Is regional anaesthesia better than general anaesthesia for caesarean section?

Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology

Volumn 26, Issue 5, 2006, Pages 433-434

  Bowring, J ^a,c   Fraser, N ^b   Vause, S ^a   Heazell, A ^a  

^a ST MARY S HOSPITAL   (United Kingdom)

^b MANCHESTER ROYAL INFIRMARY   (United Kingdom)

^c NONE   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ANESTHESIA INDUCTION; ANESTHESIST; ARTICLE; CESAREAN SECTION; CONTROLLED STUDY; EMERGENCY SURGERY; FEMALE; FETUS OUTCOME; GENERAL ANESTHESIA; HUMAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MATERNAL MORBIDITY; MATERNAL MORTALITY; PATIENT REFERRAL; PRIORITY JOURNAL; REGIONAL ANESTHESIA;

ADULT; ANESTHESIA, CONDUCTION; ANESTHESIA, GENERAL; ANESTHESIA, OBSTETRICAL; CESAREAN SECTION; EMERGENCIES; FEMALE; HUMANS; PREGNANCY; PREGNANCY OUTCOME;

EID: 33746466552     PISSN: 01443615     EISSN: 13646893     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/01443610600720345     Document Type: Article

References (5)

1. Confidential Enquiry into Maternal and Child Health. 2004. Why mothers die: Report on confidential enquiries into maternal deaths in the United Kingdom 2000-2002. London: RCOG Press.
2. McCahon RA, Catling S. 2003. Time required for surgical readiness in emergency caesarean section: spinal compared with general anaesthesia. International Journal of Obstetric Anesthesia 12:178-182.
3. Penney GC. 2001. Clinical risk management for obstetricians and gynaecologists. Clinical Governance Advice No. 2. London: RCOG Press.
4. Royal College of Anaesthetists. 2000. Techniques of anaesthesia for caesarean section. London: Royal College of Anaesthetists.
5. Thomas J, Paranjothy S, James D. 2004. National cross sectional survey to determine whether the decision to delivery interval is critical in emergency caesarean section. British Medical Journal 328:665-670.