Analysis of cesarean section rates and indications using ten group classification


  • Daniela Almeida Obstetrics Service of Centro Hospitalar do Porto
  • Ana Sofia Cardoso Obstetrics Service of Centro Hospitalar do Porto
  • Rosa Maria Rodrigues Obstetrics Service of Centro Hospitalar do Porto
  • Ana Cunha Obstetrics Service of Centro Hospitalar do Porto



Cesarean section indications, cesarean section rates, classification system, labor, ten groups


Introduction and aim: We performed a retrospective observational study to identify the obstetric parameters of all women submitted to cesarean section in January/February and June/July of 2011 in our institution and the indications to perform it.

Material and Methods: We reviewed the clinical records of these women and categorized them in ten obstetric groups (Robson´s classification) based on the following parameters: single/multiple pregnancy, nulliparity/multiparity/multiparity with a previous cesarean section, cephalic/non-cephalic presentation, spontaneous/induced labour/cesarean section without labour and preterm/term delivery. In each group we analyzed the reason(s) why the cesarean section was performed except for multiple gestations.

Results: There were 1167 single deliveries, 391 by cesarean section and a cesarean section rate of 33,5% (36% elective). Cesarean section was more common in term nulíparas with induced labor and in women with a previous cesarean section. During labor, the most common reasons named by the physician were labor arrest, suspected cephalopelvic disproportion and nonreassuring fetal status. Fetal mal presentation represents 4,4% of cesarean section rate. This contribution is superior to the one of the preterm group (3%). Among term multiparas without a previous scar there were less cesarean sections.

Conclusions: The analysis of these results suggests that avoiding a fi rst elective cesarean section and allowing a spontaneous labor onset are essential for long term decrease in cesarean section rates. Efforts should be made to convert subjective indications into objective ones, trough well defi ned evidence-based guidelines regarding intrapartum fetal monitoring and labor arrest.


Download data is not yet available.


Graça LM. Cesariana. In: Graça LM (ed). Medicina Materno-Fetal. 4ª ed. Lisboa: Lidel; 2010. p. 689-95.

Brennan DJ, Robson MS, Murphy M, O´Herlihy. Comparative analysis of international cesarian delivery rates using 10-group classifi cation identifi es signifi cant variation in spontaneous labor. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2009; 201:308. e1-8.

Barber EL, Lundsberg LS, Belanger K, Pettker C, Funai E, Illuzzi J. Indications contributing to the increasing caesarean delivery rate. Obstet Gynecol 2011; 118: 29-38.

Robson MS. Can we reduce the caesarean section rate? Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol 2001; 15:179-94.

Maternal, Infant, and Child Health – Objectives. Disponível em: (acedido em: 13 de dezembro de 2012).

Relatório da Comissão para a Redução da Taxa de Cesarianas da Administração Regional de Saúde do Norte, I.P. Disponível em:údos/GRP/Cesarianas (acedido em: 21 de outubro de 2013).

Robson MS. Classifi cation of cesarean sections. Fetal and Maternal Medicine Review 2001; 12:23-39.

Spong CY, Berghella V, Wenstrom KD, Brian M, Saade GR. Preventing the fi rst caesarean delivery. Obstet Gynecol 2012; 120:1181-93.

Algert CS, Morris J, Simpson J, Ford J, Roberts C. Labor before a primary cesarean delivery. Obstet Gynecol 2008; 112:1061-6.

Hannah ME, Hannah WJ, Hewson SA, Hodnett ED, Saigal S, Willan AR. Planned caesarean section versus planned vaginal birth for breech presentation at term: a randomised multicentre trial. The Lancet 2000; 356:1375-83.

Glezerman M. Five years to the term breech trial: the rise and fall of a randomized controlled trial. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2006; 194:20-5.

Hehir MP, O´Connor HD, Kent EM, Fitzpatrick C, Boylan PC, Coulter-Smith S, et al. Changes in vaginal breech delivery rates in a single large metropolitan area. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2012; 206:498.e1-4.

Grootscholten K, Kok M, Oei SG, Mol B, van der Post J. External Cephalic Version-related risks. Obstet Gynecol 2008; 112:1143-51.



How to Cite

Almeida D, Cardoso AS, Rodrigues RM, Cunha A. Analysis of cesarean section rates and indications using ten group classification. REVNEC [Internet]. 2016Mar.1 [cited 2024Jul.16];23(3):134-9. Available from:



Original Articles

Most read articles by the same author(s)