The changing indications and rates of cesarean section in one academic center over a 16-year period (1997–2012)

Samuel Lurie, Amir Shalev, Oscar Sadan, Abraham Golan

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

Abstract

Objective To compare trends and rates of cesarean section delivery by indication in one academic center. Materials and Methods A retrospective analysis of the indications of all cesarean sections performed in Edith Wolfson Medical Center, Holon, Israel, a tertiary healthcare university facility, during 1997–2012 was done. Each delivery was assigned to the primary indication noted for that pregnancy, regardless of other indications reported. Whenever more than one indication was present, the principle indication chosen by the attending obstetrician was chosen for the analysis. Results The cesarean section rate gradually rose from 15.29% in 1997 to 21.10% in 2012, with an overall cesarean section rate of 20.66%. The cesarean section rate between 1997 and 2000 was 17.52%, between 2001 and 2004 was 18.5%, between 2005 and 2009 was 22.86%, and between 2009 and 2012 was 22.07% (p < 0.001). The five leading primary indications across the years were previous cesarean section (26.0%), non-reassuring fetal heart rate pattern (18.1%), malpresentation (16.9%), labor dystocia (8.8%), and suspected macrosomia (7.2%). Conclusion Previous cesarean section persistently increased and was the leading indication throughout the years. Any attempt to reverse this trend must be based on reduction of the primary cesarean section rate.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)499-502
Number of pages4
JournalTaiwanese Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology
Volume55
Issue number4
DOIs
StatePublished - 1 Aug 2016

Keywords

  • cesarean section
  • indications for cesarean section
  • primary cesarean section rate
  • secondary cesarean section rate

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'The changing indications and rates of cesarean section in one academic center over a 16-year period (1997–2012)'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this