Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-5wvtr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-19T16:18:06.689Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Worldwide utilization of caesarean section

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 October 2008

TJ Broadhead  and
DK James
TJ Broadhead
Affiliation:
Department of Obstetrics, Queen’s Medical Centre, Nottingham, UK.
DK James*
Affiliation:
Department of Obstetrics, Queen’s Medical Centre, Nottingham, UK.
*
Professor DK James, Department of Obstetrics, Queen’s Medical Centre, C Floor, East Block, Nottingham NG7 2UH, UK.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Caesarean section (CS) is one of the most common major operations performed around the world, yet operative rates vary considerably. This review will address the variation in caesarean section rates worldwide and changes in these rates over time. In addition we shall try to assess possible explanations for the differences and whether such differences are reflected in outcome.

Type
Articles
Information
Fetal and Maternal Medicine Review , Volume 7 , Issue 2 , May 1995 , pp. 99 - 108
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1995

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1Notzon, FC, Placek, PJ, Taffel, SM. Comparisons of national cesarean section rates. N Engl J Med 1987; 316: 386–89.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
2Bergsjo, P, Schmidt, E, Pusch, D. Differences in the reported frequencies of some obstetrical interventions in Europe. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1983; 90: 628–32.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
3Webster, LA, Daling, JR, McFarlane, C, Ashley, D, Warren, CW. Prevalence and determinants of caesarean section in Jamaica. J Biosoc Sci 1992; 24: 515–25.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
4Notzon, FC. International differences in the use of obstetric interventions. J A M A 1990; 264: 3286–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5Lomas, J. Holding back the tide of caesareans. Br Med J 1988; 297: 569–70.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
6Goyert, GL, Bottoms, SF, Treadwell, MC, Nehra, PC. The physician factor in cesarean birth rates. N Engl J Med 1989; 320: 706–709.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
7Savage, W, Francome, C. British caesarean section rates: have we reached a plateau?. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1993; 100: 493–96.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
8Read, AW, Waddell, VP, Prendiville, WJ, Stanley, FJ. Trends in caesarean section in Western Australia 1980–1987. Med J Aust 1990; 153: 318–23.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
9Nordberg, EM. Incidence and estimated need of caesarean section, inguinal hernia repair and operations for strangulated hernia in rural Africa. Br Med J 1984; 289: 92–93.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
10Anderson, GM, Lomas, J. Recent trends in caesarean section rates in Ontario. Can Med Assoc J 1989; 141: 1049–53.Google ScholarPubMed
11Taffel, 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: 955–59.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
12Thorpe-Beeston, JG, Banfield, PJ, St G Saunders, NJ. Outcome of breech delivery at term. Br Med J 1992; 305: 746–47.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
13Borthen, I, Lossius, P, Skjaerven, R, Bergsjo, P. Changes in frequency and indications for caesarean section in Norway 1967–1984. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 1989; 68: 589–93.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
14Chattopadhyay, SK, Sengupta, PB, Edress, YB, Lambourne, A. Caesarean section: changing patterns in Saudi Arabia. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 1987; 25: 387–94.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
15Derom, R, Patel, NB, Thiery, M. Implications of increasing rates of caesarean section. In: Studd, J ed, Progress in Obstetrics and Gynaecology. Volume 6. Edinburgh: Churchill Livingstone, 1987: 175–94.Google Scholar
16Gibb, DMF, Cardozo, LD, Studd, JWW, Cooper, DJ. Prolonged pregnancy: is induction of labour indicated? A prospective study. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1982; 89: 292–95.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
17Bergsjo, P, Bakketeig, LS, Eikhom, SN. Case-control analysis of post-term induction of labour. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 1982; 61: 317–24.Google Scholar
18Signorelli, C, Elliott, P, Cattaruzza, MS, Osborn, J. Trend of caesarean section in Italy: an examination of national data 1980–1985. Int J Epidemiol 1991; 20: 712–16.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
19Parazzini, F, Pirotta, N, La Vecchia, C, Fedele, L. Determinants of caesarean section rates in Italy. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1992; 99: 203–206.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
20Peipert, JF, Bracken, MB. Maternal age: an independent risk factor for caesarean delivery. Obstet Gynecol 1993; 81: 200–205.Google Scholar
21Gould, JB, Davey, B, Stafford, RS. Socioeconomic differences in rates of cesarean section. N Engl J Med 1989; 321: 233–39.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
22Hall, MM. When a woman asks for a caesarean section. Br Med J 1987; 294: 201–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
23Barros, FC, Vaughan, JP, Victoria, CG, Huttly, SRA. Epidemic of caesarean section in Brazil. Lancet 1991; 338: 167–69.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
24Anderson, GM, Lomas, J. Explaining variations in caesarean section rates: patients, facilities or policies?. Can Med Assoc J 1985; 132: 253–56.Google ScholarPubMed
25Gribble, RK, Meier, PR. Effect of epidural analgesia on the primary cesarean rate. Obstet Gynecol 1991; 78: 231–34.Google ScholarPubMed
26Thorp, JA, Parisi, VM, Brylan, PC, Johnstone, DA. the effect of continuous epidural analgesia on cesarean section for dystocia in nulliparous women. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1989; 161: 670–75.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
27Stafford, RS. Alternative strategies for controlling rising cesarean section rates. J A M A 1990; 263: 683–87.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
28Bertollini, R, DiLallo, D, Spaden, T, Perucci, C. Cesarean section rates in Italy by hospital payment mode: an analysis based on birth certificates. Am J Public Health 1992; 82: 257–61.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
29Stafford, RS. Cesarean section use and source of payment: an analysis of California hospital discharge abstracts. Am J Public Health 1990; 80: 313–15.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
30Janowitz, B, Nakamura, M, Lins, FE, Brown, ML, Clopton, D. Caesarean section in Brazil. Soc Sci Med 1982; 16: 19–25.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
31DeMott, RK, Sandmire, HF. The Green Bay cesarean section study. 1. The physician factor as a determinant of cesarean birth rates. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1990; 162: 1593–602.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
32O’Driscoll, K, Foley, M. Correlation of decrease in perinatal mortality and increase in cesarean section rates. Obstet Gynecol 1983; 61: 1–5.Google ScholarPubMed
33Sanchez-Ramos, L, Kaunitz, AM, Peterson, HB, Martinez-Schnell, B, Thompson, RJ. Reducing cesarean section at a teaching hospital. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1990; 163: 1081–88.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
34Taylor, U, Zentay, Z, Ganesh, V, Apuzzio, J, Murphy, G, Iffy, L. Rates of caesarean section and neonatal mortality. Aust NZ J Obstet Gynaecol 1992; 32: 203–205.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
35Rydhstrom, H, Ingemarsson, K, Ohrlander, S. Lack of correlation between a high caesarean section rate and improved prognosis for low-birthweight twins (<2500g). Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1990; 97: 229–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
36Chamberlain, G. What is the correct caesarean section rate? Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1993; 100: 403–404.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed