Trends in Cesarean Section in a Tertiary Referral Hospital: Time-Series Analysis
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.24079/CAJMS.2025.02.003Keywords:
Cesarean Sections, Indication, Risk Factors, Obstetric Labor, ForecastingAbstract
Objectives: To analyze the causes and indications of C-sections conducted at the tertiary referral center and to forecast future patterns. Methods: We retrospectively analyzed 25,311 delivery records from 2013 to 2022 at the National Center for Maternal and Child Health, Mongolia. All C-sections from 22 weeks’ gestation onward were included. Data were collected using a structured questionnaire form including maternal, obstetric history, surgical indications, and other influencing factors. Causes of C-sections were identified through descriptive statistics, logistic regression, and ARIMA time-series modeling. Statistical analysis was performed using Stata BE 18.0, with p < 0.05 considered significant. Results: The mean gestational age was 38.1±2.09 weeks, the 88.4% of pregnancies were term deliveries, and 42.6% were emergency C-sections. The most common indications for C-section were previous C-section, maternal comorbidity, severe preeclampsia, and fetal distress. According to time-series analysis, despite of no significant change in the C-section rate during the study period, the trends in C-sections are growing. The percentage of nulliparous women in total C-sections is likely to increase by 0.81% per year. In 2030, the percentage of C-sections will reach 35.5%, whereas the percentage of emergency C-sections in total C-sections will reach 59.5%. Conclusions: C-sections for nulliparous women were mainly due to failed birth induction, failed labor stimulation, and fetal distress. It is estimated that the percentage of C-sections in total births will increase by 0.02% annually, reaching 35.5% by 2030.
Downloads
162
References
1. Betrán AP, Ye J, Moller AB, et al. Trends and projections of caesarean section rates: global and regional estimates. BMJ Glob Health. 2021;6(6):e005671. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjgh-2021-005671
2. Begum T, Saif-Ur-Rahman KM, Yaqoot F, et al. Global incidence of caesarean deliveries on maternal request: a systematic review and meta-regression. BJOG. 2021;128(5):798–806. https://doi.org/10.1111/1471-0528.16491
3. Chien P. Global rising rates of caesarean sections. BJOG. 2021;128(5):781–782. https://doi.org/10.1111/1471-0528.16666
4. Health Development center. Health indicators 2021. Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia; HDC; 2022:42-43. https://hdc.gov.mn/media/uploads/202205/ERUUL_MENDIIN_UZUULELT_2021.pdf
5. Department of Statistics of National Center for Maternal and Child Health in Mongolia. Health indicators of obstetrics and gynecology: 2021. 2022:10
6. Zhao J, Hao J, Xu B, et al. Impact of previous Caesarean section on reproductive outcomes after assisted reproductive technology: Systematic review and meta-analyses. Reprod Biomed Online. 2021;43(2):197–204. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rbmo.2021.04.007
7. Fernández-Carrasco FJ, Cristóbal-Cañadas D, Gómez-Salgado J, et al. Maternal and fetal risks of planned vaginal breech delivery vs planned caesarean section for term breech birth: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Glob Health. 2022;12:04055. https://doi.org/10.7189/jogh.12.04055
8. Keag OE, Norman JE, Stock SJ. Long-term risks and benefits associated with cesarean delivery for mother, baby, and subsequent pregnancies: Systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS Med. 2018;15(1):e1002494. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1002494
9. Kaur J, Parmar KS, Singh S. Autoregressive models in environmental forecasting time series: A theoretical and application review. Environ Sci Pollut Res Int. 2023;30(8):19617–19641. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-023-25148-9
10. Ayres-de-Campos D, Simon A, Modi N, et al. EUROPEAN ASSOCIATION OF PERINATAL MEDICINE (EAPM) and EUROPEAN MIDWIVES ASSOCIATION (EMA) joint position statement: Caesarean delivery rates at a country level should be in the 15–20% range. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2024;294:76-78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejogrb.2024.01.005
11. Martin JA, Hamilton BE, Osterman MJK. Births in the United States, 2022. NCHS Data Brief. 2023; No.477.Hyattsville,MD: National Center for Health Statistics. https://dx.doi.org/10.15620/cdc:131354
12. Shinejil U, Kiriya J, Shibanuma A, et al. Association between Robson classification groups and cesarean delivery: a longitudinal analysis in Mongolia. AJOG Glob Rep. 2022;2(3):100071. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.xagr.2022.100071
13. Panda S, Begley C, Corcoran P, et al. Factors associated with cesarean birth in nulliparous women: a multicenter prospective cohort study. Birth. 2022;49(4):812–822. https://doi.org/10.1111/birt.12654
14. World Health Organization Human Reproduction Programme, 10 April 2015. WHO Statement on caesarean section rates. Reprod Health Matters. 2015;23(45):149-150. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rhm.2015.07.007
15. Mazzoni A, Althabe F, Gutierrez L, et al. Women's preferences and mode of delivery in public and private hospitals: a prospective cohort study. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2016;16:34. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12884-016-0824-0
16. Colomar M, Colistro V, Sosa C, et al. Cesarean section in Uruguay from 2008 to 2018: country analysis based on the Robson classification. An observational study. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2022;22(1):471. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12884-022-04792-y
17. Räisänen S, Gissler M, Kramer MR, et al. Influence of delivery characteristics and socioeconomic status on giving birth by caesarean section - a cross sectional study during 2000-2010 in Finland. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2014;14:120. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2393-14-120
18. Jahnke JR, Houck KM, Bentley ME, et al. Rising rates of cesarean delivery in Ecuador: Socioeconomic and institutional determinants over two decades. Birth. 2019;46(2):335-343. https://doi.org/10.1111/birt.12421
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Mongolian National University of Medical Sciences

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.