Skip to main content
British Medical Journal logoLink to British Medical Journal
. 1972 Jun 24;2(5816):740–742. doi: 10.1136/bmj.2.5816.740

Vaginal Delivery under Caudal Analgesia after Caesarean Section and other Major Uterine Surgery

Fergus P Meehan, Arvind S Moolgaoker, John Stallworthy
PMCID: PMC1788447  PMID: 5036881

Abstract

In the absence of a recurring indication for caesarean section vaginal delivery in subsequent pregnancy is a “trial of scar,” with potentially serious implications for mother and baby. Labour under caudal analgesia was carefully supervised for 75 women with a surgically scarred uterus—due to lower segment section in 72, abdominal hysterotomy in one, and transcavity myomectomy in two. Every caesarean scar was assessed digitally during labour and every uterus was examined after delivery. Caudal analgesia provided a painless labour and delivery and made scar assessment easy. Controlled intravenous Syntocinon infusion was given to 25 patients. One scar dehiscence occurred early in labour and one in the second stage. Seventy mothers had 71 vaginal deliveries with one pair of twins and one breech. There was one stillbirth and no neonatal death. There were five repeat sections.

Full text

PDF
740

Images in this article

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.

  1. JEFFCOATE T. N. The place of forceps in present-day obstetrics. Br Med J. 1953 Oct 31;2(4843):951–955. doi: 10.1136/bmj.2.4843.951. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Moolgaoker A. A safe alternative to Caesarean section? J Obstet Gynaecol Br Commonw. 1970 Dec;77(12):1077–1087. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.1970.tb03466.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Mylks G. W. Report of the Use of Continuous Caudal Anaesthesia in Sixty-Five Obstetrical Cases. Can Med Assoc J. 1945 Feb;52(2):169–173. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. O'Driscoll K., Jackson R. J., Gallagher J. T. Active management of labour and cephalopelvic disproportion. J Obstet Gynaecol Br Commonw. 1970 May;77(5):385–389. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.1970.tb03539.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Scudamore J. H., Yates M. J. Pudendal block--a misnomer? Lancet. 1966 Jan 1;1(7427):23–24. doi: 10.1016/s0140-6736(66)90008-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. TOMKINSON J. S. Discussion on anesthesia for obstetrics: an evaluation of general & regional methods: requirements of the obstetrician. Proc R Soc Med. 1957 Aug;50(8):552–553. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from British Medical Journal are provided here courtesy of BMJ Publishing Group

RESOURCES