<?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.2023.1312165</article-id><article-id pub-id-type="publisher-id">OJOG-129948</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>
 
 
  Prevalence, Indications and Morbidity of Caesarean Sections in a Referral Hospital of the Health Voucher Program: The Case of Garoua Regional Hospital in the Northern Region of Cameroon
 
</article-title></title-group><contrib-group><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Mbarnjuk</surname><given-names>Aoudi Stéphane</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>Kabko</surname><given-names>Mbargang Georges</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff2"><sup>2</sup></xref></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Ngalame</surname><given-names>Alphonse Nyong</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff3"><sup>3</sup></xref><xref ref-type="corresp" rid="cor1"><sup>*</sup></xref></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Ourtchingh</surname><given-names>Clovis</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff4"><sup>4</sup></xref></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Mangala</surname><given-names>Nkwele Fulbert</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff5"><sup>5</sup></xref></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Anicet</surname><given-names>Gakdang Ladibe</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff6"><sup>6</sup></xref></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Tameh</surname><given-names>Theodore Yangsi</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff7"><sup>7</sup></xref></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Neng</surname><given-names>Humphry Tatah</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff3"><sup>3</sup></xref></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Koudjou</surname><given-names>Blaise</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff4"><sup>4</sup></xref></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Halle-Ekane</surname><given-names>Gregory Edie</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff8"><sup>8</sup></xref></contrib></contrib-group><aff id="aff7"><addr-line>Nkongsamba Regional Hospital, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Bamenda, Bamenda, Cameroon</addr-line></aff><aff id="aff5"><addr-line>Nkongsamba Regional Hospital, Faculty of Medicine and Pharmaceutical Sciences, University of Douala, Douala, Cameroon</addr-line></aff><aff id="aff3"><addr-line>Douala Gyneco-Obstetric and Pediatric Hospital, Faculty of Health Sciences (FHS), University of Buea, Buea, Cameroon</addr-line></aff><aff id="aff4"><addr-line>Gynecology &amp;amp; Obstetrics Unit, Maroua Regional Hospital, Maroua, Cameroon</addr-line></aff><aff id="aff1"><addr-line>Department of Gynecology &amp;amp; Obstetrics, Faculty of Medicine and Biomedical Sciences, University of Garoua, Garoua, Cameroon</addr-line></aff><aff id="aff8"><addr-line>Douala General Hospital, Dean Faculty of Health Sciences (FHS), University of Buea, Buea, Cameroon</addr-line></aff><aff id="aff6"><addr-line>Faculty of Medicine and Biomedical Sciences, University of Yaoundé 1, Yaoundé, Cameroon</addr-line></aff><aff id="aff2"><addr-line>Department of Surgery and Specialties, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Buea, Buea, Cameroon</addr-line></aff><pub-date pub-type="epub"><day>01</day><month>12</month><year>2023</year></pub-date><volume>13</volume><issue>12</issue><fpage>1949</fpage><lpage>1964</lpage><history><date date-type="received"><day>3,</day>	<month>November</month>	<year>2023</year></date><date date-type="rev-recd"><day>19,</day>	<month>December</month>	<year>2023</year>	</date><date date-type="accepted"><day>22,</day>	<month>December</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>
 
 
  Caesarean section (CS) is a surgical procedure performed to remove a fetus from the mother
  ’
  s uterus through an incision on the abdominal wall, then on the uterine wall. The indications of CS vary not only between countries, but also from one hospital to another and from one team to another within the same hospital. Despite advances in asepsis and anesthesia/resuscitation technics, there are still complications of varying severity inherent to the gravid-puerperal state on one hand and the technics used on the other, irrespective of the operative indication. Thus, the present study was carried out with the objectives of determining the prevalence, identifying the indications, and evaluating the morbidity linked to caesarean sections in our environment. Cameroon has also set up a health voucher program in its northern region, aimed at reducing maternal and fetus morbidity and mortality. The program aims to improve financial access in antenatal care and deliveries, including caesarean sections, in this low-income region of the country. We conducted a descriptive cross-sectional study with retrospective data collection, from February 1, 2022, to May 31, 2022. We included all women who gave birth by caesarean section. In our study series, out of 905 parturient admissions into the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 226 w
  ere
   caesarian cases. The overall frequency of CS during our study period was 25%. Fetal indications were dominated by cephalopelvic disproportion and non-reassuring fetal heart in 17.3% and 13.7% of cases respectively. Intraoperative complications were dominated by hemorrhage (15.5%). In our study, we noted an 11.1% of prevalence perinatal mortality. Cameroon is a low-income country with limited financial resources, especially in the Northern region. The health voucher program has improved financial access to caesarean sections for parturient in northern Cameroon, and consequently to emergency obstetric and neonatal care.
 
</p></abstract><kwd-group><kwd>Caesarean Section</kwd><kwd> Health Voucher</kwd><kwd> Cephalon-Pelvic Disproportion</kwd><kwd> Hemorrhage</kwd></kwd-group></article-meta></front><body><sec id="s1"><title>1. Introduction</title><p>Caesarean section (CS) is a surgical procedure performed to remove a fetus from the mother’s uterus through an incision on the abdominal wall, then on the uterine wall. It is an old obstetrical procedure whose origins are controversial, and which has undergone several innovations over the years [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.129948-ref1">1</xref>] . Worldwide, caesarean section rates have risen in recent decades. According to recent estimates of over 150 countries, 21% of all births occur through caesarean section, with averages ranging from 1% to 58% depending on the country. The World Health Organization (WHO) estimates that the global caesarean section rate has almost tripled in a quarter of a century [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.129948-ref2">2</xref>] . The indications of CS vary not only between countries, but also from one hospital to another and from one team to another within the same hospital [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.129948-ref3">3</xref>] . The procedure is the result of an intellectual approach specific to each practitioner, given the limited internationally adopted consensus. The indications for caesarean section have evolved considerably, and this evolution is not yet complete.</p><p>Despite advances in asepsis and anesthesia/resuscitation technics, there are still complications of varying severity inherent to the gravid-puerperal state on one hand [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.129948-ref4">4</xref>] and the surgical technics used on the other, irrespective of the operative indication [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.129948-ref5">5</xref>] . That was our motivation for conducting this survey.</p><p>As far as we know, there are very few up-to-date studies on the prevalence and indications of caesarean section in Cameroon, especially in the northern region. Thus, the present study was carried out with the objectives of determining the prevalence, and identifying the indications and morbidity linked to caesarean sections in our environment.</p><p>Cameroon has also set up a health voucher program in its northern region, aimed at reducing maternal morbidity and mortality. The program aims to improve financial access to CS in this low-income region of the country by subsidizing pregnancy care and deliveries, including caesarean sections.</p></sec><sec id="s2"><title>2. Materials and Method</title><sec id="s2_1"><title>2.1. Study Design</title><p>We conducted a descriptive cross-sectional study with retrospective data collection.</p></sec><sec id="s2_2"><title>2.2. Site Justification</title><p>The town of Garoua was chosen because of the cultural and social values in northern Cameroon which are in favor of fertility, the presence of subsidy programs for the fight against maternal and perinatal mortality. It also has a CEmONC regional hospital, which is the referral center for the North. Our study was carried out in the department of Obstetrics and Gynecology of the Garoua Regional Hospital (GRH).</p></sec><sec id="s2_3"><title>2.3. Study Period</title><p>The study ran from February 1, 2022, to May 31, 2022.</p></sec><sec id="s2_4"><title>2.4. Study Population</title><p>Target population</p><p>All women admitted in the labor ward and who have given birth.</p><p>Source population</p><p>The population of our study will consist of all women who gave birth by caesarean section in the department of Obstetrics and Gynecology of the Garoua regional hospital.</p><p>Inclusion criteria</p><p>All women who gave birth by caesarean section were included in the study.</p><p>Exclusion criteria</p><p>All files with incomplete information were excluded, as well as all women who had undergone caesarean section in other health facilities but were managed at the Garoua Regional Hospital.</p></sec><sec id="s2_5"><title>2.5. Sampling Method</title><p>We used a non-probabilistic sampling, and our sample size was exhaustive, meeting the selection criteria during the study period, that is, 226 cases included in our study. We collected data on pre-established questionnaire, by using patient files, delivery room registers and operative room registers.</p></sec><sec id="s2_6"><title>2.6. Variables</title><p>We evaluated following variables: caesarian delivery, age, religion, education, marital status, parity, occupation, caesarian indications, maternal complications, fetal complications, history of caesarean section, term of pregnancy.</p></sec><sec id="s2_7"><title>2.7. Materials</title><p>Data collection sheets, medical records, computer equipment including a laptop with CSpro and SPSS software, Microsoft Word and Excel, cell phone, internet connection tools (modem). Office equipment: A4 paper, ballpoint pens, pencils, erasers.</p></sec><sec id="s2_8"><title>2.8. Data Analysis</title><p>The data collected and recorded on the survey form were then entered and analyzed using CSpro-7.3, SSPS 26.0, Microsoft EXCEL and Word version 2016. The results of the study are presented in tables and figures; expressed as proportions and numbers for categorical variables. Quantitative variables are expressed as means with standard deviation.</p><p>The findings of the study are classified by quantitative and qualitative variables, which are represented in the form of figures and tables.</p></sec></sec><sec id="s3"><title>3. Results</title><sec id="s3_1"><title>3.1. Participant Recruitment</title><p>In our study series, out of 905 parturient admissions into the department of Obstetrics and Gynecology and during the period from February 1, 2022, to May 31, 2022, we recorded 226 cesarean sections which were included in our study (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig1">Figure 1</xref>).</p></sec><sec id="s3_2"><title>3.2. Prevalence of Caesarean Sections during the Study Period</title><p>The overall frequency during our study period was 25%. A monthly study of caesarean section frequency reveals that the highest rate was observed in March, with 26.5% of cases, and the lowest rate in February and May, with 24.3% of cases respectively (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig2">Figure 2</xref>).</p></sec><sec id="s3_3"><title>3.3. Sociodemographic Characteristics of Pregnant Women</title><p>The mean age of patients operated on was 25.93 &#177; 6.36 years, with extremes of</p><p>14 and 43 years. Most of the women were aged between 20 and 29 years (49.6%), married (83.2%), muslims (60.2%), living in urban areas (76.5%). The majority had primary education (41.2%) and were housewives (71.7%) (<xref ref-type="table" rid="table1">Table 1</xref>).</p></sec><sec id="s3_4"><title>3.4. Clinical Aspects Mode and Reason for Admission</title><p>Most patients were referred from a health facility (82.7%). Lumbopelvic labor—like pains was the most common chief complaint (34.1%) (<xref ref-type="table" rid="table2">Table 2</xref>).</p></sec><sec id="s3_5"><title>3.5. Obstetrical History</title><p>Primigravida and nulliparity were most common in 37.6% and 42.5% of cases respectively (<xref ref-type="table" rid="table3">Table 3</xref>).</p><table-wrap id="table1" ><label><xref ref-type="table" rid="table1">Table 1</xref></label><caption><title> Distribution of study population by socio-demographic characteristics</title></caption><table><tbody><thead><tr><th align="center" valign="middle" >Variables</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Number (N = 226)</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Frequency (%)</th></tr></thead><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Age groups (years)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >&lt;20</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >42</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >18.6</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >[20 - 30[</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >112</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >49.6</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >[30 - 40[</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >69</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >30.5</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >[40 - 50[</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.3</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Marital status</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Single</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >28</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >12.4</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Married</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >188</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >83.2</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Divorced</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >10</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4.4</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Religion</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Christian</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >90</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >39.8</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Muslim</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >136</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >60.2</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Residence</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Urban</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >173</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >76.5</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Rural</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >53</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >23.5</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Level of education</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >None</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >83</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >36.7</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Primary</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >93</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >41.2</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Secondary</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >29</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >12.8</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Higher</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >21</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >9.3</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Profession</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Business</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >20</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >8.8</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Housewife</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >162</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >71.7</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Civil servant</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >19</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >8.4</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Student</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >8</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3.5</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Pupil</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >9</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4.0</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >None</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >8</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3.5</td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap><table-wrap id="table2" ><label><xref ref-type="table" rid="table2">Table 2</xref></label><caption><title> Distribution by mode of admission and reason for consultatio</title></caption><table><tbody><thead><tr><th align="center" valign="middle" >Variables</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Number (N = 226)</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Frequency (%)</th></tr></thead><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Mode of admission</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Referred</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >187</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >82.7</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Came by herself</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >39</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >17.3</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Reason for consultation</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Lumbopelvic pains</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >77</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >34.1</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Amniotic fluid leakage</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >19</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >8.4</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Per vaginal bleeding</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >23</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >10.2</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Elective caesarian</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >32</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >14.2</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Others</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >75</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >33.1</td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap><table-wrap id="table3" ><label><xref ref-type="table" rid="table3">Table 3</xref></label><caption><title> Distribution by gravidity and parity</title></caption><table><tbody><thead><tr><th align="center" valign="middle" >Variables</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Number (N = 226)</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Frequency (%)</th></tr></thead><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Gravidity</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Primigravida (G1)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >85</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >37.6</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Paucigravida (G2 - G3)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >74</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >32.7</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Multigravida (G4 - G6)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >45</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >19.9</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Grand multigravida (&gt;G6)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >22</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >9.7</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Parity</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Nulliparity (P0)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >96</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >42.5</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Primiparity (P1)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >38</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >16.8</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Pauciparity (P2 - P3)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >51</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >22.6</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Multiparity (P4 - P6)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >34</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >15.0</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Grand multiparity (&gt;P6)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >7</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3.1</td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap></sec><sec id="s3_6"><title>3.6. Medical and Surgical History</title><p>High blood pressure was found in 5.3% of patients undergoing surgery. 21.2% of patients hadundergone a previous caesarean section and 2.2% a laparotomy indicated for ectopic pregnancy (<xref ref-type="table" rid="table4">Table 4</xref>).</p></sec><sec id="s3_7"><title>3.7. Pregnancy Follow-Up</title><p>The average number of prenatal consultations was 3.99 &#177; 1.74, with a minimum of 0 and a maximum of 8. Most of the women who underwent surgery had average ANC (64.6%), and 76.1% of them were managed by the health voucher program. Pregnancy follow-up was carried out in health centers (74.8%), largely by midwives (35.8%) (<xref ref-type="table" rid="table5">Table 5</xref>).</p></sec><sec id="s3_8"><title>3.8. Clinical Signs</title><p>Most patients were at term (78.3%), and 19% had elevated blood pressure. Fetal heart rate anomalies were observed in 12.8% of admissions. Membranes were ruptured in 31%, and pelvic quality was abnormal in 4.9% of cases. The presentation was cephalic in most cases (81.0%) (<xref ref-type="table" rid="table6">Table 6</xref>).</p></sec><sec id="s3_9"><title>3.9. Caesarean Section Indications</title><p>Caesarean section procedure</p><p>Caesarean sections were performed as an emergency procedure in the majority of cases (91.2%). The majority of procedures were performed under general anesthesia (85.8%). Close to half of caesarean sections were performed by gynecologists (47.3%). Pfannenstiel incision was performed in over 50% of patients, meanwhile transverse hysterotomy was done in all cases operated (100%) (<xref ref-type="table" rid="table7">Table 7</xref>).</p><p>The average procedure duration was 44.98 &#177; 14 min, with a minimum of 25 minutes and a maximum of 90 minutes. The procedures most associated with</p><table-wrap id="table4" ><label><xref ref-type="table" rid="table4">Table 4</xref></label><caption><title> Distribution according to medical and surgical history</title></caption><table><tbody><thead><tr><th align="center" valign="middle" >Variables</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Number (N = 226)</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Frequency (%)</th></tr></thead><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Medical</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >None</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >211</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >93.4</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >High blood pressure</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >12</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >5.3</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Diabetes</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.4</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Asthma</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.4</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Sickle cell anemia</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.4</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Surgical</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Previous caesarean</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >48</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >21.2</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Laparotomy (Ectopic pregnancy)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >5</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.2</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >None</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >173</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >76.5</td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap><table-wrap id="table5" ><label><xref ref-type="table" rid="table5">Table 5</xref></label><caption><title> Pregnancy follow-up distribution</title></caption><table><tbody><thead><tr><th align="center" valign="middle" >Variables</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Number (N = 226)</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Frequency (%)</th></tr></thead><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Quality of ANC</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Poor (0 - 3)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >40</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >17.7</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Average (4 - 5)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >146</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >64.6</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Good (6 - 8)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >40</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >17.7</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Health Check</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Yes</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >172</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >76.1</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >No</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >54</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >23.9</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Place of ANC</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Health center</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >169</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >74.8</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >District medical center</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >21</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >9.3</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Regional hospital</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >18</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >8.0</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Others</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >18</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >8.0</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >ANC provider</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Obstetrician-Gynecologist</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >19</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >8.4</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >General practitioner</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >16</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >7.1</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Nurse</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >55</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >24.3</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Midwife</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >81</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >35.8</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Midwife/caregiver</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >55</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >24.3</td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap><table-wrap id="table6" ><label><xref ref-type="table" rid="table6">Table 6</xref></label><caption><title> Distribution according to clinical</title></caption><table><tbody><thead><tr><th align="center" valign="middle" >Variables</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Number (N = 226)</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Frequency (%)</th></tr></thead><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Gestational age</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Pre-term</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >25</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >11.1</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >At term</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >177</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >78.3</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Post term</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >24</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >10.6</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Blood pressure</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Normal</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >183</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >81.0</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Elevated</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >43</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >19.0</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Fetal heart rate</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Normal</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >181</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >80.1</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Abnormal</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >21</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >12.8</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Absent</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >16</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >7.1</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Presentation</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Cephalic</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >183</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >81.0</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Breech</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >26</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >11.5</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Transverse</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >10</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4.4</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Variable</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >7</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3.1</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Membrane state</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Intact</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >156</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >69</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Ruptured</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >70</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >31.0</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Pelvis</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >55</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >24.3</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Normal</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >215</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >95.1</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Abnormal</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >11</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4.9</td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap><table-wrap id="table7" ><label><xref ref-type="table" rid="table7">Table 7</xref></label><caption><title> Distribution by type of caesarean section, anesthesia, provider, and incision type</title></caption><table><tbody><thead><tr><th align="center" valign="middle" >Variables</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Number (N = 226)</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Frequency (%)</th></tr></thead><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Type of cesarean section</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Emergency</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >206</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >91.2</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Elective</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >20</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >8.8</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Type of anesthesia</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >General</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >194</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >85.8</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Spinal anesthesia</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >32</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >14.2</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Provider</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Gynecologist</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >107</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >47.3</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >General Practitioner</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >30</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >13.3</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Surgeon</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >89</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >39.4</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Type of skin incision</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Pfannenstiel</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >116</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >51.3</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Median</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >61</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >27.0</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Jo&#235;l Cohen</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >49</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >21.7</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Type of hysterotomy</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Transverse segmental</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >226</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >100.0</td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap><p>caesarean section were bilateral tubal ligation (2.7%), appendectomy (2.7%), emergency obstetric hysterectomy (2.2%) and ovarian cystectomy (1.8%) (<xref ref-type="table" rid="table8">Table 8</xref>).</p></sec><sec id="s3_10"><title>3.10. Main Indications</title><p>The main maternal indications for caesarean section were scarred uterus (12.4%), followed by severe pre-eclampsia (11.1%) and pre-uterine rupture syndrome (5.3%). Fetal indications were dominated by cephalopelvic disproportion and non-reassuring fetal heart in 17.3% and 13.7% of cases respectively (<xref ref-type="table" rid="table9">Table 9</xref>).</p><table-wrap id="table8" ><label><xref ref-type="table" rid="table8">Table 8</xref></label><caption><title> Distribution by duration of operation and associated procedures</title></caption><table><tbody><thead><tr><th align="center" valign="middle" >Variables</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Number (N = 226)</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Frequency (%)</th></tr></thead><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Intervention duration</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >&lt;30 min</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >16</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >7.1</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >[30 - 60[ min</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >168</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >74.3</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >&gt;60 min</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >42</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >18.6</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Associated intervention</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Bilateral tubal ligation</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.7</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Ovarian Cystectomy</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.8</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Emergency obstetric hysterectomy</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >5</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.2</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Myomectomy</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.9</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Appendectomy</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.7</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >None</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >203</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >89.8</td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap><table-wrap id="table9" ><label><xref ref-type="table" rid="table9">Table 9</xref></label><caption><title> Distribution by caesarean section indications</title></caption><table><tbody><thead><tr><th align="center" valign="middle" >Variables</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Number (N = 226)</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Frequency (%)</th></tr></thead><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="3"  >Maternal</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Scarred uterus</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >28</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >12.4</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Eclampsia</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >7</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3.1</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Pre-uterine rupture syndrome</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >12</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >5.3</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Prolonged premature rupture of membranes</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.8</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Severe preeclampsia</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >25</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >11.1</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Stationary labor</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.8</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="3"  >Fetal</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Placenta previa</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >12</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >5.3</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Transverse presentation</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.8</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Cord prolapse</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.3</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Fetal malformation</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.3</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Retention of 2<sup>nd</sup> Twin</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.4</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >1<sup>st</sup> Twin transverse/breech</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >5</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.2</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Macrosomia</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >10</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4.4</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Abroptio placentae</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.7</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Cephalopelvic disproportion</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >39</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >17.3</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Fetal</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.7</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Placenta previa</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >31</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >13.7</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Others*</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >26</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >11.5</td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap><p>Others*: Cord prolapse, Post term/Post datism, Induction failure, Convenience...</p></sec><sec id="s3_11"><title>3.11. Operative Complications</title><p>Maternal prognosis</p><p>Intraoperative complications were dominated by hemorrhage (15.5%) and bladder lesions (4.9%), while postoperative complications were mainly abdominal wall suppuration (4.4%), endometritis (3.5%), burst abdomen/suppuration (0.9%), thromboembolic disease,and maternal death (0.4% respectively) (<xref ref-type="table" rid="table1">Table 1</xref>0).</p></sec><sec id="s3_12"><title>3.12. Fetal Prognosis</title><p>In our study, we noted 11.1% perinatal mortality, with 8.8% stillbirths and 2.3% early neonatal death (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig3">Figure 3</xref>).</p><table-wrap id="table10" ><label><xref ref-type="table" rid="table1">Table 1</xref>0</label><caption><title> Complication distribution</title></caption><table><tbody><thead><tr><th align="center" valign="middle" >Variables</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Number (N = 226)</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Frequency (%)</th></tr></thead><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Intraoperative complications</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Hemorrhage</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >35</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >15.5</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Bladder injury</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >11</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4.9</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Intestinal injury</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.4</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >None</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >179</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >79.2</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Postoperative complications</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Wall suppuration</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >10</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4.4</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Endometritis</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >8</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3.5</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Suppuration and evisceration</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.9</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Burst abdomen</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.4</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Thromboembolic disease</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.4</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Maternal death</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.4</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >None</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >203</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >89.8</td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap></sec></sec><sec id="s4"><title>4. Discussion</title><sec id="s4_1"><title>4.1. Prevalence of Caesarean Sections</title><p>The prevalence (25%) of caesarean sections at the Garoua Regional Hospital was higher than that recommended by WHO. It was same situation for Bokossa et al. [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.129948-ref6">6</xref>] in Ivory Coast, which was 31.3%. Essiben et al. in 2017 in Yaounde-Cameroon found a prevalence of 29.6% [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.129948-ref7">7</xref>] . This prevalence remains relatively high due to the fact that Garoua Regional Hospital receives parturients from other health facilities in the northern region. The health voucher scheme also promotes access to caesarean sections.</p></sec><sec id="s4_2"><title>4.2. Socio-Demographic Characteristics of the Study Population</title><p>The mean age of operated patients was 25.93 &#177; 6.36 years, with extremes ranging from 14 to 43 years. Most were aged between 20 and 29 years (49.6%). Mpogoro et al., [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.129948-ref8">8</xref>] in Tanzania in 2014 found a mean age of 26.8 &#177; 5.8 years with extremes ranging from 14 to 44 years, the most represented age range in their study was 20 to 34 years. These results can be explained by the fact that, at this age, women are at the peak of their reproductive role.</p><p>The youngest patients were 14 years and the oldest 43years. These two extremes come as no surprise, as Fouedjio et al. [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.129948-ref9">9</xref>] in Cameroon in 2021, reported extremes ranging from 14 to 46 years, while Barbut et al. [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.129948-ref10">10</xref>] in France in 2004 reported extremes from 19 to 45 years. This difference can be explained by the fact that we face maternal health challenges such as early pregnancy and poor access to contraceptive methods, but also by the low level of education in our context.</p><p>Most of them were housewives (71.7%). This is probably because the majority of patients had a primary level of education (41.2%) and were illiterate (36.7%), but also because of early marriage in the region. The same observation was made by Teguete et al. [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.129948-ref11">11</xref>] and several other studies in Mali, who reported that the majority of women operated on by caesarean section were over 90% illiterate. In the other hand, we observed that majority of women was muslims (60.2%), like Mali’s authors, because Muslims are mostly represented in this region of the country.</p></sec><sec id="s4_3"><title>4.3. Admission Mode</title><p>Most deliveries were referred from a health facility (82.7%). Ou&#233;draogo et al. [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.129948-ref12">12</xref>] in Burkina Faso found a 91.9% referral rate. The hypothesis that would justify this high referral rate is the level of attainment of the health voucher program to parturients in this region. In addition, Garoua Regional Hospital is a referral hospital with qualified staff and technical equipment for performing caesarean sections.</p></sec><sec id="s4_4"><title>4.4. Obstetrical History</title><p>Primigravida and nulliparity were most represented in 37.6% and 42.5% of cases. This confirms the data in the literature review which shows that primigravidas have an increased risk of caesarean delivery, as they have an untested pelvis.</p><p>Since our study population was dominated by nulliparous, we have encountered few patients with a scarred uterus, 21.2%, contrarily to Guindo and Keita who find out rate of 65.21% and 67.3% in Mali [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.129948-ref13">13</xref>] .</p></sec><sec id="s4_5"><title>4.5. Clinical Aspects</title><p>The average number of prenatal consultations was 3.99 &#177; 1.74, with a minimum of 0 and a maximum of 8. Most of the women who underwent surgery had normal prenatal consultations (64.6%) due to health voucher program, and 76.1% of them were managed by this program.</p><p>Pregnancies were followed up in health centers (74.8%) by qualified personnel like midwives (35.8%). In Yaound&#233;, on the same vein, Essiben et al. [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.129948-ref7">7</xref>] found a follow-up rate of 93.7%, amongst which 62.6% of which were done by obstetrician-gynecologists. However, there is a shortage of obstetrician-gynecologists in Cameroon northern region.</p><p>Few patients present ruptured membranes in 31%, less than what Coulibaly et al. [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.129948-ref14">14</xref>] reported 47% of cases of ruptured membranes.</p></sec><sec id="s4_6"><title>4.6. Management</title><p>Indications for caesarean section were dominated by cephalopelvic disproportion and fetal distress in 17.3% and 13.7% of cases respectively. Nkwabong et al. [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.129948-ref15">15</xref>] in Cameroon found that cephalopelvic disproportion was the most frequent indication in 24.0% of cases. These results can be explained by the fact that most of the patients were primigravida and nulliparous, and therefore had pelvis that had never benefited from a trial of labor.</p><p>The health voucher program subsidizes caesarean sections, and imposes referral system. So, Caesarean sections were emergencies in the majority of cases (91.2%), similar to the 96.4% observed in Burkina Faso by Ou&#233;draogo et al. [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.129948-ref12">12</xref>] . However, our prevalence remains higher than those observed in France by Toulon and Palot [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.129948-ref16">16</xref>] , who reported emergency caesarean section rates of 61.0% and 64.0% respectively.</p><p>Most operations were performed under general anesthesia (85.8%). This is due to the observation that the surgical kits in the health voucher program are made up of general anesthesia drugs and materials.</p></sec><sec id="s4_7"><title>4.7. Complications</title><p>Intraoperative complications were dominated by hemorrhage (15.5%) and bladder lesions (4.9%), mainly due to the urgent nature of Caesarean sections.</p><p>Post-operative complications were infectious in 8.8%, represented by wall sepsis (4.4%), endometritis (3.5%) and evisceration/suppuration (0.9%). Kemfang et al. [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.129948-ref17">17</xref>] in Yaounde-Cameroon reported a frequency of infectious complications in 7.6% of cases. This could be explained by the non-observance of antibiotic prophylaxis by some surgical patients due to financial limitations, especially as the majority were housewives (71.7%) with no source of income since, the health voucher program does not provide postoperative antibiotics for caesarean patients.</p><p>Maternal death was observed in 0.4% of cases. This is lower than the rate observed by Ciss&#233; et al. [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.129948-ref18">18</xref>] in Dakar, which was 0.8%. This relatively low rate is justified by the fact that most caesarean sections are covered by the health subsidy program (76.1%), but also by the permanent mobilization and quality of the high-performance staff at the Garoua Regional Hospital.</p><p>In our study, perinatal mortality was 11.1%, with 8.8% stillbirths and 3.1% early neonatal death. This could be linked to fetal distress being a significant indication for emergency obstetric care in our series (13.7%), increasing the risk of perinatal asphyxia and consequently death. This high mortality rate can also be explained by the difficulties associated with inadequate neonatal care, notably the lack of medical equipment and consumables.</p></sec></sec><sec id="s5"><title>5. Limitations of Our Study</title><p>Some files could not be found, and others were unusable, this could influence the representability of the population.</p></sec><sec id="s6"><title>6. Conclusion</title><p>Cameroon is a low-income country with limited resources, especially in the Northern region. The health voucher program has improved financial access to caesarean sections for parturients in northern Cameroon, and consequently to emergency obstetric and neonatal care. The prevalence of caesarean section is relatively high at Garoua regional hospital, with a frequency of 25%. Most of those operated on were aged between 20 and 29, with a primary level of education (41.2%), primigravida and nulliparity in 37.6% and 42.5% of cases respectively. Caesarean sections were performed urgently in the majority of cases (91.2%). The main indications were cephalopelvic disproportion (17.3%) and acute fetal distress (13.7%). Infectious complications accounted for 8.8%, and maternal death was rare (0.4%).</p></sec><sec id="s7"><title>Acknowledgements</title><p>The authors are grateful to the administrative staff of the Garoua Regional Hospital for authorizing and facilitating the conduct of this study. Our thanks also go to the staff of the maternity department for their contribution during data collection. It is the personal contribution of each author that made this study possible; no funding was granted.</p></sec><sec id="s8"><title>Conflicts of Interest</title><p>The authors declare no conflicts of interest regarding the publication of this paper.</p></sec><sec id="s9"><title>Cite this paper</title><p>St&#233;phane, M.A., Georges, K.M., Nyong, N.A., Clovis, O., Fulbert, M.N., Gakdang Ladibe, A., Yangsi, T.T., Tatah, N.H., Blaise, K. and Edie, H.-E.G. (2023) Prevalence, Indications and Morbidity of Caesarean Sections in a Referral Hospital of the Health Voucher Program: The Case of Garoua Regional Hospital in the Northern Region of Cameroon. Open Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 13, 1949-1964. https://doi.org/10.4236/ojog.2023.1312165</p></sec></body><back><ref-list><title>References</title><ref id="scirp.129948-ref1"><label>1</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Alexander, J.M., Leveno, K.J., Hauth, J., et al. (2006) Fetal Injury Associated with Cesarean Delivery. Obstetrics &amp; Gynecology, 108, 885.  
https://doi.org/10.1097/01.AOG.0000237116.72011.f3</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.129948-ref2"><label>2</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Boerma, T., Ronsmans, C., Melesse, D.Y., Barros, A.J., Barros, F.C., Juan, L., Moller, A.B., Say, L., Hosseinpoor, A.R., Yi, M. and Neto, D.D. (2018) Global Epidemiology of Use of and Disparities in Caesarean Sections. The Lancet, 392, 1341.  
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(18)31928-7</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.129948-ref3"><label>3</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Coulm, B., Blondel, B., Alexander, S., Boulvain, M. and Le Ray, C. (2014) Potential Avoidability of Planned Cesarean Sections in a French National Database. Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica, 93, 905-912.  
 https://doi.org/10.1111/aogs.12439</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.129948-ref4"><label>4</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Esteves-Pereira, A.P., Deneux-Tharaux, C., Nakamura-Pereira, M., Saucedo, M., BouvierColle, M.-H. and Leal, M.C. (2016) Caesarean Delivery and Postpartum Maternal Mortality: A Population-Based Case Control Study in Brazil. PLOS ONE, 11, e0153396. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0153396</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.129948-ref5"><label>5</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Deneux-Tharaux, C., Carmona, E., Bouvier-Colle, M.-H. and Bréart, G. (2006) Postpartum Maternal Mortality and Cesarean Delivery. Obstetrics &amp; Gynecology, 108, 541-548. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.AOG.0000233154.62729.24</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.129948-ref6"><label>6</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Bokossa, M., Nguessan, K., Doumbia, Y., Kakou, C., Djougou, C. and Boni, S. (2008) Césariennes prophylactiques et d’urgence: à propos de 394 cas au CHU de Cocody(Abidjan). Médecine d’Afrique Noire, 55, 594-560.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.129948-ref7"><label>7</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Essiben, F., Belinga, E., Noa Ndoua, C., Moukouri, G., Medjo Eman, M., Dohbit, J. and Foumane, P. (2020) La Césarienne en Milieu à Ressources Limitées: évolution de la Fréquence, des Indications et du Pronostic à Dix Ans d’Intervalle. Health Sciences and Disease, 21, 26-32.  
https://www.hsd-fmsb.org/index.php/hsd/article/view/1771</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.129948-ref8"><label>8</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Mpogoro, F.J., Mshana, S.E., Mirambo, M.M., Kidenya, B.R., Gumodoka, B. and Imirzalioglu, C. (2014) Incidence and Predictors of Surgical Site Infections Following Caesarean Sections at Bugando Medical Centre, Mwanza, Tanzania. Antimicrobial Resistance &amp; Infection Control, 3, Article No. 25.  
https://doi.org/10.1186/2047-2994-3-25</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.129948-ref9"><label>9</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Fouedjio, J.H., Fouelifack Ymele, F., Esiene, A., Tatah, F.M., Essiben, F. and Mbu, R.E. (2020) Maternal and Fetal Outcome in Cesarean Section in Three Referral Hospitals of Yaoundé: What Are the Places of the Type of Anesthesia and the Experience of the Surgeon? Health Sciences and Disease, 21, 39-45.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.129948-ref10"><label>10</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Barbut, F., Carbonne, B., Truchot, F., Spielvogel, C., Jannet, D., Goderel, I., Lejeune, V. and Milliez, J. (2004) Infections de site opératoire chez les patientes césarisées: Bilan de 5 années de surveillance. Journal de Gynécologie Obstétrique et Biologie de la Reproduction, 33, 487-496. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0368-2315(04)96561-1</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.129948-ref11"><label>11</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Teguete, I. (1996) Etude clinique et épidémiologique de la césarienne à la maternité de l’h&amp;#244;pital national du point G de 1991 à 1993 (à propos d’une étude cas témoin de 1544 cas). Thèse Méd, Université de Bamako, Bamako.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.129948-ref12"><label>12</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Ouedraogo, C., Zoungrana, T., Dao, B., et al. (2001) La césarienne de qualité: Au Centre Hospitalier Yalgado Ouedragogo de Ouagadougou. Analyse des déterminants à propos de 478 cas colligés dans le service de gynécologie obstétrique. Médecine d’Afrique Noire, 48, 11.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.129948-ref13"><label>13</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Kéita, S. (2008) La césarienne de qualité au centre de santé de référence de Niono à propos de 400 cas. Thèse de Méd, Université de Bamako, Bamako.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.129948-ref14"><label>14</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Coulibaly, A. (2013) Analyse des indications de césarienne chez les femmes à faible risque au CHUYO. Thèse de Médecine. Université de Ouagadougou, Ouagadougou, 65 p.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.129948-ref15"><label>15</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Nkwabong, E., Kouam, L., Fomulu, J.N., Ngassa, P., Wamba, T. and Mve, V. (2005) Devenir materno-foetal précoce des parturientes évacuées au CHU de Yaoundé. Clinics in Mother and Child Health, 2, 261-264.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.129948-ref16"><label>16</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Thoulon, J.M. (1979) Les césariennes. Encyclopédie Médico-Chirurgicale. Paris, Obstétrique, 5102 A-10, 10-1979.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.129948-ref17"><label>17</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Jean-Dupont, K.N. et al. (2015) Complications maternelles précoces de la césarienne: à propos de 460 cas dans deux h&amp;#244;pitaux universitaires de Yaoundé, Cameroun. Pan African Médical Journal, Article 265.  
https://doi.org/10.11604/pamj.2015.21.265.6967</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.129948-ref18"><label>18</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Cissé, B. (2001) La césarienne: Aspect clinique, épidémiologie et prise en charge des complications post-opératoires dans le service de gynéco-obstétrique du centre de santé de référence de la commune V. Thèse Médecine, Bamako.</mixed-citation></ref></ref-list></back></article>