Cesarean section rate: navigating the gap between WHO recommended range and current obstetrical challenges

References

• Appropriate technology for birth. Lancet. 1985;2(8452):436–437.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Betrán AP, Torloni MR, Zhang J, et al. What is the optimal rate of caesarean section at population level? A systematic review of ecologic studies. Reprod Health. 2015;12(1):57. doi:10.1186/s12978-015-0043-6.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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):e005671. doi:10.1136/bmjgh-2021-005671.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Althabe F, Sosa C, Belizán JM, et al. Cesarean section rates and maternal and neonatal mortality in low-, medium-, and high-income countries: an ecological study. Birth. 2006;33(4):270–277. doi:10.1111/j.1523-536X.2006.00118.x.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Laine K, Pay AD, Yli BM. Time trends in caesarean section rates and associations with perinatal and neonatal health: a population-based cohort study of 1 153 789 births in Norway. BMJ Open. 2023;13(2):e069562. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2022-069562.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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:10.1111/1471-0528.13592.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tranquilli AL, Giannubilo SR. Cesarean delivery on maternal request in Italy. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2004;84(2):169–170. doi:10.1016/S0020-7292(03)00319-9.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Signore C, Klebano M. Neonatal morbidity and mortality after elective cesarean delivery. Clin Perinatol. 2008;35(2):361–371, vi. doi:10.1016/j.clp.2008.03.009.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Boutsikou T, Malamitsi Puchner A. Caesarean section: impact on mother and child. Acta Paediatr. 2011;100(12):1518–1522. doi:10.1111/j.1651-2227.2011.02477.x.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lavender T, Hofmeyr GJ, Neilson JP, et al. Caesarean section for non-medical reasons at term. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012;2012(3):CD004660. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD004660.pub3.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Masciullo L, Petruzziello L, Perrone G, et al. Caesarean section on maternal request: an italian comparative study on patients’ characteristics, pregnancy outcomes and guidelines overview. IJERPH. 2020;17(13):4665. doi:10.3390/ijerph1713466.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fratelli N, Prefumo F, Maggi C, et al. Third-trimester ultrasound for antenatal diagnosis of placenta accreta spectrum in women with placenta previa: results from the ADoPAD study. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2022;60(3):381–389. doi:10.1002/uog.24889.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Valentini AL, Gui B, Ninivaggi V, et al. The morbidly adherent placenta: when and what association of signs can improve MRI diagnosis? Our experience. Diagn Interv Radiol. 2017;23(3):180–186. doi:10.5152/dir.2017.16275.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Oláh K. Have caesarean section rates become an obsolete statistic? Time to throw in the towel in the fight to reduce caesarean section rates. BJOG. 2019;126(7):828–830. doi:10.1111/1471-0528.15650.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Halpern S. SOGC joint policy statement on normal childbirth. J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2009;31(7):602. doi:10.1016/S1701-2163(16)34236-0.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• National Institute for Health and Care Excellence: clinical Guidelines. Caesarean birth. London: NICE; 2021.
   Google Scholar
• The Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. Caesarean delivery on maternal request (CDMR). East Melbourne: RANZCOG; 2013.
   Google Scholar
• Ministero della Salute: linee Guida. Taglio cesareo: una scelta appropriata e consapevole [cesarean section: an appropriate and informed choice]. Rome: Ministero della Salute; 2014.
   Google Scholar
• American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. ACOG committee opinion no. 761, january 2019. Cesarean delivery on maternal request. Obstet Gynecol. 2019;133:e73–e77. doi:10.1097/AOG.0000000000003006.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Betrán AP, Torloni MR, Zhang J, WHO Working Group on Caesarean Section, et al. WHO statement on caesarean section rates. BJOG. 2016;123(5):667–670. doi:10.1111/1471-0528.13526.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Robson MS. The 10-Group classification system-a new way of thinking. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2018;219(1):1–4. doi:10.1016/j.ajog.2018.05.026.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Betrán AP, Vindevoghel N, Souza JP, et al. 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. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0097769.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Obstetric care consensus no. 1. safe prevention of the primary cesarean delivery. Obstetr Gynecol. 2014;123(3):693–711. doi:10.1097/01.AOG.0000444441.04111.1d.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Muglu J, Rather H, Arroyo-Manzano D, et al. Risks of stillbirth and neonatal death with advancing gestation at term: a systematic review and meta-analysis of cohort studies of 15 million pregnancies. PLoS Med. 2019;16(7):e1002838. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1002838.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• D'Ambrosi F, Ruggiero M, Cesano N, et al. Risk of stillbirth in singleton fetuses with advancing gestational age at term: a 10-year experience of late third trimester prenatal screenings of 50,000 deliveries in a referral center in Northern Italy. PLoS One. 2023;18(2):e0277262. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0277262.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sokołowski Ł, Słodki M, Murlewska J, et al. Fetal echocardiography in the 3rd trimester of pregnancy as an essential element of modern prenatal diagnostics and perinatal care – recommendations of polish society of prenatal cardiology 2020. pcard. 2020;2020(1):5–12. doi:10.5114/pcard.2020.102272.
   Google Scholar
• Zhang J, Yancey MK, Henderson CE. US national trends in labor induction, 1989-1998. J Reprod Med. 2002;47(2):120–124.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grobman WA. Elective induction: when? ever? Clin Obstet Gynecol. 2007;50(2):537–546. doi:10.1097/GRF.0b013e31804bdec4.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Marconi AM. Recent advances in the induction of labor. F1000Res. 2019;8:1829. doi:10.12688/f1000research.17587.1.
   Google Scholar
• Salute.gov.it. Rome: ministero della Salute. https://www.salute.gov.it/imgs/C_17_pubblicazioni_3346_allegato.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Vogel JP, Gülmezoglu AM, Hofmeyr GJ, et al. Global perspectives on elective induction of labor. Clin Obstet Gynecol. 2014;57(2):331–342. doi:10.1097/GRF.0000000000000031.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schoen CN, Grant G, Berghella V, et al. Intracervical foley catheter with and without oxytocin for labor in- duction: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol. 2017;129(6):1046–1053. doi:10.1097/AOG.0000000000002032.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nasioudis D, Kim SW, Schoen C, et al. Maternal and neonatal outcomes with mechanical cervical dilation plus miso- prostol compared to misoprostol alone for cervical ripening; a systematic review of literature and metaanalysis. Am J Obstet Gynecol MFM. 2019;1(2):101–111. doi:10.1016/j.ajogmf.2019.06.003.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ornat L, Alonso-Ventura V, Bueno- Notivol J, et al. Misoprostol combined with cervical single or double balloon catheters versus misoprostol alone for labor induction of singleton pregnancies: a meta-analysis of ran- domized trials. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2020;33(20):3453–3468. doi:10.1080/14767058.2019.1574741.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Levine LD, Downes KL, Elovitz MA, et al. Mechanical and pharmacologic methods of labor induction: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol. 2016;128(6):1357–1364. doi:10.1097/AOG.0000000000001778.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sanchez-Ramos L, Levine LD, Sciscione AC, et al. Methods for the induction of labor: efficacy and safety. Am J Obstet Gynecol MFM. 2023; in press. doi:10.1016/j.ajog.2023.02.009.
   Google Scholar
• D'Indinosante M, Vidiri A, Giorgi L, et al. Pre-cervical ripening and hygroscopic cervical dilators in pre-labor induction. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2023;36(2):2239422. doi:10.1080/14767058.2023.2239422.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Di Pasquo E, Ricciardi P, Valenti A, et al. Achieving an appropriate cesarean birth (CB) rate and analyzing the changes using the robson Ten- Group classification system (TGCS): lessons from a tertiary care hospital in Italy. Birth. 2022;49(3):430–439. doi:10.1111/birt.12612.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• World Health Organization. Labour care guide: user’s manual. Geneva: WHO; 2020.
   Google Scholar
• Oladapo OT, Diaz V, Bonet M, et al. Cervical dilatation patterns of 'low-risk’ women with spontaneous labour and normal perinatal outcomes: a systematic review. BJOG. 2018;125(8):944–954. doi:10.1111/1471-0528.14930.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bonet M, Oladapo OT, Souza JP, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of the partograph alert and action lines to predict adverse birth outcomes: a systematic review. BJOG. 2019;126(13):1524–1533. doi:10.1111/1471-0528.15884.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hermesch AC, Kernberg AS, Layoun VR, et al. Oxytocin: physiology, pharmacology, and clinical application for labor management. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2023;S0002-9378(23):00439–00438. doi:10.1016/j.ajog.2023.06.041.
   Google Scholar
• Tournier A, Beacom M, Westgate JA, et al. Physiological control of fetal heart rate variability during labour: implications and controversies. J Physiol. 2022;600(3):431–450. doi:10.1113/JP282276.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sheen JJ, Goffman D, Deering S. Simulation in obstetric emergencies. Obstet Gynecol Clin North Am. 2022;49(3):637–646. doi:10.1016/j.ogc.2022.04.005.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Adewale V, Varotsis D, Iyer N, et al. Planned cesarean delivery versus planned vaginal delivery: a systematic review and Meta-Analysis of randomized controlled trials. Am J Obstet Gynecol MFM. 2023;5(12):101186. doi:10.1016/j.ajogmf.2023.101186.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar