<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!DOCTYPE article  PUBLIC "-//NLM//DTD Journal Publishing DTD v3.0 20080202//EN" "http://dtd.nlm.nih.gov/publishing/3.0/journalpublishing3.dtd"><article xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" dtd-version="3.0" xml:lang="en" article-type="research article"><front><journal-meta><journal-id journal-id-type="publisher-id">OJOG</journal-id><journal-title-group><journal-title>Open Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology</journal-title></journal-title-group><issn pub-type="epub">2160-8792</issn><publisher><publisher-name>Scientific Research Publishing</publisher-name></publisher></journal-meta><article-meta><article-id pub-id-type="doi">10.4236/ojog.2023.1311152</article-id><article-id pub-id-type="publisher-id">OJOG-129088</article-id><article-categories><subj-group subj-group-type="heading"><subject>Articles</subject></subj-group><subj-group subj-group-type="Discipline-v2"><subject>Medicine&amp;Healthcare</subject></subj-group></article-categories><title-group><article-title>
 
 
  Cesarean Sections according to the Robson’s Classification in Two University Hospitals of Yaound&#233;: Indications and Maternofetal Outcome
 
</article-title></title-group><contrib-group><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Noa</surname><given-names>Ndoua Claude Cyrille</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1"><sup>1</sup></xref><xref ref-type="corresp" rid="cor1"><sup>*</sup></xref></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Ndongo</surname><given-names>Ivan Alfred</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1"><sup>1</sup></xref></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Essiben</surname><given-names>Felix</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1"><sup>1</sup></xref></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Toukam</surname><given-names>Louise</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1"><sup>1</sup></xref></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Kemfang</surname><given-names>Ngowa Jean Dupont</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1"><sup>1</sup></xref></contrib></contrib-group><aff id="aff1"><addr-line>Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Faculty of Medicine and Biomedical Sciences, University of YaoundéI, Yaoundé, Cameroon</addr-line></aff><pub-date pub-type="epub"><day>06</day><month>11</month><year>2023</year></pub-date><volume>13</volume><issue>11</issue><fpage>1791</fpage><lpage>1806</lpage><history><date date-type="received"><day>17,</day>	<month>September</month>	<year>2023</year></date><date date-type="rev-recd"><day>13,</day>	<month>November</month>	<year>2023</year>	</date><date date-type="accepted"><day>16,</day>	<month>November</month>	<year>2023</year></date></history><permissions><copyright-statement>&#169; Copyright  2014 by authors and Scientific Research Publishing Inc. </copyright-statement><copyright-year>2014</copyright-year><license><license-p>This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution International License (CC BY). http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/</license-p></license></permissions><abstract><p>
 
 
  Introduction:
   Cesarean section is a surgical intervention which consist
  s
   in the extraction of a fetus from the uterus after its incision. The rate of cesarean section varies depending on the country and the health facility. For this reason, in 2015, the World Health Organization (WHO) recommended the use of Robson’s classification to evaluate the practice of cesarean sections in order to identify the groups of women who had abnormally high rates. The objective of our study was to evaluate cesarean sections using the Robson’s classification in CHRACERH and in the Yaound&#233; Central Hospital (YCH). <b>Methodology:</b> We carried out a retrospective cross sectional and descriptive study in two (02) university hospitals in Yaound&#233; which took place from December 2017 to May 2018. We included in our study all women who gave birth over a period of two (02) years from January 2016 to December 2017 in these two health facilities.
   
  Our sampling was exhaustive over the study period. The parturient
  s
  ’ information w
  as
   collected using an anonymous and pretested questionnaire. The Robson’s group of every parturient was determined. Descriptive parameters like mean and proportions were calculated. We compared the rates and indications of cesarean sections between the both hospitals using Chi<sup>2</sup> test. <b>Results:</b> Out of 330 deliveries realized in CHRACERH, we had 90 cesarean sections; hence, a rate of 27.2%. Out of 1863 deliveries carried out at the YCH, 462 were by cesarean section, hence a rate of 24.8%. The women who belonged to groups 1,
   
  3 and 5 contributed to the highest rates of cesarean sections in both hospitals: in CHRACERH, group 5
   
  (31.1%), group 3
   
  (20%) and group 1
   
  (15.6%), at YCH: group 3 (22.5%), group 1
   
  (21.6%) and group 5
   
  (17.3%). The indications of the cesarean sections varied depending on the Robson’s group and the hospital, the principal indication in group 1 was acute fetal distress (28.6%) in CHRACERH and cephalopelvic disproportion (36.7%) at YCH. Cephalopelvic disproportion was the predominant indication in groups 3 of CHRACERH (44.4%) and YCH (39.2%). In groups 5
  ,
   CHRACERH and of YCH, a scarred uterus was the principal indication for the cesarean section at 82.4% and 78.4% respectively. At CHRACERH, th
  e maternofetal complications were more frequent in groups 1 and 2 at the YCH, this was the case mostly in groups 1 and 3. <b>Conclusion: </b>The Robson’s classification is an adequate tool for the evaluation and comparison of the rates of cesarean sections. The rates of cesarean section in CHRACERH (27.2%) and at YCH (24.8%) were higher than the rates recommended by WHO. Robson’s groups 1, 3 and 5 were identified as the groups most at risk for cesarean sections in the both hospitals.
 
</p></abstract><kwd-group><kwd>Robson’s Classification</kwd><kwd> Indication for Cesarean Section</kwd><kwd> Materno-Fetal Outcome</kwd></kwd-group></article-meta></front><body><sec id="s1"><title>1. Introduction</title><p>Cesarean section is one of the most commonly performed surgical procedures in obstetrics. Since about 30 years, the WHO considered 10% to 15% as the ideal rate for cesarean sections [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.129088-ref1">1</xref>] . Since then, delivery by cesarean section has been increasingly performed in both developed and developing countries [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.129088-ref2">2</xref>] . Higher rates have not been associated with a reduction of maternal and neonatal morbi-mortality [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.129088-ref3">3</xref>] . In the last decade, the rate of cesarean sections has greatly increased worldwide; as high as above 30% in certain regions [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.129088-ref4">4</xref>] . For instance, in Great Britain and Scotland, the cesarean section rate increased from 16% in 1995 to 21.5% in 2000 [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.129088-ref5">5</xref>] . The National Center for Health Statistics reported that the cesarean section rate in the United States increased from 20.7% in 1996 to 32.2% in 2014 [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.129088-ref6">6</xref>] . The rates rose to 24.6% in the United Kingdom in 2008-2009 and to 20.8% in France in 2010 [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.129088-ref7">7</xref>] . In Cameroon, a study carried out by Kemfang et al. on early maternal complications of cesarean section: about 460 cases in two university hospitals in Yaound&#233; found a cesarean section rate of 19.7% in the entire population [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.129088-ref8">8</xref>] . When medically justified, a cesarean section can efficiently prevent maternal and perinatal morbidity and mortality [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.129088-ref9">9</xref>] . However, no data has demonstrated the advantage for the mother or for the newborn of a cesarean section without indication [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.129088-ref10">10</xref>] . Like any surgical intervention, cesarean section is associated with short as well as long term risks which can last for several years after delivery and affect the health of the woman and the child as well as the future pregnancies [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.129088-ref11">11</xref>] . Till date, to the best of our knowledge, there exists no classification of cesarean section published in the literature on the topic. The Robson’s classification had been widely used in several countries during the past years [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.129088-ref12">12</xref>] . The WHO proposes to use the Robson’s classification like an international reference for the evaluation, the monitoring and the comparison of the rates of cesarean sections within health facilities with time and amongst them. The objectives of this study were to use the Robson’s classification to identify the groups of women having had abnormally high rates of cesarean sections and to determine the early maternofetal outcome amongst these groups.</p></sec><sec id="s2"><title>2. Materials and Methods</title><p>Ethical considerations: The study was carried out using the fundamental principles of research according to the Helsinki declaration. Ethical clearance was obtained from the Institutional committee of Ethics and Research of the faculty of Medicine and Biomedical sciences of the University of Yaound&#233; 1, while research authorizations were obtained from the administrations of the Yaound&#233; Central Hospital (YCH) and that of Centre Hospitalier de Recherche et d’Applicationen Chirurgie Endoscopiqueet Reproduction Humaine (CHRACERH). We included the files of all women who delivered by cesarean section during the study period.</p><p>We carried out a descriptive cross-sectional study with a retrospective data collection. It went from December 2017 to May 2018. The sampling was exhaustive. We included all women having delivered during a two years’ period spanning from January 2016 to December 2017 in the both health facilities.</p><p>Data was collected using an anonymous and pretested questionnaire which was designed by the research team. The variables studied were; the age, parity, mode of labor onset, indication of the cesarean section, delivery mode, indication of the cesarean section, the occurrence or not of maternal or fetal complications. The data collected was registered and analyzed. Data codification, entry and analysis were done using the softwares CS Pro 7.0 and S.P.S.S 25.0. Tables were drawn using the software Microsoft Office Excel 2016. The Robson group of each parturient was determined using the Robson classification according to <xref ref-type="table" rid="table1">Table 1</xref> [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.129088-ref13">13</xref>] . Descriptive parameters like mean and proportion were used. The association between variables and Robson’s groups were searched using the Chi<sup>2</sup> method, and a p value &lt; 0.05 and a confidence interval at 95% were considered statistically significant after logistic regression.</p></sec><sec id="s3"><title>3. Results</title><p>At the end of the study, 3578 files had been analyzed. In CHRACERH, 330 deliveries were carried out during the study period amongst which 90 underwent cesarean sections, a rate of 27.2%. At the YCH, 1863 deliveries were carried out, amongst which 462 were by cesarean section. Hence, the rates of cesarean sections were 27.2% in CHRACERH and 24.8% at YCH. The patients were statistically of a higher educational level in CHRACERH than at YCH.</p><p>The women in groups 5, 3 and 1 had the highest rates of cesarean sections in CHRACERH with 31.1%, 20.0% and 15.6% respectively. The groups 3, 1 and 5</p><table-wrap id="table1" ><label><xref ref-type="table" rid="table1">Table 1</xref></label><caption><title> Robson’s Classification</title></caption><table><tbody><thead><tr><th align="center" valign="middle" >Group</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Obstetrical characteristics</th></tr></thead><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Nulliparous, single cephalic, &gt;37 weeks in spontaneous labor</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >2</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Nulliparous, single cephalic, &gt;37 weeks, induced or CS before labor</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >3</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Multiparous (excluding previous CS), single cephalic, &gt;37 weeks in spontaneous labor</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >4</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Multiparous (excluding previous CS), single cephalic, &gt;37 weeks, induced or CS before labor</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >5</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Previous CS, single cephalic, &gt;37 weeks</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >6</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >All nulliparous breeches</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >7</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >All multiparous breeches (including previous CS)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >8</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >All multiple pregnancies (including previous CS)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >9</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >All abnormal lies (including previous CS)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >10</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >All single cephalic, &lt;36 weeks (including previous CS)</td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap><p>had the highest rates of cesarean section at YCH with 22.5%, 21.6% and 17.3% respectively (<xref ref-type="table" rid="table2">Table 2</xref> and <xref ref-type="table" rid="table3">Table 3</xref>).</p><p>At CHRACERH, most of the cesarean sections of group 1 were indicated for acute fetal distress (28.6%). Cephalopelvic disproportion was the most frequent indication of cesarean sections in group 1 at YCH (36.7%) (<xref ref-type="table" rid="table4">Table 4</xref>).</p><p>Cephalopelvic disproportion was the most frequent indication of cesarean sections in group 3 in CHRACERH and at YCH with respective frequencies of 44.4% and 39.2%. There was no statistically significant difference (p &gt; 0.05) in the indications of cesarean sections between groups 3 of CHRACERH and of YCH (<xref ref-type="table" rid="table5">Table 5</xref>).</p><p>At CHRACERH, all the cesarean sections of group 5 were indicated for scarred uterus (100%). At YCH, scarred uterus was the principal indication of cesarean sections within group 5 (65%). Many more cesarean sections were indicated for scarred uterus in CHRACERH than in YCH, with a statistically significant difference (p &lt; 0.05) (<xref ref-type="table" rid="table6">Table 6</xref>).</p><p>At CHRACERH, groups 1, 2 and 5 had the highest rates of complications. Hemorrhagic and infectious complications were the most common in group5. In groups 1 and 2, the complications were exclusively hemorrhagic (<xref ref-type="table" rid="table7">Table 7</xref>).</p><p>At YCH, groups 1, 3 and 2 had the highest rates of maternal complications. The complications were mainly infectious in groups 1 and 3. In group 2, the complications were exclusively hemorrhagic. Other complications like thromboembolic complications, digestive and urinary tract injuries were neglectable (<xref ref-type="table" rid="table8">Table 8</xref>).</p><p>Groups 1, 2 and 3 had the highest fetal complications at CHRACERH. In group1, we had; neonatal infection in 66.7% of neonates delivered by cesarean sections (<xref ref-type="table" rid="table9">Table 9</xref>).</p><p>At YCH, groups 1, 3 and 10 had the highest rates of global fetal complications.</p><table-wrap id="table2" ><label><xref ref-type="table" rid="table2">Table 2</xref></label><caption><title> Age distribution of the study population</title></caption><table><tbody><thead><tr><th align="center" valign="middle" >Variables</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >CHRACHERH (N = 330) n (%)</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >YCH (N = 1863) n (%)</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >P value</th></tr></thead><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Age range</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >&lt;15</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0 (0)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >17 (0.9)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.273</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >]15 - 20]</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >7 (2)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >224 (12)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >&lt;0.001</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >]20 - 25]</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >29 (8.7)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >468 (25.1)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >&lt;0.001</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >]25 - 30]</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >94 (28.5)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >571 (30.7)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.641</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >]30 - 35]</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >112 (34)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >380 (20.4)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.001</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >&gt;35</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >88 (26.9)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >203 (10.9)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >&lt;0.001</td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap><table-wrap id="table3" ><label><xref ref-type="table" rid="table3">Table 3</xref></label><caption><title> Contribution of different Robson’s groups to cesarean section rates at CHRACERH and at YCH</title></caption><table><tbody><thead><tr><th align="center" valign="middle" >Robson’s group</th><th align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >Number of cesarean sections</th><th align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="3"  >Rates of cesarean sections (%)</th></tr></thead><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >CHRACERH N = 90</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >YCH N = 462</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >CHRACERH</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >YCH</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >14</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >100</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >15.6</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >21.6</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >2</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >12</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >50</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >13.3</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >10.8</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >3</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >18</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >104</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >20</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >22.5</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >4</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >30</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6.7</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6.5</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >5</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >28</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >80</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >31.1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >17.3</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >6</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >10</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.2</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >7</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >26</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4.4</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >5.6</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >8</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >30</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.2</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6.5</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >9</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >8</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4.4</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.7</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >10</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >24</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.2</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >5.2</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap><table-wrap id="table4" ><label><xref ref-type="table" rid="table4">Table 4</xref></label><caption><title> Indications of Cesarean Section within Robson’s group1 at CHRACERH and YCH</title></caption><table><tbody><thead><tr><th align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="2"  >Indication of the surgery</th><th align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >Group 1</th><th align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="2"  >P value</th></tr></thead><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >CHRACERH, N = 14 n (%)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >HCY, N = 100 n (%)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Acute fetal distress</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4 (28.6)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >28 (28.6)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.975</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Cephalopelvic disproportion</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2 (14.3)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >36 (36.7)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.254</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Placenta abruptio</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0 (0)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6 (6.1)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.506</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Placenta pr&#230;via</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2 (14.3)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0 (0)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.007</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Severe preeclampsia/eclampsia</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0 (0)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >8 (8.2)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.438</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Infertility</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2(14.3)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0 (0)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.007</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Fetal macrosomia</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0 (0)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4 (4.1)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.59</td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap><table-wrap-group id="5"><label><xref ref-type="table" rid="table5">Table 5</xref></label><caption><title> Indications of cesarean section in Robson’s group 3 at CHRACERH and at YCH</title></caption><table-wrap id="5_1"><table><tbody><thead><tr><th align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="2"  >Indication of the surgery</th><th align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >Group 3</th><th align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="2"  >P value</th></tr></thead><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >CHRACERH, N = 18 n (%)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >YCH, N = 104 n (%)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Acute fetal distress</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4 (22.2)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >10 (9.8)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.273</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Cephalopelvic disproportion</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >8 (44.4)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >40 (39.2)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.734</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Placenta pr&#230;via</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0 (0)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2(1.9)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.68</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Severe preeclampsia/eclampsia</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2 (11.1)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2 (6.1)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.153</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Dystocic fetal presentation</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0 (0)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >18 (17.3)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.176</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Cord prolapse</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0 (0)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >5 (3.9)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.55</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Fetal macrosomia</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0 (0)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >11 (11.8)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.283</td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap><table-wrap id="5_2"><table><tbody><thead><tr><th align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="2"  >Indication of the surgery</th><th align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >Group 5</th><th align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="2"  >P value</th></tr></thead><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >CHRACERH, N = 28 n (%)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >YCH, N = 80 n (%)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Scarred uterus</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >28 (100)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >52 (65)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.01</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Acute fetal distress</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0 (0)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4 (5)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.394</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Cephalopelvic disproportion</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0 (0)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4 (5)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.394</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Dystocic fetal presentation</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0 (0)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4 (5)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.394</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Uterine prerupture Syndrome</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0 (0)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >10 (12.5)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.165</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Fetal macrosomia</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0 (0)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4 (5)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.394</td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap></table-wrap-group><table-wrap id="table6" ><label><xref ref-type="table" rid="table6">Table 6</xref></label><caption><title> Indications of Cesarean Section within Robson’s group 5 at CHRACERH and YCH</title></caption><table><tbody><thead><tr><th align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="2"  >Indication of the surgery</th><th align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >Group 5</th><th align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="2"  >P value</th></tr></thead><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >CHRACERH, N = 28 n (%)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >YCH, N = 80 n (%)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Scarred uterus</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >28 (100)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >52 (65)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.01</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Acute fetal distress</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0 (0)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4 (5)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.394</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Cephalopelvic disproportion</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0 (0)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4 (5)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.394</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Dystocic fetal presentation</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0 (0)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4 (5)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.394</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Uterine prerupture syndrome</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0 (0)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >10 (12.5)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.165</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Fetal macrosomia</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0 (0)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4 (5)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.394</td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap><table-wrap id="table7" ><label><xref ref-type="table" rid="table7">Table 7</xref></label><caption><title> Early maternal outcome after cesarean section according to Robson’s groups at CHRACERH</title></caption><table><tbody><thead><tr><th align="center" valign="middle" >Robson’s group</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Rate of complications n (%)</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Hemorrhagic Complications n (%)</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Infectious Complications n (%)</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Contribution to the global rate of complications (%)</th></tr></thead><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0/14 (0)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0 (0)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0 (0)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >2</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2/12 (16.7)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2(100)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0 (0)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >25</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >3</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2/18 (11.1)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2(100)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0 (0)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >25</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >4</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0/6 (0)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0 (0)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0 (0)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >5</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4/28 (14.3)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2 (50)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2 (50)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >50</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >6</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0/0 (0)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0 (0)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0 (0)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >7</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0/4 (0)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0 (0)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0 (0)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >8</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0/2 (0)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0 (0)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0 (0)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >9</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0/4 (0)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0 (0)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0 (0)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >10</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0/2 (0)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0 (0)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0 (0)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0</td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap><p>At CHRACERH, groups 5, 2 and 3 were the highest contributors to poor maternal outcome. The most frequent complications were due to postpartum hemorrhage.</p><table-wrap id="table8" ><label><xref ref-type="table" rid="table8">Table 8</xref></label><caption><title> Early maternal outcome after cesarean section according to Robson’s groups at YCH</title></caption><table><tbody><thead><tr><th align="center" valign="middle" >Robson’s group</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Rate of complications n (%)</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Hemorrhagic Complications n (%)</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Infectious Complications n (%)</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Contribution to the global rate of complications (%)</th></tr></thead><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >32/100 (32)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >8 (25)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >22 (68.8)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >43.3</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >2</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >10/50 (20)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >10 (100)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0 (0)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >13.5</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >3</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >18/104 (17.3)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6 (33.3)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >12 (66.7)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >24.3</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >4</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0/30 (0)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0 (0)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0 (0)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >5</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2/80 (2.5)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0 (0)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2 (100)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.7</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >6</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2/10 (20)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0 (0)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2 (100)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.7</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >7</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2/26 (7.7)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2 (100)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0 (0)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.7</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >8</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2/30 (6.7)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2 (100)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0 (0)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.7</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >9</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0/8 (0)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0 (0)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0 (0)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >10</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6/24 (25)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4 (66.7)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2 (33.3)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >8.1</td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap><p>At YCH, groups 1, 3 and 2 were the highest contributors to poor maternal outcome. The most frequent complications were due to infections in group 1 and 3 and postpartum hemorrhage in group 2.</p><table-wrap id="table9" ><label><xref ref-type="table" rid="table9">Table 9</xref></label><caption><title> Early fetal outcome after cesarean section according to Robson’s groups at CHRACERH</title></caption><table><tbody><thead><tr><th align="center" valign="middle" >Robson’s group</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Rate of complications n (%)</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >*APGAR score &lt; 7 n (%)</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Neonatal infection n (%)</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Neonatal death n (%)</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Contribution to the global rate of complications (%)</th></tr></thead><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6/14 (42.9)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0/6 (0)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4/6 (66.7)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0/6 (0)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >25</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >2</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6/12 (50)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2/6 (33.3)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2/6 (33.3)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0/6 (0)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >25</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >3</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6/18(33.3)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0/6(0)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0/6 (0)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0/6 (0)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >25</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >4</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0/6 (0)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0/0 (0)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0/0 (0)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0/0 (0)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >5</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4/28 (14.3)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0/4(0)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0 (0)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2/4 (50)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >16.7</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >6</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0/0 (0)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0/0 (0)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0/0 (0)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0/0 (0)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >7</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2/4 (50)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0/2(0)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0/2(0)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0/2(0)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >8.3</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >8</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0/2 (0)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0/0 (0)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0/0 (0)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0/0 (0)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >9</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0/4 (0)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0/0 (0)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0/0 (0)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0/0 (0)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >10</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0/2 (0)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0/0 (0)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0/0 (0)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0/0 (0)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0</td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap><p>At CHRACERH the highest contribution to fetal complications came from cesarean deliveries in groups 1, 2 and 3 respectively. The most frequent complication was neonatal infection</p><p>In group 2, we had neonatal asphyxia and neonatal infection, each in 33.3% (<xref ref-type="table" rid="table1">Table 1</xref>0).</p></sec><sec id="s4"><title>4. Limitations of the Study</title><p>We encountered some difficulties and limitations, namely:</p><p>&#183; The retrospective nature of data collection following which patient files were excluded for missing key data.</p><p>&#183; Restricted access to the HCY archives room which opened at 8:00 a.m. and closed at 3:30 p.m. making our data collecting difficult.</p></sec><sec id="s5"><title>5. Discussion</title><p>The mean age of the parturients at CHRACERH was 31.2 &#177; 5.07 years. This is similar to that of Mbungu et al. in 2017 in RDC in which the mean age was 30.07 &#177; 6.25 years [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.129088-ref14">14</xref>] . The mean age of patients at YCH was 27 &#177; 6.01 years. Other authors reported a mean age similar to ours; Kemfang et al. in 2015 in Cameroun with a mean age of 28.1 &#177; 0.93 years [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.129088-ref8">8</xref>] , Xavier Kinenkinda et al. in 2017 in RDC, who reported a mean age of 28.8 &#177; 6.8 years [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.129088-ref15">15</xref>] . There was a statistically significant difference between the age of patients at CHRACERH and those of YCH. This could be due to the fact that CHRACERH is a reference center receiving an important pool of patients consulting for infertility problems, mostly at an advanced age.</p><p>The socio-professional class which was the most represented at CHRACERH</p><table-wrap id="table10" ><label><xref ref-type="table" rid="table1">Table 1</xref>0</label><caption><title> Early fetal outcome after cesarean section according to Robson’s groups at YCH</title></caption><table><tbody><thead><tr><th align="center" valign="middle" >Robson’s group</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Rate of complications n (%)</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >*APGAR score &lt; 7 n (%)</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Neonatal infection n (%)</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Neonatal death n (%)</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Contribution to the global rate of complications (%)</th></tr></thead><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >36/100 (36.0)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >16/36 (44.4)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6/36 (16.7)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >10/36(27.8)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >27.7</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >2</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >12/50 (24.0)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6/12 (50)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4/12 (33.3)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6/12 (50)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >9.2</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >3</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >28/104 (26.9)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >16/28(57.1)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2/28 (7.1)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >8/28 (28.6)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >21.5</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >4</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >8/30 (26.7)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2/8 (25)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1/8 (12.5)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0/8 (0)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6.2</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >5</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >12/80 (15.0)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6/12 (50)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0/12 (0)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >8/12 (66.7)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >9.2</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >6</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4/10 (40.0)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2/10 (20)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4/10 (40)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0/10 (0)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3.1</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >7</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4/26 (15.4)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2/4 (50)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2/4 (50)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0/4 (0)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3.1</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >8</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >8/30 (26.7)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2/8 (25)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2/8 (25)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0/8 (0)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6.2</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >9</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0/8 (0.0)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0/0 (0)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0/0 (0)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0/0 (0)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >10</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >18/24 (75.0)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6/18 (33.3)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2/18 (11.1)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2/18 (11.1)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >13.8</td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap><p>At YCH the highest contribution to fetal complications came from cesarean deliveries in groups 1, 3 and 10 respectively. The most common complication was neonatal asphyxia.</p><p>was that of public servants; 34.0%. The socio-professional class which was the most represented at of YCH was that of unemployed women making up 37.7% of patients, similar to that reported by Mbungu et al. in 2017 in RDC who reported that majority i.e., 74.2% of parturients in their study were unemployed [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.129088-ref14">14</xref>] . There was a statistically significant difference (P &lt; 0.05) between the unemployed women at CHRACERH and those of YCH. This could be due to the fact that the cost of health care is more affordable at YCH than at CHRACERH, hence parturients who are more financially stable sought the services of CHRACERH.</p><p>In our study, the rate of cesarean section was at 27.2% at CHRACERH and 24.8 % at YCH. These findings were in accordance with those of literature which report a global increase in the rate of cesarean sections [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.129088-ref2">2</xref>] , way above the limit of 15% recommended by WHO [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.129088-ref1">1</xref>] . Certain authors found results similar to ours; Mbungu et al. in 2017 in RDC reported 31.2% [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.129088-ref14">14</xref>] . Hehir et al. in 2018 in the United States of America reported a global cesarean section rate of 31.6% [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.129088-ref16">16</xref>] .</p><p>This rise of cesarean section in our context could be explained by; advanced maternal age, an increase in the frequency of scarred uterus, the fear of complication of vaginal delivery, vulgarization of medically assisted procreation associated with a high frequency of associated multiple gestation.</p><p>At CHRACERH and YCH, groups 1, 3 and 5 were the groups with the highest rates of cesarean sections. This result is similar to that of Tura et al. in 2018 who reported groups 3, 5 and 1 with global cesarean rates of 21.4%, 21.1% and 19.3% respectively [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.129088-ref17">17</xref>] . The high rates in groups 1 and 3 could be due to the relatively large sizes of these groups in the parturients’ population. Concerning the great contribution of group 5 in the rate of cesarean section, this could be explained by the increase in the frequency of scarred uterus in the population.</p><p>At CHRACERH, most of the cesarean sections of group 1 were indicated for acute fetal distress at 28.6%. This result was similar to that of Tahira et al. in 2012 at Muscat who reported that acute fetal distress was the principal indication of cesarean sections in group1 [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.129088-ref18">18</xref>] . At YCH, most cesarean sections of group 1 were indicated for cephalopelvic disproportion i.e., 36.7%. This difference was probably due to differences in technical support, monitoring of parturients was easier at CHRACERH compared to HCY due to the availability of cardiotocographs at CHRACERH. Moreover, contrary to CHRACERH, YCH receives more parturients referred from surrounding health centers usually with poor pregnancy follow up, in stationnarylabour for continuation of care.</p><p>Cephalopelvic disproportion was the predominant indication of cesarean section in groups 3 of both CHRACERH and YCH at 44.4% and 39.2% respectively. These results were similar to those of Tura et al. in 2018 in Ethiopia who reported that cephalopelvic disproportion was the predominant indication of cesarean section in groups 3 with 35.2% [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.129088-ref17">17</xref>] .</p><p>In group 5, we had more cesarean sections indicated for scarred uterus at CHRACERH than at YCH, the difference was statistically significant (p &lt; 0.05). At CHRACERH, we noticed that all the women (82.4%) who underwent a cesarean section, all had as indication a scarred uterus (100%). At YCH 78.4% of women in group 5 had delivered cesarean section. This could be explained by the small sample size at CHRACERH. Tura et al. in 2018 in Ethiopia had equally obtained uterine scar like the main indication for cesarean section in group 5 with 65% [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.129088-ref17">17</xref>] .</p><p>At CHRACERH, the groups which had the highest rates of maternal complications were groups 5, 1 and 2 with 50%, 25% et 25% respectively. The complications were hemorrhagic (50%) and infectious (50%) in group 5. In groups 1 and 2, the complications were only hemorrhagic (100%). At the YCH, the groups with the highest maternal complications were groups 1, 3 and 2 respectively with 43.3%, 24.3% and 13.5%. The complications were principally infectious at 68.8% and 66.7% in groups 1 et 3. In group 2, the complications were solely hemorrhagic at 100%. These results were due to the fact that hemorrhage is a very common happening during deliveries. Infections remain frequent in our setting.</p><p>At CHRACERH, groups 1, 2 and 3 had the highest fetal complications at 25% each. In group 1, we had: neonatal infections and transfer to the neonatal unit in 66.7% of children delivered by cesarean section. In group 2, we had neonatal asphyxia and neonatal infections in 33.3% each. At YCH, groups 1, 3 and 10 had the highest rates of fetal complications notably 27.1%, 21.5% and 13.8% respectively. In groups 1, 2 and 10 of YCH, neonatal infection was the main neonatal complication at 44.4%, 50% and 33.3% respectively. This could be explained by the high frequency of fetal morbidity in relation with surgery.</p></sec><sec id="s6"><title>6. Conclusion</title><p>The Robson’s classification is an important tool in the evaluation of cesarean section rates in health facilities. In our context, the rates of cesarean section are high. Groups 1, 3 and 5 were the groups with the highest rates of cesarean sections at CHRACERH and YCH. The principal indications of cesarean sections in groups 1, 3 and 5 were respectively acute fetal distress, cephalopelvic disproportion and scarred uterus at CHRACERH. At YCH, they were cephalopelvic disproportion in groups 1 and 3 and scarred uterus in group 5.</p></sec><sec id="s7"><title>Conflicts of Interest</title><p>The authors declare no conflicts of interest regarding the publication of this paper.</p></sec><sec id="s8"><title>Cite this paper</title><p>Cyrille, N.N.C., Alfred, N.I., Felix, E., Louise, T. and Dupont, K.N.J. (2023) Cesarean Sections According to the Robson’s Classification in Two University Hospitals of Yaound&#233;: Indications and Maternofetal Outcome. Open Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 13, 1791-1806. https://doi.org/10.4236/ojog.2023.1311152</p></sec><sec id="s9"><title>Appendix: Questionnaire</title></sec></body><back><ref-list><title>References</title><ref id="scirp.129088-ref1"><label>1</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">OrganisationMondiale de la Santé (2014) Déclaration de l’OMS sur les taux de césarienne.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.129088-ref2"><label>2</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Vogel, J.P., Betrán, A.P., Vindevoghel, N., Souza, J.P., Torloni, M.R., Zhang, J., et al. (2015) Use of the Robson Classification to Assess Caesarean Section Trends in 21 Countries: A Secondary Analysis of Two WHO Multicountry Surveys. Lancet Global Health, 3, 260-270. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2214-109X(15)70094-X</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.129088-ref3"><label>3</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Althabe, F. and Belizan, J.M. (2006) Caesarean Section: The Paradox. Lancet, 368, 1472-1473. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(06)69616-5</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.129088-ref4"><label>4</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">National Institutes of Health State-of-the-Science Conference Statement (2006) Cesarean Delivery on Maternal Request. Obstetrics &amp; Gynecology, 107, 1386-1397.  
https://doi.org/10.1097/00006250-200606000-00027</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.129088-ref5"><label>5</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Dobson, R. (2001) Caesarean Section Rate in England and Wales Hits 21%. BMJ, 323, 951. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.323.7319.951a</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.129088-ref6"><label>6</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Births (2016) Method of Delivery. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.129088-ref7"><label>7</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Bragg, F., Cromwell, D.A., Edozien, L.C., Gurol-Urganci, I., Mahmood, T.A., Templeton, A., et al. (2010) Variation in Rates of Caesarean Section among English NHS Trusts after Accounting for Maternal and Clinical Risk: Cross Sectional Study. BMJ, 341, e5065. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.c5065</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.129088-ref8"><label>8</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Kemfang, N.J.D., Ngassam, A., Fouogue, J.T., Metogo, J., Medou, A. and Kasia, J.M. (2015) Complications maternelles précoces de la césarienne. The Pan African Medical Journal, 21, 265.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.129088-ref9"><label>9</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Hannah, M.E., Hannah, W.J., Hewson, S.A., Hodnett, E.D., Saigal, S. and Willan, A.R. (2000) Planned Caesarean Section versus Planned Vaginal Birth for Breech Presentation at Term: A Randomised Multicenter Trial. Lancet, 356, 1375-1383.  
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(00)02840-3</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.129088-ref10"><label>10</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Broche, D.-E., Courtois, L., Maillet, R. and Riethmuller, D. (2008) Césariennes. EMC - Obstétrique, 31, 1-16. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0246-0335(08)45770-8</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.129088-ref11"><label>11</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Souza, J.P., Gülmezoglu, A., Lumbiganon, P., Laopaiboon, M., Carroli, G., Fawole, B., 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 Medicine, 8, Article Number: 71. https://doi.org/10.1186/1741-7015-8-71</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.129088-ref12"><label>12</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Betrán, A.P., Vindevoghel, N., Souza, J.P., Gülmezoglu, A.M. and Torloni, M.R. (2014) A Systematic Review of the Robson Classification for Caesarean Section: What Works, Doesn’t Work and How to Improve It. PLOS ONE, 9, e97769.  
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0097769</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.129088-ref13"><label>13</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Robson, M.S. (2001) Classification of Caesarean Sections. Fetal and Maternal Medicine Review, 12, 23-39. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0965539501000122</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.129088-ref14"><label>14</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Mbungu, M.R., Ntela, M.J. and Kahindo, M.P. (2017) Fréquence des césariennes selon la classification de Robson dans 3 maternités de la ville de Kinshasa, en République Démocratique du Congo. Annals of African Medicine, 10, 2535-2544.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.129088-ref15"><label>15</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Kinenkinda, X., Mukuku, O., Chenge, F., Kakuddji, P., Banzulu, P., Kakoma, J.B., et al. (2017) Césarienne à Lubumbashi, République Démocratique du Congo II: Facteurs de risque de mortalité maternelle et périnatale. The Pan African Medical Journal, 46, 208. https://doi.org/10.11604/pamj.2017.26.208.12148</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.129088-ref16"><label>16</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Hehir, M.P., Ananth, C.V., Siddiq, Z., Flood, K., Friedman, A.M. and D’Alton, M.E. (2018) Cesarean Delivery in the United States 2005-2014: A Population-Based Analysis Using the Robson Ten Group Classification System. American Journal of Obstetrics &amp; Gynecology, 229, 105.e1-105.e11.   
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2018.04.012</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.129088-ref17"><label>17</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Tura, A.K., Pijpers, O., de Man, M., Cleveringa, M., Koopmans, I., Gure, T., et al. (2018) Analysis of Caesarean Sections Using Robson 10-Group Classification System in a University Hospital in Eastern Ethiopia: A Crosssectional Study. BMJ Open, 8, e020520. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2017-020520</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.129088-ref18"><label>18</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Kazmi, T., Saiseema, S.V. and Khan, S. (2012) Analysis of Cesarean Section Rate According to Robson’s 10-Group Classification. Oman Medical Journal, 27, 415-417.  
https://doi.org/10.5001/omj.2012.102</mixed-citation></ref></ref-list></back></article>