 Miesnik SR, Reale BJ. A review of issues surrounding medically elective cesarean delivery. J Obstet Gynecol Neonatal Nurs 2007;36:605-15.
  • 4 Gibbons L, Belizán JM, Lauer JA, Betrán AP, Merialdi M, Althabe F. The global numbers and costs of additionally needed and unnecessary caesarean sections performed per year: Overuse as a barrier to universal coverage. World Health Rep 2010;30:1-31.
  • 5 Sufang G, Padmadas SS, Fengmin Z, Brown JJ, Stones RW. Delivery settings and caesarean section rates in China. Bull World Health Organ 2007;85:755-62.
  • 6 Thankappan KR. Caesarean section deliveries on the rise in Kerala. Natl Med J India 1999;12:297.
  • 7 Padmadas SS, Kumar S, Nair SB, Kumari A. Caesarean section delivery in Kerala, India: Evidence from a national family health survey. Soc Sci Med 2000;51:511-21.
  • 8 Tollanes MC. Increased rate of Caesarean sections-causes and consequences. Tidsskr NorLaegeforen. 2009;129:1329-31.
  • 9 Young TK, Woodmansee B. Factors that are associated with cesarean delivery in a large private practice: The importance of prepregnancy body mass index and weight gain. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2002;187:312-8.
  • 10 Béhague DP, Victora CG, Barros FC. Consumer demand for caesarean sections in Brazil: Informed decision making, patient choice, or social inequality? A population based birth cohort study linking ethnographic and epidemiological methods. BMJ 2002;324:942-5.
  • 11 Belizán JM, Showalter E, Castro A, Bastian H, Althabe F, Barros FC, et al. Rates and implications of caesarean sections in Latin America: Ecological study commentary: All women should have a choice commentary: Increase in caesarean sections may reflect medical control not women's choice commentary: “Health has become secondary to a sexually attractive body”. BMJ 1999;319:1397-40.
  • 12 Liselele HB, Boulvain M, Tshibangu KC, Meuris S. Maternal height and external pelvimetry to predict cephalopelvic disproportion in nulliparous African women: A cohort study. BJOG 2000;107:947-52.
  • 13 Hannah ME, Whyte H, Hannah WJ, Hewson S, Amankwah K, Cheng M, et al. Maternal outcomes at 2 years after planned cesarean section versus planned vaginal birth for breech presentation at term: The international randomized Term Breech Trial. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2004;191:917-27.
  • 14 Rotem R, Sela HY, Hirsch A, Samueloff A, Grisaru-Granovsky S, Rottenstreich M. The use of a strict protocol in the trial of labor following two previous cesarean deliveries: Maternal and neonatal results. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2020;252:387-92.
  • 15 Pathak PK, Singh A, Subramanian SV. Economic inequalities in maternal health care: Prenatal care and skilled birth attendance in India, 1992-2006. PLoS One. 2010;5:e13593.
  • 16 Lwanga SK, Lemeshow S, World Health Organization. Sample Size Determination in Health Studies: A Practical Manual. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization; 1991.
  • 17 Kuppuswamy B. Manual of Socio-Economic Status Scale. Delhi: Manasayan Publication; 1962.
  • 18 Ghosh S. Increasing trend in caesarean section delivery in India: Role of medicalisation of maternal health. Bangalore, India; 2010.
  • 19 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;77:955-9.
  • 20 Cohen B, Atkins M. Brief history of vaginal birth after cesarean section. Clin Obstet Gynecol 2001;44:604-8.
  • 21 Al-Joborae IR, Ali A, Al-Joborae FF. Unexpected adverse medical and surgical health conditions in neonates after elective cesarean sections within the context of the influence of local socidemographic factors in Babylon. Medico Legal Update 2020;20:706-12.
  • 22 Hallgrimsdottir H, Shumka L, Althaus C, Benoit C. Fear, risk, and the responsible choice: Risk narratives and lowering the rate of caesarean sections in high-income countries. AIMS Public Health 2017;4:615-32.
  • 23 Machado LS. Cesarean section in morbidly obese parturients: Practical implications and complications. N Am J Med Sci 2012;4:13-8.
  • 24 Feldman N, Skoll A, Sibai B. The incidence of significant fetomaternal hemorrhage in patients undergoing cesarean section. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1990;163:855-8.
  • 25 Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology. Cesarean sections. Postnote 2002;184:1.
  • 26 McNally OM, Turner MJ. Induction of labour after 1 previous Caesarean section. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol 1999;39:425-9.
  • 27 Familiari A, Neri C, Caruso A, Airoldi C, Barone-Adesi F, Zanconato G, et al. Vaginal birth after caesarean section: A multicentre study on prognostic factors and feasibility. Arch Gynecol Obstet 2020;301:509-15.
  • 28 van der Spek L, Sanglier S, Mabeya HM, van den Akker T, Mertens PL, Houweling TA. Socioeconomic differences in caesarean section – Are they explained by medical need? An analysis of patient record data of a large Kenyan hospital. Int J Equity Health 2020;19:117.
  • 29 Srinivasan T. Who Forced the C-Section? Maternal-Fetal Conflict and Different Objectives of Care. Penn Bioethics Journal. 2020;15.(Citation as provided by Google scholar).