EFFICACY ANALYSIS OF ABDOMINAL BIRTH IN KRASNODAR KRAI
https://doi.org/10.25207/1608-6228-2017-24-6-84-89
Abstract
Aim. To perform the efficacy analysis of abdominal birth in maternity hospitals in Krasnodar Krai based on the ratio of efficiency of caesarean section (RECS). Materials and methods. A multicenter retrospective study was conducted, which included 47 maternity hospitals of Krasnodar Krai in 2016 (number of births, the percentage of surgical activity, perinatal mortality). Calculation of the ratio of efficiency of cesarean section in each of these health institutions was made. Results. Comparative analysis of the ratio of efficiency of caesarean section has revealed the high RECS in Krasnodar Krai (an average of 8,5±0,9, p>0.05). “Bad” ratio (RECS below 1.0) met 9 health establishments of Krasnodar Krai (19,1%), “satisfactory” (RECS 1.0-1.5) - 12 hospitals and “excellent” (RECS 2,0 and above) - 26 maternity hospitals. Conclusion. The effectiveness of abdominal delivery in Krasnodar Krai is high. A detailed individualized analysis of the indications for the operative births is necessary. The most effective is the creation of diagnostic coefficients of risk factors for abdominal delivery, optimization of the routing of pregnant women with complications of gestation, extragenital pathology, premature births in hospitals of the III level, and the transition of all obstetrical institutions of the region to a unified classification of M.S. Robson, which will allow not only to give a more complete analysis of the indications for cesarean section, but also to identify ways to reduce this indicator at each obstetric hospital.
About the Authors
I. I. KUTSENKO
Federal State Budgetary Educational Institution of Higher Education Kuban State Medical University of the Ministry of Healthcare of the Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
I. O. BOROVIKOV
Federal State Budgetary Educational Institution of Higher Education Kuban State Medical University of the Ministry of Healthcare of the Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
M. V. GALUSTYAN
Federal State Budgetary Educational Institution of Higher Education Kuban State Medical University of the Ministry of Healthcare of the Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
V. G. ABUSHKEVICH
Federal State Budgetary Educational Institution of Higher Education Kuban State Medical University of the Ministry of Healthcare of the Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
References
1. Абрамченко В.В., Ланцев Е.А., Шамхалова И.А. Кесарево сечение в перинатальной медицине. СПб.: ЭЛБИ-СПб, 2005. 226 с. [Abramchenko V., Lantsev E., Shamhalova I. C-section in perinatal medicine. Spb.: ELBI-St. Petersburg, 2005; 226 s. (In Russ.)].
2. Савельева Г.М., Караганова Е.Я., Курцер М.А. Кесарево сечение в современном акушерстве. Акушерство и гинекология. 2007; 2: 3-8. [Savelieva G., Karaganov E., Kurtzer M. Cesarean in contemporary obstetrics. Obstetrics and Gynecology. 2007; 2: 3-8. (In Russ., English abstract)].
3. Стрижаков А.Н., Баев О.Р., Тимохина Т.Ф. Динамика показаний и частота операции кесарева сечения в современном акушерстве. Мать и дитя: Материалы 1 регионального научного форума. Казань, 2007: 147-148. [Strizhakov A., Baev O., Timokhina T. Dynamics of testimony and the frequency of caesarean section in a modern obstetrics. Mother and child: materials 1 regional scientific forum. Kazan, 2007: 147-148. (In Russ.)].
4. Радзинский В.Е., Костин И.Н. Безопасное акушерство. Акушерство и гинекология. 2007; 5: 12-16. [Radzinskiy V., Costin I. Safe obstetrics. Obstetrics and Gynecology. 2007; 5: 12-16. (In Russ., English abstract)].
5. Abdel-Aleem H., Shaaban O., Hassanin A. Analysis of Cesarean Delivery at Assiut University Hospital Using Ten Group Classification System. Int. J. Gynecol. Obstet. 2013; 123(2): 119- 123.
6. Althabe F., Belizan J. Caesarean Section: The Paradox (Comment). Lancet. 2006; 368(9546): 1472-1473.
7. Chong C., Su L., Biswas A. Changing Trends of Cesarean Section Births by the Robson Ten Group Classification in a Tertiary. Teaching Hospital Acta. Obstet. Gynecol. Scand. 2012; 91(12): 1422-1427.
8. Gonzales G., Tapia V., Fort A. et al. Pregnancy outcomes associated with Cesarean deliveries in Peruvian public health facilities Int. J. Womens Health. 2013: 637-645.
9. Robson M.S. Classification of caesarean sections. Fetal and Maternal Medicine Review. 2001; 12(1): 23-29.
10. Betran A., Gumezoglu A., Robson M. WHO Global Survey on Maternal and Perinatal Health in Latin America: Classifying Caesarean Sections. Reprod. Health. 2014; 6: 18.
11. Гребенкин Б.Е., Заплатина В.С., Беда Ю.В. Возможности технической оптимизации кесарева сечения в улучшении перинатальных исходов. Проблемы репродуктивного здоровья и безопасного материнства. Пермский медицинский журнал. 2007; 24(1-2): 208-212. [Grebenkin B., Zaplatina V., Beda U. Technical optimization of caesarean section in improving perinatal outcomes. Reproductive health and safe motherhood. Perm medical journal. 2007; 24(1-2): 208-212. (In Russ., English abstract)].
12. Митковская Е.В., Костин И.Н., Смирнова Т.В., Кузнецова О.А. Региональные особенности акушерско-гинекологической помощи в России. Вестник Российского университета дружбы народов. Серия: Медицина. 2016; 2: 17-22. [Mitkovskaja E., Kostin I., Smith T., Kuznetsova O. Regional peculiarities of obstetrical and gynecological care in Russia. Russian Friendship University Messenger. Episode: Medicine. 2016; 2: 17-22. (In Russ., English abstract)].
Review
For citations:
KUTSENKO I.I., BOROVIKOV I.O., GALUSTYAN M.V., ABUSHKEVICH V.G. EFFICACY ANALYSIS OF ABDOMINAL BIRTH IN KRASNODAR KRAI. Kuban Scientific Medical Bulletin. 2017;(6):84-89. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.25207/1608-6228-2017-24-6-84-89
Views:
506
Email this article 