ISSN: 2581-5288
Journal of Gynecological Research and Obstetrics
Literature Review       Open Access      Peer-Reviewed

Variation of caesarean section rates in Sub-Saharan Africa: A literature review

Dikete M1*, Coppieters Y2, Trigaux P3, Fils JF4, Englert Y1, Simon P1 and Zhang W2

1Free University of Brussels(ULB), CUB-Erasmus Hospital, Department of Gynecology-Obstetrics, Brussel, Belgium
2Free University of Brussels (ULB), School of Public Health, Center for research in Epidemiology, Biostatics and clinical Research, Brussels, Belgium
3Epicura Ath Hospital center Belgium
4Arts Statistica S.P.R.L. Boulevard des archers, 40, 1400 Nivelles, Belgium
*Corresponding author: Dikete M, Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics service, University of Brussels, Erasmus Hospital, Lennikweg 808, 1070, Anderlecht, Belgium, Tel: 0032 478 20 75 63; E-mail: Michel.Dikete.Ekanga@erasme.ulb.ac.be
Received: 01 August, 2019 | Accepted: 13 August, 2019 | Published: 14 August, 2019
Keywords: Intra operative complications; Caesarean section; Maternal mortality and morbidity; Africa south of the Sahara, Perinatal mortality and morbidity

Cite this as

Dikete M, Coppieters Y, Trigaux P, Fils JF, Englert Y, et al. (2019) Variation of caesarean section rates in Sub-Saharan Africa: A literature review. J Gynecol Res Obstet 5(2): 042-047. DOI: 10.17352/jgro.000071

Introduction: Ensuring access to quality caesarean section (CS) care is a key millenium development strategy and the next sustainable development goal to reduce maternal and infant mortality. The WHO recommends that the caesarean section rate should not exceed 10-15%. The objective of our analysis is to document the variability of caesarean section rates in Sub- Saharan Africa.

Material and method: we carried out a review of 26 studies for the simple proportions of events using the R metafor package (Viechtbauer, 2010). The studies were selected in the following way: the type of study, target population and keys words (such as intra operative complications, caesarean section utilization, maternal mortality or perinatal mortality or morbidity and caesarean section, Africa south of the Sahara or sub Saharan Africa). We performed a random-effects meta-analysis, and heterogeneity was assessed using the I2 value.

Result: the overall proportion of caesarean sections is 19% (14%-24%) for 26 selected studies. The I2 index is equal to 99.92%, suggesting a very high level of heterogeneity. Journal impact factors accounted for this heterogeneity.

Conclusion: the best CS rate is the one that gives the best outcome with regard to foetal and maternal benefit. This rate may vary as obstetric problems differ from one country to another. Studies published in higher impact journals tend to report a lower proportion of CS than articles published in lower impact journals.

Introduction

Ensuring quality access to caesarean section (CS) care is a key millennium development strategy and the next sustainable development goal [1] to reduce maternal and infant mortality. As with any surgical procedure, a CS involves risks and complications, which means that it should be performed in an approved way and should not be performed excessively. Although the optimum CS rate at population level is difficult to assess, the World Health Organisation (WHO) recommends that the national CS should not exceed 10 - 15% [2]; however, in many countries, the CS is rising [3].

Studies on the relationship between the CS rate and maternal and perinatal mortality and morbidity have concluded contradictory results [4]. In Latin American hospitals, for example, the increase in the CS rate above 10-15% was associated with more premature deliveries and an increase in neonatal mortality [5]. However, in Sub-Saharan Africa, where the average CS rate was 8.8%, the risk of maternal death was lower in hospitals with a higher elective CS rate [6]. Studies on CS have reported that the 10-15% rate represented the optimum result as regards maternal and neonatal mortality [7]. However, these studies were limited by data that was sometimes incomplete. These ecological studies did not consider the individual risks because they were based on data aggregated by different countries.

The goal of our analysis is to document, based on the selection of population studies, the variability in CS rates based on studies conducted in Sub-Saharan Africa.

Material and Methods

The data were selected according to the selection: The type of study on CS, the target population, data analysis using the following PubMed search equations for a period of 7 years, from 2010 to 2017. Inclusion criteria selected articles with frequency of CS in sub-Saharan Africa from 2010 to 2017.

Exclusion criteria: Absence of data on CS frequency, clinical cases as well as articles published before 2010.

Selected studies are retrospective, prospective, clinical trials and ecological studies. The target population is the population of sub-Saharan Africa. We carried out a meta-analysis to calculate the simple proportions of events using the R metafor package (Viechtbauer, 2010). The studies were selected in the following way: the type of study, target population, and key words for selecting the publication (caesarean frequency, emergency caesarean, programmed caesarean, sub-Sahara Africa). Twenty-six selected studies from 2010 to 2017 had relevant data to fit into a meta-analysis with 100% reliable numbers. We chose prospective and retrospective analytical studies, clinical trials and ecological studies. The target population is the population of Sub-Saharan Africa, composed of women who had a CS during the period under study. Patient and public involvement: Pregnant women who delivered by CS among the selected studies. The dependent variable is the CS rate, calculated as the number of CS deliveries divided by the total number of births. We carried out a random-effect meta-analysis, and heterogeneity was assessed using the I2 value (Higgins & Thompson, 2002). Logistic meta-regression was used to explore the potential sources of heterogeneity when the I2 value was greater than 25%, including the following factors: 1) the impact factor of the journal in which the article was published; 2) the subdivision of the African continent in two parts (such as the Horn of Africa vs. the rest of Africa) and 3) the type of study (a programmed or emergency CS vs programmed and emergency CS). The software R (R Core Team, 2016), version 3.2.2. was used for the statistical analyses.

Results

These data were obtained after research on PubMed using key words. 570 citations were found, 544 articles were excluded and 26 studies retained (Table 1) (Graph 1).

The study by Adu-Bonsaffoh et al. shows a CS rate of 45.7%, which is very high in relation to the WHO estimate. This increase is associated with the population studied: women with high blood pressure disorders during pregnancy. High blood pressure disorders increase the risk of CS, and the maternal and perinatal risks, especially in developing countries. [8]. The study by Briand V et al. shows an elective CS rate of 2.2% and an emergency CS rate of 12.5%. This study indicates that CS are carried out more often as emergencies, with all the associated maternal and perinatal complications, in comparison to elective CS [9]. The study by Donat J et al. shows a CS rate of 23.8%. This approximate rate is due to the presence of Western experts during the study period [10].

The Fawole AO et al. study shows an elective CS rate of 3.1% and an emergency CS rate of 11.5%, and there must be an adequate maternal healthcare policy to reduce maternal mortality [11]. The study by Onyema AO et al. gives a CS rate of 23% and shows that supervised prenatal care, actively managed labour, and emergency obstetric care are necessary to reduce post-partum haemorrhage [12]. The study by Nyatema AS et al. shows a CS rate of 10%, and concludes that auditing CS practices is necessary in low-income countries [13]. The study by Mongbo et al. shows an average CS rate of 37.6% and concludes that access to CS is still difficult in Benin, and that diagnostic errors and delays are frequent [14]. The study by Makanya V et al. shows an average CS rate of 42.4% and concludes that use of the Robson classification helps reduce the CS rate [15]. The study by Muti M et al. presents an average CS rate of 12.5% and concludes that high blood pressure during pregnancy affects 5 to 8% of pregnant women and that this increases maternal and perinatal mortality and morbidity [16]. The study by Rukewe A et al. shows an average CS rate of 31.1% and concludes that maternal risk increases with general anaesthesia [17]. The study by Ugwa E et al. shows the average CS rate of 17.1% and concludes that there is an absence of significant correlation between the CS rate and perinatal mortality [18] (Graph 2).

The forest plot above shows an overall CS proportion of 19%, with a confidence interval of 95% [14% - 24%]. The I2 index is equal to 99.92%, suggesting a very high level of heterogeneity. This heterogeneity is associated with the studies that are included in the analysis. The different studies show variable CS rates depending on the indications for a CS, the CS being performed in a rural or urban setting, the population studied, and on whether the CS is an emergency or programmed (Table 2).

The only variable explaining some of the heterogeneity observed is the impact factor. As the graph below shows (graph 2), the studies published in higher impact journals tend to show a lower CS rate than the articles published in lower impact journals (Graph 2).

This graph shows the link between the impact factor of the journal and the reported proportion of CS. The purpose of this graph is to identify the source of the difference in CS rates reported in the different articles analysed, and we can conclude that the only predictive factor for the difference in the rates reported in the various articles is the impact factor.

Discussion

The objective of this study is to document the variability in CS rates in Sub-Saharan Africa.

The average CS rate of 19% reported in this analysis corresponds with the overall estimate described in the literature (WHO). In 1985, a group of WHO experts concluded that there was “no justification for any region in the world to have a CS rate higher than 10-15%” [34]. This declaration was based on evidence that was limited, but available at that time, on the CS rate (CS) observed in North European countries, which had the lowest maternal and perinatal mortality rate. Over time, this figure came to be considered by the international community as the “optimum” CS rate. Since then, these rates have risen in developed and developing countries alike, sometimes reaching very high rates as, for example, in Brazil and the United States [4,35,36]. Our study shows that this CS rate varies depending on the population studied and especially on access to healthcare [21]. Experts and public health officials have expressed concern over the unprecedented increase in CS sections and the consequences. However, the validity of the historical declaration of 1985 has sometimes been challenged in light of data accumulated over three decades on the basis of major improvements in obstetric practices, and which could justify a higher CS rate according to certain publications and recommendations [4,37]. Worldwide concern over this uncontrolled increase in CS rate is not unjustified.

In Sub-Saharan Africa, a CS increases the risk of maternal and neonatal morbidity and mortality [16]. Although a CS is an effective technique for preventing maternal and perinatal mortality when performed properly, this technique is not without risk, and is associated with short and long-term consequences [4,38]. Although the CS rate for a population with limited healthcare services measures that population’s access to obstetric care, this rate must be effective to save lives. The CS rate has been used as an assessment measure for governments, policymakers and public healthcare professionals when seeking to assess progress in the field of maternal and infant health, the monitoring of obstetric emergencies, and the use of different resources [2]. However, determining the optimum CS rate within a population is not an easy task. Several studies have addressed this issue by analysing the link between the type of delivery and the maternal and infant outcome at population level [7,35]. However, these analyses used different methodologies and led to different interpretations.

Bertran et al. analysed eight studies concerning CS rates (35) and showed that a rate of 9-16% is associated with lower maternal and neonatal mortality, only when there are no associated factors. However, when socioeconomic factors are applied, this link disappears. These studies determine that there is an optimum CS rate at which maternal mortality is the lowest. They show that the optimum CS rate fixed at around 19% is associated with reduced maternal mortality and does not improve when the CS rate exceeds the 19% threshold. Our study shows the average CS rate of 19% with a variability of 2% to 45%; however, the maternal and perinatal risks are higher [8,12,16]. The study by Molina et al., [39], aimed to provide better estimates for the relationship between the CS rate and maternal and neonatal mortality. The optimum CS rates associated with a low maternal and neonatal mortality rate were estimated using recent data on maternal and neonatal mortality for 2012 only. This analysis concerned 172 WHO member countries out of a total of 194 (88.7%), which covered 97.6% of all births worldwide. Among the data from these 172 countries, South Sudan had the lowest CS rate (0.6%), and Brazil the highest (55.6%). The total estimate was 22.9 million CS(CI 95%, 22.5 to 23.2), in other words, an average world rate of 19.4% (CI 95%, 18.5-20.3). These authors [38], suggest that the optimum CS rate might be higher than the rate estimated by the WHO, at approximately 19%. To explain the discrepancy between their analyses and the WHO’s recommendations, Molina et al. highlight that international recommendations are due to consensus based on the data of certain countries, which have low neonatal mortality and a CS rate of 10% [2].

Previous studies suggest that a low CS rate was optimum for maternal health [4,7,35], and the assessment of neonatal mortality was incomplete, as it was based on a limited set of data from wealthy countries. No study contains CS rate data for all member countries of the WHO [7,35]. By focusing on the estimate for a single year (2012), the authors avoided potential biases generated by the use of CS rates from different years. Likewise, there are countries that have a low maternal and neonatal mortality rate and which have a relatively low CS rate, suggesting a complex interaction between all maternal health services, emergency obstetric services and other services. The optimum CS rate, which is derived from these studies, cannot be applied to all countries, because a certain level of national resources may be required.

Conclusion

The caesarean rate is the one that gives the best outcome as regards foetal-maternal benefit. This rate can vary depending on the various obstetric problems in the different countries. The articles published in higher impact journals tend to report a lower caesarean rate than the articles published in lower impact journals.

  1. (2015) United Nations sustainable development knowledge platform. Open working group proposal for sustainable development goals.
  2. (1985) Appropriate technology for birth. Lancet 2: 436-437. Link: http://bit.ly/33wyn7C
  3. Declercq E, Young R, Cabral H, Ecker J (2011) Is a rising caesarean rate inevitable? Trends in industrialised countries, 1987 to 2007. Birth 38: 99-104. Link: http://bit.ly/2MTMAps
  4. Ye J, BertranAP, Guerrero Vela M, Souza JP, et al. (2014) searching for the optimal rate of medically necessary caesarean delivery. Birth 41: 237-244. Link: http://bit.ly/2Z0pYWD
  5. Shah A, Fawols B, M’imounya JM, Amokrane F, Nafiou I, et al. (2009) Caesarean delivery outcomes from the WHO global survey on maternal and perinatal health in Africa. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 107: 191-197. Link: http://bit.ly/2McatZL
  6. Villar J, Valldares E, Wojdyla D, et al. (2006) WHO 2005 global survey on maternal and perinatal health research group. Caesarean delivery rates and pregnancy outcomes: WHO 2005 global survey on maternal and perinatal health in LatiReprod Health. 2015 Aug 12; 12:70 no America: Lancet 365: 1819-1829.
  7. Volpe FM (2011) Correlation of Caesarean rates to maternal and infant mortality Rates: an ecologic study of official international data. Pan American journal of public health 29: 303-308. Link: http://bit.ly/2H4yspB
  8. Adu-Bonsaffoh K, Obed SA, Seffah JD (2014) Maternal outcomes of hypertensive disorders in pregnancy at Korle Bu Teaching Hospital, Ghana. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 127: 238-242. Link: http://bit.ly/31EmvyT
  9. Ajah LO, Ozonu NC, Ezeonu PO, Lawani LO, Obuna JA, et al. (2016) The Feto-Maternal Outcome of Preeclampsia with Severe Features and Eclampsia in Abakaliki, South-East Nigeria. J Clin Diagn Res 10: QC18-QC21. Link: http://bit.ly/2yZmqJu
  10. Ali AA, Okud A, Khojali A, Adam I (2012) High incidence of obstetric complications in Kassala Hospital, Eastern Sudan. J Obstet Gynaecol 32: 148-149. Link: http://bit.ly/2OUwFtz
  11. Belay T, Yusuf L, Negash S (2014) A comparative study on first stage versus second stage caesarean section on maternal and perinatal outcome. Ethiop Med J 52:1-8. Link: http://bit.ly/33qvZ2p
  12. Briand V, Dumont A, Abrahamowicz M, Sow A, Traore M, et al. (2012) Maternal and perinatal outcomes by mode of delivery in senegal and mali: a cross-sectional epidemiological survey. PLoS One 7: e47352. Link: http://bit.ly/2yY3QBy
  13. Chu K, Maine R, Trelles M (2015) Cesarean section surgical site infections in sub-Saharan Africa: a multi-country study from Medecins Sans Frontieres. Word J Surge 39: 350-355. Link: http://bit.ly/33xW5k4
  14. Daniel CN, Singh S (2016) Caesarean delivery: An experience from a tertiary institution in north western Nigeria. Niger J Clin Pract 19: 18-24. Link: http://bit.ly/33wD952
  15. Donát J, Brejchová E (2016) Czech Hospital in Uganda and Briand V, Dumont A, Abrahamowicz M, Sow A,et al. quality of obstetric care. Ceska Gynekol 81: 155-158. Link: http://bit.ly/2ZZH8F1
  16. Fawole AO, Shah A, Fabanwo AO, Adegbola O, Adewunmi AA, et al. (2012) Predictors of maternal mortality in institutional deliveries in Nigeria. Afr Health Sci 12: 32-40. Link: http://bit.ly/2yVIg0B
  17. Gartland MG, Taryor VD, Norman AM, Vermund SH (2012) Access to facility delivery and caesarean section in north-central Liberia: a cross-sectional community-based study. BMJ Open 2: pii: e001602. Link: http://bit.ly/2MeUJ8k
  18. Imarengiaye CO, Isesele TO (2015) Intensive care management and outcome of women with hypertensive diseases of pregnancy. Niger Med J 56: 333-337. Link: http://bit.ly/2TzbFHC
  19. Long Q, Kempas T, Madede T, Klemetti R, Hemminki E (2015) Caesarean section rates in Mozambique. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 15: 253. Link: http://bit.ly/2Kxga2o
  20. Makanya V, Govender L, Moodley J (2015) Utility of the Robson Ten Group Classification System to determine appropriateness of caesarean section at a rural regional hospital in KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa. S Afr Med J 105: 292-295. Link: http://bit.ly/31ABklM
  21. Mongbo V, Ouendo EM, De Brouwere V, Alexander S, Dujardin B, et al. (2016) Quality of caesarean delivery: A cross-sectional study in 12 hospitals in Benin. Rev Epidemiol Sante Publique 64: 281-293. Link: http://bit.ly/2Tud6qG
  22. Muti M, Tshimanga M, Notion GT, Bangure D, Chonzi P (2015) Prevalence of pregnancy induced hypertension and pregnancy outcomes among women seeking maternity services in Harare, Zimbabwe. BMC Cardiovasc Disord 15: 111. Link: http://bit.ly/33xyBeX
  23. Nakimuli A, Nakubulwa S, Kakaire O, Osinde MO, Mbalinda SN, et al. (2015) Incidence and determinants of neonatal morbidity after elective caesarean section at the national referral hospital in Kampala, Uganda. BMC Res Notes 2015 8: 624. Link: http://bit.ly/2MWmaTQ
  24. Ngowa JD, Ngassam A, Fouogue JT, Metogo J, Medou A, et al. (2015) Early maternal complications of cesarean section: about 460 cases in two university hospitals in Yaounde, Cameroon. Pan Afr Med J 21: 265. Link: http://bit.ly/2Z0THif
  25. Nilsen C, Østbye T, Daltveit AK, Mmbaga BT, Sandøy IF (2014) Trends in and socio-demographic factors associated with caesarean section at a Tanzanian referral hospital, 2000 to 2013. Int J Equity Health 13: 87. Link: http://bit.ly/33qBGgN
  26. Nwobodo EI, Panti A (2012) Adolescent maternal mortality in North-west Nigeria. West Afr J Med 31: 224-226. Link: http://bit.ly/2YY4cCR
  27. Igwegbe AO, Eleje GU, Okpala BC (2013) Management outcomes of abruptio placentae at Nnamdi Azikiwe University Teaching Hospital, Nnewi, Nigeria. Niger J Med 2013 22: 234-238. Link: http://bit.ly/2KuBkye
  28. Nyamtema AS, Mwakatundu N, Dominico S, Mohamed H, Shayo A, et al. (2016) Increasing the availability and quality of caesarean section in Tanzania. BJOG 123: 1676-1682. Link: http://bit.ly/2YGF5cu
  29. Nyamtema AS, Mwakatundu N, Dominico S, Mohamed H, Pemba S, et al. (2016) Enhancing Maternal and Perinatal Health in Under-Served Remote Areas in Sub-Saharan Africa: A Tanzanian Model. PLoS One 11: e0151419. Link: http://bit.ly/2MWozOm
  30. Onyema OA, Cornelius AC, Uchenna ET, Duke OA (2015) Primary Postpartum Haemorrhage in Federal Medical Centre, Owerri, Nigeria: A Six Year Review. Niger J Med 24: 242-245. Link: http://bit.ly/2yUpMxz
  31. Rukewe A, Fatiregun A, Adebayo K (2014) Anaesthesia for caesarean deliveries and maternal complications in a Nigerian teaching hospital. Afr J Med Med Sci 43: 5-10. Link: http://bit.ly/2Kx3dp6
  32. Ugwa E, Ashimi A, Abubakar MY (2015) Caesarean section and perinatal outcomes in a sub-urban tertiary hospital in North-West Nigeria. Niger Med J 56:180-184. Link: http://bit.ly/2H3tABg
  33. Woman Trial Collaborators (2017) Effect of early tranexamic acid administration on mortality, hysterectomy, and other morbidities in women with post-partum haemorrhage (WOMAN): an international, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Lancet 389: 2105-2116. Link: http://bit.ly/2YW0Dgw
  34. (1985) Appropriate technology for birth. Lancet 2: 436-437. Link: http://bit.ly/33wyn7C
  35. Betran AP, Merialdi M, Lauer JA, Bing-shun W, Thomas J, et al. (2007) Rates of caesarean section: analysis of global, regional and national estimates. Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol 21: 98-113. Link: http://bit.ly/31KLbWz
  36. Vogel JP, Betran AP, Vindevoghel N, Souza JP, Torloni MR, et al. (2015) Use of the Robson classification to assess caesarean section trends in 21 Countries: a secondary analysis of two WHO multicountry surveys. The Lancet Global health 3: e260-270. Link: http://bit.ly/31GQVk5
  37. Lumbiganon P, Laopalboom M, Gülezoglu AM, Souza JP, Taneepanichskul S, et al. (2010) World Health Organization global survey on Maternal and Perinatal Health Research Group. Method of delivery and pregnancy outcomes in Asia. The WHO global survey on maternal and perinatal Health 2007-08. Lancet 375: 490-499. Link: http://bit.ly/31BTTWY
  38. Souza JP, Gulmezoglu A, Lumbiganon P, Laopaiboon M, Carroli G, et al. (2010) Caesarean section without medical indications is associated with an increased risk of adverse short-term maternal outcomes: the 2004-2008 WHO Global Survey on Maternal and Perinatal Health. BMC Med 8: 71. Link: http://bit.ly/2Z1kzTc
  39. Molina G, Weizer TG, Lipsitz SR, Esquivel MM, Uribe-Leitz T, et al. (2015) Relation between caesarean delivery rate and maternal and neonatal mortality. JAMA 314: 2263-2270. Link: http://bit.ly/2MZnuW3
© 2019 Dikete M, et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.