Caesarean section in an emergency

  • R. Alexander
Conference paper


The last two decades have seen a steep rise in the rates of caesarean sections for both elective and emergency cases [1]. The World Health Organisation has concluded that no extra health benefits are associated with a caesarean section rate above 10–15% [2]. However, recent statistics for England showed a rise in the caesarean section rate from 9% in 1980 to 18.8% in 1997–1998 [3]. This led to the collection of data for the National Sentinel Caesarean Section Audit (NSCSA) report, which reported an incidence of 21.3% [4]. The urgency of the operation was classed into four categories listed in Table 1 [5].


Caesarean Section Laryngeal Mask Airway Caesarean Section Rate Emergency Caesarean Section Cricoid Pressure 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Caesarean section on the rise [editorial] (2000). Lancet 356: 1697Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    World Health Organisation (1985) Appropriate technology for birth. Lancet 2: 436–437Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    NHS Maternity Statistics, England: 1995–6 to 1997 — 8. Bulletin 2001/14. ISBN 1 84182 373 3Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    The National Sentinel Caesarean Section Audit Report. RCOG Clinical Effectiveness Unit, Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. 2001Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Lucas DN (2000) Journal of the RSM 93: 346–350Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Tuffnell DJ, Wilkinson K, Beresford N (2001) Interval between decision and delivery by caesarean section — are current standards achievable? BMJ 322: 1330–1333PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    James D (2001) Caesarean Section for foetal distress. BMJ 322: 1316–1317PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Morgan BM, Magni V, Goroszenuik T (1990) Anaesthesia for emergency caesarean section. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 97: 420–424PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Thurlow JA, Kinsella SM (2002) Intrauterine resuscitation: active management of foetal distress. Int J Obstet Anesth 11: 105–116PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Confidential Enquiry into Stillbirths and Deaths in Infancy (2000): 7’ Annual Report. London, HMSOGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Benumof JL (1996) Laryngeal mask airway and the ASA difficult airway algorithm. Anesthesiology 84: 686–699PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hart DM (1978) Heartburn in pregnancy. J Int Med Res 6: Suppl 1: 1–5PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Mendleson CL (1946) The aspiration of stomach contents into the lungs during obstetric anesthesia. Am J Obstet Anesth 52: 191–205Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Lin CJ, Huang CL, Hsu HW, Chen TL (1996) Prophylaxis against acid aspiration in regional anesthesia for elective cesarean section: a comparison between oral single-dose ranitidine, famotidine and omeprazole assessed with fiberoptic gastric aspiration. Acta Anaesthesiol 34: 179–184Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Yau G, Kan AF, Gin T, Oh TE (1992) A comparison of omeprazole and ranitidine for prophylaxis against aspiration pneumonitis in emergency caesarean section. Anaesthesia 47: 101–104PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Ewart MC, Yau G, Gin T et al (1990) A comparison of the effects of omeprazole and ranitidine on gastric secretion in women undergoing elective caesarean section. Anaesthesia 45: 527–530PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Moir DD (1970) Anaesthesia for Caesarean section. An evaluation of a method using low concentrations of halothane and 50 per cent of oxygen. Br J Anaesth 42: 136–142PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Lyons G, Macdonald R (1991) Awareness during Caesarean section. Anaesthesia 46: 62–64PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Yeo SN, Lo WK (2002) Bispectral index in assessment of adequacy of general anaesthesia for lower segment caesarean section. Anaesth Intensive Care 30: 36–40PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Lucas DN, Ciccone GK, Yentis SM (1999) Extending low-dose epidural analgesia for emergency Caesarean section. A comparison of three solutions. Anaesthesia 54: 1173–1177PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Morgan BM, Aulakh JM, Barker JP et al (1984) Anaesthetic morbidity following caesarean section under epidural or general anaesthesia. Lancet 1 (8372): 328–330PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Riley ET, Cohen SE, Macario A et al (1995) Spinal versus epidural anesthesia for cesarean section: a comparison of time efficiency, costs, charges, and complications. Anesth Analg 80: 709–712PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Parekh N, Husaini SW, Russell IF (2000) Caesarean section for placenta praevia: a retrospective study of anaesthetic management. Br J Anaesth 84: 725–730PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Brighouse D (1998) Anaesthesia for caesarean section in patients with aortic stenosis: the case for regional anaesthesia. Anaesthesia 53: 107–109PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Ngan Kee WD, Lau TK, Khaw KS, Lee BB (2001) Comparison of metaraminol and ephedrine infusions for maintaining arterial pressure during spinal anesthesia for elective cesarean section. Anesthesiology 95: 307–313CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Vallejo MC, Mandell GL, Sabo DP, Ramanathan S (2000) Postdural puncture headache: a randomized comparison of five spinal needles in obstetric patients. Anesth Analg 91: 916–920PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Dennis AR, Leeson-Payne CG, Hobbs GJ (1995) Analgesia after caesarean section. The use of rectal diclofenac as an adjunct to spinal morphine. Anaesthesia 50: 297–299PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Lim NL, Lo WK, Chong JL, Pan AX (2001) Single dose diclofenac suppository reduces post-Cesarean PCEA requirements. Can J Anaesth 48: 383–386PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Italia, Milano 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • R. Alexander

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations