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)  ( 253 ) 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] Amanda M. Wang, Alan J. Lee, Shannon M. Clark. The effects of overweight and obesity on pregnancy-related morbidity[J]. Clinical and Experimental Obstetrics & Gynecology, 2021, 48(5): 999-1009.
[2] Leen Van den Eeden, Greet Leysens,Dominique Mannaerts, Yves Jacquemyn. Air pollution: cardiovascular and other negative effects on pregnancy: a narrative review[J]. Clinical and Experimental Obstetrics & Gynecology, 2021, 48(5): 1010-1016.
[3] Xin Du, Qian Zou, Yu-Lan Liu. Transumbilical single-hole laparoscopic treatment of cesarean scar pregnancy by uterine artery pre-ligation: a report of 4 cases[J]. Clinical and Experimental Obstetrics & Gynecology, 2021, 48(5): 1044-1047.
[4] Athanasia Tsaroucha, Aliki Tympa Grigoriadou, Tania Moshovou, Kassiani Theodoraki, Aikaterini Melemeni. Efficacy of intrathecally administered fentanyl versus dexmedetomidine for cesarean section: a double blinded, randomized clinical trial[J]. Clinical and Experimental Obstetrics & Gynecology, 2021, 48(5): 1065-1070.
[5] Marcelo Epsztein Kanczuk, Nicholas J Lightfoot, Alison Pighills, Antony Ji, Casey Steele, Daniel Bartlett. The time to perform spinal or general anaesthesia in COVID-19 positive parturients requiring emergency caesarean delivery: a prospective crossover simulation study[J]. Clinical and Experimental Obstetrics & Gynecology, 2021, 48(5): 1099-1106.
[6] Noor Hazim Abdulkareem, Elham Hazeim Abdulkareem. SARS-CoV-2 detection in pregnant and non-pregnant women[J]. Clinical and Experimental Obstetrics & Gynecology, 2021, 48(5): 1141-1145.
[7] Eser Ağar, Seda Şahin Aker. Effect of sexual dysfunction on women's preference for delivery methods: a social media-based survey[J]. Clinical and Experimental Obstetrics & Gynecology, 2021, 48(5): 1154-1161.
[8] Uros Visic, Tatjana Stopar Pintaric, Tit Albreht, Iva Blajic, Miha Lucovnik. Multimodal stepwise analgesia for reducing opioid consumption after cesarean delivery[J]. Clinical and Experimental Obstetrics & Gynecology, 2021, 48(5): 1162-1166.
[9] Min Jung Kim, Hee-Sook Lim, Hae-Hyeog Lee, Tae-Hee Kim, Yongsoon Park. Dietary assessment, nutrition knowledge, and pregnancy outcome in high-risk pregnant Korean women[J]. Clinical and Experimental Obstetrics & Gynecology, 2021, 48(5): 1178-1185.
[10] Neha Sethi, Ann Gee Tan, Maherah Kamarudin, Sofiah Sulaiman. Successful delivery of a twin pregnancy with complete hydatidiform mole and coexistent live fetus: a case report and review of literature[J]. Clinical and Experimental Obstetrics & Gynecology, 2021, 48(5): 1232-1247.
[11] Luca Roncati, Greta Gianotti, Elisa Ambrogi, Giovanna Attolini. COVID-19 in pregnancy[J]. Clinical and Experimental Obstetrics & Gynecology, 2021, 48(4): 778-780.
[12] Lorenz Hinterleitner, Herbert Kiss, Johannes Ott. The impact of Cesarean section on female fertility: a narrative review[J]. Clinical and Experimental Obstetrics & Gynecology, 2021, 48(4): 781-786.
[13] Silvia Amodeo, Giulia Bonavina, Anna Seidenari, Paolo Ivo Cavoretto, Antonio Farina. Real-world implementation and adaptation to local settings of first trimester preeclampsia screening in Italy: a systematic review[J]. Clinical and Experimental Obstetrics & Gynecology, 2021, 48(4): 812-819.
[14] Yu Deng, Zhan-Hui Ou, Min-Na Yin, Pei-Ling Liang, Zhi-Heng Chen, Abraham Morse, Ling Sun. Age and anti-Műllerian hormone: prediction of cumulative pregnancy outcome in in vitro fertilization with diminished ovarian reserve[J]. Clinical and Experimental Obstetrics & Gynecology, 2021, 48(4): 835-841.
[15] Serdar Balci. The effect of ultraviolet index measurements on levels of vitamin D andinflammatory markers in pregnant women[J]. Clinical and Experimental Obstetrics & Gynecology, 2021, 48(4): 888-892.
No Suggested Reading articles found!