Please wait a minute...
Clinical and Experimental Obstetrics & Gynecology  2019, Vol. 46 Issue (6): 943-947    DOI: 10.12891/ceog4979.2019
Original Research Previous articles | Next articles
Cesarean section: Where are we are now? A comparative study between 1997-1998 and 2015-2016 at a tertiary teaching hospital in a developing country
A. Basha1, *(), Z. Falayleh1, R. Jabra1, S. Attili1, Y. Obeidat2, L. El-Khatib2, A. Ala'eddien Obeidat3
1Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Jordan University Hospital, The University of Jordan, Amman, Jordan
2Faculty of medicine, The Hashemite University of Jordan, Amman, Jordan
3Modern Montessori School, Amman, Jordan
Download:  PDF(386KB)  ( 244 ) Full text   ( 5 )
Export:  BibTeX | EndNote (RIS)      
Abstract  

Purpose: The continued rise in caesarean section deliveries (CS) raises a major public health concern worldwide; our aim is to evaluate trends and determinants this increase, comparing indications between 1997 and 1998 (group A) and 2015 and 2016 (group B). Materials and Methods: A retrospective study was conducted at Jordan University Hospital analyzing all indications of CSs. Each delivery was assigned to the primary indication noted for that pregnancy. Results: The CS rate gradually rose from 22% in group A to 62%, and to 65% in group B. The leading indications for the increase rate of CS across the years were previous ≥ 2 CS, followed by decreasing rate of trial of previous uterine scar, non-reassuring fetal heart pattern, breech presentation, twin pregnancies, obstructed labor, and placenta previa. Conclusion: CS rates increased over the last 20 years. The appropriate way is to deal with this trend, is to reduce the primary section.

Key words:  Cesarean section      Developing country      Pregnancy     
Published:  10 December 2019     
*Corresponding Author(s):  ASMA BASHA     E-mail:  bashaasma@yahoo.com

Cite this article: 

A. Basha, Z. Falayleh, R. Jabra, S. Attili, Y. Obeidat, L. El-Khatib, A. Ala'eddien Obeidat. Cesarean section: Where are we are now? A comparative study between 1997-1998 and 2015-2016 at a tertiary teaching hospital in a developing country. Clinical and Experimental Obstetrics & Gynecology, 2019, 46(6): 943-947.

URL: 

https://ceog.imrpress.com/EN/10.12891/ceog4979.2019     OR     https://ceog.imrpress.com/EN/Y2019/V46/I6/943

[1] Ali S. Alqahtani. Seroprevalence of Dengue virus among pregnant mothers and their-newborn infants in the southwest of Saudi Arabia[J]. Clinical and Experimental Obstetrics & Gynecology, 2020, 47(5): 741-743.
[2] M. Elmahdy, I. Elfourtia, H. Maghraby. Office hysteroscopy in cases of recurrent implantation failure; Do or not to do[J]. Clinical and Experimental Obstetrics & Gynecology, 2020, 47(5): 723-728.
[3] L.L. Xu, J.Q. Li, Y.Q. Pu, C. Zhou, S.W. Feng, Q. Luo. Effect of prenatal depression during late pregnancy on maternal and neonatal outcomes[J]. Clinical and Experimental Obstetrics & Gynecology, 2020, 47(5): 681-686.
[4] Y.X. Wang, M. Zhong, H. Yi, H.F. He. Detection of group B streptococcus colonization in cervical and lower vaginal secretions of pregnant women[J]. Clinical and Experimental Obstetrics & Gynecology, 2020, 47(5): 669-674.
[5] I.F. Urunsak, U.K. Gulec, E. Eser, M. Sucu, C. Akcabay, S. Buyukkurt. The role of dinoprostone for labor induction in postterm and high-risk term pregnancies[J]. Clinical and Experimental Obstetrics & Gynecology, 2020, 47(5): 664-668.
[6] S. Han, S. Choi, S. Nah, Y.H. Lee. Preterm labor in mild carbon monoxide poisoning: a case report[J]. Clinical and Experimental Obstetrics & Gynecology, 2020, 47(5): 805-806.
[7] H.S.O. Abduljabbar, H. Abduljabar. A systematic review and meta-analysis of the reported symptoms of Covid 19 in pregnancy[J]. Clinical and Experimental Obstetrics & Gynecology, 2020, 47(5): 632-637.
[8] M. Varras, C. Loukas, N. Nikiteas, V.K. Varra, F.N. Varra, E. Georgiou. Comparison of laparoscopic surgical skills acquired on a virtual reality simulator and a box trainer: an analysis for obstetrics-gynecology residents[J]. Clinical and Experimental Obstetrics & Gynecology, 2020, 47(5): 755-763.
[9] H. Takahashi, Y. Baba, R. Usui, S. Nagayama, K. Horie, A. Ohkuchi, S. Matsubara. Proteinuria as a novel risk factor for allogeneic blood transfusion irrespective of single or twin pregnancy[J]. Clinical and Experimental Obstetrics & Gynecology, 2020, 47(5): 709-713.
[10] H. Yolli, M.E. Demir, R. Yildizhan. Neutrophil gelatinase associated lipocalin-2 (Ngal) levels in preeclampsia[J]. Clinical and Experimental Obstetrics & Gynecology, 2020, 47(4): 519-523.
[11] K. Chikazawa, K. Imai, T. Kuwata, K. Takagi. Prophylactic laparoscopic adnexal surgery with low-pressure CO2 insufflation for ovarian cysts during the late first trimester or second trimester of pregnancy[J]. Clinical and Experimental Obstetrics & Gynecology, 2020, 47(4): 537-540.
[12] J. A. Villarreal-Rodriguez, L. G. Mancillas Adame, J. Maldonado-Sanchez, A. Guzmán-López, O. R. Treviño-Montemayor, J. G. Gonzalez-Gonzalez, D. Saldívar-Rodríguez. A randomized controlled trial comparing acarbose vs. insulin therapy for gestational diabetes in individuals with inadequate glycemic control by diet alone[J]. Clinical and Experimental Obstetrics & Gynecology, 2020, 47(4): 552-555.
[13] J. Ogawa, S. Suzuki. Risk factors of self-interruption of medications for mental disorders in pregnancy[J]. Clinical and Experimental Obstetrics & Gynecology, 2020, 47(4): 576-578.
[14] A. Daniilidis, G. Dryllis, G. Chorozoglou, M. Politou, R. Dampali, K. Dinas. Substitution of hemoglobin levels in pregnant women with iron supplement: A prospective randomized clinical study[J]. Clinical and Experimental Obstetrics & Gynecology, 2020, 47(4): 579-583.
[15] Z.Y. Chang, R. Cao, R.C. Xu, Y. Cheng, Q.J. Wan. Pregnancy in a peritoneal dialysis patient undergoing intermittent peritoneal dialysis during the third trimester of pregnancy: a case report and literature review[J]. Clinical and Experimental Obstetrics & Gynecology, 2020, 47(4): 596-599.
No Suggested Reading articles found!