The rise in caesarean section rate: the same indications but a lower threshold
Open Access
- 1 June 1998
- journal article
- research article
- Published by Wiley in BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology
- Vol. 105 (6) , 621-626
- https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-0528.1998.tb10176.x
Abstract
Objective To investigate the reasons for the rise in caesarean section rate and note any change in Design A retrospective, descriptive study comparing the years 1962 and 1992. Setting A large city centre teaching hospital. Results There was an overall increase in the caesarean section rate from 6.8% in 1962 to 18.1% in 1992. No single cause contributed more than 30% towards this increase. The main indications in both years were similar: failure to progress (42.2%vs 36.7%) and fetal indications (18.1%vs 18.9%). The largest relative increases were in the malpresentation group (10.8%vs 16%) and previous caesarean section (4.5%vs 15.2%). Conclusions These results suggest that there has been a lowering in the overall threshold concerning the decision to carry out a caesarean section rather than changes in obstetric management. Obstetricians and the women in their care have to decide whether the current balance between risk and benefit is acceptable or whether they wish to alter the underlying philosophy if any significant reduction is to be sustained. indications.Keywords
This publication has 17 references indexed in Scilit:
- A Clinical Trial of Active Management of LaborNew England Journal of Medicine, 1995
- Active management of labour: current knowledge and research issuesBMJ, 1994
- British caesarean section rates have we reached a plateau?BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, 1994
- Caesarean section rates: Evaluate the reasons for surgeryBMJ, 1994
- Failure to progress in the management of labourBJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, 1994
- The rising trend for caesarean birth.BMJ, 1993
- What is happening to caesarean section rates?The Lancet, 1993
- What is the correct caesarean section rate?BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, 1993
- Holding back the tide of caesareans.BMJ, 1988
- Active Management of LabourBMJ, 1973