1994-2000

. , . , .
. , . , .

' ...
: 9/6/2002, : 10/10/2002
: . - ... .... 4 54621 ./fax: 2310-228497


: (1994-2000). , .
: 1994-2000. .
: 1994-2000, 6.629 1.982 (29,9%). , 36,6% . : (14,6%), (12,7%), (7,4%), (5,4%), (4,6%), (3,6%), 15,1% .
: 1994-2000 . . . .

: , , , , , , .

E
. ޻ . : 1) (1 ..). 2) , 8 .., (lex regia), o lex caesarea, . . 3) ޻ , caedere , caesura ޻. . H , , .(1-3)
. 4,5% 1965 21,2% 1998.(4) H 2001 21,5%, 30 4%.(5) 1997 18-23%,(6) : 27% , 24% , 33% 40% .(7) .

1

1. 1994-2000.

2

2. .

1990 : ;.(2,6,8-10) , , . , , , , . , .(2,9-12) , , , , .(3,8,13-15)
, , , . , , 1994-2000 , .

O OO
( ) - 01.01.1994 31.12.2000. 24 . : 1) 2) , . , : ) , ) , ) , ) , ) , ) , ) .

O
1994-2000, 6.629 1.982 (29,9%) ( 1 1). 1, 905 1.015, 941 ( 1999) 947 . , , 236 332 (23,6% 35,3%), 282 ( 1996) 283 . 7 , 1997, 1996 ( 2 1). 3 1, 1997, , ( ) (942 905), (265 282).

3

3. 1994-2000.

4

4. 1994-2000.


2 1994-2000. (36,6%) (63,4%) ( 4). , , ( 5). 2 6, . , , , ( 2). .
, , (290 14,6% ) (252 12,7%) . (147 7,4% ), (107 5,4%) (91 4,6%), 71 (3,6% ). 299 ( 15,1% ) . 3. , (60 ), (46 / / ) (IUGR 36 ).


1994-2000, 29,9% 6.629 , . 1984-1993 17,3% (1984-1988) 22,7% (1989-1993).(8) ( 17,7% 1977-1986, 23,7% 1987-1996).(15) , , . , 4,5% 1965 25% 1988. , , 22,8% 1989 20,7% 1996, 21,2% 1998.(4) , , 4% 1970 21,5% 2001, 5% 1970 20% 1999.(5) : 27% , 24% , 33% 40% .(7) -, 1987-1999, 16,6% 27,4%.(16) 3 4,7% 1970 22,5% 1990.(17)

5

5. 1944-2000.

6

6. 1994-200
0.

: 1) . 10.000 .(18) 2) . - 2,1 , .(19) 3) , . , .(8) 4) , , , .(20) 5) , : ) , , , ) ) .(8,21) 6) , : ) , ) . .(3,10,12)
. 8,3% 1984-1993, 10,9% (1994-2000). , 43,2% 1984-1993, 36,6% (1994-2000). , .(8) , .(15) , .(3,22)
, 10,9% 1984-1993 19% 1994-2000, .(8) , , : , , , . . , .(3)
, , 8,7% (1984-1993) 12,8% (1994-2000).(8) , .
, , , 10,3% (1984-1993) 12,7% (1994-2000).(8) . , .(2,9)
, , , 8,5% (1984-1993) 7,4% (1994-2000).(8) , . . , .(21)
4,4% (1984-1993) 5,4% (1994-200), . , 2,1% (1984-1993) 4,6% (1994-2000). , .(23)
(15,1% 1994-2000, 17,8% 1984-1993). , : , IUGR.
, , , , , . .(24)


1) 1994-2000 .
2) . , , .
3) .
4) . .

Summary
Tampakoudis P, Zafrakas M, Grimbizis G, Tzevelekis Ph, Mantalenakis S, Bondis J.
Caesarean Section rates and indications between 1994 and 2000.
Hellen Obstet Gynecol 15(1):27-34,2003
Objective: The aim of the present study was to define the cesarean section rates between 1994-2000. A further aim was to define the indications for caesarean section, and to identify possible changes in indication rates.
Materials and Methods: Data from all vaginal deliveries and caesarean sections in our department, between 1994-2000 were studied. Caesarean sections were classified according to indication.
Results: Among 6,629 births between 1994 and 2000, 1982 caesarean sections were performed (29.9%). Previous caesarean section was the most common indication for caesarean section (36.6% of all caesarean sections). The most common indications for caesarean section with no previous caesarean section were in descending order of frequency: dystocia (14.6%), fetal distress (12.7%), breech presentation (7.4%), hypertensive disease (5.4%), multifetal pregnancies (4.6%), antepartum hemorrhage (3.6%), while other less common indications contributed to 15.1% of the total.
Conclusions: Caesarean section rates have increased gradually between 1994 and 2000 compared with vaginal deliveries. Previous caesarean section was the most common indication for caesarean section. The overall increase is due to an increase of cesarean section rates in cases with no previous caesarean section. Dystocia and fetal distress are the main indications in these cases.
ey words: Caesarean section, indications, rates, previous cesarean section, dystocia, fetal distress, breech presentation.

O
1. . ( 17 ). 1992; 5:165-8.
2. . . 8 . 16-17 1994:31-4.
3. Cunningham G, Gant NF, Leveno KJ, Gilstrap LC III, Hauth JC, Wenstrom KD (eds). Williams Obstetrics 21st Edition, McGraw-Hill, New York, Chicago, San Francisco, Lisbon, London, Madrid, Mexico City, Milan, New Delhi, San Juan, Seoul, Singapore, Sydney, Toronto, 2001:538-64.
4. Ventura SJ, Martin JA, Curtin SA, Mathews TJ, Park MM. Births: Final data for 1998. National Vital Statistics Reports. Vol 48, No 3. Hyattsville, MD. National Center for Health Statistics, 2000.
5. Dobson R. Caesarean section rate in England and Wales hits 21. BMJ 2001; 323:951.
6. Farine D. What is the optimal C/S rate? In: Ben-Rafael Z, Shoham Z, Frydman R (eds). The 2nd World Congress on Controversies in Obstetrics, Gynecology and Infertility. Paris, France, September 6-9, 2001:343-52.
7. Belizan JM, Althabe F, Barros, FC, Alexander S. Rates and implications of caesarian sections in Latin America: ecological study. BMJ 1999; 319(7222):1397.
8. , , , , , , . : 1984-1993. 1996; 8(1):66-70.
9. Chamberlaine G. What is the correct caesarean section rate? Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1993; 100:403-4.
10. Anon. What is the number of caesarean sections? Lancet 1997; 349:815.
11. Chervernak AF, McCullough BL, Skupski WD. An ethical justification for emergency, coerced caesarean section. Obstet Gynecol 1993; 82:1029-35.
12. Drife J. Maternity services: The audit commission reports. BMJ 1997; 314:844.
13. . . 1990:533-8, 550-3.
14. Nortzon CF, Cinattingius, Bergsjio P, Cole S, Taffel S, Irgens L, et al. Caesarean section delivery in the 1980s: International comparison by indication. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1994; 170:495-504.
15. , , , , . ( 1977-1996). 1997; 9(4):305-10.
16. Leung GM, Lam TH, Thach TQ, Wan S, Ho LM. Rates of cesarean births in Hong Kong: 1987-1999. Birth 2001; 28(3):166-72.
17. Cai WW, Marks JS, Chen CH, Zhuang YX, Morris L, Harris JR. Increased cesarean section rates and emerging patterns of health insurance in Shanghai, China. Am J Public Health 1998; 88(5):777-80.
18. Frigoletto FD Jr, Ryan KL, Phillippe M. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1980; 136:969.
19. Rosen MG, Dickinson JC, Westhoff CL. Vaginal birth after cesarean: A meta-analysis of morbidity and mortality. Obstet Gynecol 1991; 77:465-70.
20. Bell JS, Campbell DM, Graham WJ, Penney GC, Ryan M, Hall MH. Do obstetric complications explain high caesarean section rates among women over 30? A retrospective analysis. BMJ 2001; 322:894-5.
21. Shennan A, Bewley S. How to manage term breech deliveries. BMJ 2001; 323:244-5.
22. Shipp TD, Zelop CM, Repke JT, Cohen A, Caughey AB, Lieberman E. Labor after previous cesarean: influence of prior indication and parity. Obstet Gynecol 2000; 95(6 Pt 1):913-6.
23. , , , , , . : , 1995 2000. 2 . 20-21 2002:73.
24. Pollard JK, Capeless EL. Cesarean deliveries at a university hospital: analysis of rates and indications. Am J Perinatol 1997; 14(5):245-8.




PAGE


<<<