A comparative study was made between classical and lower segment Caesarean sections between 1960 and 1971. Classical section remains inferior to lower segment section and should continue to be avoided whenever possible.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BrouhaM. (1930). Le pronostic de la césarienne basse; suites immédiates. Bruxelles médical, 10, 110.
2.
CaseBarbara D.CorcoranR.JeffcouteNormanSirRandleG. H. (1971). Caesarean section and its place in modern obstetric practice. Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology of the British Commonwealth, 78, 203.
3.
DewhurstC. J. (1957). The ruptured caesarean section scar. Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology of the British Empire, 64, 113.
4.
DurfeeR. B. (1972). Low classic caesarean section. Postgraduate Medicine51, 219.
5.
GogoiM. P. (1971). Maternal mortality from caesarean section in infected cases. Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology of the British Commonwealth, 78, 373.
6.
HollandE. (1920). Rupture of caesarean section scar in subsequent pregnancy and labour. Lancet, 2, 591.
7.
HollandE. (1921). Caesarean section. Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology of the British Empire, 28, 349.
8.
JacobsonP. (1951). Improved uterine closure in classical caesarean section. Western Journal of Surgery, Obstetrics and Gynecology, 59, 431.
9.
KerrJ. M. M.HendryJ. (1926). Conservative caesarean section by lower uterine segment incision. Surgery, Gynaecology and Obstetrics, 43, 85.
10.
McCallJ. O. (1968). Caesarean, yes. But what kind of caesarean? Transactions of Pacific Coast Obstetrical and Gynecological Society, 36, 37.
11.
MalpasP. (1969). Some indications for the classical caesarean section. British Journal of Clinical Practice, 14, 879.
12.
WistA. (1964). Intestinal obstruction in obstetrics (abstract). Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology of the British Commonwealth, 71, 982.
