Cesarean section classification according to the Robson model, Obstetrics Unit, San Felipe General Hospital, Honduras, April-Jun, 2017

3Citations
Citations of this article
38Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

Objective: To classify cesarean sections according to the Robson Model in the obstetrics unit of an intermediate complexity hospital. Materials and methods: Descriptive cross-sectional study conducted in the obstetrics unit of the San Felipe General Hospital (HGSF), Tegucigalpa, Honduras, between April and June, 2017. Out of 477 clinical records of patients undergoing elective and/or emergency surgery during the study period, 89 were selected using probabilistic random selection. A descriptive analysis of sociodemographic variables, clinical and obstetric indications, and categories of the Robson model was conducted. Authorization from the institution's ethical committee was obtained. Results: Out of 797 deliveries, 447 were cesarean sections (59.8%; 95% CI:56.3-63.3). Of the 89 cesarean sections studied, 48 (53.9%) were classified as "no risk pregnancy" (categories 1-4); the most frequent indications in this group were low fetal reserve in 22/48 (45.8%) and cephalopelvic disproportion in 16/48 (33.3%). In the "risk group" (categories 5-10), in 41/89 (46.1%), indications were cephalopelvic disproportion and breech presentation, (8/41) (19.5%), respectively. The main contributors to cesarean section were groups 1 (17/89; 19.1%), 2 (20/89, 22.5%) and 5 (20/89; 22.5%), for a total of 64.1%.. Conclusion: The Robson model is applicable in our setting and the classification provides information that can be used as a diagnostic and surveillance tool for cesarean sections in a level II institution.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Zúniga-Briceño, A. I. (2019). Cesarean section classification according to the Robson model, Obstetrics Unit, San Felipe General Hospital, Honduras, April-Jun, 2017. Revista Colombiana de Obstetricia y Ginecologia, 70(1), 19–26. https://doi.org/10.18597/rcog.3186

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free