1887
  1. Home
  2. A-Z Publications
  3. Journal of Emergency Medicine, Trauma and Acute Care
  4. Volume 2022, Issue 6
  5. Article
6 The Anbar 2nd International Medical Conference (AIMCO 2022)
  • ISSN: 1999-7086
  • EISSN: 1999-7094

Abstract

Globally, there is an increment in the cesarean section rate. Although the cesarean section is a lifesaving surgery in some cases, it is not safer than vaginal delivery and associated with higher maternal and perinatal complications. Many cesarean sections nowadays are performed for non-medical reasons, and decision-making is affected by social factors and the health standards of the community.

The objective of this study is to assess the non-medical reasons for cesarean sections.

This cross-sectional descriptive study was conducted in two teaching hospitals in Anbar province/Iraq. Women who underwent planned cesarean section at term were included. The inclusion criteria were cephalic fetal presentation, normally sited placenta, and no previous uterine scar. A questionnaire was set regarding the medical causes of planned cesarean section and any non-medical reasons that affect the decision-making. Seniors in obstetrics and gynecology in these hospitals responsible for these women were asked to fill in these questionnaires.

Out of 82 women included in the study, 11% were aged 35 years or more and 65.9% were nullipara. About 43.9% of the cesarean sections were performed for a purely medical cause and 34.1% had a medical cause for terminating the pregnancy. Still, decision-making was affected by non-medical reasons, and in 22% of the cases, cesarean sections were done without medical causes. A maternal request for cesarean section was the most common reason for those who underwent cesarean section without a medical cause.

Proper maternal counseling about the potential risks of cesarean section and improving health care in the labor room can help in decreasing the cesarean section rate and its associated mortality and morbidity.

© 2022 Zaidan, licensee HBKU Press.
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.5339/jemtac.2022.aimco.17
2022-12-22
2024-05-05
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/jemtac/2022/6/jemtac.2022.aimco.17.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.5339/jemtac.2022.aimco.17&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

References

  1. Lyell DJ, Power M, Murtough K, Ness A, Anderson B, Erickson K, et al. Surgical techniques at cesarean delivery: a US survey. Surg J. 2016; 2:(04):e119–25. Doi: 10.1055/s-0036-1594247.
     [Google Scholar]
  2. Tita AT. When is primary cesarean appropriate: maternal and obstetrical indications. Semin Perinatol. 2012 Oct; 36:(5):324–7. Doi: 10.1053/j.semperi.2012.04.014. PMID: 23009963.
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Begum T, Rahman A, Nababan H, Hoque DME, Khan AF, Ali T, Anwar I. Indications and determinants of caesarean section delivery: Evidence from a population-based study in Matlab, Bangladesh. PloS One. 2017 Nov; 12:(11):e0188074. Doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0188074. PMID: 29155840; PMCID: PMC5695799.
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Gedefaw G, Demis A, Alemnew B, et al. Prevalence, indications, and outcomes of caesarean section deliveries in Ethiopia: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Patient Saf Surg. 2020; 14::11. Doi: 10.1186/s13037-020-00236-8.
     [Google Scholar]
  5. Rafiei M, Ghare MS, Akbari M, Kiani F, Sayehmiri F, Sayehmiri K, et al. Prevalence, causes, and complications of cesarean delivery in Iran: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Reprod Biomed. 2018 Apr; 16:(4):221−34. PMID: 29942930; PMCID: PMC6004597.
     [Google Scholar]
  6. WHO Report. Appropriate technology for birth. Lancet. 1985; 2::436–7.
     [Google Scholar]
  7. WHO Report. Statement of caesarean section rate. Published at April 2015. Available from: http://www.WHO.int/reproductive health/topics.
     [Google Scholar]
  8. Betran AP, Ye J, Moller A-B, Souza JP, Zhang J. Trends and projections of caesarean section rates: global and regional estimates. BMJ Global Health. 2021; 6::e005671. Doi: 10.1136/ bmjgh-2021-005671.
     [Google Scholar]
  9. Shabila NP. Rates and trends in cesarean sections between 2008 and 2012 in Iraq. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2017; 17::22. Doi: 10.1186/s12884-016-1211-6.
     [Google Scholar]
  10. Shabila NP. Trends and changes in cesarean delivery rates in Iraq: findings from the multiple indicator cluster surveys, 2011–2018. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2021; 5:(25):6272–7. Doi: 10.1080/14767058.2021.1910664.
     [Google Scholar]
  11. Tollånes MC. Tidsskrift for den Norske Laegeforening : Tidsskrift for Praktisk Medicin, ny Raekke [Increased rate of Caesarean sections—causes and consequences]. 2009 Jun; 129:(13):1329−31. Doi: 10.4045/tidsskr.08.0453. PMID: 19561658.
     [Google Scholar]
  12. Sandall J, Tribe RM, Avery L, Mola G, Visser GH, Homer CS, et al. Short-term and long-term effects of caesarean section on the health of women and children. Lancet. 2018 Oct; 392:(10155):1349−57. Doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(18)31930-5. PMID: 30322585.
     [Google Scholar]
  13. Clark SL, Belfort MA, Dildy GA, Herbst MA, Meyers JA, et al. Maternal death in the 21st century: causes, prevention, and relationship to cesarean delivery. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2008 Jul; 199:(1):36.e1−5; discussion 91-2. e7−11. Doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2008.03.007. Epub May 2, 2008. PMID: 18455140.
     [Google Scholar]
  14. Burke C, Allen R. Complications of cesarean birth: Clinical recommendations for prevention and management. MCN Am J Matern Child Nurs. 2020 Mar/Apr; 45:(2):92−9. Doi: 10.1097/NMC.0000000000000598. PMID: 31804227.
     [Google Scholar]
  15. Butwick AJ, Ramachandran B, Hegde P, Riley ET, El-Sayed YY, Nelson LM. Risk factors for severe postpartum hemorrhage after cesarean delivery: Case-control studies. Anesth Analg. 2017; 125:(2):523−32. Doi: 10.1213/ANE.0000000000001962.
     [Google Scholar]
  16. Carter EB, Temming LA, Fowler S, Eppes C, Gross G, Srinivas SK, et al. Evidence-based bundles and cesarean delivery surgical site infections: A systematic review and metaanalysis. Obstet Gynecol. 2017; 130:(4):735−46. Doi: 10.1097/ AOG.0000000000002249.
     [Google Scholar]
  17. Blondon M, Casini A, Hoppe KK, Boehlen F, Righini M, Smith NL. Risks of venous thromboembolism after cesarean sections: A meta-analysis. Chest. 2016; 150:(3):572−96. Doi: 10.1016/j.chest.2016.05.021.
     [Google Scholar]
  18. Antoine C, Young BK. Cesarean section one hundred years 1920-2020: the Good, the Bad and the Ugly. J Perinat Med. 2020 Sep; 49:(1):5−16. Doi: 10.1515/jpm-2020-0305. PMID: 32887190.
     [Google Scholar]
  19. Sholapurkar SL. Etiology of cesarean uterine scar defect (niche): detailed critical analysis of hypotheses and prevention strategies and peritoneal closure debate. J Clin Med Res. 2018; 10::166–73.
     [Google Scholar]
  20. Negrini R, da Silva Ferreira RD, Guimarães DZ. Value-based care in obstetrics: comparison between vaginal birth and caesarean section. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 2021; 21::333. Doi: 10.1186/s12884-021-03798-2.
     [Google Scholar]
  21. Mylonas I, Friese K. Indications for and risks of elective cesarean section. Dtsch Arztebl Int. 2015 Jul; 112:(29-30):489−95. Doi: 10.3238/arztebl.2015.0489. PMID: 26249251; PMCID: PMC4555060.
     [Google Scholar]
  22. Idris H, Anggraini R. Highest economic status increases risk of cesarean section in women of child bearing age. Univ Med. 2022; 41::129−38. Doi: 10.18051/UnivMed.2022.v41.129-138.
     [Google Scholar]
  23. Begum T, Rahman A, Nababan H, Hoque DME, Khan AF, Ali T, et al. Indications and determinants of caesarean section delivery: Evidence from a population-based study in Matlab, Bangladesh. PloS One. 2017; 12:(11):e0188074. Doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0188074
     [Google Scholar]
  24. Elnakib S, Abdel-Tawab N, Orbay D, Hassanein N. Medical and non-medical reasons for cesarean section delivery in Egypt: a hospital-based retrospective study. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2019 Nov; 19:(1):411. Doi: 10.1186/s12884-019-2558-2. PMID: 31703638; PMCID: PMC6842224.
     [Google Scholar]
  25. Begum T, Ellis C, Sarker M. A qualitative study to explore the attitudes of women and obstetricians towards caesarean delivery in rural Bangladesh. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2018; 18::368. Doi: 10.1186/s12884-018-1993-9.
     [Google Scholar]
  26. Yazdizadeh B, Nedjat S, Mohammad K, Rashidian A, Changizi N, Majdzadeh R. Cesarean section rate in Iran, multidimensional approaches for behavioral change of providers: a qualitative study. BMC Health Serv Res. 2011 Jul; 11::159. Doi: 10.1186/1472-6963-11-159.
     [Google Scholar]
  27. Ionescu CA, Dimitriu M, Poenaru E, Bănacu M, Furău GO, Navolan D, et al. Defensive caesarean section: A reality and a recommended health care improvement for Romanian obstetrics. J Eval Clin Pract. 2019 Feb; 25:(1):111−6. Doi: 10.1111/jep.13025. Epub Sep 4, 2018. PMID: 30178624; PMCID: PMC6586009.
     [Google Scholar]
  28. Fineschi V, Arcangeli M, Di Fazio N, Del Fante Z, Fineschi B, Santoro P, et al. Defensive medicine in the management of cesarean delivery: A survey among Italian physicians. Healthcare (Basel). 2021 Aug; 9:(9):1097. Doi: 10.3390/healthcare9091097. PMID: 34574870; PMCID: PMC8472348.
     [Google Scholar]
  29. Choudary A, Siraj A, Tariq H, Chughtai F, Urooj U. Ethical dilemma of cesarean section on maternal request (CSMR). Pak Armed Forces Med J. 2021; 71:(2):535−9. Doi: 10.51253/pafmj.v71i2.
     [Google Scholar]
  30. Loke AY, Davies L, Mak Yw. Is it the decision of women to choose a cesarean section as the mode of birth? A review of literature on the views of stakeholders. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 2019; 19::286. Doi: 10.1186/s12884-019-2440-2.
     [Google Scholar]
  31. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists ACOG, Cesarean Delivery on Maternal Request, Committee Opinion No.761, January 2019.
     [Google Scholar]
  32. Boerma T, Ronsmans C, Melesse DY, Barros AJD, Barros FC, Juan L, et al. Global epidemiology of use of and disparities in caesarean sections. Lancet. 2018; 392:(10155):1341–8.
     [Google Scholar]
  33. Liu Y, Li G, Chen Y, Wang X, Ruan Y, Zou L, et al. A descriptive analysis of the indications for caesarean section in mainland China. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2014; 14::410.
     [Google Scholar]
  34. Torloni MR, Betran AP, Montilla P, Scolaro E, Seuc A, Mazzoni A, Merialdi M. Do Italian women prefer cesarean section? Results from a survey on mode of delivery preferences. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2013 Mar; 13:(1):78−89. Doi: 10.1186/1471-2393-13-78.
     [Google Scholar]
  35. Jenabi E, Khazaei S, Bashirian S, Aghababaei S, Matinnia N. Reasons for elective cesarean section on maternal request: a systematic review. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2020 Nov; 33:(22): 3867−72. Doi: 10.1080/14767058.2019.1587407. Epub Mar 8, 2019. PMID: 30810436.
     [Google Scholar]
  36. Malik Z. Ethical considerations of cesarean section on maternal request: A systematic literature review. Int J Sci Eng Res. 2017 Jan; 8:(1):826−30.
     [Google Scholar]
  37. Mazzoni A, Althabe F, Gutierrez L, Gibbons L, Liu NH, Bonotti AM, et al. Women’s preferences and mode of delivery in public and private hospitals: a prospective cohort study. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2016 Feb; 16::34. Doi: 10.1186/s12884-016-0824-0. PMID: 26857448; PMCID: PMC4746891.
     [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.5339/jemtac.2022.aimco.17
Loading
Non-medical reasons affecting cesarean section rate in teaching hospitals in Anbar province, Iraq
Journal of Emergency Medicine, Trauma and Acute Care 2022, 17 (2022); https://doi.org/10.5339/jemtac.2022.aimco.17
/content/journals/10.5339/jemtac.2022.aimco.17
/content/journals/10.5339/jemtac.2022.aimco.17
Loading

Data & Media loading...

Keyword(s): cesarean section, decision making, maternal request, non-medical and reason

Most Cited Most Cited RSS feed

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error