Details
Category: Volume 07 Issue 04 April 2019
Hits: 1432

Title: Evolution of Cesarean Section

Authors: Dr Rinky Agrawal, Prof. Gangadhar Sahoo

 DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.18535/jmscr/v7i4.35

Abstract

Prior to 1500, postmortem Caesarean Section (CS) was advocated and occasionally carried out as an effort to save the child. Caesarean section on the living woman was first advocated during the 16th and 17th centuries but was opposed by the leading authorities of the day. During the 18th century and the first half of the 19th, understanding of the mechanism of labor improved. Caesarean section was advocated when a woman could not be delivered by any other means. However, many opposed Caesarean section because of the maternal mortality associated with this procedure. Important developments during the last half of the 19th century included anaesthesia, improved surgical techniques, and the introduction of asepsis and antiseptic procedures. A gradual reduction in maternal mortality followed, with a striking decrease throughout the 20th century. The safety of CS saw the uprising of its incidence, inclusion of new indications including even the patient’s request or demand.

References

  1. Darren C. Cargill, caesarean section - a brief history, Proceedings of the 11th Annual History of Medicine Days WA Whitelaw - March 2002.
  2. Olu Gunaratna, the origins of the operation we now know in Western society as a “Caesarean section” can trace back its ancestry to the ancient Graeco-Roman world, Faculty of Medical and Health Sciences,The University of Auckland, 2011
  3. Young JH. Caesarean Section: The History and Development of the Operation From Earliest Times, London, HK Lewis & Co Ltd, 1944, p-2.
  4. Gabert HA, & Bey M. History and development of Cesarean Operation. Obstetrics and Gynecology clinics in North America 1988; 15:591-605.
  5. Milli Gupta, The Birth of Caesarean Section, The University of Western Ontario Medical Journal,78[1]2008 P84.
  6. W.J van Dongen. “Caesarean Section – Etymology and Early History”. South African Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology v.15, 2009, p. 63.
  7. Lurie. “The Changing motives of caesarean section: from the ancient world to the twenty-first century”. Archives of Gynaecology and Obstetrics v.271, 2005, p. 281.
  8. Donald TODMAN, A history of caesarean section: From ancient world to the modern era, Australian and New Zealand Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology 2007;47:357–361.
  9. Guillimeau J. Childbirth or the happy deliveries of women. English translation. London: T Hatfield; 1612.
  10. James Low, Caesarean Section—Past and Present, J Obstet Gynaecol Can 2009; 31[12]:1131–1136.
  11. Norris RC, ed. An American text-book of obstetrics. Philadelphia: WB Saunders; 1895:917.
  12. Churchill F. Theory and Practice of Midwifery, 6th edn. Philadelphia, PA: Lea and Blanchard, 1872.
  13. Sanger M. My work in reference to Caesarean operation. A word of protest in reply to Dr Henry J Garrigues. Am J Obstet 1887; 20:593
  14. Molina-Sosa et al, Self-inflicted cesareansection with maternal and fetal survival, International Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics Vol. 84, Issue 3, Pages 287-290.
  15. Hallam E, ed. Saints: Who They are and How They Help You New York: Simon & Schuster, 1994.
  16. Reiss H. Abdominal delivery in the 16th century. J Royal Soc Med 2003; 96: 370.
  17. Boley JP. The History of Caesarean Section. CMAJ 1991; 145[4]: 319-322.
  18. Harris RP. Cattle-horn lacerations of the abdomen and uterus in pregnant women. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 1887; 11:673-685.
  19. National Library of Medicine. Caesarean Section – a brief history. 1993. Accessed from http://www.nlm.nih.gov/exhibition/cesarean/cesarean_2.html to …/cesearean_6.html.
  20. Gabert HA, & Bey M. History and development of Cesarean Operation. Obstetrics and Gynecology clinics in North America 1988; 15:591-605.
  21. Harris RP. Remarks on the Cesarean Operation. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 1879; 11:620-626.
  22. Hillan EM. Caesarean Section: historical background. Scottish Medical Journal 1991; 36[5]:150-154.
  23. Kerr JMM. The technic of Caesarean section with special reference to the lower uterine segment incision. Am J Obstet Gynaecol 1926; 12: 726.
  24. Blundell J. Principles and practice of obstetric . London: E Cox; 183
  25. May lard AE. Direction of abdominal incisions. BMJ 1907;2:895-901.
  26. Joel-Cohen S. Abdominal and vaginal hysterectomy : new techniques based on time and motion studies. London: William Heinemann; 1972.
  27. Lurie and Glezerman, The history of cesarean technique, Am J Obstet Gynecol, Volume 189, Number 6, 2003.
  28. Frank F. Suprasymphysial delivery and its relation to other operations in the presence of a contracted pelvis. Arch Gynaecol 1907; 81: 46.
  29. Wilson A. The Making of Man-Midwifery. Childbirth in England, 1660–1770 Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1995.
  30. Chasser-Moir J, The action of ergot preparations on the puerperal uterus. Brit Med J 1932: 1119–1122.
  31. Craigin EB. Conservatism in obstetrics. NY Med J 1916;104 : 1–3.
  32. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, Once a CS always a controversy, Obstet Gynecol 1997;90:312-5.

Corresponding Author

Dr Rinky Agrawal

A-203, Shukan Residency, New S. G. Road, Gota, Ahmedabad, Gujarat, Pin 382481, India

Phone no- 9978909950, Email: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.