Libro Cesarea Humanizada

Anesthesia for
Cesarean Section
Giorgio Capogna
Editor
123
Anesthesia for Cesarean Section
Giorgio Capogna
Editor
Anesthesia for Cesarean

Section
Editor
Giorgio Capogna
Department of Anesthesiolgy
Città di Roma Hospital
Rome, Italy
ISBN 978-3-319-42051-6 ISBN 978-3-319-42053-0 (eBook)

DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-42053-0
Library of Congress Control Number: 2017939126
© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2017

This work is subject to copyright. All rights are reserved by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of
the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation,
broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information
storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology
now known or hereafter developed.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication
does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant
protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book
are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the
editors give a warranty, express or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors
or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims
in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Printed on acid-free paper
This Springer imprint is published by Springer Nature

The registered company is Springer International Publishing AG
The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland
Preface
In 1849 Charles Meigs affirmed that “no man has a right to subject a living, breath-
ing, human creature to so great a hazard as that attending the caesarean section.”
Nowadays, more than 150 years later, cesarean section is probably the most com-
mon surgical procedure in the world and considered so safe and convenient that
obstetricians have to deal with the controversial issue of the cesarean section on
maternal request. Anesthesia, in parallel, has changed enormously from an “out of
label” risky procedure to something that is well established with no, or very mini-
mal, maternal and neonatal side effects.
This book describes the current standard practice of anesthesia for cesarean sec-
tion through the clinical experience of well-known European experts in this field.
The core message throughout is that even if cesarean section is a surgical procedure
it is still a “delivery” and not only a “section,” first and foremost a birth not just an
operation. The anesthesiologist should provide not only a “pain free” surgery but
also a “side effects free” anesthesia by choosing the right drugs and the appropriate
techniques tailor made for the parturient. In this way the childbirth experience, even
if in the operating theater, will be more human and extraordinary thanks to the
holistic approach of the whole clinical team, of which the anesthesiologist is an
indispensable member.
Rome, Italy Giorgio Capogna
v
Contents
1 An Opening for the Life. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Paolo Mazzarello
2 Epidemiology, Indications, and Surgical Techniques . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Paolo Gastaldi
3 Selection of Anesthesia Methods. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
Giorgio Capogna
4 Spinal Anesthesia for Cesarean Section. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
Sarah Armstrong
5 Epidural and CSE Anesthesia (Technique–Drugs). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
Giorgio Capogna
6 General Anaesthesia for Caesarean Section. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85
Pierre Diemunsch and Eric Noll
7 Anaesthesia for Caesarean Section: Effect on the Foetus,
Neonate and Breastfeeding. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95
Sarah Devroe
8 Choice of Anaesthesia for Emergency Caesarean Section . . . . . . . . . . 111
Olivia Clancy and Nuala Lucas
9 Surgical Difficulties and Complications. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125
Vincenzo Scotto di Palumbo
10 Complications Due to Regional and General Anaesthesia. . . . . . . . . . 137
P.Y. Dewandre and J.F. Brichant
11 Postoperative Analgesia. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153
Michela Camorcia
12 Long-Term Problems and Chronic Pain After
Caesarean Section. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169
Patricia Lavand’homme
vii
viii Contents
13 Humanization of Cesarean Section. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 183

Giorgio Capogna and Hans de Boer
14 Caesarean Section on Maternal Request and the Anaesthetist . . . . . . 191
Marwan Habiba
15 Maternal Expectations and Satisfaction with Caesarean Section . . . . 211
Amanda Hutcherson and Susan Ayers
An Opening for the Life
1
Paolo Mazzarello
1.1 Twin Tragedies
The history of cesarean section is a long chain of tragedies for the mother and the
baby [1, 2]. The origins of this surgical procedure—opening of the abdomen to
extract the fetus—are lost in the mists of the past and fade into folklore, mythos,
and legend of ancient societies [3–5]. According to Greek mythology, the god of
medicine, Asclepius, was born directly from the cut of the abdomen of his mother,
the nymph Coronis. A similar birth had the god of wine and religious ecstasy,
Dionysus, extracted by Zeus from the womb of the mortal Semele, after her death.
The legends on the unnatural birth through the abdomen cut pervade also the
Eastern Hindu and Buddhist cultures. According to a tradition, Buddha saw the
light through a cesarean section performed on his mother Maya. Also in literary
Persian culture there are references to this type of operation. In the poem Shahnameh
the beloved Persian poet Ferdowsi describes the mythical hero Rostam’s birth
through a cesarean section.
In fact, the first references to an abdominal birth from a deceased woman are
probably in the Babylonian world, but we have no technical indication on how the
operation could have been carried out [5]. However, it is evident that in ancient time
this kind of delivery, when made, was always practised after the death of the mother.
In the Roman world, the cesarean section was regulated by the lex regia attributed
to the king Numa Pompilius although we do not know if and for how long it was
applied. This law prohibited “the burial of the corpse of a pregnant woman before
the child was extracted.” Among the few Roman historical figures who, according
to tradition, would have come to the world via cesarean section, on the testimony of
Pliny the Elder, there was Publius Cornelius Scipio Africanus, the general who
P. Mazzarello
Department of Brain and Behavioral Sciences, and University Museum System,
University of Pavia, Strada Nuova, 65, I-27100 Pavia, Italy
e-mail: paolo.mazzarello@unipv.it
© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2017 1

G. Capogna (ed.), Anesthesia for Cesarean Section,
DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-42053-0_1
2 P. Mazzarello
defeated Hannibal at the battle of Zama. Contrary to what has long been believed,
there are no real evidences that Julius Caesar was born by a cesarean delivery, a
myth that is disproved by the fact that his mother survived for many years after his
birth. Caesar’s alleged extraordinary delivery was long considered the source of
origin of the term “cesarean” and probably was based on a wrongful interpretation
of the writings of Pliny the Elder [5]. In fact, both in the Roman world and in the
medieval period, the term was never used. In medical, literary, and theological texts,
the terms used were “extraction” or “cutting” to describe or indicate the
intervention.
The Church elevated to the rank of the patron saint of women in labor Margaret
of Antioch, who, according to tradition, lived in the third century A.D. At the age of
15, around 290, the young girl was sentenced to death because of her Christian faith.
In the cell where she was held the devil appeared in the form of a dragon and then
swallowed her alive. But she defeated the monster tearing his belly with a cross that
she held in her hands, freeing herself through a sort of cesarean section from inside.
For this reason, she became the patron saint of expectant women (especially in dif-
ficult labor). Her holy memory survived the generations, and her figure is still vener-
ated by the Catholic and the Orthodox Churches.
Only in the late Middle Ages, cesarean section became an operative act on the
female body described by medicine. The Catholic Church also expressed interest in
this surgical intervention to be performed on pregnant women immediately after
death. This created the possibility to save from damnation the souls of unborn chil-
dren through baptism. The unnatural and extraordinary birth from the womb was
thus the precondition of true birth, that is, the spiritual one. Odon de Sully, who was
archbishop of Paris between 1196 and 1208, issued an order in this regard which
expressly prescribed: “The women who die during childbirth are opened, if it is
considered that the child is still alive, providing that it is carefully ascertained their
death.” [6]. The incision of the abdomen of a pregnant woman after the death was a
Christian religious duty even according to St. Thomas author of the Summa
Theologiae (III, q. 68, a. 11): “si tamen mater mortua fuerit, vivente prole in utero,
debet aperire ut puer baptizetur” (“however, if the mother is dead while the off-
spring is still alive in her womb, you have to open it to ensure that the child is bap-
tized”). The practice of extraction of a postmortem fetus was approved by several
religious councils and defined with some details. The woman underwent the opera-
tion immediately after her death and the child who showed signs of life had to be
quickly baptized, while he had to be buried in unconsecrated ground if stillborn.
The ecclesiastical rules on the cesarean section were only expressed on the general
indications plane and their practical application depended on local circumstances
such as the availability of a surgeon who could operate. However, we have no docu-
mentary evidence of its widespread circulation although it is described in the works
of several physicians and surgeons of the time. According to Guy de Chauliac,
author in the fourteenth century of Chirurgia Magna, the operation was performed
cutting the left side of the abdomen to facilitate access to the fetus and avoiding the
liver. In the work, it is suggested to keep open the mouth of the mother (and her
vagina) to facilitate air circulation and respiration of the fetus. The ecclesiastical
1 An Opening for the Life 3
regulations advising cesarean section on women who died during delivery were
resumed in the climate of sacramental rigor that followed the Council of Trent. In
1582, the practice was made compulsory in his diocese by Carlo Borromeo,
archbishop of Milan, and then extended to the entire Catholic world by Pope Paul V
in 1614.
The publication in 1745 of the first edition of the work Embriologia sacra of the
Sicilian priest Francesco Emanuele Cangiamila, gave a great impetus to the spread
of knowledge of the postmortem cesarean section. The work of Cangiamila—trans-
lated in Latin, Spanish, French, Portuguese, and German—was addressed to the
civil authorities and especially to the parish priests who were often at the bedside of
the pregnant woman in danger of death so that the surgeons and midwives could
perform a cesarean section as soon as the woman had died. According to Cangiamila,
it was even a duty of the same priests to perform such an operation when no one else
was able to perform it. In this way, cesarean section would have saved—both mate-
rially and spiritually—a newborn otherwise condemned to limbo (according to the
Catholic Church, the afterlife condition of those who died without baptism).
References to cesarean section on a living woman began to appear in the medical
texts in the sixteenth century. It was the French surgeon François Rousset in 1581 to
introduce the “cesarean” expression in the work Traitte nouveau de l’hysterotomotokie,
ou enfantement caesarien, who intended to promote the operation on a living
woman in cases where childbirth was prevented by natural means. It was in this text
that the term was placed in relation both to Julius Caesar and to the Latin verb cae-
dere meaning “to cut.” According to the surgical technique described by Rousset,
the woman, sitting tight on the bed and supported by two strong assistants, was cut
on the abdomen to the left along the paramedian line, to avoid the navel hardened
by scar tissue. Then, the operator went on to the section of the underlying uterus
supporting it with one hand, taking care, when cutting, to not hurt the baby. Finally,
the organ was returned to its position without sewing it, while the abdominal wall
was sutured. At the basis of this procedure there was the belief that the uterus, for its
contraction capacity, was able to stop the bleeding and spontaneously heal: unfortu-
nately this erroneous indication was the cause of many tragedies in the three centu-
ries to come. Rousset actually wrote an entire treatise on an intervention that,
apparently, he never performed in the first person, and that did not even exist as a
reasonable possibility of physicians and surgeons of the time. His testimonies seem
to lack credibility and do not appear to be based on objective reality of the facts.
However, his book was rightly seen as a sort of founding act of the cesarean proce-
dure in the living woman and made Rousset as “the inventor of the cesarean sec-
tion.” The book was translated into Latin in 1586 by Gaspard Bauhin who, in an
appendix, told a story from the early sixteenth century, destined to become famous
in the texts of the history of medicine. A wife of a pig gelder (i.e., a person who
performed castration of animals) named Jakob Nufer, was in labor for several days,
but the midwives and local surgeons who had turns at her bedside had not been able
to make her give birth. The man was skilled in using knives. Just when the situation
seemed desperate and hopeless, he asked his wife, now destroyed by the continuous
suffering, for permission to operate on her. The woman, oppressed with grief,
4 P. Mazzarello
exhausted and discouraged, welcomed as a sort of liberation the dramatic proposal.

Nufer laid her down on the kitchen table, then cut the engraved belly with a knife or
a razor and pulled out a live child. The woman was saved and, as reported by Bauhin,
continued to give birth in the following years. Another indirect testimony of a cesar-
ean section is found in the famous work La comare o ricoglitrice (1596) written by
the Italian physician Scipione Mercurio who claimed to have visited two women—
during a trip to France—who presented abdominal scars as a consequence of the
operation. A documented case of cesarean section was performed in Wittenberg on
21–22 April 1610, by the Saxon surgeon Jeremias Trautmann assisted by two mid-
wives [5, 7]. Initially, the operation went well: the child was saved (and later lived
at least nine years), and the woman seemed to recover. But then, some terrible
delayed complications appeared that led to the death of the mother by infection or
embolism, almost 25 days after birth. Autopsy, however, revealed that the uterus
was repaired and healed. Subsequently, there were other documented cesarean oper-
ations on living women; however, this surgical intervention was considered an
exceptional experience and remained in the deep memory of those who had done it.
In fact two complications were almost always fatal: the early postpartum hemor-
rhage and the development of infections. Despite the tragedies that came with it, the
intervention of cesarean section on a living woman slowly became widespread
throughout Europe. But its primary purpose was to save the baby and to free the
mother from acute suffering even though she did not have much chance to survive.
Anyway cesarean delivery, although rarely, could also lead to a double success: the
safety of mother and child. These cases with a favorable outcome appeared, how-
ever, to be accidental events, inexplicable, real strokes of luck that happened to
some obstetrician or surgeon marked by a lucky star. According to statistics com-
piled for Italy between 1780 and 1875 by the historian of medicine and pharmacolo-
gist at the University of Pavia, Alfonso Corradi, the global maternal mortality rate,
estimated in 158 cesarean interventions, was approximately 67%, but deaths in the
hospital arrivals touched 88% of the operated pregnant women [8]. Terrible statistic
that certainly overstated the successful cases because it was based on medical
reports that tended to particularly emphasize the safe interventions, which gave
fame and prestige to surgeons. Of course, the examples in which both protagonists
of the birth, the baby and the mother, were saved together, were very few. It is also
likely that in some registered successful cases, the statistics did not take account of
the negative evolution after few days from the operation. The dangerousness of the
intervention frightened the best surgeons. When they were found to face difficult
situations, with pregnant women belonging to influential families, they preferred to
avoid the risks of the cesarean cut. Called in the summer 1790 in the presence of the
governor Johann Joseph von Wilzeck, minister plenipotentiary for the Austrian
Lombardy, that had the prey wife to the pains of a difficult birth, the famous surgeon
Giovanni Battista Palletta refused to intervene with a cesarean cut. At the end, the
woman, imploring to be freed by the pains, succeeded in making herself operated,
but owed succumb to the intervention, as it happened to her child [9]. Despite the
positive cases, or partially positive in which only one of the two protagonists had
survived, the birth with cesarean cut was the ghost that wandered in the mind of
every obstetric, a sort of “synonymous of death for the woman.” It was “an extrema
ratio that aroused terror,”, and to avoid it the obstetricians didn’t hesitate to sacrifice
the fetus, with embryotomy, as soon as it was possible. Because sometimes the
embryotomy also was difficult or unattainable as a consequence of the difficulties of
access along the narrow passages of a basin seriously deformed. It doesn’t surprise
therefore that, in an important university obstetric clinic as that of the San Matteo
Hospital in Pavia, “not a mother had been saved in one century with the cesarean
cut” [10].
Things began to change, just in Pavia, in May 1876.
1.2 The Revolutionary Intervention of Edoardo Porro
In April 1876 a 25-year-old woman, Giulia Cavallini, reached the obstetric clinic
of San Matteo Hospital Pavia, 8 months pregnant. Born in Adria, a small Italian
town in the province of Rovigo in the Veneto region, the woman had met a singer
from Pavia who had made her pregnant and married her on the same day she was
admitted to hospital. Physical examination immediately disclosed a dramatic situ-
ation: the woman was 1 m 48 cm tall and had a severely deformed pelvis that made
natural delivery impossible. Edoardo Porro, professor of obstetrics at the University
of Pavia, took charge of operating on the woman and tackled her clinical situation
as a scientific and human challenge. Suffering from syphilis contracted in Milan
during an obstetric operation on a woman with the illness, Porro was quite a char-
acter. He had fought with Garibaldi in Trentino (1866) and in Mentana (1867) near
Rome before deciding to devote his life to practising obstetrics in the most deprived
areas, but he still found time to pursue his research activity [1, 11]. In 1875, Porro
had been appointed to the chair of obstetrics at Pavia University and was head of
the maternity division when Giulia Cavallini appeared on the scene. Instead of giv-
ing up, as other obstetricians would have done in similar circumstances, undertak-
ing a cesarean section with the main purpose to save the baby, Porro managed to
reverse the woman’s tragic destiny with surgical ingenuity, adopting a simple inno-
vation that allowed him to save both mother and baby. In his early years as obstetri-
cian, Edoardo Porro had been intrigued by a surgical paradox: the strange contrast
between the high mortality rate of cesarean section and the generally positive
results of laparotomy outside the period of pregnancy. Why opening the abdomen
at the end of pregnancy was mortal, whereas cutting a non-pregnant woman meant
saving her life? Porro was impressed by these contradictory experiences. It was
logical to wonder where this difference stemmed. Strangely no obstetrician had
clearly posed the question, or maybe no one had drawn the right conclusions.
Instead the mind of Porro began to take shape of a response. Indeed, when placed
correctly, the solution of the question seemed almost automatic. The uterus left in
place was the source of origin of the chain of tragic consequences for the life of the
woman. It became a wounded body inside the abdomen, the front door of the septic
processes and source of unstoppable hemorrhagic manifestations. In addition, “the
uterus section surfaces” could still come into contact with the infected air “by the
6 P. Mazzarello
way of the vaginal canal” as a result of the woman’s movements. From this source
it was unleashed peritonitis. If these were the facts, almost automatic was the prac-
tical conclusion. After the cesarean section, it was necessary to remove the “uterus-
ovarian mass,” thus eliminating a terrible septic focus and an uncontrollable source
of bleeding. The secret was to remove the fetus, then to constrict the neck of the
uterus with a serre-noeud of Cintrat in order to stop the circulation to the organ,
then to perform a (subtotal) hysterectomy and a bilateral salpingectomy-oophorec-
tomy. Finally, Porro sutured the stump of the neck at the abdominal wall, between
the wound edges, to avoid infecting the pelvic cavity with septic fluids. In this way
the two causes of post-cesarean death were eliminated or decreased: the source of
hemorrhagic extravasation and, moreover, the likelihood of infections. So, a scien-
tifically planned and well thought-out cesarean section, programmed to save both
the mother and the child, was fully successful and gave to the world of medicine an
obstetric procedure immediately adopted in hospitals all over the world.
Nonetheless, Porro’s operation made the woman sterile because her uterus has
been removed during surgery. This fact raised some criticisms as the operation was
deemed immoral by those who claimed it was ethically justified to jeopardize a
woman’s life given the poor chances of saving her, as long as her reproductive abil-
ity was preserved. So Porro turned to the bishop of Pavia, Lucido Maria Parocchi
(later cardinal vicar of Rome), as a moral authority of the town, for his ethical
opinion. The prelate skillfully solved the question claiming that as many theolo-
gians had tolerated the castration of young men destined to be choir singers in
Roman chapels (e.g., the Sistine Chapel), for the obstetricians there were even
more reasons to allow the sterilization procedure that Porro had adopted to save
two human lives [20, 1].
The new era of obstetrics under the sign of a double healing for cesarean section
had, however, a difficult initial development. Porro’s success with the double safety
of the mother and child was a guarantee that the operation could constitute a real
solution. But the first obstetricians that applied the method, after its inventor, had
unfavorable results because the patients came to the operating table in a desperate
condition: they were cachectic or childbirth was retarded by too many hours of
labor. However, the surgical technique rapidly spread all over Europe, the United
States, Russia, and Mexico; particularly successful was the application in England
where it was adopted by Russell Alexander Simpson, Clement Godson, and Lawson
Tait [12–15]. The method continued to be widely used in the 25 years after its inven-
tion. In 1901 a pupil of Porro, the obstetrician Ettore Truzzi, compiled a detailed
table with the number of maternal deaths, year after year, following the intervention
devised by his master, gathering in total 1097 cases. In the first 15 years he recorded
high rates of mortality, but since 1890 there was a sharp decline, with annual rates
ranging from 9% to about 20% [16]. Often the unfortunate result was due to the
poor condition of women undergoing cesarean section, according to Porro. The
operation became safe if performed in a planned way early in labor. Despite these
impressive results, the frequency with which they used the method decreased sig-
nificantly after 1900. Another technical innovation made him progressively obso-
lete: the conservative cesarean section.
1.3 The Conservative Cesarean Section
From the origins of the cesarean section on a living woman, to suture a uterine
breach was considered an arduous and harmful operation. The obstetrician thought
that the uterine motions were able to produce a spontaneous hemostasis and so he
left the free organ to develop its spasmodic movements. But sepsis or severe bleed-
ing complications were the rule.
Attempts to suture the uterine incision after cesarean section, however, date back
to the eighteenth century. The obstetrician Jean Lebas, who was teaching in
Montpellier, was one of the first—if not the first—to suture the uterus in 1769; the
woman survived and returned to her occupations. The example of Lebas however,
was not followed except occasionally and with disappointing results. Uterine suture
“was prescribed by the obstetrics and the operation was equivalent to almost a con-
demnation of the mother.” [17]
The essential progress in modern obstetrics of the cesarean section is due to the
German obstetrician Max Sänger, who in 1882 introduced the efficient sutures
with silver threads of the muscular plane that induced only minimal tissue reaction
and avoided affecting the mucosa. His merit was also to awaken the community of
obstetricians about the possibility of performing the cesarean surgery without irre-
versibly mutilating the woman generating capacity. A turning point had, however,
already occurred in 1881 when Ferdinand Adolph Kehrer, based on a precise ana-
tomical and histological study, decided to perform a cross-section in the lower
segment of the uterus, thinner and less vascularized, along the trend of muscle
fibers. With this surgical choice the bleeding was minimized. The double contribu-
tion on suture procedures and the site of cutting by Sänger and Kehrer, and the
diffusion of asepsis, generated a progress to which concurred many obstetricians
with a drastic reduction in mortality from cesarean delivery during the twentieth
century [1, 5, 18, 19].
From a destructive intervention that “extinguished the sources of life” [17],
cesarean delivery had now turned into a conservative procedure that left substan-
tially intact the possibility of future fertility. So, this operation came in the twentieth
century, beginning a story of progress and reduction in mortality up to the current
situation that could almost be described as the era of the cesarean section “on
demand” [5].
References
1. Mazzarello P. E si salvò anche la madre. L’evento che rivoluzionò il parto cesareo. Torino:
Bollati Boringhieri; 2015.
2. Young JH. Caesarean Section. The History and Development of the Operation from Earliest
Times. London: Lewis; 1944.
3. Crainz F. Il taglio cesareo nel mito e nella leggenda. Roma: Tipografia Julia; 1986.
4. Dongen PWJ. Caesarean section—etymology and early history. South Afr J Obstet Gynaecol.
2009;15:62–6.
5. Lurie S. The history of cesarean section. New York: Nova Science Publishers; 2013.
8 P. Mazzarello
6. Filippini NM. La nascita straordinaria. Tra madre e figliola rivoluzione del taglio cesareo
(sec. XVIII-XIX). Milano: FrancoAngeli; 1995.
7. Kraatz H. Der Wittenberger Kaiserschnitt des Jeremias Trautmann im Jahre 1610—eine histo-
rische Reminiszenz. Deutsches Gesundheitswesen. 1958;13:169–72.
8. Corradi A. Dell’ostetricia in Italia dalla metà del secolo scorso fino al presente. Bologna:
Gamberini e Parmeggiani; 1874.
9. Fiammazzo A. Nuovo contributo alla biografia di Lorenzo Mascheroni, parte seconda, Il
Mascheroni a Pavia, a Milano, a Parigi. La corrispondenza del Mascheroni col conte Girolamo
Fogaccia. Bergamo: Istituto Italiano d’Arti Grafiche; 1904.
10. Mangiagalli L. Commemorazione del M.E. Edoardo Porro. Rendiconti del Reale Istituto
Lombardo di Scienze e Lettere. 1905;38(serie II):77–84.
11. Cani V. Porro Edoardo. Dizionario Biografico degli Italiani. Roma: Istituto Enciclopedia
Treccani; 2016.
12. Godson C. Porro’s operation. Br Med J. 1884;I:142–59.
13. Godson C. Porro’s operation. Br Med J. 1891;II:793–5.
14. Simpson RA. Case of Caesarean hystero-oöphorectomy, or Porro’s operation: with remarks.
Br Med J. 1881;I:956–8.
15. Tait L. An address on the surgical aspect of impacted labour. Br Med J. 1890;I:657–61.
16. Truzzi E. L’operazione cesarea Porro. Roma: Officina Poligrafica Romana; 1901.
17. Mangiagalli L. L’Ostetricia nel Secolo XIX. Ann Ostet Ginecol. 1900;22:1029–48.
18. Forleo R, Forleo P. Fondamenti di storia della Ostetricia e Ginecologia. Roma: Verduci
Editore; 2009.
19. Todman D. A history of caesarean section: from ancient world to the modern era. Aust N Z
J Obstet Gynaecol. 2007;47:357–61.
20. Porro E. Dell’amputazione utero-ovarico come complemento di taglio cesareo. Annali

Universali di Medicina e Chirurgia. 1876;237:289–349.
Epidemiology, Indications, and Surgical
Techniques 2
Paolo Gastaldi
2.1 Epidemiology
The labour room is a multiprofessional environment; it is complex by definition.

The woman and the fetus are the main players on the scene. The midwife, gynecolo-
gist, anaesthetist, neonatologist, nurse, and the assistant share critical decisions
about two human beings’ lives.
Until half a century ago, cesarean section was rare. It was a dangerous operation
for at least three reasons: poor surgical technique, risk of sepsis, and no anesthesia.
Many women died during or soon after a cesarean section. Evolution of medicine
changed this practice.
The World Health Organization declared in 1985, in Fortaleza, Brazil, that ‘there is
no justification for any reason to have a cesarean section rate higher than 10–15% ’ [1].
An appropriate cesarean section prevents maternal and perinatal complications.
There is no benefit for women or infants who do not need the procedure. The com-
plications have a negative effect on a woman’s health.
In 2015, WHO published a systematic review of the studies in the scientific lit-
erature to analyse the association between cesarean section rates and maternal,
perinatal, and infant outcomes. A panel of international experts agreed on this
statement [2].
Caesarean sections are effective in saving maternal and infant lives, but only when they are
required for medically indicated reasons. At population level, caesarean section rates higher
than 10% are not associated with reductions in maternal and newborn mortality rates.
Caesarean sections can cause significant and sometimes permanent complications, dis-
ability or death particularly in settings that lack the facilities and/or capacity to properly
conduct safe surgery and treat surgical complications.
P. Gastaldi
UOC Ostetricia e Ginecologia, Ospedale Santo Spirito Roma, Rome, Italy
e-mail: gastaldi.paolo@gmail.com

DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-42053-0_2
10 P. Gastaldi
Caesarean sections should ideally only be undertaken when medically necessary. Every
effort should be made to provide caesarean sections to women in need, rather than striving
to achieve a specific rate. The effects of caesarean section rates on other outcomes, such as
maternal and perinatal morbidity, pediatric outcomes, and psychological or social well-
being are still unclear. More research is needed to understand the health effects of caesarean
section on immediate and future outcomes.
An historical study on graphic analysis of labour in 1954 included 100 women

with spontaneous labour. Of these women, 64 had an operative vaginal birth with
forceps and one had a cesarean section [3].
The rate of cesarean section increased steeply during last decades. Urbanization,
childbirth in hospital, reduction of homebirths, consultant-led maternity and the
exclusion of midwives from clinical decisions, and induction of labour are possible
causes of the increase of this operation [4, 5].
The obstetric population has changed. Many women live their pregnancy later in
life. Average body mass index of the mother and fetal weight have increased [6].
The proportion of births by cesarean section has been proposed as an indicator
for measuring access, availability, or appropriateness of medical care, as well as for
monitoring changes in maternal mortality. A study of births by cesarean section
estimated in 2007 at national, regional, and global levels with data from 126 coun-
tries, 89% of world live births. The global rate of cesarean section was 15%. In more
developed countries, it was 21.1%, in less developed countries 14.3%, and in least
developed countries 2% [7].
Repeat cesarean deliveries in the United States account for one third of the cesar-
ean sections.
The most common indications for primary cesarean delivery, in a recent popula-
tion study, were labour dystocia, abnormal or indeterminate fetal heart rate tracing,
fetal malpresentation, multiple gestation, and suspected fetal macrosomia [8].
WHO proposed in 2014 the Robson classification system as a global standard for
assessing, monitoring and comparing cesarean section rates within healthcare facili-
ties over time, and between facilities [9].
2.2 Indications
2.2.1 Introduction
During pregnancy every woman is eager to know whether natural childbirth is pos-
sible for her. The obstetrician, midwife or doctor, has the duty to plan childbirth
with her.
There are situations in which natural childbirth is contraindicated but most of the
time the decision is difficult. Often it is necessary to wait for labour to decide.
The childbirth is natural or operative (Fig. 2.1). Natural is vaginal. Operative is
both vaginal or abdominal. Operative vaginal childbirth is performed with forceps
or with vacuum. There are more devices but these are universal. Operative abdomi-
nal childbirth is cesarean.
2 Epidemiology, Indications, and Surgical Techniques 11
Fig. 2.1 Childbirth option

Natural Vaginal
Childbirth Forceps
Vaginal
Operative Vecuum
Cesarean
2.2.2 Classification
Classification of the indications for cesarean section is not simple. There are lots of
categories. The most used is emergency or elective cesarean section. Using tempo-
ral criteria, cesarean section is prelabour or intrapartum.
A recent concept is planned or unplanned [9]. Planned cesarean section is at all
times a prelabour decision. The indication is maternal, fetal, or both. A planned
cesarean section sometimes becomes an emergency operation.
Unplanned is always urgent. It often regards obstetric care in labour. Fetal distress,
maternal complications, and failure to progress in labour are indications that open a
discussion among professionals in labour room. Cardiotocography and partogram are
tools to be used wisely to agree on the indication of an emergency cesarean section.
Indications for a planned cesarean section have evolved over the last decades.
Some indications are absolute, others are relative. Evidence-based medicine is a
method to counsel women. Maternal request is a crisis between a woman’s auto
determination and midwifery which would suggest a natural childbirth.
2.2.3 Planned Cesarean Section
The indications for a planned cesarean section are seldom absolute and need to be
discussed with the woman and her expectations (Fig. 2.2) [9].
2.2.3.1 Breech Presentation

Breech presentation is not purely coincidental [10]. It is frequent in preterm births.
Some malformations prevent proper rotation of the fetus to the cephalic presentation.
Uterine anomalies, such as bicornate uterus, may prevent cephalic presentation of the
fetus. It is good practice to search for a cause. Breech presentation at term is an indica-
tion for one out of ten cesarean sections [11, 12]. External cephalic version, moxibus-
tion, and posture are interventions that promote cephalic version [11, 13–16]. External
cephalic version has recognized complications: transient bradycardia and other fetal
heart rate abnormalities, placental abruption, vaginal bleeding, induction of labour.
Evidence-based medicine [9]
Women who have an uncomplicated singleton breech pregnancy at 36 weeks gestation
should be offered external cephalic version. Exceptions include women in labour and
women with a uterine scar or abnormality, fetal compromise, ruptured membranes, vaginal
bleeding, or medical conditions.
12 P. Gastaldi
Pregnant women with a singleton breech presentation at term, for whom external
cephalic version is contraindicated or has been unsuccessful, should be offered CS because
it reduces perinatal mortality and neonatal morbidity.
Breech presentation
Multiple pregnancy
Preterm birth
Poor fetal growth
Planned
Cesarean Placenta praevia
Section
Morbidly adherent
placenta
Cephalopelvic
disproportion
Infection
Maternal request
Fig. 2.2 Planned cesarean section

2.2.3.2 Multiple Pregnancy

In the last decades, artificial reproductive technology has increased the incidence of
multiple pregnancy [17, 18]. Multiple pregnancy is associated with preterm birth
and low birth weight [19–23]. The complexity of placental circulation in monocho-
rionic twin pregnancy is a risk for a discordant growth. Second-born twin has a
specific risk of complications during childbirth.
The management of the complications of multiple pregnancy, such as pre-
eclampsia, influences the mode of delivery. Cephalic presentation of the first twin is
a possible indication for a trial of labour [24]. The evidence is not conclusive.
In otherwise uncomplicated twin pregnancies at term where the presentation of the first
twin is cephalic, perinatal morbidity and mortality is increased for the second twin.
However, the effect of planned CS in improving outcome for the second twin remains
uncertain and therefore CS should not routinely be offered outside a research context.
In twin pregnancies where the first twin is not cephalic, the effect of CS in improving
outcome is uncertain, but current practice is to offer a planned CS.
2.2.3.3 Preterm Birth

The premature prelabour rupture of membranes determines preterm birth. The deci-
sion on the mode of delivery is not straightforward [25–27]. Pre-eclampsia, HELLP
syndrome, and other maternal complications are an indication to expedite birth.
Fetal compromise may induce a decision for preterm birth. There is no evidence that
planned cesarean section changes the outcome of birth [28].
Evidence-based medicine
Preterm birth is associated with higher neonatal morbidity and mortality. However, the
effect of planned CS in improving these outcomes remains uncertain and therefore CS
should not routinely be offered outside a research context.
2.2.3.4 Poor Fetal Growth

Poor fetal growth is not always pathologic. It may be constitutional and there is no
specific risk to anticipate childbirth [29–32]. Fetal growth restriction is pathologic.
There is discordant growth with a significant difference between cephalic and
abdominal circumference. The fetus is small for gestational age.
The risk of neonatal morbidity and mortality is higher with ‘small-for-gestational-age’
babies. However, the effect of planned CS in improving these outcomes remains uncertain
and therefore CS should not routinely be offered outside a research context.
2.2.3.5 Placenta Previa

The diagnosis of low-lying placenta changes with gestational age. It is necessary
to repeat serial ultrasound scans to study the position of the placenta with respect
to internal cervical os [19, 33]. Pulsed and Colour Doppler ultrasound give a
detailed view of placental circulation. The major placenta previa, covering internal
cervical os, is an absolute indication for cesarean section after the 36th week of
pregnancy.
14 P. Gastaldi

Women with a placenta that partly or completely covers the internal cervical os (minor
or major placenta previa) should be offered CS.
2.2.3.6 Morbidly Adherent Placenta

The risk of morbidly adherent placenta is increased after a previous cesarean section.
Women with three or more previous cesarean sections have a risk of placenta previa
of 1.8–3.7% and high risk of morbidly adherent placenta [34]. The most frequent
complications are major obstetric hemorrhage, transfusion of large quantities of blood
products, hysterectomy and admission to intensive care unit [35, 36]. Ultrasound,
Colour flow mapping and MRI have increased early prenatal diagnosis [37].

If low-lying placenta is confirmed at 32–34 weeks in women who have had a previous CS,
offer colour-flow Doppler ultrasound as the first diagnostic test for morbidly adherent placenta.
If a colour-flow Doppler ultrasound scan result suggests morbidly adherent placenta,
discuss with the woman the improved accuracy of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in
addition to ultrasound to help diagnose morbidly adherent placenta and clarify the degree
of invasion. Explain what to expect during an MRI procedure, inform the woman that cur-
rent experience suggests that MRI is safe, but then there is a lack of evidence about any
long-term risks to the baby; offer MRI if acceptable to the woman.
Discuss the interventions available for delivery with women suspected to have morbidly
adherent placenta including cross-matching of blood and planned CS with a consultant
obstetrician present.
When performing a CS for women suspected of having a morbidly adherent placenta,
ensure that a consultant obstetrician and a consultant anaesthetist are present, an experienced
paediatrician is present, a senior haematologist is available for advice, a critical care bed is
available, and sufficient cross-matched blood and blood products are readily available.
2.2.4 P
redicting Cesarean Section for Cephalopelvic
Disproportion
The role of pelvimetry, shoe size, maternal height, and clinical and ultrasound estima-
tion of fetal size to predict cephalopelvic disproportion is controversial [38, 39, 42].
Pelvimetry is not useful in predicting ‘failure to progress’ in labour and should not be
used in decision-making about mode of birth.
Shoe size, maternal height, and estimations of fetal size (ultrasound or clinical examina-
tion) do not accurately predict cephalopelvic disproportion and should not be used to pre-
dict ‘failure to progress’ during labour.
2.2.4.1 Mother to Child Transmission of Maternal Infections

The prevention of vertical transmission of maternal infections to the fetus influences
the mode of delivery. The passage through the birth canal and direct contact with
maternal vaginal and perineal secretions are a recognized cause of transmission of
a maternal infection to the fetus. Cesarean section has been considered a preventive
measure for some infections but evidence has a continuous evolution. There is new
evidence for HIV [40–44], hepatitis B [45, 46], hepatitis C [47], and herpes virus
infection [48–50].
As early as possible give women with HIV information about the risks and benefits for
them and their child of the HIV treatment options and mode of birth so that they can make
an informed decision.
Do not offer a CS on the grounds of HIV status to prevent mother-to-child transmission
of HIV to: women on highly active anti-retroviral therapy (HAART) with a viral load of less
than 400 copies per ml or women on any anti-retroviral therapy with a viral load of less than
50 copies per ml. Inform women that in these circumstances the risk of HIV transmission is
the same for a CS and a vaginal birth.
Consider either a vaginal birth or a CS for women on anti-retroviral therapy (ART) with
a viral load of 50–400 copies per ml because there is insufficient evidence that a CS pre-
vents mother-to-child transmission of HIV.
Offer a CS to women with HIV who are not receiving any anti-retroviral therapy or are
receiving any anti-retroviral therapy and have a viral load of 400 copies per ml or more.
Mother-to-child transmission of hepatitis B can be reduced if the baby receives immuno-
globulin and vaccination. In these situations, pregnant women with hepatitis B should not
be offered a planned CS because there is insufficient evidence that this reduces mother-to-
child transmission of hepatitis B virus.
Women who are infected with hepatitis C should not be offered a planned CS because
this does not reduce mother-to-child transmission of the virus.
Women with primary genital herpes simplex virus (HSV) infection occurring in the
third trimester of pregnancy should be offered planned CS because it decreases the risk of
neonatal HSV infection.
2.2.4.2 Maternal Request for Cesarean Section

To ask for a cesarean section without an obstetric indication is not a natural option
for a woman close to term [19, 51]. Many women experience a preference for cesar-
ean section. If they had a previous cesarean section or a previous negative outcome,
or a complication in the current pregnancy or fear of childbirth, they think cesarean
section is the safest way to give birth [52–54]. Respect to the woman’s feelings is a
duty for all those who attend her. The indication for a cesarean section on maternal
request becomes effective after multidisciplinary counselling. Gynecologist, mid-
wife, and anesthetist discuss the risks and benefits of cesarean section with her,
comparing vaginal birth [55]. They offer referral to a specialist in mental health,
who supports and certifies the maternal request and gives the alternative choice for
a natural childbirth with active support.
When a woman requests a CS, explore, discuss, and record the specific reasons for the
request.
If a woman requests a CS when there is no other indication, discuss the overall risks and
benefits of CS compared with vaginal birth and record that this discussion has taken place.
Include a discussion with other members of the obstetric team (including the obstetrician,
midwife, and anesthetist) if necessary to explore the reasons for the request, and to ensure
the woman has accurate information.
When a woman requests a CS because she has anxiety about childbirth, offer referral to
a healthcare professional with expertise in providing perinatal mental health support to help
her address her anxiety in a supportive manner.
16 P. Gastaldi
For women requesting a CS, if after discussion and offer of support (including perinatal
mental health support for women with anxiety about childbirth), a vaginal birth is still not
an acceptable option, offer a planned CS.
2.2.5 Unplanned Cesarean Section
Healthcare professionals in the labour room frequently assist a woman, who has no
indication for a planned cesarean section.
Labour room is a teamwork. Decisions are shared among the members of the team.
The midwife has the most important role. She is empathic with the woman and is her
connection with the rest of the team. She is the team leader during natural childbirth.
The number of cesarean sections during labour is a quality index of the labour
room performance. A third-level hospital has a greater number of unplanned cesar-
ean sections than a less-equipped hospital.
The indications for unplanned cesarean section are often related to failure to
progress in labour and fetal distress. There are maternal conditions, such as severe
pre-eclampsia, in which a cesarean section comes after a trial of labour. Some fac-
tors reduce the likelihood of cesarean section.
2.2.5.1 Factors that Reduce the Likelihood of Cesarean Section

One-to-one support in labour room, induction of labour after 41 weeks, use of par-
togram during labour, consultant obstetrician who decides on cesarean section, and
fetal blood sampling for abnormal heart rate pattern reduce the likelihood of cesar-
ean section [56–64, 68].
Women should be informed that continuous support during labour with or without prior
training reduces the likelihood of CS.
Women with an uncomplicated pregnancy should be offered induction of labour beyond
41 weeks because this reduces the risk of perinatal mortality and the likelihood of CS.
A partogram with a four-hour action line should be used to monitor progress of labour
of women in spontaneous labour with an uncomplicated singleton pregnancy at term
because it reduces the likelihood of CS.
Consultant obstetricians should be involved in the decision-making for CS because this
reduces the likelihood of CS.
Electronic fetal monitoring is associated with an increased likelihood of CS. When CS
is contemplated because of an abnormal fetal heart rate pattern, in cases of suspected fetal
acidosis, fetal blood sampling should be offered, if it is technically possible and there are
no contraindications.
2.2.5.2 Failure to Progress in Labour

The partogram allows a graphic analysis of labour [61, 65, 66]. Failure to progress
in labour is an indication for an unplanned cesarean section. The disorders of dilata-
tion are prolonged latent phase, protracted active phase and arrest of cervical dilata-
tion. The disorders of descent are failure to descent, protracted descent, and arrest
of cervical dilatation (Table 2.1) (Fig. 2.3).
The three key words are failure, delay, and arrest [67]. Labour abnormalities
derive from complex interaction between maternal body and fetal characteristics.
Table 2.1 Failure to Disorder Dilatation Descent

progress in labour
Failure Prolonged latent phase Failure of descent
Protraction Protracted active phase Protracted descent
Arrest Arrest of dilatation Arrest of descent
Fig. 2.3 The disorders of

dilatation and descent
The decision for a cesarean section is clinical. A four-hour action line on the
partogram is the standard to diagnose labour protraction [66, 67]. The most recent
evidence is that dilatation progress takes up to six hours between 4 and 5 cm and up
to three hours between 5 and 6 cm [5, 8] . After 6 cm labour accelerates and mul-
tiparous women are faster than nulliparous parturients. In many cases, active phase
has no consistent pattern, but still a vaginal delivery is achieved with active phase
not starting before 6 cm of dilatation. Labour protraction should not be based on an
average starting point of active phase of labour or average duration of labour. In the
presence of reassuring maternal and fetal conditions, a woman should be allowed to
continue her labour.
It would be advisable to do a study that compares a partogram with and without
an action line and its effect on maternal and neonatal well-being.
Slow but progressive labor in the first stage of labor should not be indication for cesar-
ean delivery.
Cervical dilatation of 6 cm should be considered threshold for active phase of most
women in labor. Thus, before 6 cm of dilation is achieved, standards of active-phase prog-
ress should not be applied.
Cesarean delivery for active-phase arrest in first stage of labor should be reserved for
women with >6 cm of dilatation with ruptured membranes who fail to progress despite four
hours of adequate uterine activity, or at least six hours of oxytocin administration with
inadequate uterine activity and no cervical change.
2.2.5.3 Fetal Distress

Fetal distress is not a specific notion. In clinical practice it means a not-reassuring
fetal heart rate pattern recorded with cardiotocography in which a state of hypoxia
and metabolic acidosis would be present [68].
There are transitory factors such as cord compression, maternal hypotension,
maternal supine position, and uterine hyperstimulation. There are also perma-
nent factors such as cord prolapse, complete placental abruption, and uterine
rupture.
18 P. Gastaldi
Cardiotocography only records two parameters: the fetal heart rate and
contractions.
The four features of fetal heart rate that are scrutinized in a cardiotocograph are
baseline heart activity, baseline variability, presence or absence of decelerations and
presence of accelerations.
Cardiotocography is a screening test for perinatal asphyxia, not a diagnostic test or
treatment [69–73]. There is a clear discrepancy between abnormalities in cardiotoco-
graphs and severe perinatal asphyxia, causing death or severe neurological impairment.
Cardiotocography has a good negative likelihood ratio; when normal the chance
of hypoxia is low. It is moderately useful in predicting poor neonatal outcomes.
Some features of cardiotocographs may predict neonatal outcome or the surro-
gate measure of low umbilical cord blood pH: prolonged or severe bradycardia,
decreased variability, decreased variability with no accelerations, decreased vari-
ability associated with variable or late decelerations or no accelerations, recurrent
late decelerations with decreased variability, late decelerations, and variable decel-
erations [74–78].
The decision to change a woman’s care in labour is delicate. The midwife and the
doctor integrate the information of cardiotocographs with fetal blood sampling and
fetal response to scalp stimulation. The care is empathic with the woman, her part-
ner, and her family.
Electronic fetal monitoring is associated with an increased likelihood of CS. When CS
is contemplated because of an abnormal fetal heart rate pattern, in cases of suspected fetal
acidosis, fetal blood sampling should be offered if it is technically possible and there are no
contraindications.
If fetal scalp stimulation leads to an acceleration in fetal heart rate, regard this as a reas-
suring feature. Take this into account when reviewing the whole clinical picture.
Use the fetal heart rate response after fetal scalp stimulation during a vaginal examina-
tion to elicit information about fetal well-being if fetal blood sampling is unsuccessful or
contraindicated.
2.2.5.4 Classification of Urgency

The classification of urgent cesarean section prevents any misunderstanding between
healthcare professionals (Table 2.2). There are four grades of urgent cesarean section
[9]. Some clinical conditions which determine grade 1 cesarean sections are acute
fetal bradycardia, cord prolapse, uterine rupture, or fetal blood sampling pH less than
7.2; grade 2 cesarean section are antepartum hemorrhage or failure to progress in
labor with maternal or fetal compromise; grade 3 are failure to progress in labor with
no maternal or fetal compromise or a woman booked for a planned cesarean section
who is admitted with a prelabour rupture of membranes; grade 4 are all cesarean sec-
tions carried out electively at a planned time to suit the mother and the clinicians.
The urgent cesarean section was measured with a three-colour code: red,
orange, and green [79, 80]. The ideal decision-to-delivery time was 15 min for a
red code, 30 min for an orange code, and 60 min for a green code. After six months
of observation, mean decision-to-delivery interval was 31.7 min. Previously, it
was 39.6 min.
Table 2.2 Urgency of cesarean section

Grade Condition
1 Immediate threat to the life of the woman or fetus
2 Maternal or fetal compromise which was not immediately life-threatening
3 No maternal or fetal compromise but needs early delivery
4 Delivery timed to suit woman or staff
The NICE stated in 2011 that grade 1 and 2 cesarean sections must be performed
as quickly as possible, grade 3, in most situations, within 75 min [9].
The decision to deliver in an interval of less than 15 min is often harmful for the
woman and her fetus for an iatrogenic injury. This a treatment paradox.
2.3 Technique
2.3.1 Prerequisites
There are some evidence-based medicine prerequisites for cesarean section: agree-
ment of the woman on the indication, informed consent; WHO surgical safety check-
list; if appropriate, blood available for surgery; antacids and antiemetics available;
achievement of anesthesia; prevention of aortocaval compression; neonatal resusci-
tation available; bladder empty with an indwelling catheter; operator appropriately
experienced and skilled; prophylactic antibiotic and thrombo-prophylaxis [81].
2.3.2 WHO Surgical Safety Checklist
The three steps of WHO surgical safety checklist are: Sign In, Time out, Sign out
[82] . It was the result of a prospective study in eight hospitals representing a variety
of economic circumstances and diverse populations of patients participating in
World Health Organization’s Safe Surgery Saves Lives Program.
2.3.2.1 Sign In (for Cesarean Section)

Before induction of anesthesia, members of the team orally confirm that the patient
has verified her identity, the surgical procedure and consent; the pulse oximeter is
on the patient and functioning; all members of the team are aware of whether the
patient has a known allergy; the patient’s airway and risk of aspiration have been
evaluated and appropriate equipment and assistance is available; if there is a risk of
blood loss of at least 500 ml appropriate access and fluids are available.
2.3.2.2 Time Out (for Cesarean Section)

Before skin incision the entire team orally confirms that all team members have
been introduced by name and role; confirms the patient’s identity and procedure;
reviews the anticipated critical events; surgeon reviews critical and unexpected
20 P. Gastaldi
steps, operative duration and anticipated blood loss; anesthesia staff review con-
cerns specific to the patient; nursing staff review confirmation of sterility, equip-
ment availability and other concerns; confirms that prophylactic antibiotics have
been administered 60 min before incision is made or the antibiotics are not indi-
cated; confirms that all imaging results for the correct patients are displayed in the
operating room.
2.3.2.3 Sign Out (for Cesarean Section)

Before the patient leaves the operating room: nurse reviews items aloud with the
team; name of the procedure as recorded; that the needle, sponge, and instrument
counts are complete; whether there are any issues with equipment to be addressed;
the surgeon, nurse, and anesthesia professionals review aloud the key concerns for
the recovery and care of the patient.
2.3.3 Skin Incision
Surgical incisions for cesarean section are vertical and transverse [83–85]. The
length must be adequate to perform a safe procedure. The incision should be
approximately 15 cm long, as an ‘Allis’ clamp, laid on the skin.
2.3.3.1 Vertical Incision

This is a midline incision on the umbilical-pubic axis [84]. A vertical incision is a
direct access to abdomen and pelvis. It is indicated for urgent cesarean section. A
typical indication is a massive hemorrhage. The surgeon could practice a vertical
incision for a perimortem cesarean section or when a patient is high risk for a coagu-
lopathy or if she refuses a much-needed blood transfusion.
2.3.3.2 Pfannestiel’s Incision

This is a lower transverse abdominal incision. It is slightly curved above the sym-
physis pubis. It involves dissection of subcutaneous layer and of anterior rectus
sheath. This incision does not follow Langer’s line, the natural orientation of colla-
gen fibres in the dermis, parallel to the orientation of the underlying muscle fibres.
It was introduced by Pfannestiel in 1896 and published in 1900 [86] . The extension
of the incision into external and oblique muscles could damage ilioinguinal and
iliohypogastric nerves. It may slow down an emergency cesarean section. It reduces
the incidence of wound dehiscence. Wound hernias are uncommon. Instead postop-
erative haematomas and wound infections are possible [87–90].
2.3.3.3 Joel Cohen’s Incision

It is a transverse incision, 3 cm below the line between the iliac anterior superior
spines. It is higher than Pfannestiel’s incision. It was introduced in 1954 for abdomi-
nal hysterectomy [87, 91, 92]. The opening of the subcutaneous tissue is not sharp.
The surgeon incises the anterior rectus sheath in the midline for about 3 cm but does
not separate rectus muscle from the sheath. The opening of the peritoneum is blunt
and traction is in a transverse direction.
2.3.3.4 Maylard Incision

It is a high transverse incision with section of rectal muscles with cautery or surgical
scalpel and ligature of inferior epigastric vessels [93, 94]. It is advisable to not sepa-
rate rectus muscles from anterior rectus sheath. This incision is used for radical
pelvic surgery.
Evidence-based Medicine [9]
CS should be performed using a transverse abdominal incision because this is associ-
ated with less postoperative pain and an improved cosmetic effect compared with a midline
incision.
The transverse incision of choice should be the Joel Cohen incision (a straight skin inci-
sion, 3 cm above the symphysis pubis; subsequent tissue layers are opened bluntly and, if
necessary, extended with scissors and not a knife), because it is associated with shorter
operating times and reduced postoperative febrile morbidity.
The use of separate surgical knives to incise the skin and the deeper tissues at CS is not
recommended because it does not decrease wound infection.
2.3.4 Uterine Incision
2.3.4.1 Low Transverse Incision

It is a transverse incision through the lower uterine segment. It was introduced in
1926 [95]. The loose fold of the peritoneum is incised, and the bladder is pushed
down with care. The doyen’s retractor exposes the uterine lower segment. Sometimes
the uterus is rotated on the right side and its position is corrected before delivery of
the fetus. The surgeon incises 2–3 cm in the middle to expose fetal membranes.
Then he enlarges the depth and the width of opening with the blunt end of the scal-
pel or with fingers [96, 97]. The lateral extension of the incision may reach uterine
vessels with a massive hemorrhage. The surgical extension on the upper segment
usually is J-shaped or reverse T-shaped. In these cases, the scar is weaker than the
incision limited to lower segment.
2.3.4.2 Low Vertical Incision

It is a vertical incision on the lower uterine segment [84]. It was introduced in 1922
[98]. It spares uterine vessels but is a real threat for the bladder. This incision needs
a careful dissection of the bladder. It is an alternative when transverse incision is
contraindicated by a medical reason, such as a fibroid.
2.3.4.3 Classical Incision

Classical incision is a vertical incision which involves upper uterine segment. The
thickness of the myometrium poses a great risk for blood loss, infection and poor
healing. Some conditions are a possible indication for a classical incision: preterm
delivery before the formation of lower uterine segment [99]; premature rupture of
22 P. Gastaldi
membranes and transverse lie; transverse lie with back inferior; large cervical
fibroid; severe adhesions in lower uterine segment; postmortem cesarean section;
placenta previa with large vessels in lower segment.
When there is a well-formed lower uterine segment, blunt rather than sharp extension of
the uterine incision should be used because it reduces blood loss, incidence of postpartum
hemorrhage, and the need for transfusion at CS.
2.3.5 Delivery of the Fetus
2.3.5.1 Cephalic Presentation

After uterine incision the operator tears fetal membranes with care. He introduces
his hand into lower uterine cavity and elevates fetal head until it becomes visible
through the incision. The active flexion of fetal head reduces its diameter. In trans-
verse and posterior position, the operator must rotate fetal head as much as possible,
in anterior position. The assistant applies fundal pressure. The collaboration between
surgeon and assistant allows a minimal traction to deliver fetal head. The head
comes out with an extension movement. Delivery of shoulders needs special care. A
brachial plexus damage or palsy is possible as in normal childbirth. This a conse-
quence of a reckless maneuver.
When fetal head is high in the uterus there is risk for excessive blood loss. A
forceps or vacuum delivery is the solution. In literature there are specific vacuum
cups for cesarean section.
Cesarean at full dilatation with a deeply engaged fetal head is a challenge. A
third assistant raises fetal head from vagina to meet operator’s hand. A pillow is an
alternative device.
2.3.5.2 Face or Brow Cephalic Presentation

The head is deflexed. The operator places intrauterine hand behind occiput, flexes the
head, rotates it to anterior or transverse position, and delivers it as usual (Table 2.3).
2.3.5.3 Frank Breech

The operator cups his hand around the bottom and delivers the breech by lateral
flexion. When trunk is visible, leg is flexed rotating the femur laterally on fetal
abdomen with index finger parallel to the femur. Then the conduct should be the
same as in total breech extraction.
Table 2.3 Breech Breech Legs and hip

presentation
Frank Legs flexed at the hip extended at the knee
Complete Legs flexed at the hip flexed at the knee
Footing Legs extended at the hip extended at the knee
Kneeling Legs extended at the hip flexed at the knee
2.3.5.4 Footling and Complete Breech

The operator holds one foot or both feet and so legs come first. He keeps the sacrum
as anterior, as possible, to facilitate delivery.
2.3.5.5 Transverse Lie

The operator plans surgical approach according to the position of the fetus, location
of the feet and of the placenta. The appraisal is both clinical and sonographic. A
prolapse of shoulder is possible with a fetal hand coming first through uterine inci-
sion. Fetal extraction is not possible. The operator facilitates the hand inside the
uterus.
2.3.5.6 Back Down Transverse Lie

The feet are in uterine fundus. It is important to follow the body of the fetus, finding
the bottom and the legs. The delivery of posterior leg first keeps the back of the fetus
in anterior position. Afterwards the operator may start a breech extraction as in foo-
tling breech presentation.
2.3.5.7 Back-up Transverse Lie

The operator follows the fetal body until the bottom and the legs. He grasps both
feet and extracts them. Afterwards the operator may start a breech extraction as in
footling breech presentation.
2.3.6 Delivery of the Placenta
The operator delivers the placenta with the help of uterine massage, 5 IU of oxy-
tocin, intravenous or intramuscular, and gentle traction on the umbilical cord. This
is Active Management of Third Stage of Labour [100–103]. Manual removal of
the placenta is an alternative in the presence of heavy bleeding [104]. It has higher
rate of postpartum endometritis and heavy bleeding than spontaneous delivery
[105, 106].
Oxytocin 5 IU by slow intravenous injection should be used at CS to encourage contrac-
tion of the uterus and to decrease blood loss.
At CS, the placenta should be removed using controlled cord traction and not manual
removal as this reduces the risk of endometritis.
2.3.7 Exteriorization of the Uterus
Exteriorization of the uterus during cesarean section may cause nausea and vomit-
ing. Some women have strong postoperative pain. Venous air embolism is a rare
complication. Exteriorization of the uterus does not reduce incidence of hemor-
rhage and infection [96, 107–109].
24 P. Gastaldi

Intraperitoneal repair of the uterus at CS should be undertaken. Exteriorization of the
uterus is not recommended because it is associated with more pain and does not improve
operative outcomes such as hemorrhage and infection.
2.3.8 Suturing of the Uterus
Kerr in 1926 recommended uterine closure in two layers [96] . Theoretically single-
layer closure should cause less tissue damage and should take less operative time.
Suture is either locking or non-locking. There are concerns about the integrity of the
scar after a single layer suture of the uterus. Evidence is not conclusive [97, 110–
115]. The closure of a classical incision is in three layers because of its thickness
and vascularity [116].
The effectiveness and safety of a single-layer closure of the uterine incision is uncertain.
Except within a research context, the uterine incision should be sutured with two layers.
2.3.9 Peritoneal Closure
Non-closure of the visceral and parietal layer of the peritoneum is associated with
less postoperative morbidity [117–120]. It reduces operative time and wound pain.
Neither the visceral nor the parietal peritoneum should be sutured at CS because this reduces
operating time and the need for postoperative analgesia, and improves maternal satisfaction.
2.3.10 Closure of the Skin
The suture of skin edges of the incision is either intracutaneous or subcuticular [84,
121, 122]. Subcuticular suture has a good cosmetic result. Cyanoacrylate, skin glue,
is an alternative [123].
Routine closure of the subcutaneous tissue space should not be used, unless the woman has
more than 2 cm subcutaneous fat, because it does not reduce the incidence of wound infection.
Superficial wound drains should not be used at CS because they do not decrease the
incidence of wound infection or wound haematoma.
Obstetricians should be aware that the effects of different suture materials or methods of
skin closure at CS are not certain.
2.3.11 Misgav Ladach Technique
Misgav Ladach is a Jerusalem hospital. The technique for cesarean section is a com-
bination of procedures. The result of non-randomized trials and randomized have
demonstrated quicker postoperative recovery; reduction of febrile reactions, need
for antibiotics, peritoneal adhesions, bleeding, and of postoperative pain, and shorter
period before normal bowel function [84, 87, 92, 127].
There are important procedural aspects as follow:
1. Stretching of the skin to respect Langer’s lines

2. Joel Cohen incision 17 cm long without involvement of the subcutaneous
tissue
3. Short transverse incision about 2–3 cm through the fat down to the rectus
sheath
4. Small transverse incision in the sheath
5. Transverse bilateral incision of the sheath with scissors, one blade under and
one blade above, underneath the fat and subcutaneous tissue
6. Gentle cranio-caudal separation of the rectus sheath and rectus muscles
7. Stretching in a transverse way to open parietal peritoneum, using index fingers
in a cranio-caudal direction to make a small hole
8. Identification of the lower uterine segment and of the bladder
9. Transverse incision of visceral peritoneum 10–12 cm in total and 1 cm above
the bladder
10. Fritsch or doyen retractor
11. Small transverse incision in lower uterine segment
12. Transverse stretching of the hole with right thumb and left index finger
13. Two fingers below to release the head
14. Fundal pressure to bring the baby down
15. The fingers guide the head out of the uterine opening
16. Delivery of the baby
17. Manual removal of the placenta
18. Exteriorization of the upper uterus out of abdominal wound
19. Massage of the uterus
20. Cleaning of the inside of the uterus with a towel to remove remnants of
membranes and to stimulate contraction and retraction of the uterus
21. Repair of uterine wall with one layer of continuous locked stitch
22. In special circumstances second layer with cross stitches
23. Visceral and parietal peritoneum unstitched
24. Artery forceps to grasp the fascia
25. Continuous running unlocking suture
26. Closure of the skin with two or three maximum mattress suture.
References
1. Appropriate technology for birth. Lancet. 1985;2(8452):436–7.
2. Betran AP, Torloni MR, Zhang JJ, Gülmezoglu AM. WHO Working Group on Caesarean
Section WHO statement on caesarean section rates. BJOG. 2015;123(5):667–70.
doi:10.1111/1471-0528.13526.
3. Friedman EA. The graphic analysis of labour. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1954;68:1568.
4. Naji O, Abdallah Y, et al. Cesarean Birth: Surgical Techniques Glob Libr Women's Med. 2010.
doi:10.3843/GLOWM.10133.
26 P. Gastaldi
5. Zhang J, Landy HJ, Branch DW, Burkman R, Haberman S, Gregory KD, Hatjis CG, Ramirez
MM, Bailit JL, Gonzalez-Quintero VH, Hibbard JU, Hoffman MK, Kominiarek M, Learman
LA, Van Veldhuisen P, Troendle J, Reddy UM, Consortium on Safe Labor. Contemporary
patterns of spontaneous labor with normal neonatal outcomes. Obstet Gynecol. 2010
Dec;116(6):1281–7.
6. Vahratian A, Troendle JF, Siega-Riz AM, Zhang J. Methodological challenges in studying
labour progression in contemporary practice. Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol. 2006;20(1):72–8.
7. Betrán AP, Merialdi M, Lauer JA, et al. Rates of cesarean section: analysis of global, regional
and national estimates. Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol. 2007 Mar;21(2):98–113.
8. ACOG/SMFM Obstetric Care Consensus. Safe prevention of the primary cesarean delivery.
Obstet Gynecol. 2014;123:693–711.
9. National Collaborating Centre for Women's and Children's Health (UK). London: National
Institute for Health and Care Excellence (UK). 2011 November Cesarean section
10. Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. The management of breech presentation.
Guideline no. 20. London: RCOG Press; 2001.
11. Hofmeyr GJ. External cephalic version facilitation for breech presentation at term. Cochrane
Database Syst Rev. 2001;2:CD000184.
12. Hannah ME, Hannah WJ, Hewson SA, Hodnett ED, Saigal S, Willan AR. Planned caesarean
section versus planned vaginal birth for breech presentation at term: a randomised multicen-
tre trial. Lancet. 2000;356:1375–83.
13. Van Veelan AJ, Van Cappellen AW, Flu PK, Straub MJPF, Wallenburg HC. Effect of external
cephalic version in late pregnancy on presentation at delivery: a randomized controlled trial.
Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1989;96:916–21.
14. Hofmeyr GJ. External cephalic version for breech presentation before term. Cochrane
Database Syst Rev. 2001;2.
15. Hofmeyr GJ. Interventions to help external cephalic version for breech presentation at term.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2002;4.
16. Van Dorsten JP, Schifrin BS, Wallace RL. Randomized control trial of external cephalic ver-
sion with tocolysis in late pregnancy. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1981;141:417–24.
17. Office for National Statistics. Birth statistics: review of the registrar general on births and
patterns of family building in England and Wales, 2002. London: Office for National
Statistics; 2004.
18. National Collaborating Centre for Women’s and Children’s Health. Fertility: assessment and
management for people with fertility problems. Clinical guideline. London: RCOG Press;
2004.
19. Thomas J, Paranjothy S. Royal college of obstetricians and Gynaecologists clinical effective-
ness support unit. The National Sentinel Caesarean Section Audit Report. London: RCOG
Press; 2001.
20. Petterson B, Nelson KB, Watson L, Stanley F. Twins, triplets, and cerebral palsy in births in
Western Australia in the 1980s. BMJ. 1993;307:1239–43.
21. Rydhstrom H, Ingemarsson I. A case–control study of the effects of birth by caesarean sec-
tion on intrapartum and neonatal mortality among twins weighing 1500–2499 g. Br J Obstet
Gynaecol. 1991;98:249–53.
22. Rydhstrom H. Prognosis for twins with birth weight less than 1500 gm: the impact of cesar-
ean section in relation to fetal presentation. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1990;163:528–33.
23. Rydhstrom H. Prognosis for twins discordant in birth weight of 1.0 kg or more: the impact of
cesarean section. J Perinat Med. 1990;18:31–7.
24. Crowther CA. Caesarean delivery for the second twin. Cochrane Database Syst Rev.
2000;2:CD000047.
25. Lumley J, Lester A, Renou P, Wood C. A failed RCT to determine the best method of delivery
for very low birth weight infants. Control Clin Trials. 1985;6:120–7.
26. Confidential enquiry into stillbirths and deaths in infancy. An enquiry into the quality of care
and its effect on the survival of babies born at 27–28 weeks. Project 27/28. London: TSO; 2003.
27. Murphy DJ, Sellers S, MacKenzie IZ, Yudkin PL, Johnson A. Case–control study of antenatal
and intrapartum risk factors for cerbral palsy in very preterm singleton babies. Lancet.
1995;346:1449–54.
28. Topp M, Langhoff-Roos J, Uldall P. Preterm birth and cerebral palsy. Predictive value of
pregnancy complications, mode of delivery, and Apgar scores. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand.
1997;76:843–8.
29. Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. The investigation and management of
the small-for-gestational-age fetus. Guideline No. 31. London: RCOG Press; 2011.
30. GRIT Study Group. A randomised trial of timed delivery for the compromised preterm fetus:
short term outcomes and Bayesian interpretation. BJOG. 2003;110:27–32.
31. Kinzler WL, Ananth CV, Smulian JC, Vintzileos AM. The effects of labor on infant mortality
among small-for-gestational-age infants in the USA. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med.
2002;12:201–6.
32. Levy BT, Dawson JD, Toth PP, Bowdler N. Predictors of neonatal resuscitation, low Apgar
scores, and umbilical artery pH among growth-restricted neonates. Obstet Gynecol.
1998;91:909–16.
33. Lewsi G, Drife J, editors. Why mothers die 1997–1999. The fifth report of the confidential
enquiries into maternal deaths in the United Kingdom. London: RCOG Press; 2001.
34. Guise JM, Eden K, Emeis C, Jonas DE, Morgan LC, Reuland D, Gilchrist M, Finkelstein J,
Wiswanathan M, Lohr KN, Lyda-McDonald B. Vaginal birth after cesarean: new insights.
Evid Rep Technol Assess. 2010;191:1–397.
35. Cantwell R, et al. Saving mothers’ lives: reviewing maternal deaths to make motherhood
safer 2006-2008. The eighth report of the confidential enquiries into maternal deaths in the
United Kingdom. BJOG. 2011;118:1–203.
36. Warshak CR, Ramos GA, Eskander R, Benirschke K, Saenz CC, Kelly TF, Moore TR, Resnik
R. Effect of predelivery diagnosis in 99 consecutive cases of placenta accreta. Obstet Gynecol.
2010;1:65–9.
37. Twickler DM, Lucas MJ, Balis AB, Santos-Ramos R, Martin L, Malone S, Rogers B. Color
flow mapping for myometrial invasion in women with a prior cesarean delivery. J Matern
Fetal Med. 2000;6:330–5.
38. Pattinson RE. Pelvimetry for fetal cephalic presentations at term. Cochrane Database Syst
Rev 2001;3.
39. Gorman RE, Noble A, Andrews CM. The relationship between shoe size and mode of deliv-
ery. Midwifery Today Childbirth Educ. 1997;41:70–1.
40. National Collaborating Centre for Women's and Children's Health. Antenatal care: routine
care for the healthy pregnant woman. London: National Institute for Health and Clinical
Excellence (NICE); 2008.
41. Boer K, England K, Godfried MH, Thorne C. Mode of delivery in HIV-infected pregnant
women and prevention of mother-to-child transmission: changing practices in Western
Europe. HIV Med. 2010;11(6):368–78.
42. Warszawski J, Tubiana R, Le Chenadec J, Blanche S, Teglas JP, Dollfus C, Faye A, Burgard
M, Rouzioux C, Mandelbrot L, ANRS French Perinatal Cohort. Mother-to-child HIV trans-
mission despite antiretroviral therapy in the ANRS French perinatal cohort. AIDS.
2008;2:289–99.
43. Islam S, Oon V, Thomas P. Outcome of pregnancy in HIV-positive women planned for vagi-
nal delivery under effective antiretroviral therapy. J Obstet Gynaecol. 2010;1:38–40.
44. Townsend CL, Cortina-Borja M, Peckham CS, de Ruiter A, Lyall H, Tookey PA. Low rates
of mother-to-child transmission of HIV following effective pregnancy interventions in the
United Kingdom and Ireland, 2000-2006. AIDS. 2008;8:973–81.
45. Wong VC, Ip HM, Reesink HW, Lelie PN, Reerink-Brongers EE, Yeung CY, et al. Prevention
of the HBsAg carrier state in newborn infants of mothers who are chronic carriers of HBsAg
and HBeAg by administration of hepatitis-B vaccine and hepatitis-B immunoglobulin.
Double-blind randomised placebo-controlled study. Lancet. 1984;1:921–6.
28 P. Gastaldi
46. Xu Z-Y, Liu C-B, Francis DP. Prevention of perinatal acquisition of hepatitis B virus carriage
using vaccine: preliminary report of a randomized, double-blind placebo-controlled and com-
parative trial. Pediatrics. 1985;76:713–8.
47. European Paediatric Hepatitis C Virus Network. Effects of mode of delivery and infant feed-
ing on the risk of mother-to-child transmission of hepatitis C virus. BJOG. 2001;108:371–7.
48. Randolph AG, Washington AE, Prober CG. Cesarean delivery for women presenting with
genital herpes lesions. Efficacy, risks, and costs. JAMA. 1993;270:77–82.
49. Randolph AG, Hartshorn RM, Washington AE. Acyclovir prophylaxis in late pregnancy to
prevent neonatal herpes: a cost-effectiveness analysis. Obstet Gynecol. 1996;88:603–10.
50. Scott LL, Alexander J. Cost-effectiveness of acyclovir suppression to prevent recurrent geni-
tal herpes in term pregnancy. Am J Perinatol. 1998;15:57–62.
51. Gamble JA, Creedy DK. Women’s request for a cesarean section: a critique of the literature.
Birth. 2000;27:256–63.
52. Benhamou D, Tecsy M, Parry N, Mercier FJ, Burg C. Audit of an early feeding program after
cesarean delivery: patient wellbeing is increased. Can J Anaesth. 2002;49:814–9.
53. Jolly J, Walker J, Bhabra K. Subsequent obstetric performance related to primary mode of
delivery. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1999;106:227–32.
54. Melender HL. Experiences of fears associated with pregnancy and childbirth: a study of 329
pregnant women. Birth. 2002;29:101–11.
55. Bewley S, Cockburn II J. The unfacts of ‘request’ caesarean section. BJOG.
2002;109:597–605.
56. Hodnett ED, Gates S, Hofmeyr GJ, Sakala C. Continuous support for women during child-
birth. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2003;3.
57. Crowley P. Interventions for preventing or improving the outcome of delivery at or beyond
term. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2003;(1).
58. Albers LL. The duration of labor in healthy women. J Perinatol. 1999;19:114–9.
59. Philpott RH, Castle WM. Cervicographs in the management of labour in primigravidae.
J Obstet Gynaecol Br Commonw. 1972;79:592–8.
60. Philpott RH, Castle WM. Cervicographs in the management of labour in primigravidae.
II. The action line and treatment of abnormal labour. J Obstet Gynaecol Br Commonw.
1972;79:599–602.
61. World Health Organization partograph in management of labour. World Health Organization
maternal health and safe motherhood Programme. Lancet. 1994;343:1399–404.
62. Lavender T, Alfirevic Z, Walkinshaw S. Partogram action line study: a randomised trial. Br
J Obstet Gynaecol. 1998;105:976–80.
63. Thacker SB, Stroup DF. Continuous electronic heart rate monitoring for fetal assessment dur-
ing labor. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2000;1.
64. Vintzileos AM, Antsaklis A, Varvarigos I, Papas C, Sofatzis I, Montgomery JT. A randomized
trial of intrapartum electronic fetal heart rate monitoring versus intermittent auscultation.
Obstet Gynecol. 1993;81:899–907.
65. Lavender T, Alfirevic Z, Walkinshaw S. Partogram action line study: a randomised trial.
BJOG. 1998;105(9):976–80.
66. Pattinson RC, Howarth GR, Mdluli W, et al. Aggressive or expectant management of labour:
a randomised clinical trial. BJOG. 2003;110(5):457–61.
67. Schifrin BS, Cohen WR. Labor’s dysfunctional lexicon. Obstet Gynecol. 1989;74(1):121–4.
68. National Collaborating Centre for Women's and Children's Health (UK). London: National
Institute for Health and Care Excellence (UK); 2014 december Intrapartum Care Care of
healthy women and their babies during childbirth Clinical Guideline 190 Methods, evidence
and recommendations.
69. Larma JD, Silva AM, Holcroft CJ, Thompson RE, Donohue PK, Graham EM. Intrapartum
electronic fetal heart rate monitoring and the identification of metabolic acidosis and hypoxic-
ischemic encephalopathy. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2007;197:301–8.
70. Sameshima H, Ikenoue T. Predictive value of late decelerations for fetal acidemia in unselec-
tive low-risk pregnancies. Am J Perinatol. 2005;22:19–23.
71. Hadar A, Sheiner E, Hallak M, Katz M, Mazor M, Shoham-Vardi I. Abnormal fetal heart rate
tracing patterns during the first stage of labor: effect on perinatal outcome. Am J Obstet
Gynecol. 2001;185:863–8.
72. Low JA, Victory R, Derrick EJ. Predictive value of electronic fetal monitoring for intrapar-
tum fetal asphyxia with metabolic acidosis. Obstet Gynecol. 1999;93:285–91.
73. Nelson KB, Dambrosia JM, Ting TY, Grether JK. Uncertain value of electronic fetal monitor-
ing in predicting cerebral palsy. N Engl J Med. 1996;334:613–8.
74. Cahill AG, Caughey AB, Roehl KA, Odibo AO, Macones GA. Terminal fetal heart decelera-
tions and neonatal outcomes. Obstet Gynecol. 2013;122:1070–6.
75. Maso G, Businelli C, Piccoli M, Montico M, De SF, Sartore A, Alberico S. The clinical inter-
pretation and significance of electronic fetal heart rate patterns 2 h before delivery: an insti-
tutional observational study. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2012;286:1153–9.
76. Salim R, Garmi G, Nachum Z, Shalev E. The impact of non-significant variable decelerations
appearing in the latent phase on delivery mode: a prospective cohort study. Reprod Biol
Endocrinol. 2010;8:81.
77. Sheiner E, Hadar A, Hallak M, Katz M, Mazor M, Shoham-Vardi I. Clinical significance of
fetal heart rate tracings during the second stage of labor. Obstet Gynecol. 2001;97:747–52.
78. Honjo S, Yamaguchi M. Umbilical artery blood acid-base analysis and fetal heart rate base-
line in the second stage of labor. J Obstet Gynaecol Res. 2001;27:249–54.
79. Dupuis O, Sayegh I, Decullier E, Dupont C, Clément HJ, Berland M, Rudigoz RC. Red,
orange and green caesarean sections: a new communication tool for on-call obstetricians. Eur
J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2008;140(2):206–11.
80. Tuffnell DJ, Wilkinson K, Beresford N. Interval between decision and delivery by caesarean
section-are current standards achievable? Observational case series. BMJ.
2001;322(7298):1330–3.
81. Paterson Brown S, Howell C. Managing obstetric emergencies and trauma. 3rd ed. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press; 2014.
82. Haynes AB, Weiser TG, Berry WR, Lipsitz SR, Breizat AH, Dellinger EP, Herbosa T, Joseph
S, Kibatala PL, Lapitan MC, Merry AF, Moorthy K, Reznick RK, Taylor B, Gawande
AA. Safe Surgery Saves Lives Study Group.A surgical safety checklist to reduce morbidity
and mortality in a global population. N Engl J Med. 2009;360(5):491–9.
83. Hema KR, Johanson R. Techniques for performing caesarean section. Best Pract Res Clin
Obstet Gynaecol. 2001;15(1):17–47.
84. Burger JWA, van ‘t RM, Jeekel J. Abdominal incisions: techniques and postoperative compli-
cations. Scand J Surg. 2002;91:315–21.
85. Haeri AD. Comparisons of transverse and vertical skin incision for cesarean section. S Afr
Med J. 1976;50:33–4.
86. Stark M, Finkel A. Comparison between the Joel Cohen and Pfannenstiel incisions in cesar-
ean section. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 1994;53:121–2.
87. Sippo WC, Burghardt A, Gomez AC. Nerve entrapment after Pfannenstiel incision. Am
J Obstet Gynecol. 1987;157:420–1.
88. Mowat J, Bonnar J. Abdominal wound dehiscence after cesarean delivery. Br Med
J. 1971;2:256–7.
89. Biswas MM. Why not Pfannenstiel's incision? Obstet Gynecol. 1973;41:303–27.
90. Ellis H, PDJAD C-S. Abdominal incisions ± vertical or transverse? Postgrad Med
J. 1984;60:407–10.
91. Wallin G, Fall O. Modi®ed Joel-Cohen technique for caesarean delivery. Br J Obstet
Gynaecol. 1999;106:221–6.
92. Rock J, Jones III HW. TeLinde’s operative gynecology. Philadelphia: Lippincott, Williams
and Wilkins; 2003.
93. Helmkamp BF, Krebs HB. The Maylard incision in gynecologic surgery. Am J Obstet
Gynecol. 1990;163:1554–7.
94. Ayers JW, Morley GW. Surgical incision for caesarean section. Obstet Gynecol.
1987;70:706–71.
30 P. Gastaldi
95. Kerr JMM. The technique of cesarean section, with special reference to the lower uterine
segment incision. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1926;12:729–34.
96. Tully L, Gates S, Brocklehurst P, McKenzie-McHarg K, Ayers S. Surgical techniques used
during caesarean section operations: results of a national survey of practice in the UK. Eur
J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2002;102:120–6.
97. Rodriguez AI, Porter KB, O’Brien WF. Blunt versus sharp expansion of the uterine incision
in low-segment transverse cesarean section. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1994;171:1022–5.
98. De Lee JB, Cornell EL. Low cervical caesarean sections (laparotrachelotomy). Results in one
hundred and forty-®ve cases. JAMA. 1922;79:109–50.
99. Bethune M, Permezel M. The relationship between gestational age and the incidence of clas-
sical caesarean section. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 1997;37:153–5.
100. Prendiville WJP, Elbourne D, McDonald SJ. Active versus expected management in the third
stage of labour. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2000;3:CD000007.
101. Cotter AM, Ness A, Tolosa JE. Prophylactic oxytocin for the third stage of labour. Cochrane
Database Syst Rev. 2001;4:CD001808.
102. McDonald SJ, Abbott JM, Higgins SP. Prophylactic ergometrine- oxytocin versus oxytocin
for the third stage of labour. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2004;1:CD000201.
103. Gulmezoglu AM, Forna F, Villar J, Hofmeyr GJ. Prostaglandins for prevention of postpartum
haemorrhage. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2007;3:CD000494.
104. Wilkinson C, Enkin MW. Manual removal of placenta at caesarean section. Cochrane
Database Syst Rev. 2003;1:416.
105. Magann EF, Washburne JF, Harris RL, Bass JD, Duff WP, Morrison JC. Infectious morbidity,
operative blood loss, and length of the operative procedure after cesarean delivery by method
of placental removal and site of uterine repair. J Am Coll Surg. 1995;181:517–20.
106. McCurdy Jr CM, Magann EF, McCurdy CJ, Saltzman AK. The effect of placental manage-
ment at cesarean delivery on operative blood loss. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1992;167:1363–7.
107. Wilkinson C, Enkin MW. Uterine exteriorization versus intraperitoneal repair at caesarean
section. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2000;2:CD000085.
108. Wahab MA, Karantzis P, Eccersley PS, et al. A randomised controlled study of uterine exte-
riorisation and repair at caesarean section. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1999;106:913–6.
109. Edi-Osagie EC, Hopkins RE, Ogbo V, Lockhat-Clegg F, Ayeko M, Akpala WO, et al. Uterine
exteriorisation at caesarean section: influence on maternal morbidity. Br J Obstet Gynaecol.
1998;105:1070–8.
110. Pritchard JA, Macdonald PC. Cesarean section and cesarean hysterectomy. In: Pritchard JA,
Macdonald PC, editors. Williams' obstetrics, 5th edn. New York: Appleton Century Crofts;
1976. pp. 903–923.
111. Enkin MW, Wilkinson, C. Single versus two layer suturing for closing the uterine incision at
caesarean section. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2001;3.
112. Hauth JC, Owen J, Davis RO. Transverse uterine incision closure: one versus two layers. Am
J Obstet Gynecol. 1992;167:1108–11.
113. Lal K, Tsomo P. Comparative study of single layer and conventional closure of uterine inci-
sion in cesarean section. Int J Obstet Gynaecol Obstet. 1988;27:349–52.
114. Bujold E, Bujold C, Hamilton EF, Harel F, Gauthier RJ. The impact of a single-layer or
double- layer closure on the uterine rupture. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2002;186:1326–30.
115. Chapman SJ, Owen J. One- versus two-layer closure of a low transverse cesarean: the next
pregnancy. Obstet Gynecol. 1997;89:16–8.
116. Balat O, Atmaca R, Gokdeniz R. Three-layer closure technique at cesarean section: a pro-
spective, randomized clinical trial. IMJ. 2000;7:299–301.
117. Wilkinson CS Enkin MW. Peritoneal non-closure at casarean section. Cochrane Database
Syst Rev 2001;3.
118. Johanson RB. RCOG green top guideline no 23: peritoneal closure, 1998.
119. Galaal KA, Krolikowski A. A randomized controlled study of peritoneal closure at cesarean
section. Saudi Med J. 2000;21:759–61.
120. Rafique Z, Shibli KU, Russell IF, Lindow SW. A randomised controlled trial of the closure or
non-closure of peritoneum at caesarean section: effect on postoperative pain. BJOG.
2002;109:694–8.
121. Lindholt JS, Moller-Christensen T, Steel RE. The cosmetic outcome of the scar formation
after cesarean section: percutaneous or intracutaneous suture? Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand.
1994;73:832–5.
122. Frishman GN, Schwartz T, Hogan JW. Closure of Pfannenstiel skin incisions. Staples vs
subcuticular suture. J Reprod Med. 1997;42:627–30.
123. Gorozpe-Calvillo JI, Gonzalez-Villamil J, Santoyo-Haro S, Castaneda-Vivar JJ. Closure of
the skin with cyanoacrylate in cesarean section. Ginecologia y Obstetricia de Mexico.
1999;67:491–6.
124. Stark M, Chavkin V, Kupfersztain C, et al. Evaluation of combinations of procedures in cesar-
ean section. Int J Obstet Gynecol. 1995;48:273–6.
125. Robson MS. Classification of caesarean sections. Fetal Matern Med Rev. 2001;12(1):23–39.
126. Hanzal E, Kainz C, Hoffmann G, Deutinger J. An analysis of the prediction of cephalopelvic
disproportion. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 1993;253:161–6.
127. Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists Clinical Effectiveness Support Unit. The
use of electronic fetal monitoring: the use and interpretation of cardiotocography in intrapar-
tum fetal monitoring. Evidence-based clinical guideline no. 8. London: RCOG Press.
Selection of Anesthesia Methods
3
Giorgio Capogna
General anesthesia is associated with substantially greater maternal risk than

regional anesthesia due to difficult airway management or aspiration related deaths.
Spinal and epidural anesthesia have therefore become more widely utilized for
cesarean section. Spinal anesthesia is simple to institute, rapid in its effect, and pro-
duces excellent operating conditions. Continuous epidural analgesia is more titrat-
able, may produce less hemodynamic changes, and can be topped up if surgery is
prolonged or postoperative pain relief is required. Spinal anesthesia is the most
commonly used technique for elective cesarean section where epidural is most used
to convert labor epidural analgesia to surgical anesthesia. The introduction of com-
bined spinal-epidural anesthesia (CSEA) may offer benefits of both spinal and epi-
dural anesthesia.
3.1 Introduction
Selection of the method of anesthesia is traditionally mainly based on the classifica-

tion of the cesarean section according to the level of urgency since, usually, the risks
and morbidity of the procedure basically depend on the level of urgency itself [1].
However, in addition to the time available, factors that may influence the anes-
thetic choice decision may also include the presence of a working epidural analge-
sia, maternal preference, expectation or previous experience, the likely duration of
surgery, and the presence of maternal pathology, especially cardiac, neurological, or
previous back surgery. Local, institutional, anesthetic practice, and the expertise of
the physician may also play an important role.
In all cases, prior to cesarean delivery, every patient should undergo an evalua-
tion by an anesthesiologist to give correct information to the patient and determine
G. Capogna
Department of Anesthesiology, Città di Roma Hospital, Rome, Italy
e-mail: dipartimento.anestesia@gruppogarofalo.com

DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-42053-0_3
34 G. Capogna
any comorbidities that would impact the anesthetic plan. Even in an emergent situ-
ation, an abbreviated examination and adequate preparation are essential for provid-
ing a safe anesthesia.
The elective cesarean delivery is the least time sensitive from decision to
incision.
The majority of the elective, planned cesarean sections are typically performed
with a single-dose spinal anesthetic technique [2, 3].
In cases where the obstetrician expects a prolonged length of the surgical proce-
dure (approximately more than 2 h), a neuraxial catheter-based technique (epidural
or combined spinal-epidural) may be utilized.
In some institutions, such as mine, the combined spinal-epidural technique is the
technique of choice for elective cesarean section, using the spinal component of the
technique for anesthesia and the epidural catheter for epidural postoperative analgesia.
Epidural dosing of a preexisting epidural catheter is also frequently used in the
case of the nonurgent delivery of the baby in a laboring woman.
De novo epidural anesthesia is the less frequent option due to the anesthesiolo-
gist’s fear of more technical difficulties, inadequate intraoperative analgesia, and
possible toxic reactions in the case of inadvertent intravenous administration of a
full dose of local anesthetic.
In the absence of contraindication to neuraxial anesthesia, it is rare that general
anesthesia is induced for an elective cesarean delivery in most developed countries
unless there are major contraindications to a neuraxial block or patient’s refusal.
The urgent cesarean delivery requires the more rapid progression from decision
to delivery.
Although delivery must be rapid, a neuraxial technique is often preferred if time
allows for the placement of a spinal anesthetic or the dosing of an existing epidural
catheter. A non-reassuring fetal heart rate pattern in itself does not preclude the use
of a neuraxial technique [4].
However, in certain emergent circumstances, induction of general anesthesia is
needed. These situations occur when the obstetrician must deliver the baby imme-
diately because of maternal and/or fetal indications and when there is insufficient
time to induce neuraxial anesthesia or a concern of neuraxial failure. In these cases,
general anesthesia provides the most rapid and reliable form of anesthesia for
prompt delivery.
3.2 Neuraxial Anesthetic Techniques
Neuraxial anesthesia has the benefit of a conscious mother at delivery and minimal
anesthetic exposure to the neonate. Additionally, it allows for the placement of neur-
axial opioids to decrease postoperative pain and avoids the risks of maternal aspira-
tion and difficult airway associated with general anesthesia.
Common neuraxial techniques for cesarean delivery include: (1) single-shot spinal
technique, (2) epidural catheter technique, or (3) combined spinal-epidural (CSE)
technique. There are advantages and disadvantages to each of these techniques.
3 Selection of Anesthesia Methods 35
3.2.1 Spinal Anesthesia
Spinal anesthesia is commonly believed to be technically easier than an epidural

block, more rapid in onset and more reliable in providing surgical anesthesia.
Although in a training environment it could be higher, the failure rate with spinal
anesthesia is usually very low, approximately less than 1% [5, 6].
The risk of profound hypotension is higher with spinal anesthesia than with epi-
dural anesthesia because the onset of the sympathectomy is more rapid and dosing
is not titrated. Maternal hypotension and fetal outcome are improved with avoid-
ance of aortocaval compression (left uterine displacement), hydration, and appro-
priate use of vasopressors.
Colloid solutions are significantly more effective than crystalloid preload [7],
and co-loading with colloid is equally as effective as preloading in the prevention of
hypotension [8].
Historically, ephedrine was recommended as the vasopressor of choice for treat-
ing hypotension from a neuraxial block. However, more recent data confirms that use
of phenylephrine for treatment of spinal hypotension, or using phenylephrine as a
prophylactic infusion at the time of spinal placement, is effective in preventing hypo-
tension [9], and is associated with less fetal acidosis compared to ephedrine [10].
Data also suggest that spinal anesthesia can be safely used for patients with
preeclampsia [11].
A typical spinal anesthetic includes a local anesthetic for the surgical anesthesia
with or without morphine added for postoperative pain control. However, a large
variety of combinations of local anesthetics and opioids are frequently used.
Although either isobaric or hyperbaric preparations of local anesthetic can be
placed intrathecally for a spinal anesthetic [12], hyperbaric solutions containing 8%
dextrose are often used to facilitate anatomic and gravitational control of the block
distribution. The duration of a single-shot spinal is variable and depends on the
agent and the dose used, but normally provides adequate surgical anesthesia for
more than 90 min if a full anesthetic dose is given. Bupivacaine is frequently used
in doses between 10 and 15 mg. Although cesarean deliveries have been performed
with very low doses, the doses of intrathecal bupivacaine that provided a 95% rate
of effective anesthesia (ED95) for cesarean delivery when combined with fentanyl
(10 mcg) and morphine (0.2 mg) were 11.2 mg for hyperbaric [13] and 13.0 mg for
isobaric bupivacaine [14] (Figs. 3.1 and 3.2).
These doses were however determined in a setting where the mean surgical dura-
tion was more than 1 h and the uterus was exteriorized during surgery.
With different surgical conditions, lower doses of bupivacaine (less than 9 mg)
with opioids have been used to reduce maternal hypotension, but, although the use
of lower bupivacaine doses may provide satisfactory anesthesia, there is an increased
risk of intraoperative pain or failed spinal with a need for general anesthesia and this
risk might be ethically unacceptable for most practitioners [15].
Continuous spinal anesthesia with a subarachnoid catheter is a very rarely used
alternative [16]. Use of an epidural catheter intrathecally is sometimes chosen in
cases of accidental dural puncture during attempts to place an epidural, or with a
36 G. Capogna
Success:
Induction
ED50 = 6.7 mg
Probability of Sucess
ED95 = 11.0 mg
0.5
Success:
Operation
ED50 = 7.6 mg
ED95 = 11.2 mg
0
6 8 10 12
Bupivacaine Dose (mg)
Fig. 3.1 Logistic regression plot of anesthesia success at the induction of anesthesia and through-
out surgery (calculation of ED50 and ED95 by using probabilities of 0.5 and 0.95) with hyperbaric
bupivacaine. Reproduced with permission from [13]
1
ED95 = 13 mg
0.8
Probability of Success (%)
0.6
Fig. 3.2 Logistic
regression plot of
ED50 = 7.25 mg
successful sensory level of
0.4
anesthesia (T6) with no
additional intraoperative
epidural anesthetic
requirements (calculation 0.2
of ED50 and ED95 by
using probabilities of 0.5
and 0.95) with isobaric 0
bupivacaine. Reproduced 0 5 10 15 20
with permission from [14] Intrathecal Bupiv acaine Dosage (mg)
combination of unique circumstances and comorbid conditions (e.g., urgent deliv-

ery with severe preeclampsia and morbid obesity). This allows the advantage of a
titratable, reliable, dense anesthetic block, but carries the risks of high spinal if the
intrathecal catheter is mistaken for an epidural catheter and inappropriately dosed.
The rates of rare complications such as meningitis or neurologic impairment from
local anesthetic toxicity with the use of a spinal catheter theoretically may be some-
what higher than the other neuraxial techniques; however, currently there are no
data to determine the rates of these rare complications.
3.2.2 Epidural Anesthesia
Epidural anesthesia gained its greater popularity among obstetric anesthesiologists

between the 1970s and the 1980s [17, 18].
Nowadays spinal anesthesia, on average, has substituted epidural block for elec-
tive cesarean section due to the ease of performance of the technique, especially in
the teaching setting, rapid onset time, and more profound intraoperative block.
Nevertheless, according to a Cochrane review, both spinal and epidural tech-
niques are shown to provide effective anesthesia for cesarean section. Spinal anes-
thesia has a shorter onset time, but treatment for hypotension is more likely if spinal
anesthesia is used [19].
Converting labor epidural analgesia to surgical anesthesia for cesarean section is
instead a common procedure. A large audit from UK reported that 26% of emer-
gency cesarean sections were carried out using an epidural anesthesia [20] and,
actually, extending a preexisting epidural block previously used for labor analgesia
is a routine practice worldwide in Europe. In my Institution, which has an epidural
analgesia rate of 97%, almost all the conversions to anesthesia are performed using
the preexisting epidural catheter.
In those cases, the local anesthetic is changed to one that provides more rapid
onset and a denser anesthetic block for surgical anesthesia. Extension of a preexist-
ing epidural labor analgesia to the appropriate level of surgical anesthesia can reli-
ably and very rapidly be accomplished with a pH adjusted solution of 2% lidocaine
with adrenaline and fentanyl [21].
3.2.3 Combined Spinal-Epidural Anesthesia (CSEA)
The introduction of combined spinal-epidural anesthesia (CSEA) offers the benefits

of both spinal and epidural anesthesia. The use of a CSEA technique offers the
advantage of a spinal anesthetic with rapid onset of a dense block, as well as the
ability to administer additional anesthetics through the epidural catheter.
With this technique, a success rate of 99.4% has been reported [22] and this con-
firms my personal view (CSEA is the standard technique for elective cesarean sec-
tion in my Institution) that CSEA is superior to either single-shot spinal or continuous
epidural anesthesia alone when used as the routine for cesarean section.
38 G. Capogna
In addition the epidural catheter may be used for routine postoperative epidural
analgesia which is highly effective and breastfeeding safe.
In selected circumstances, this technique can be used when the total operative
time is expected to take longer than allowed for with a typical spinal anesthetic
dose, for example, third or fourth cesarean delivery or combined with an additional
procedure.
Similarly, the presence of the epidural catheter as a back-up to supplement a
spinal that is too low, gives the anesthesiologist the opportunity to perform a “modi-
fied CSEA” by titrating both the spinal and epidural components of the technique
when the patient has severe pregnancy-induced hypertension or other disorders that
make the prospect of dramatic hemodynamic changes particularly concerning.
3.3 General Anesthesia
General anesthesia is used for cesarean delivery when neuraxial anesthesia is con-
traindicated or for emergent situations because of its rapid and predictable effect.
However, even in some developed countries it may represent the most common
choice of anesthetic technique [23].
Conditions that contraindicate neuraxial procedures include patient refusal,
infection at the needle insertion site, significant coagulopathy, hypovolemic shock,
and increased intracranial pressure from mass lesions. Inadequate caregivers’ exper-
tise might also represent a possible contraindication. Other conditions such as sys-
temic infection, some neurologic diseases and mild coagulopathies should be
evaluated on a case-by-case basis. HIV infection is not a contraindication to neur-
axial technique [24].
Often many parturients are given for many and different reasons, anticoagulant
and antithrombotic drugs during their pregnancy and this may influence the choice
of anesthesia in the case of cesarean section. A summary of current guidelines from
different international anesthetic societies for neuraxial anesthetic practice in
patients receiving anticoagulant and antithrombotic drugs has been published [25].
As with neuraxial techniques, appropriate preparation and a working knowledge
of difficult airway techniques and algorithms are essential for providing a safe gen-
eral anesthesia.
Anesthetic goals during the cesarean delivery include an appropriate anesthetic
level to optimize surgical conditions and minimize maternal recall; an adequate
perfusion and oxygenation of the mother and neonate; and a minimal transfer of
anesthetic agents to the neonate and minimization of uterine atony following
delivery.
If a significantly prolonged length of time occurs between induction of general
anesthesia and delivery, cardiorespiratory depression and decreased tone of the
infant should be anticipated. These are short-lived and easily overcome results of
greater transfer of anesthetic agents rather than asphyxia, and respond easily to
assisted ventilation of the anesthetized infant to favor excretion of the anesthetic
agents.
Spinal anesthesia is commonly believed to be both more practical and safer than
other techniques for the mother, and is therefore widely used. It is also often
assumed, similarly, that neuraxial techniques must be better for the baby than gen-
eral anesthesia. However, a Cochrane review stated that there is not enough evi-
dence to show that either regional or general anesthesia is superior to the other in
terms of major maternal or neonatal outcomes, except the estimated blood loss
which appears to be reduced with the use of regional anesthesia [26].
Spinal anesthesia for cesarean section is associated with a greater degree of fetal
metabolic acidosis than in either general or epidural anesthesia [27]; however, spi-
nal anesthesia is not associated with lower umbilical artery pH compared to other
types of anesthesia when phenylephrine is used as the vasopressor agent [28].
Furthermore, the differences in acid-base status are not large and most likely not
clinically significant, and certainly there are so many good reasons to use spinal
anesthesia, which in most circumstances outweigh these disadvantages.
There may be many reasons why general anesthesia should be avoided if possi-
ble, but should a mother need to be given it, she can be reassured about its effects on
the acid-base status of the baby.
3.4 aternal Medical Diseases Affecting

M
the Anesthetic Choice
The list of comorbid diseases during pregnancy is endless, and their presence can
significantly affect the choice of the anesthetic technique. Morbidities during preg-
nancy can be treated and managed on an individual basis simultaneously by ade-
quate preanesthetic evaluation, careful multidisciplinary planning of anesthetic
technique, and postoperative care. The anesthesiologist requires a complete knowl-
edge of the type, severity, and prognosis of maternal diseases. This paragraph briefly
describes the most common comorbidities encountered during pregnancy and their
suggested anesthetic management just as an example of how challenging the anes-
thetic choice in these cases could be: please refer to textbooks for detailed informa-
tion on this topic [29, 30].
3.4.1 Rheumatic Disease
Rheumatic heart disease is the most frequent of the heart diseases. The goals for the
anesthetic management of patients with mitral stenosis are: (1) maintenance of an
acceptable slow heart rate, (2) immediate treatment of acute atrial fibrillation and
reversion to sinus rhythm, (3) avoidance of aortocaval compression, (4) mainte-
nance of adequate venous return, (5) maintenance of adequate SVR, and (6) preven-
tion of pain, hypoxemia, hypercarbia, and acidosis, which may increase pulmonary
vascular resistance.
Epidural and continuous spinal anesthesia techniques are attractive options. With
these techniques the anesthetic drug can be administered in incremental doses and
40 G. Capogna
the total dose could be titrated to the desired sensory level. This, coupled with the
slower onset of anesthesia, allows the maternal cardiovascular system to compen-
sate for the occurrence of sympathetic blockade, resulting in a lower risk of hypo-
tension. Moreover, the segmental blockade spares the lower extremity “muscle
pump,” aiding in venous return [31, 32].
General anesthesia has the disadvantage of increased pulmonary arterial pressure
and tachycardia during laryngoscopy and tracheal intubation. Moreover, the adverse
effects of positive-pressure ventilation on the venous return may ultimately lead to
cardiac failure [33].
3.4.2 Diabetes
One of the most important aspects in diabetic parturients involves the adequate con-
trol of blood sugar so as to prevent the occurrence of neonatal hypoglycemia. As
such, the perioperative status has to be optimized with an appropriate insulin regi-
men taking care not to induce hypoglycemia with aggressive control of
hyperglycemia.
General anesthesia can be problematic because of delayed gastric emptying, lim-
ited atlanto-occipital joint extension, increased hemodynamic response to intuba-
tion [34], and impaired counterregulatory hormone responses to hypoglycemia
during sleep [35]. Regional anesthesia is positively indicated as compared to gen-
eral and there is no specific concern related to the spinal over the epidural group.
Either spinal or epidural anesthesia may be appropriate for the diabetic parturient
provided maternal glycemic control is satisfactory and the patient receives intra/
preanesthetic volume expansion with a non-dextrose containing balanced salt solu-
tion. The presence of autonomic neuropathy makes a diabetic parturient highly vul-
nerable to hemodynamic instability [36]; therefore, in severe diabetics epidural
anesthesia may be preferred because of the slower onset of sympathetic blockade.
3.4.3 Asthma
The incidence of pregnancy-induced hypertension (PIH), prematurity, antepartum

and postpartum hemorrhage, low birth weight, neonatal hypoxia, and perinatal mor-
tality are much higher in patients with asthma as compared to normal pregnant
patients.
Regional anesthesia is preferable since it avoids airway stimulation. Epidural
anesthesia may allow slow incremental titration which may lessen the risk of respi-
ratory discomfort from a sudden high sensory level. Unclear etiology acute bronco-
spasm has been precipitated by spinal anesthesia in pregnancy [37].
If the parturient’s condition is too poor to tolerate a neuraxial technique because
she does not tolerate the supine position, general anesthesia may be provided. Light
anesthesia must be avoided since it may aggravate bronchospasm. In the case of
uterine atony, prostaglandin agents are contraindicated in asthmatic parturients.
3.4.4 N
eurological, Neuromuscular, and Musculoskeletal
Disorders
Neurological diseases (seizure disorders, multiple sclerosis, spina bifida, hemiple-

gia, migraine, any infective infection, trauma, tumors), neuromuscular disorders
(myasthenia gravis, poliomyelitis), and musculoskeletal disorders (scoliosis,
kyphoscoliosis) can influence the choice of delivery as well as of anesthetic tech-
nique, as the involvement of the nervous and musculoskeletal system can be highly
variable [30].
Regional anesthesia is preferred in the majority of patients with these disorders
except in the case of some strong contraindications such as increased intracranial
pressure and tethered spinal cord. Patients who are at high risk of developing intra-
operative respiratory insufficiency (kyphoscoliosis) should preferably be adminis-
tered neuraxial anesthesia in an incremental manner.
Myasthenia gravis should be adequately treated preoperatively with anticholin-
esterases and regional anesthesia is preferable if respiratory functions are not
impaired.
Multiple sclerosis cannot be considered a contraindication for epidural or for
spinal anesthesia [38].
3.4.5 Renal Diseases
Regional anesthesia is considered safe if coagulation parameters are normal. In the

case of general anesthesia, anesthetic drugs which are primarily excreted through
the kidneys, which can enhance the incidence of renal toxicity and renal failure,
should be avoided.
Atracurium is preferred as it is not dependent upon hepatic or renal metabolism
for its elimination while succinylcholine can cause severe arrhythmias if any evi-
dence of hyperkalemia is present.
3.4.6 Hematological Disorders
In the case of severe anemia the main anesthetic goals during cesarean section are:
(1) avoidance of hypoxemia and adequate oxygenation, (2) minimal time in secur-
ing the airway in the case of general anesthesia, (3) maintenance of stable hemody-
namics, (4) avoidance of hypothermia, and (5) avoidance of hyperventilation. As far
as possible, regional anesthesia should be the preferred choice wherever feasible as
it is associated with decreased blood loss [26].
There are concerns about spinal hematoma in patients receiving anticoagulants
during neuraxial anesthesia for cesarean section. The administration of neuraxial
anesthesia in parturients receiving anticoagulant drugs should be individualized in
accordance with the published guidelines [25] and a risk-benefit analysis is essential
depending upon the urgency of the cesarean section.
42 G. Capogna
3.4.7 Obesity
When compared to normal weight parturients morbidly obese patients are at an

increased risk of having either concurrent medical problems or superimposed
antenatal diseases including preeclampsia and gestational diabetes. In addition
there is an increased incidence of deep vein thrombosis, hypoxemia, and wound
infections [39].
The major goals during anesthetic management of the obese parturient include
the following: (1) careful titration of anesthetic drugs (especially opioids and seda-
tives); (2) aspiration prophylaxis; (3) difficult airway management; and (4) mainte-
nance of stable hemodynamics.
Morbidly obese women undergoing scheduled cesarean delivery have greater
overall anesthesia-related complications, more complicated placement of regional
anesthesia, and a more frequent requirement of general anesthesia than women with
lower weight [40].
Women with a BMI more than 45 kg/m2 are particularly at risk of complications
from regional anesthesia. Unfortunately, morbidly obese women have a higher
epidural anesthesia failure rate and are likely to have difficult intubations. Inability
to identify landmarks, difficulty in placing the regional block, and the unpredictable
spread of the anesthetic solution contribute to the failure rate [40].
The use of a continuous lumbar spinal catheter and a low thoracic epidural,
respectively, for intraoperative anesthesia and postoperative analgesia, has been
reported to have several advantages in the anesthetic management of super-morbidly
obese parturients undergoing cesarean delivery [41].
Typically in morbidly obese patients the hypotension is profound and may be
refractory to measures like intravenous pressors and intravenous fluids and may
require intensive care admission, resuscitation, and monitoring.
Most of the anesthesia-related morbidity and mortality encountered during
cesarean section is due to complications of general anesthesia, especially as a con-
sequence of failed intubation and aspiration. These are taken into account when a
decision is made for cesarean section.
3.5 aternal Obstetric Diseases Affecting

M
Anesthetic Choice
3.5.1 Preeclampsia
Neuraxial anesthesia is the preferred anesthetic technique for delivery by cesarean

section. Single-shot spinal, combined spinal-epidural, and epidural anesthesia may
be used effectively and there is no evidence that one technique has an advantage
over the other [42].
Typically hypotension requiring vasopressors during neuraxial anesthesia is less
frequent in women with preeclampsia.
General anesthesia may sometimes be necessary in the case of severe coagulopa-

thy, pulmonary edema, or eclampsia. However, if the woman is stable with a normal
level of consciousness and no neurological deficits, in the absence of other contra-
indications, neuraxial anesthesia is a reasonable choice [43].
If general anesthesia is used, extreme attention should be given to control the
hypertensive response to intubation, as this has been identified as a cause of direct
maternal mortality [44].
3.5.2 HELLP (Hemolysis, Elevated Liver Enzymes, Low Platelets)
Traditionally general anesthesia has been considered to be the technique of choice

in the case of the HELLP (hemolysis, elevated liver enzymes, low platelets) syn-
drome due to the typical coexistence of a very low platelet count in these patients.
In selected cases of patients, combined spinal-epidural has been reported to be
feasible and safe if the platelet count is above 80,000/mm3 [45]. In all cases, the
rapid deterioration of the platelet count requires their close monitoring by serial
determinations immediately before and during the course of anesthetic
management.
3.5.3 Placenta Accreta
General anesthesia is usually considered as the technique of choice for patients with
placenta accreta due to the significant risk of massive bleeding, complicated by
intense hypotension and coagulopathy and high probability of hysterectomy during
cesarean delivery.
In the case of a minimal degree of invasion of the placenta accreta and therefore
with a reasonable chance of a conservative management, regional anesthesia may be
an alternative. In this case epidural or combined spinal-epidural anesthesia would
be preferable [46].
General and regional anesthesia may also be combined, allowing the mother to
be awake during the delivery of the baby and eventually converting the block to
general anesthesia, required in half of the cases [47], during hysterectomy, if
necessary.
References
1. Kinsella SM, Walton B, Sashidharan R, et al. Category-1 caesarean section: a survey of anaes-
thetic and peri-operative management in the UK. Anaesthesia. 2010;65:362–8.
2. Bucklin BA, Hawkins JL, Anderson JR, et al. Obstetric anesthesia workforce survey: twenty-
year update. Anesthesiology. 2005;103:645–53.
3. Staiku C, Paraskeva A, Karmaniolou I, et al. Current practice in obstetric anesthesia: a 2012
European survey. Minerva Anestesiol. 2014;80:347–35.
44 G. Capogna
4. Committee on Obstetric Practice, American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.

ACOG Committee opinion. Number 326, December 2005. Inappropriate use of the terms fetal
distress and birth asphyxia. Obstet Gynecol. 2005;106:1469–70.
5. Riley ET, Cohen SE, Macario A, et al. Spinal versus epidural anesthesia for cesarean section:
a comparison of time efficiency, costs, charges, and complications. Anesth Analg.
1995;80:709–12.
6. Fettes PD, Jansson JR, Wildsmith JA. Failed spinal anaesthesia: mechanisms, management,
and prevention. Br J Anaesth. 2009;102:739–48.
7. Ko JS, Kim CS, Cho HS, et al. A randomized trial of crystalloid versus colloid solution for
prevention of hypotension during spinal or low-dose combined spinal-epidural anesthesia for
elective cesarean delivery. Int J Obstet Anesth. 2007;16:8–12.
8. Carvalho B, Mercier FJ, Riley ET, et al. Hetastarch co-loading is as effective as pre-loading for
the prevention of hypotension following spinal anesthesia for cesarean delivery. Int J Obstet
Anesth. 2009;18:150–5.
9. Allen TK, George RB, White WD, et al. A double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of four fixed
rate infusion regimens of phenylephrine for hemodynamic support during spinal anesthesia for
cesarean delivery. Anesth Analg. 2010;111:1221–9.
10. Ngan Kee WD, Khaw KS, Tan PE, et al. Placental transfer and fetal metabolic effects of phen-
ylephrine and ephedrine during spinal anesthesia for cesarean delivery. Anesthesiology.
2009;111:506–12.
11. Hood DD, Curry R. Spinal versus epidural anesthesia for cesarean section in severely pre-
eclamptic patients: a retrospective survey. Anesthesiology. 1999;90:1276–82.
12. Sia A, Tiong A, Hian K, et al. Hyperbaric versus plain bupivacaine for spinal anesthesia for
cesarean delivery. Anesth Analg. 2015;120:132–40.
13. Ginosar Y, Mirikatani E, Drover DR, et al. ED50 and ED95 of intrathecal hyperbaric bupiva-
caine coadministered with opioids for cesarean delivery. Anesthesiology. 2004;100:676–82.
14. Carvalho B, Durbin M, Drover DR, et al. The ED50 and ED95 of intrathecal isobaric bupiva-
caine with opioids for cesarean delivery. Anesthesiology. 2005;103:606–12.
15. Rucklidge MWM, Paech MJ. Limiting the dose of local anaesthetic for caesarean section
under spinal anaesthesia—has the limbo bar been set too low? Anaesthesia. 2012;67:347–51.
16. Palmer CM. Continuous spinal anesthesia and analgesia in obstetrics. Anesth Analg.

2010;111:1476–9.
17. Js C, Davies P, Lewis M. Some aspects of epidural block provided for caesarean section.
Anaesthesia. 1986;41:1039–46.
18. Capogna G, Celleno D, Zangrillo A. Analgesia e anestesia epidurale per il parto. Mosby Year
Book Italia; 1995.
19. Ng K, Parson J, Cyna AM, Middelton P. Spinal versus epidural anaesthesia for caesarean sec-
tion. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2004;2:CD003765.
20. Kinsella SM. A prospective audit of regional anaesthesia failure in5080 caesarean sections.
Anaesthesia. 2008;63:822–32.
21. Hilliyard SG, Bate TE, Corcoran TB, et al. Extending epidural analgesia for emergency cae-
sarean section: a meta analysis. Br J Anaesth. 2011;107:668–78.
22. Ranasinghe JS, Steadman J, Toyama T, et al. Combined spinal epidural anaesthesia is better
than spinal or epidural alone for caesarean delivery. Br J Anaesth. 2003;91:299–300.
23. Sumikura H. When was the last time you induced general anesthesia for cesarean section?
J Anesth. 2015;29:819–20.
24. Hignett R, Fernando R. Anesthesia for the pregnant HIV patient. Anesthesiol Clin.

2008;26:127–43.
25. Butwick AJ, Carvalho B. Neuraxial anesthesia in obstetric patients receiving anticoagulant and
antithrombotic drugs. Int J Obstet Anesth. 2010;19:193–201.
26. Afolabi BB, Lesi FE, Merah NA. Regional versus general anaesthesia for caesarean section.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2006;10:CD004350.
27. Reynolds F, Seed PT. Anaesthesia for caesarean section and neonatal acid-base status: a meta-
analysis. Anaesthesia. 2005;60:636–53.
28. Strouch ZY, Dakik CG, Wd W, et al. Anesthetic technique for cesarean delivery and neonatal
acid–base status: a retrospective database analysis. Int J Obstet Anesth. 2015;24:22–9.
29. Datta S, editor. Anesthetic and obstetric management of high-risk pregnancy. 3rd ed. New York:
Springer-Verlag; 2004.
30. Gambling DR, Douglas MJ, McKey RSF. Obstetric anesthesia and uncommon disorders. 3rd
ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2008.
31. Langesaeter E, Dragsund M, Rosseland LA. Regional anaesthesia for a caesarean section in
women with cardiac disease: a prospective study. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 2010;54:46–54.
32. Dresner M, Pinder A. Anaesthesia for caesarean section in women with complex cardiac dis-
ease: 34 cases using the Braun Spinocath spinal catheter. Int J Obstet Anesth.
2009;18:131–6.
33. Blaise G, Langleben D, Hubert B. Pulmonary arterial hypertension: pathophysiology and
anesthetic approach. Anesthesiology. 2003;99:1415–32.
34. Vohra A, Kumar S, Charlton AJ, Olukoga AO, Boulton AJ, McLeod D. Effect of diabetes mel-
litus on the cardiovascular responses to induction of anesthesia and tracheal intubation. Br
J Anaesth. 1993;71:258–61.
35. Lev-Ran A. Sharp temporary drop in insulin requirement after caesarean section in diabetic
patients. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1974;120:905–8.
36. Hoeldtke RD, Boden G, Shuman CR, et al. Reduced epinephrine secretion and hypoglycemia
unawareness in diabetic autonomic neuropathy. Ann Intern Med. 1982;96:459–62.
37. Kawabata KM. Two cases of asthmatic attack caused by spinal anesthesia. Masui.

1996;45:102–6.
38. Drake E, Drake M, Bird J, et al. Obstetric regional blocks for women with multiple sclerosis:
a survey of UK experience. Int J Obstet Anesth. 2006;15:115–23.
39. Leykin Y. Which anesthetic (general or regional) is safest for a caesarean section in a morbidly
obese parturient? In: Leykin Y, Brodski JB, editors. Controversies in the anesthetic manage-
ment of the obese surgical patient. Milan: Springer; 2013.
40. Whitty RJ, Maxwell CV, Carvalho JC. Complications of neuraxial anesthesia in an extreme
morbidly obese patient for cesarean section. Int J Obstet Anesth. 2007;16:139–44.
41. Polin CM, Hale B, Mauritz AA, et al. Anesthetic management of super-morbidly obese partu-
rients for cesarean delivery with a double neuraxial catheter technique: a case series. Int
J Obstet Anesth. 2015;24:276–80.
42.
Dennis AT. Management of pre-eclampsia: issues for anaesthetists. Anaesthesia.
2012;67:1009–20.
43. Dyer RA, Piercy JL, Reed AR. The role of the anaesthetist in the management of the pre-
eclamptic patient. Curr Opin Anesthesiol. 2007;20:168–74.
44. Lewis G, editor. The confidential enquiry into maternal and child health (CEMACH). Saving
mothers’ lives: reviewing maternal deaths to make motherhood safer 2003–2005. The seventh
report on confidential enquiries into maternal deaths in the United Kingdom. London:
CEMACH; 2007.
45. Palit S, Palit G, Vercauteren M, et al. Regional anaesthesia for primary caesarean section in
patients with preterm HELLP syndrome: a review of 102 cases. Clin Exp Obstet Gynecol.
2009;36:230–4.
46. Chestnut DH, Dewan DM, Redick LF, et al. Anesthetic management for obstetric hysterec-
tomy: a multiinstitutional study. Anesthesiology. 1989;70:607–10.
47. Munoz LA, Mendoza GA, Gomez M, et al. Anesthetic management of placenta accreta in a
low-resource setting: a case series. Int J Obstet Anesth. 2015;29:329–34.
Spinal Anesthesia for Cesarean Section
4
Sarah Armstrong
4.1 Introduction
As the rates of cesarean delivery have escalated, so have the rates of neuraxial anes-
thesia for cesarean delivery. Pregnant women are known to be at increased risk of
morbidity and mortality from the complications of general anesthesia including
awareness, failed intubation and/or ventilation, hypoxia and aspiration of gastric
contents [1–3]. Neuraxial techniques (spinal, epidural and combined spinal-
epidural) are well established as the preferred and safest methods of anesthesia for
both planned and emergency cesarean section. The Royal College of Anaesthetists
currently recommends that 95% of elective cesarean sections and 85% of emer-
gency cesarean sections are performed under neuraxial anesthesia [3]. Neuraxial
anesthesia for cesarean delivery can be provided using a range of techniques as
listed below:
• Single-shot spinal anesthesia (SSS)

• Continuous spinal anesthesia
• Combined spinal-epidural anesthesia (CSE)
• Low-dose or sequential CSE anesthesia
• Epidural anesthesia
In this chapter, we will focus on the first two—single-shot spinal and continuous
spinal anesthesia.
S. Armstrong
Frimley Health NHS Foundation Trust, Surrey, UK
e-mail: drsaraharmstrong@gmail.com

DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-42053-0_4
48 S. Armstrong
4.2 Advantages of Neuraxial Anesthesia
As stated previously, neuraxial anesthesia not only reduces the risk of potential
complications of general anesthesia but also has independent advantages over and
above general anesthesia and these are listed in Table 4.1.
The choice of specific neuraxial anesthetic technique will depend on a multitude
of factors including local institutional guidelines, anesthetic and surgical experience
and preference, clinical judgement and individual patient requirements. The block
must provide adequate anesthesia and analgesia for the duration of the surgery and
minimize perioperative discomfort [4].
In addition there are specific advantages of single-shot spinal and continuous
spinal anesthesia. Both techniques allow a rapid onset of dense anesthesia. Riley
et al. evaluated spinal versus epidural anesthesia for cesarean section and found that
spinal anesthesia was associated with significantly shorter operating room times,
with supplemental intraoperative intravenous (IV) analgesics and anxiolytics
required more often in the epidural group (38%) than in the spinal group (17%)
(p <0.05) [5].
Spinal anesthesia is associated with less breakthrough pain and a lower con-
version rate to general anesthesia at cesarean section when compared to epidural
anesthesia. Garry and Davies examined the quality of regional blockade for
cesarean section in a four-year retrospective study [6]. Of 1610 patients who
received a spinal anesthesia for cesarean section, 12 (0.75%) received general
anesthesia while 175 (10.9%) required some analgesic supplementation. Of the
827 patients in whom epidural analgesia was in progress for labor and a decision
was made to proceed to cesarean section, a total of 87 patients (10.5%) needed
general anesthesia. Of those (763) in whom cesarean section was started under
epidural, only 17 (2.2%) were given general anesthesia because of intraoperative
pain. In addition spinal anesthesia is associated with a predictable and relatively
prompt recovery, which may be associated with a faster transition through recov-
ery units [7]. It has been suggested that in some institutions this may result in
cost savings [5].
Table 4.1 Advantages of neuraxial anesthesia for cesarean delivery [4]

Reduced risk of:
• Dental damage, failed intubation and hypoxia
• Pulmonary aspiration of gastric contents
• Awareness
Improved postoperative pain relief
Reduced incidence of:
• Vomiting and postoperative ileus
• Thromboembolism
Ability to have birth partner present
Alert mother and baby, improved bonding and breastfeeding
Increased patient satisfaction
4 Spinal Anesthesia for Cesarean Section 49
Spinal anesthetic techniques use relatively low doses of both local anesthetic and
opioid. This means there is a significantly reduced risk of systemic local anesthetic
toxicity and minimal transfer of drugs to the fetus when compared to epidural tech-
niques. Kuhrnet et al. measured both lidocaine and bupivacaine levels in maternal and
neonatal blood after spinal anesthesia and epidural anesthesia and found that local
anesthetic transfer was perhaps predictably much lower in the spinal group [8, 9].
However, it should be noted that even with spinal anesthesia there is still a small but
significant transfer to both maternal and neonatal systemic circulations with neonatal
urine containing the local anesthetic or their metabolites for up to 36 h after delivery
[8, 9]. The SSS technique has the additional advantage of being technically simple to
perform but has a limited duration of anesthesia and no ability to extend the duration
or intensity of sensory blockade. Continuous spinal anesthesia however can be used
to extend intraoperative anesthesia and also to titrate the extent of sensory blockade,
which may be of benefit in those situations where hemodynamic instability should be
avoided (e.g., women with congenital or acquired cardiac disease). However continu-
ous spinal anesthesia necessitates a greater diameter of dural sac puncture, increasing
the risk of post-dural puncture headache. Unfamiliarity with the continuous spinal
technique may also lead to the possibility of total spinal anesthesia or overdose using
opioids if the catheter is mistaken for an epidural catheter. With both techniques, the
operator is facilitated by a clear visual confirmation that the needle is correctly placed
via the aspiration of cerebrospinal fluid from the needle hub.
4.3 Technique
4.3.1 Consent
As with all procedures a discussion with the parturient with regard to the options for
neuraxial anesthesia as well as the potential benefits and complications is essential.
The preoperative assessment should include a focused obstetric and anesthetic his-
tory as well as any relevant physical examination and review of investigations.
Potential complications from spinal anesthesia may include the following
(Table 4.2):
4.3.2 Preparation
Following consent of the patient there should be communication with all team
members, and equipment and medications should be checked. Full resuscitation
facilities should be available as well as standard patient monitoring (ECG, noninva-
sive blood pressure and SpO2 as a minimum). The worldwide implementation of the
WHO surgical safety checklist has been shown to reduce death rates and complica-
tions in surgery [11]. Following an alert from the National Patient Safety Agency in
2009, the WHO checklist is now an established part of safe theatre practice in the
United Kingdom and has been successfully adapted for maternity theatre cases [12].
50 S. Armstrong
Table 4.2 Complications associated with spinal anesthesia

Related to needle insertion • Post-dural puncture headache
• Block failure
• Permanent injury from nerve damage 1:166,000 [10]
• Backache
• Spinal hematoma 1:220,000
• Meningitis/arachnoiditis
Related to exaggerated physiological • Hypotension
response • Shivering
• High block
• Urinary retention
• Cardiac arrest
Related to intrathecal drugs • Pruritus
• Nausea and vomiting
• Systemic toxicity
• Transient neurological symptoms
4.3.3 Aseptic Technique
Although serious central nervous system infections (meningitis and vertebral canal
abscess) following spinal anesthesia are rare in the obstetric population, their occur-
rence can have potentially devastating consequence in terms of maternal morbidity
and mortality [10]. An aseptic technique should be used involving pre-procedural
handwashing, skin disinfection and maintenance of a sterile field. In the United
Kingdom and Australia, it is recommended that the operator should wear single-use
sterile gloves, sterile surgical gown, hat and face mask but this is not standard prac-
tice worldwide [13, 14]. Chlorhexidine has been shown to be more effective than
iodine solution in terms of onset time, duration of action and ability to eradicate skin
flora [15]. Malhotra et al. showed that a single spray of 0.5% chlorhexidine rendered
the skin sterile as long as the application was thorough and allowed to dry properly
[16]. Chlorhexidine is however neurotoxic and has been implicated in causing
severe adhesive arachnoiditis following accidental contamination of neuraxial block
equipment or epidural injection of chlorhexidine, so caution must be taken when
preparing equipment for these procedures [17].
4.3.4 Needle Selection
Spinal anesthesia may be initiated as either a single-shot technique or a continuous

technique using a spinal catheter. A continuous technique where the spinal catheter
is sited through an epidural catheter once the intrathecal space has been located is
useful after an accidental dural puncture with an epidural needle. In addition, in the
morbidly obese population, it may be easier to locate the epidural space and hence
the dural sac with a rigid epidural needle so this technique may be employed in this
patient population, particularly when there is clinical urgency [7]. For most parturi-
ents undergoing cesarean section where a spinal technique is preferred, the decision
is usually between a single-shot spinal and a CSE technique (see Chap. 5). Larger
needles have the advantage of improved tactile feedback, and they may be techni-
cally easier to use to locate the CSF, particularly in an emergency situation. However
they are also associated with increased morbidity and this must be balanced against
the benefits. Smaller needles (24 gauge or less) are used with an introducer needle
to aid skin puncture and facilitate placement within the interspinous ligament
through which the small-gauge spinal needle can then pass.
Post-dural puncture headache (PDPH) is a significant cause of maternal morbid-
ity for obstetric patients. In most cases it is moderate and self-limiting but in some
situations it may be severe and debilitating [18]. The incidence of post-dural punc-
ture headache varies depending on the size and design of the needle used. Rates of
PDPH are increased where cutting needles (such as Quincke or Tuohy needles) are
used. In a large meta-analysis, Choi et al. showed that parturients have approxi-
mately a 1.5% (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.5% to 1.5%) risk of accidental dural
puncture with epidural insertion and of those, approximately 50% developed PDPH
[19]. Studies since then have shown that after dural puncture with a Tuohy needle,
up to 80% may experience PDPH [20]. As the fibers of the dura are cut, they retract
under tension leaving behind a larger deficit. This is significantly reduced when
using a pencil-point needle (Sprotte, Whitacre or Gertie Marx).
Dural puncture with a 22G Quincke cutting needle has been shown to have a
PDPH incidence of 36% compared to a 22G Whitacre needle in which the incidence
is 0.6–4% [21–23]. Choi’s meta-analysis showed that the risk of PDPH from spinal
needles diminishes with small diameter, atraumatic needles, but was still apprecia-
ble (Whitacre 27-gauge needle 1.7%; 95% CI, 1.6% to 1.8%) [19]. The convention
is to use a non-cutting atraumatic needle that is 24-gauge or smaller. Interestingly
Van de Velde et al. showed that using 29-gauge rather than 27-gauge pencil-point
spinal needles conferred no additional benefit [20].
4.3.5 Positioning of the Patient
The spinal should ideally be performed at L3/4 or lower [24]. The rationale behind
this is that in most subjects the spinal cord ends at the level of the L1/2 interspace,
but that in a small but significant proportion of the population the conus medularis
may extend down to L3. Accidental damage and permanent neurological injury may
occur above this level [24]. Tuffier’s line is a radiological and anatomical landmark
using a virtual line drawn between the superior border of the iliac crests. In general
this line bisects the fourth lumbar vertebra at the level of the spinous process and
therefore the intervertebral space above this is presumed to be L3/4. However
Broadbent et al. demonstrated using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) that the
correct space was identified by only 50% of anesthetists using the landmark tech-
nique, even when those anesthetists were experienced [25]. Only a third of the anes-
thetists correctly identified a specific vertebral level and in general MRI showed that
the interspace identified was actually at least one vertebral level higher than
expected, especially in obese patients [25]. Lee et al. showed similar results using
52 S. Armstrong
ultrasound scans, where only clinical estimates of the spinal level of Tuffier’s line
agreed with the ultrasound measurement only 14% of the time [26]. Shaikh et al.
performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of 14 randomized trials that com-
pared ultrasound imaging with standard methods (no imaging) in the performance
of a lumbar puncture or epidural catheterization [27]. They concluded that ultra-
sound imaging can reduce the risk of failed or traumatic lumbar punctures and epi-
dural catheterizations, as well as the number of needle insertions and redirections.
As a result there is increasing interest in the use of ultrasound to aid the insertion of
spinals and epidurals in obstetrics, particularly in the morbidly obese or those with
significant spinal problems.
Patients may have spinal anesthesia sited in either the sitting or the lateral decu-
bitus position. The choice of which position depends on many factors—the baricity
of the local anesthetic solution, the anesthetist’s or patient’s preferences, and the
clinical situation encountered including whether the fetal heart can be adequately
monitored. Anesthetists should be proficient siting neuraxial blocks in both posi-
tions. Often the sitting position may be considered preferable as the iliac crests and
midline may be easier to palpate, especially in obese patients. There is evidence to
suggest that maternal cardiac output, and therefore uteroplacental blood flow, may
be increased in the lateral position and that the lateral decubitus position may be
preferable in situations where there is fetal distress [28, 29]. However this must be
balanced against the sitting position being technically easier and therefore quicker
in some patients in an emergency situation [30].
Patient position relative to the baricity of the solution to be used should be con-
sidered. Hallworth et al. performed a double-blinded prospective study where 150
parturients were randomized to receive hyperbaric, isobaric, or hypobaric intrathe-
cal solution of bupivacaine during spinal anesthesia induced in either the sitting or
right lateral position [31]. In the lateral position, baricity had no effect on the spread
of sensory levels for bupivacaine compared to the sitting position, whereas there
was a statistically significant difference in spread with the hypobaric solution pro-
ducing higher levels of analgesia than the hyperbaric solution (p = 0.002). However,
the overall differences in maximal spread only differed by one dermatome. Motor
block was significantly (p = 0.029) reduced with increasing baricity, and this trend
was significant (p = 0.033) for the lateral position only. Sia et al. reviewed all ran-
domized controlled trials involving patients undergoing spinal anesthesia for elec-
tive cesarean delivery that compared the use of hyperbaric bupivacaine with plain
bupivacaine [32]. They found the studies of varying quality and methodology and a
lack of clear evidence regarding the superiority of hyperbaric compared with plain
bupivacaine for spinal anesthesia for cesarean delivery.
4.4 Spinal Technique
To reach the subarachnoid space, the spinal needle should pass through the skin and
subcutaneous tissue, the supraspinous ligament, interspinous ligament, ligamentum
flavum and dura mater which is closely adherent to the subarachnoid membrane, into
the CSF. In the UK a fully aseptic technique is employed with the use of a surgical
gown, gloves, mask and hat with full sterile surgical drapes whereas in other areas of
the world such as the United States sterile gloves and drapes suffice. The skin and
subcutaneous tissues are infiltrated with local anesthetic, such as 1% lidocaine. The
most common approach is via the midline where the needle or introducer is placed
centrally perpendicular to the spinous processes and aiming slightly cephalad although
some anesthetic providers may choose to use the paramedian approach. When using
smaller gauge needles (such as 25- or 27-gauge), it will be necessary to use an intro-
ducer needle to aid skin puncture and to more accurately guide the trajectory of the
needle. After local anesthetic has been infiltrated, the introducer needle is inserted in
the midline until it has entered the interspinous ligament and is “gripped” by this liga-
ment. Subsequently the spinal needle is inserted through the introducer needle and
advanced through the tissue layers. Sometimes it is difficult to appreciate the tactile
feedback with a smaller spinal needle but usually an appreciable “pop” is felt as the
needle passes through the ligamentum flavum and dura into the subarachnoid space.
The stylet of the spinal needle is removed and if a successful dural tap has been per-
formed, free flowing clear cerebrospinal fluid should be seen at the hub of the needle.
Once clear cerebrospinal fluid has reached the end of the needle hub, the syringe
containing the local anesthetic dose with or without opioids is attached and cerebro-
spinal fluid aspirated. Once aspiration has been confirmed, the local anesthetic dose is
slowly injected. Some providers confirm at the end of the injection that the needle
remains in the subarachnoid space by aspirating a small amount of cerebrospinal fluid
and reinjecting it. Pain on inserting the needle may be due to inadequate infiltration of
local anesthetic into the soft tissues and may be resolved by removing the spinal
needle and reinfiltrating with further local anesthetic. The anesthetist should never
inject the local anesthetic spinal mixture whilst there is lancinating pain or paresthesia
as this could indicate intraneural injection or injection into the spinal cord itself.
4.5 Intravenous Fluids
Prior to the initiation of spinal anesthesia, every parturient should have large-bore
IV access sited to allow administration of fluids, medications and, if necessary,
blood products. The rapid onset sympathetic block associated with spinal anesthesia
may lead to profound hypotension due to vasodilation for which rapid fluid admin-
istration (to maintain the venous return) and vasoconstrictors, such as phenyleph-
rine, may be required. There has been much debate in the literature over the past few
years regarding the most appropriate vasopressor to use at cesarean section. Animal
and in vitro studies have shown that uteroplacental blood flow is better preserved
using ephedrine versus alpha-adrenergic agonists such as phenylephrine [33].
However in many clinical studies since, including a systemic review and meta-
analysis of trials, alpha-adrenergic agonists were favored over ephedrine for the
preservation of maternal blood pressure at cesarean section in terms of additionally
preserving umbilical arterial blood pH and base excess [34]. This topic is covered in
depth in other areas of this book.
54 S. Armstrong
There has been also much debate about fluid regimes with spinal anesthesia at
cesarean section. Preloading was first described by Wollman and Marx, leading to
the common practice of the patient being preloaded with 10–20 ml/kg of intrave-
nous fluids prior to the administration of spinal anesthesia [35]. However, the effi-
cacy of this technique, particularly with crystalloids was questioned due to the rapid
redistribution of the fluid into the extravascular compartment and that this may lead
to the secretion of atrial natriuretic peptide (ANP) causing peripheral vasodilation
increasing the rate of excretion of the preload fluid [36, 37]. Colloids appear to be
more efficient in preloading in prevention of hypotension following spinal anesthe-
sia, but the decision to use them depends on the clinician’s assessment of benefits
when compared to the disadvantages of colloids, namely cost, effect on coagulation
and hypersensitivity reactions [38, 39]. Chanimov et al. examined the effect of two
different preload solutions, Ringer’s lactate or saline on the neonatal acid-base sta-
tus of newborn infants [40]. They found that there was no difference between the
two in terms of effects on fetal well-being.
Tawfik et al. looked at 1000 mL crystalloid co-load compared to 500 mL colloid
preload in reducing the incidence of hypotension after spinal anesthesia for elective
cesarean delivery [41]. They found that both solutions had similar hemodynamic
effects. The authors concluded that neither technique was able to prevent hypoten-
sion and that any regimes should be combined with vasopressor use.
4.6 Local Anesthetics
Most anesthesia for cesarean delivery under spinal is performed using a hyperbaric
solution of local anesthetic. In comparison to isobaric solutions, hyperbaric solu-
tions result in a faster onset of block with higher maximum sensory level achieved
and a shorter overall duration [42]. The choice of local anesthetic will very much
depend on the expected duration of surgery and the individual anesthetist’s prefer-
ence. In Europe and the United States, the usual choice is to use hyperbaric “heavy”
bupivacaine (0.5% solution in dextrose 8% in the UK, 0.75% solution in dextrose
8.25% in the USA), which usually results in a reliable and dense block with a lower
incidence of spinal-induced hypotension when compared with isobaric or hypobaric
solutions [43]. Another advantage of hyperbaric solutions is their ability to manipu-
late the block height using gravity. Ropivacaine and levobupivacaine use in spinal
anesthesia for cesarean section has been studied given the theoretical advantage of
a reduction in risk of systemic toxicity. However given that the doses are small, this
advantage is minimal. There is also concern that ropivacaine and levobupivacaine
may not provide spinal anesthesia of similar quality to that of bupivacaine. In a
study by Gautier et al. 90 parturients were randomized to receive either bupivacaine
8 mg, levobupivacaine 8 mg or ropivacaine 12 mg (all with sufentanil) and they
observed effective anesthesia in 97%, 80% and 87% of patients respectively [44].
This data in combination with the fact that the FDA has not approved either levobu-
pivacaine or ropivacaine for intrathecal use means both are not currently used in
routine practice [42, 45].
As anesthesia obtained is dose dependent in Europe, relatively larger volumes

are used and this has been shown in studies not to affect the height or density of the
block [46, 47]. In order to achieve a pain-free experience at cesarean section, it has
been suggested that a block to pin-prick to T4 and light touch to T6 are required
[48]. The dose ranges of intrathecal bupivacaine that have been successfully used at
cesarean section range from 4.5 to 15 mg [7]. Conventionally, 10–12.5 mg is used
and less than 8 mg would be considered “low dose”. Teoh et al. have reported cesar-
ean deliveries being successfully carried out using “ultra-low” doses (3.75 mg) of
bupivacaine with significantly less hypotension in these women [49]. Parturients
have a smaller CSF volume and greater sensitivity of the nerve fibers to local anes-
thetic in pregnancy [50]. There is additionally increased cephalad movement of
hyperbaric bupivacaine in the supine position due to the increased lumbar lordosis.
As a result pregnant patients generally require smaller doses of intrathecal local
anesthetic than the general population. Studies using hyperbaric bupivacaine (12–
15 mg) have established that the height of the block is not affected by the patient’s
age, weight, height, vertebral column height, or intra-abdominal pressure [51–53].
Larger doses may result in a longer duration of anesthesia but at the risk of increased
incidence of cervical block [7]. Carvalho et al. aimed to determine the effective dose
(ED[50]/ED[95]) of intrathecal bupivacaine for cesarean delivery in morbidly obese
patients (BMI more than 40). They found that obese and nonobese patients under-
going cesarean delivery do not appear to respond differently to modest alterations
in doses of intrathecal bupivacaine [54].
There have been a number of studies examining both hyperbaric and isobaric
bupivacaine at cesarean section. Ginosaur et al. determined the effective dose
(ED95) of intrathecal hyperbaric bupivacaine with 10 μg fentanyl and 200 μg mor-
phine for planned cesarean section using logistic regression analysis [55]. Sensory
levels (pinprick) were evaluated every 2 min until a T6 level was achieved. The dose
was a success (induction) if a bilateral T6 block occurred in 10 min; otherwise, it
was a failure (no induction). ED50 for success (induction) and success (operation)
were 6.7 and 7.6 mg, respectively, whereas the ED95 for success (induction) and
success (operation) were 11.0 and 11.2 mg. The same group subsequently estab-
lished ED50 and ED95 values for overall anesthetic success with isobaric bupiva-
caine finding them to be 7.25 and 13.0 mg, respectively [56]. No advantages for low
doses could be demonstrated with regard to hypotension, nausea, vomiting, pruri-
tus, or maternal satisfaction, although the authors recognized the study was under-
powered to detect significant differences in secondary outcome variables.
Comparing hyperbaric or plain bupivacaine in combination with fentanyl,
Sarvela et al. found they both provided similar onset, depth, and duration of sensory
anesthesia for cesarean delivery with good maternal satisfaction. Motor block
developed and diminished faster with the hyperbaric solution. In both groups more
than 50% required vasopressor support. Bryson et al. randomly assigned 52 women
to either isobaric bupivacaine 4.5 mg or hyperbaric bupivacaine 12 mg in addition
to 50 μg fentanyl and 0.2 mg morphine. Median cephalad sensory block was C8 in
both groups but the intensity of motor block was significantly less (p <0.001) and of
shorter duration (p <0.001) with bupivacaine 4.5 mg. Incidence of hypotension
56 S. Armstrong
(as defined by use of ephedrine), supplemental analgesia, side effects and patient

satisfaction were similar in both groups, provoking debate as to whether low doses
should really be used given the risk of requiring supplemental analgesia or conver-
sion to general anesthesia compared to minimum additional benefit [7, 57].
The results of these “low doses” studies should be applied cautiously in the rou-
tine clinical practice everywhere. The total number of patients enrolled in all pub-
lished studies is still too small to suggest a routine change in the dose of local
anesthetic to be used for spinal anesthesia for cesarean section.
In addition, usually these studies are not powered to evaluate the analgesic effi-
cacy of such a low doses.
The awareness of the clinical context where a study has been performed is also
very important. The surgical technique used, uterine exteriorization maneuver if
performed during surgery, the intensity of peritoneal manipulation, and the duration
of surgery may significantly affect the density of anesthesia required in order to
obtain a pain-free surgery.
4.7 Opioids
Opioids are added to the local anesthetic solution to improve the quality of intraop-
erative anesthesia (particularly relating to visceral stimulation) and to enhance post-
operative analgesia [58, 59]. They have the great advantage of producing analgesia
without motor or sympathetic blockade. Other advantages include a low level of
maternal sedation compared to systemic opioids, minimal accumulation in the
breast milk and facilitation of early ambulation. They are thought to exert their
action principally on MOP receptors in the substantia gelatinosa of the dorsal horn
by suppressing the release of excitatory neuropeptides from C fibers [60]. Lipid-
soluble drugs like fentanyl or sufentanil have better direct diffusion into neural tis-
sue as well as greater delivery to the dorsal horn by spinal segmental arteries. As a
result they have rapid onset of action but also short duration, which limits their use
postoperatively. Lipid-insoluble opioids such as morphine and diamorphine are
retained in the CSF providing an opioid supply to the spinal cord for longer and a
prolonged duration of action [61]. The dose and type is variable however and poly-
morphism in the μ-opioid receptor may cause populations of different genetic popu-
lations to respond differently [4]. Scrutton and Kinsella described the “rapid
sequence spinal” in order to minimize the anesthetic time in the situation of a cate-
gory 1 cesarean section [62]. (see Chap. 8) In this technique opioids may be omitted
but with the operator prepared for conversion to general anesthetic if required.
4.7.1 Intrathecal Fentanyl
Intrathecal fentanyl is one of the most commonly administered neuraxial opioids

worldwide. It has been shown to improve intraoperative analgesia at cesarean sec-
tion (particularly discomfort associated with uterine exteriorization) and provides
a better transition to postoperative pain medications during recovery from neur-

axial blockade [63]. It is commonly used in doses of 10–25 μg. Dahl et al. per-
formed a systematic review of randomized controlled trials examining the
intraoperative and postoperative analgesic efficacy of intrathecal opioids at cesar-
ean section [64]. Studies were pooled into two groups dependent on spinal fen-
tanyl dose—15–35 μg and 40–60 μg. They established that there was no difference
between groups in the need for supplemental intraoperative analgesia and that in
the lower dose group postoperative pruritus and nausea and vomiting were
significantly reduced.
In addition, in two studies, intrathecal fentanyl when added to bupivacaine or
lidocaine at cesarean section has shown to decrease the incidence of intraoperative
nausea and/or vomiting [59, 65]. Manullang et al. compared intrathecal fentanyl
with IV ondansetron for preventing intraoperative nausea and vomiting during
cesarean deliveries performed under spinal anesthesia. They found no difference in
the incidence of vomiting and treatment for vomiting was not different (p = 0.7).
The intrathecal fentanyl group had a lower cumulative perioperative pain score
than the IV ondansetron group and required less supplementary intraoperative
analgesia [66].
4.7.2 Intrathecal Sufentanil
Intrathecal sufentanil is a thienyl derivative of fentanyl but has higher potency due
to greater lipid solubility. It offers some theoretical advantages over fentanyl includ-
ing faster onset, reduced rostral spread and a lower level of placental transfer. The
short duration of action of sufentanil prevents its use as an effective postoperative
neuraxial analgesic in this setting. Courtney et al. examined sufentanil 0, 10, 15 or
20 μg added to hyperbaric bupivacaine 10.5 mg [67]. They found the duration of
analgesia was prolonged significantly in all patient groups receiving sufentanil as
compared to the control group. Pruritus was significantly increased in the sufentanil
groups. Respiratory depression was not observed in any patient studied. Apgar
scores, umbilical cord gases and Early Neonatal Neurobehavioral Scale scores were
not significantly different among the groups. There have been several studies look-
ing at sufentanil use in cesarean section compared to fentanyl. However these stud-
ies used arbitrarily chosen doses and the spinal fentanyl:sufentanil potency ratio for
cesarean section is currently unknown [59, 68, 69].
4.7.3 Intrathecal Morphine
Preservative free morphine is used intrathecally primarily for the postoperative

analgesic benefit it confers. It requires 45–60 min to achieve peak effect as it remains
within the CSF for a prolonged period of time, spreading rostrally to reach the tri-
geminal nerve distribution 3 h after intrathecal injection [70]. The duration of anal-
gesia is 14–36 h, which may be dose dependent.
58 S. Armstrong
There have been a number of studies looking at intrathecal morphine doses for
cesarean section. In Palmer’s original dose-finding study, 108 parturients were ran-
domized to receive a single dose of intrathecal morphine in the dose range 0.0–
0.5 mg [71]. Rescue PCA morphine use, incidence and severity of side effects, and
need for treatment interventions were recorded for 24 hours. They found a ceiling
effect with doses greater than 75 μg with no clear analgesic dose-response relation-
ship demonstrated above 100 μg. There was no difference between control and
treatment groups or among treatment groups with respect to nausea and vomiting.
Pruritus and the need for treatment interventions increased in direct proportion to
the dose of intrathecal morphine. The authors suggested from this data that there
was no evidence to suggest intrathecal morphine doses above 0.1 mg were justified
for post-cesarean analgesia. Dahl et al. performed a systematic review of random-
ized controlled trials examining the intraoperative and postoperative analgesic effi-
cacy and adverse effects of intrathecal opioids and again recommended an intrathecal
dose of 100 μg morphine [64]. More recently Wong et al. conducted a retrospective
chart review of elective cesarean deliveries in patients who had received either 100
or 200 μg of intrathecal morphine. They found that women receiving 200 μg had
better analgesia postoperatively but more nausea (mean number of episodes of nau-
sea 1.9 ± 1.3 versus 1.6 ± 1.3, p = 0.037) and used more antiemetics (52% versus
24%, p <0.0001). The authors suggested that their results could be used to guide
morphine dosing based on patient preference for analgesia versus side effects [72].
Adverse effects of intrathecal morphine use are well documented including pruritus,
nausea and vomiting, urinary retention and early (at 6 h) or delayed (up to 18 h) respira-
tory depression. Of the potential side effects of neuraxial opioids, respiratory depres-
sion is the most concerning, with many cases of life-threatening respiratory depression
reported [63, 73, 74]. Lipophilic opioids such as fentanyl are more likely to cause
early-onset respiratory depression due to significant vascular uptake and rostral spread
within the CSF [75, 76]. With morphine, systemic vascular absorption may lead to
early-onset respiratory depression within 30–90 min of administration followed by ros-
tral spread in the CSF and slow penetration into the brainstem causing delayed respira-
tory depression up to 18 h after administration [60, 70]. The ASA has formulated
guidelines for the detection, prevention and management of respiratory depression
associated with neuraxial opioids but there are no specific guidelines for the parturient
[77]. In obstetrics it would seem prudent to identify women at high risk of respiratory
depression (the morbidly obese, those on magnesium therapy or those with comorbidi-
ties such as sleep apnea) and increase vigilance when monitoring these women. Pruritus
increases in severity as the morphine dose increases. It has been estimated that 43% of
women receiving 100 μg of intrathecal morphine will experience pruritus [64].
4.7.4 Intrathecal Diamorphine
Diamorphine is a semisynthetic opioid produced by acetylation of morphine. It has

intermediate lipid solubility, which increases its permeability to both hydrophobic
and hydrophilic tissue compartments when compared with either fentanyl or
morphine [63]. It is more lipophilic than morphine so has a faster onset (6–9 min).
It undergoes metabolism to active compounds (6-acetyl morphine and morphine),
increasing their analgesic effects. In addition these metabolites are less lipid solu-
ble than the parent drug limiting their back diffusion into the CSF. Diamorphine
has low protein binding and a high ionized fraction (27%) that increases the bio-
availability for opioid receptors within the spinal cord and increases CSF clear-
ance, decreasing the potential for more serious side effects such as respiratory
depression [78]. As a result of these physicochemical properties, diamorphine is
effective for both intraoperative and postoperative analgesia. Although neuraxial
diamorphine is commonly used for postoperative pain relief after cesarean section
in the United Kingdom, it should be noted that it is not actually licensed for
intrathecal use [79].
There have been a number of studies looking at neuraxial diamorphine for intra-
operative and postoperative pain relief in cesarean section. Both Skilton et al. and
Kelly et al. examined dose-response relationships (up to 0.375 mg of diamorphine)
and found improved analgesia (as determined by the need for rescue analgesia)
without a ceiling effect [80, 81]. Stacey et al. studied doses up to 1 mg intrathecally
and again found 24-h morphine consumption was significantly lower in the 1 mg
group (45% requiring no morphine at all) [82]. Saravanan et al. examined 200
women undergoing cesarean section under spinal with bupivacaine and diamor-
phine and concluded that the ED95 to prevent intraoperative supplementation was
400 μg providing a mean time interval to first request for analgesia of 601 min.
However the incidence of nausea and vomiting was 56% and the incidence of pru-
ritus was 80% [83]. Finally Cowan et al. randomized 74 patients undergoing elec-
tive cesarean section to receive intrathecally either 300 μg of diamorphine or 20 μg
fentanyl with hyperbaric bupivacaine [84]. There was no difference in intraopera-
tive analgesia requirements and they demonstrated reduced pain scores in the dia-
morphine group at 12 h postoperatively as compared to only 1 h in the fentanyl
group.
4.7.5 Intrathecal Opioid Tolerance
It is commonplace for anesthetists to use both a short-acting, lipid-soluble opioid

such as fentanyl or sufentanil in combination with a long-acting, lipid-insoluble opi-
oid such as morphine (but not diamorphine) at cesarean section in order to maximize
both intraoperative and postoperative analgesia. There is some debate in the literature
however, as the administration of both together leads to acute opioid tolerance and a
reduced response to the longer acting opioid. Carvalho et al. randomized 40 women
having elective cesarean delivery to receive spinal anesthesia with hyperbaric bupiva-
caine 12 mg, morphine 200 μg, and fentanyl 0, 5, 10 or 25 μg. Each patient received
intravenous patient-controlled analgesia morphine for 24 h postoperatively. They
found postoperative pain scores were higher in patients receiving fentanyl 5, 10 and
25 μg compared to fentanyl 0 μg control group (p = 0.003), but there was no differ-
ence in postoperative analgesia requirements [85]. This followed on from a study by
60 S. Armstrong
Cooper et al. comparing fentanyl 25 μg with normal saline in combination with 10 mg
heavy bupivacaine [86]. They found no difference in intravenous PCA morphine con-
sumption in the first 6 h after cesarean section but found a 63% increase in morphine
consumption between 6 and 23 h. More research is required in this area before any
specific recommendations can be made regarding neuraxial opioid tolerance.
4.8 Adjuvants
A number of drugs have been suggested as adjuvants to opioids and bupivacaine in

spinal anesthesia for cesarean section in order to improve the block. Clonidine has
been shown to improve intraoperative analgesia, decrease shivering and reduce peri-
incisional hyperalgesia in cesarean section [87]. However it has also been associ-
ated with hypotension and sedation and the FDA has issued a “black box” warning
against its use in obstetric patients because of concerns about hemodynamic insta-
bility [7]. Cossu et al. performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the
efficacy and incidence of adverse events related to the use of neostigmine in obstet-
ric anesthesia [88]. They concluded that neuraxial administration of neostigmine
significantly reduces local anesthetic consumption without serious adverse side
effects to the mother or fetus. However, neostigmine is only recommended for epi-
dural administration as intrathecal use was found to significantly increase the inci-
dence of maternal nausea and vomiting.
4.9 Continuous Spinal Analgesia
Continuous spinal analgesia involves the use of a microcatheter (28-gauge) or small

catheter into the intrathecal space. Theoretically this technique should offer many
advantages—producing a rapid onset, accurate, titratable, continuous dense spinal
block with the ability to use low doses of local anesthetic and as a result minimize
hemodynamic instability [4]. It may be of use in women in whom the siting of an
epidural would be difficult—those who have had previous spinal surgery and a
scarred epidural space or morbidly obese women. However, the technique is under-
utilized due to unavailability and unfamiliarity with the necessary equipment, high
failure rates and an increase in post-dural puncture headache rates [89, 90]. There
remains a paucity of randomized controlled trials in the literature and a lack of con-
sensus regarding dose of local anesthetic for cesarean section.
Microcatheters were used to provide obstetric anesthesia and analgesia in the
1980s, but in the early 1990s there was a small case series reported of cauda equina
syndrome and permanent neurological injury following the use of 28–32G spinal
microcatheters and 5% lidocaine solution in the general surgical and orthopedic
populations [91]. The food and drug administration authority subsequently with-
drew the licensing of catheters below 24 gauge.
Although in theory the intrathecal catheter may be used for delivery at cesarean
section, there are often more complications than initially anticipated. The epidural
catheter and filter has a dead space of approximately 1 ml or more. In addition the
epidural catheter has a number of orifices spaced from the tip. The orifice from
which the injectate exits, and thus the spread of the local anesthetic, will depend on
the pressure with which it is injected which cannot reasonably be predicted or con-
trolled for between operators. All of these factors may make estimating the correct
dose of local anesthetic to use difficult and the use of these catheters unreliable at
cesarean section.
References
1. Mhyre JM, Riesner MN, Polley LS, Naughton NN. A series of anesthesia-related maternal
deaths in Michigan, 1985–2003. Anesthesiology. 2007;106(6):1096–104.
2. Paech MJ, Scott KL, Clavisi O, Chua S, McDonnell N. ANZCA trials group. A prospective
study of awareness and recall associated with general anaesthesia for caesarean section. Int
J Obstet Anesth. 2008;17(4):298–303.
3. Purva M, Russell IF, Kinsella M. Caesarean section anaesthesia: a technique and failure rate.
In: Raising the Standard: a compendium of audit recipes. Royal College of Anaesthetists;
2012. p. 220–1.
4. Armstrong S, Walters M, Cheesman K. Neuraxial anaesthesia for caesarean delivery. In:
Clarke V, Fernando R, Van de Velde M, editors. Oxford textbook of obstetric anaesthesia.
Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2016.
5. Riley ET, Cohen SE, Macario A, Desai JB, Ratner EF. Spinal versus epidural anesthesia for
cesarean section: a comparison of time efficiency, costs, charges, and complications. Anesth
Analg. 1995;80(4):709–12.
6. Garry M, Davies S. Failure of regional blockade for caesarean section. Int J Obstet Anesth.
2002;11(1):9–12.
7. Tsen L.. Anaesthesia for cesarean delivery. In: Chestnut DH, editors. Chestnut's obstetric anes-
thesia: principles and practice. 2014.
8. Kuhnert BR, Philipson EH, Pimental R, Kuhnert PM, Zuspan KJ, Syracuse CD. Lidocaine
disposition in mother, fetus, and neonate after spinal anesthesia. Anesth Analg. 1986;65(2):
139–44.
9. Kuhnert BR, Zuspan KJ, Kuhnert PM, Syracuse CD, Brown DE. Bupivacaine disposition in
mother, fetus, and neonate after spinal anesthesia for cesarean section. Anesth Analg.
1987;66(5):407–12.
10. Cook TM, Counsell D, Wildsmith JAW. Major complications of central neuraxial block: report
on the third national audit project of the royal college of anaesthetists. Br J Anaesth.
2009;102(2):179–90.
11. WHO guidelines for safe surgery 2009: Safe surgery saves lives. World Health Organisation.
2009.
12. de Vries EN, Prins HA, Crolla RMPH, den Outer AJ, van Andel G, van Helden SH, et al.
Effect of a comprehensive surgical safety system on patient outcomes. N Engl J Med.
2010;363(20):1928–37.
13. Department of health (DOH). Uniforms and workwear: An evidence base for developing local
policy. DOH 2007. Accessed Mar 2014.
14. Benhamou D, Bouaziz H, Chassard D, Ducloy J-C, Fuzier V, Laffon M, et al. Anaesthetic
practices for scheduled caesarean delivery: a 2005 french national survey. Eur J Anaesthesiol.
2009;26(8):694–700.
15. Checketts MR. Wash & go—but with what? Skin antiseptic solutions for central neuraxial
block. Anaesthesia. 2012;67(8):819–22.
16. Malhotra S, Dharmadasa A, Yentis SM. One vs two applications of chlorhexidine/ethanol for
disinfecting the skin: implications for regional anaesthesia. Anaesthesia. 2011;66(7):574–8.
62 S. Armstrong
17. Killeen T, Kamat A, Walsh D, Parker A, Aliashkevich A. Severe adhesive arachnoiditis result-
ing in progressive paraplegia following obstetric spinal anaesthesia: a case report and review.
Anaesthesia. 2012;67(12):1386–94.
18. Armstrong S, Fernando R, Tamilselvan P, Stewart A, Columb M. The effect of serial in vitro
haemodilution with maternal cerebrospinal fluid and crystalloid on thromboelastographic
(TEG(®) ) blood coagulation parameters, and the implications for epidural blood patching.
Anaesthesia. 2015;70(2):135–41.
19. Choi PT, Galinski SE, Takeuchi L, Lucas S, Tamayo C, Jadad AR. PDPH is a common com-
plication of neuraxial blockade in parturients: a meta-analysis of obstetrical studies. Can
J Anaesth. 2003;50(5):460–9.
20. Van de Velde M, Schepers R, Berends N, Vandermeersch E, De Buck F. Ten years of experi-
ence with accidental dural puncture and post-dural puncture headache in a tertiary obstetric
anaesthesia department. Int J Obstet Anesth. 2008;17(4):329–35.
21. Stocks GM, Wooller DJ, Young JM, Fernando R. Postpartum headache after epidural blood
patch: investigation and diagnosis. Br J Anaesth. 2000;84(3):407–10.
22. Tourtellotte WW, Henderson WG, Tucker RP, Walker JE, Kokman E. A randomized, double-
blind clinical trial comparing the 22 versus 26 gauge needle in the production of the post-
lumbar puncture syndrome in normal individuals. Headache: J Head Face Pain. 1972;12(2):
73–8.
23. Turnbull DK, Shepherd DB. Post-dural puncture headache: pathogenesis, prevention and treat-
ment. Br J Anaesth. 2003;91(5):718–29.
24. Reynolds F. Damage to the conus medullaris following spinal anaesthesia. Anaesthesia.
2001;56(3):238–47.
25. Broadbent CR, Maxwell WB, Ferrie R, Wilson DJ, Gawne-Cain M. Ability of anaesthetists to
identify a marked lumbar interspace. (Nuffield department of anaesthetics, john Radcliffe hos-
pital, oxford, United Kingdom). Anaesthesia. 2000;55:1122–6. Pain Practice 2001;1(2):
199–200
26. Lee AJ, Ranasinghe JS, Chehade JM, Arheart K, Saltzman BS, Penning DH, Birnbach
DJ. Ultrasound assessment of the vertebral level of the intercristal line in pregnancy. Anesth
Analg. 2011;113(3):559–64.
27. Shaikh F, Brzezinski J, Alexander S, Arzola C, Carvalho JCA, Beyene J, Sung L. Ultrasound
imaging for lumbar punctures and epidural catheterisations: systematic review and meta-
analysis. BMJ. 2013;346:f1720.
28. Armstrong S, Fernando R, Columb M, Jones T. Cardiac index in term pregnant women in the
sitting, lateral, and supine positions: an observational, crossover study. Anesth Analg.
2011;113(2):318–22.
29. Yun EM, Marx GF, Santos AC. The effects of maternal position during induction of combined
spinal-epidural anesthesia for cesarean delivery. Anesth Analg. 1998;87(3):614–8.
30. Inglis A, Daniel M, McGrady E. Maternal position during induction of spinal anaesthesia for
caesarean section. A comparison of right lateral and sitting positions. Anaesthesia. 1995;50(4):
363–5.
31. Hallworth SP, Fernando R, Columb MO, Stocks GM. The effect of posture and baricity on the
spread of intrathecal bupivacaine for elective cesarean delivery. Anesth Analg. 2005;100(4):
1159–65.
32. Heng Sia AT, Tan KH, Sng BL, Lim Y, Chan ESY, Siddiqui FJ. Hyperbaric versus plain bupi-
vacaine for spinal anesthesia for cesarean delivery. Anesth Analg. 2015;120(1):132–40.
33. Ralston DH, Shnider SM, DeLorimier AA. Effects of equipotent ephedrine, metaraminol,
mephentermine, and methoxamine on uterine blood flow in the pregnant ewe. Anesthesiology.
1974;40(4):354–70.
34. Lee A, Ngan Kee WD, Gin T. A quantitative, systematic review of randomized controlled trials
of ephedrine versus phenylephrine for the management of hypotension during spinal anesthe-
sia for cesarean delivery. Anesth Analg. 2002;94(4):920–6. table of contents
35. Wollman SB, Marx GF. Acute hydration for prevention of hypotension of spinal anesthesia in
parturients. Anesthesiology. 1968;29(2):374–80.
36. Pouta AM, Karinen J, Vuolteenaho OJ, Laatikainen TJ. Effect of intravenous fluid preload on
vasoactive peptide secretion during caesarean section under spinal anaesthesia. Anaesthesia.
1996;51(2):128–32.
37. Ueyama H, He YL, Tanigami H, Mashimo T, Yoshiya I. Effects of crystalloid and colloid
preload on blood volume in the parturient undergoing spinal anesthesia for elective cesarean
section. Anesthesiology. 1999;91(6):1571–6.
38. Cyna AM, Andrew M, Emmett RS, Middleton P, Simmons SW. Techniques for preventing
hypotension during spinal anaesthesia for caesarean section. Cochrane Database Syst Rev.
2006;4:CD002251.
39. Bajwa SJS, Kulshrestha A, Jindal R. Co-loading or pre-loading for prevention of hypotension
after spinal anaesthesia! A therapeutic dilemma. Anesth Essays Res. 2013;7(2):155–9.
40. Chanimov M, Gershfeld S, Cohen ML, Sherman D, Bahar M. Fluid preload before spinal
anaesthesia in caesarean section: the effect on neonatal acid-base status. Eur J Anaesthesiol.
2006;23(8):676–9.
41. Tawfik MM, Hayes SM, Jacoub FY, Badran BA, Gohar FM, Shabana AM, et al. Comparison
between colloid preload and crystalloid co-load in cesarean section under spinal anesthesia: a
randomized controlled trial. Int J Obstet Anesth. 2014;23(4):317–23.
42. Khaw KS, Ngan Kee WD, Wong M, Ng F, Lee A. Spinal ropivacaine for cesarean delivery: a
comparison of hyperbaric and plain solutions. Anesth Analg. 2002;94(3):680–5. table of contents
43. Vercauteren MP, Coppejans HC, Hoffmann VL, Saldien V, Adriaensen HA. Small-dose hyper-
baric versus plain bupivacaine during spinal anesthesia for cesarean section. Anesth Analg.
1998;86(5):989–93.
44. Gautier P, De Kock M, Huberty L, Demir T, Izydorczic M, Vanderick B. Comparison of the
effects of intrathecal ropivacaine, levobupivacaine, and bupivacaine for caesarean section. Br
J Anaesth. 2003;91(5):684–9.
45. Oğün CO, Kirgiz EN, Duman A, Okesli S, Akyürek C. Comparison of intrathecal isobaric
bupivacaine-morphine and ropivacaine-morphine for caesarean delivery. Br J Anaesth.
2003;90(5):659–64.
46. Lanz E, Schmitz D. No effect of injection volume on sensory and motor blockade in isobaric
spinal anesthesia. Reg Anaesth. 1990;13(7):153–8.
47. Russell IF. Spinal anesthesia for cesarean delivery with dilute solutions of plain bupivacaine:
the relationship between infused volume and spread. Reg Anesth. 1991;16(3):130–6.
48. Russell IF. At caesarean section under regional anaesthesia, it is essential to test sensory block
with light touch before allowing surgery to start. Int J Obstet Anesth. 2006;15(4):294–7.
49. Teoh WHL, Thomas E, Tan HM. Ultra-low dose combined spinal-epidural anesthesia with
intrathecal bupivacaine 3.75 mg for cesarean delivery: a randomized controlled trial. Int
J Obstet Anesth. 2006;15(4):273–8.
50. Kestin IG. Spinal anaesthesia in obstetrics. Br J Anaesth. 1991;66(5):596–607.
51. Hartwell BL, Aglio LS, Hauch MA, Datta S. Vertebral column length and spread of hyperbaric
subarachnoid bupivacaine in the term parturient. Reg Anesth. 1991;16(1):17–9.
52. Norris MC. Height, weight, and the spread of subarachnoid hyperbaric bupivacaine in the term
parturient. Anesth Analg. 1988;67(6):555–8.
53. Ozkan Seyhan T, Orhan-Sungur M, Basaran B, Savran Karadeniz M, Demircan F, Xu Z, Sessler
DI. The effect of intra-abdominal pressure on sensory block level of single-shot spinal anesthe-
sia for cesarean section: an observational study. Int J Obstet Anesth. 2015;24(1):35–40.
54. Carvalho B, Collins J, Drover DR, Atkinson Ralls L, Riley ET. ED(50) and ED(95) of intrathe-
cal bupivacaine in morbidly obese patients undergoing cesarean delivery. Anesthesiology.
2011;114(3):529–35.
55. Ginosar Y, Mirikatani E, Drover DR, Cohen SE, Riley ET. ED50 and ED95 of intrathecal
hyperbaric bupivacaine coadministered with opioids for cesarean delivery. Anesthesiology.
2004;100(3):676–82.
56. Carvalho B, Durbin M, Drover DR, Cohen SE, Ginosar Y, Riley ET. The ED50 and ED95 of
intrathecal isobaric bupivacaine with opioids for cesarean delivery. Anesthesiology.
2005;103(3):606–12.
64 S. Armstrong
57. Bryson GL, Macneil R, Jeyaraj LM, Rosaeg OP. Small dose spinal bupivacaine for cesarean
delivery does not reduce hypotension but accelerates motor recovery. Can J Anaesth.
2007;54(7):531–7.
58. Choi DH, Ahn HJ, Kim MH. Bupivacaine-sparing effect of fentanyl in spinal anesthesia for
cesarean delivery. Reg Anesth Pain Med. 2000;25(3):240–5.
59. Dahlgren G, Hultstrand C, Jakobsson J, Norman M, Eriksson EW, Martin H. Intrathecal suf-
entanil, fentanyl, or placebo added to bupivacaine for cesarean section. Anesth Analg.
1997;85(6):1288–93.
60. Cousins MJ, Mather LE. Intrathecal and epidural administration of opioids. Anesthesiology.
1984;61(3):276–310.
61. Bernards CM, Hill HF. Physical and chemical properties of drug molecules governing their
diffusion through the spinal meninges. Anesthesiology. 1992;77(4):750–6.
62. Scrutton M, Kinsella SM. The immediate caesarean section: rapid-sequence spinal and risk of
infection. Int J Obstet Anesth. 2003;12(2):144.
63. Armstrong S, Stocks G. Postoperative analgesia after caesarean delivery. In: Clarke V,

Fernando R, Van de Velde M, editors. Oxford textbook of obstetric anaesthesia. Oxford:
Oxford University Press; 2016.
64. Dahl JB, Jeppesen IS, Jørgensen H, Wetterslev J, Møiniche S. Intraoperative and postoperative
analgesic efficacy and adverse effects of intrathecal opioids in patients undergoing cesarean
section with spinal anesthesia: a qualitative and quantitative systematic review of randomized
controlled trials. Anesthesiology. 1999;91(6):1919–27.
65. Palmer CM, Voulgaropoulos D, Alves D. Subarachnoid fentanyl augments lidocaine spinal
anesthesia for cesarean delivery. Reg Anesth. 1995;20(5):389–94.
66. Manullang TR, Viscomi CM, Pace NL. Intrathecal fentanyl is superior to intravenous ondan-
setron for the prevention of perioperative nausea during cesarean delivery with spinal anesthe-
sia. Anesth Analg. 2000;90(5):1162–6.
67. Courtney MA, Bader AM, Hartwell B, Hauch M, Grennan MJ, Datta S. Perioperative analge-
sia with subarachnoid sufentanil administration. Reg Anesth. 1992;17(5):274–8.
68. Lee JH, Chung KH, Lee JY, Chun DH, Yang HJ, Ko TK, Yun WS. Comparison of fentanyl and
sufentanil added to 0.5% hyperbaric bupivacaine for spinal anesthesia in patients undergoing
cesarean section. Korean J Anesthesiol. 2011;60(2):103–8.
69. Ngiam SK, Chong JL. The addition of intrathecal sufentanil and fentanyl to bupivacaine for
caesarean section. Singap Med J. 1998;39(7):290–4.
70. Bromage PR, Camporesi EM, Durant PA, Nielsen CH. Rostral spread of epidural morphine.
Anesthesiology. 1982;56(6):431–6.
71. Palmer CM, Emerson S, Volgoropolous D, Alves D. Dose-response relationship of intrathecal
morphine for postcesarean analgesia. Anesthesiology. 1999;90(2):437–44.
72. Wong JY, Carvalho B, Riley ET. Intrathecal morphine 100 and 200 μg for post-cesarean deliv-
ery analgesia: a trade-off between analgesic efficacy and side effects. Int J Obstet Anesth.
2013;22(1):36–41.
73. Glynn CJ, Mather LE, Cousins MJ, Wilson PR, Graham JR. Spinal narcotics and respiratory
depression. Lancet. 1979;2(8138):356–7.
74. Scott DB, McClure J. Selective epidural analgesia. Lancet. 1979;1(8131):1410–1.
75. Cohen SE, Labaille T, Benhamou D, Levron JC. Respiratory effects of epidural sufentanil after
cesarean section. Anesth Analg. 1992;74(5):677–82.
76. Negre I, Gueneron JP, Ecoffey C, Penon C, Gross JB, Levron JC, Samii K. Ventilatory response
to carbon dioxide after intramuscular and epidural fentanyl. Anesth Analg. 1987;66(8):707–10.
77. Practice guidelines for the prevention, detection, and management of respiratory depression
associated with neuraxial opioid administration: An updated report by the American Society
of Anesthesiologists task force on neuraxial opioids and the American Society of Regional
Anesthesia and Pain Medicine. Anesthesiology 2015, Dec 2011.
78. Hallworth SP, Fernando R, Bell R, Parry MG, Lim GH. Comparison of intrathecal and epidural
diamorphine for elective caesarean section using a combined spinal-epidural technique. Br
J Anaesth. 1999;82(2):228–32.
79. Giovannelli M, Bedforth N, Aitkenhead A. Survey of intrathecal opioid usage in the UK. Eur
J Anaesthesiol. 2008;25(2):118–22.
80. Skilton RW, Kinsella SM, Smith A, Thomas TA. Dose response study of subarachnoid diamor-
phine for analgesia after elective caesarean section. Int J Obstet Anesth. 1999;8(4):231–5.
81. Kelly MC, Carabine UA, Mirakhur RK. Intrathecal diamorphine for analgesia after caesarean
section. A dose finding study and assessment of side-effects. Anaesthesia. 1998;53(3):231–7.
82. Stacey R, Jones R, Kar G, Poon A. High-dose intrathecal diamorphine for analgesia after cae-
sarean section. Anaesthesia. 2001;56(1):54–60.
83. Saravanan S, Robinson APC, Qayoum Dar A, Columb MO, Lyons GR. Minimum dose of
intrathecal diamorphine required to prevent intraoperative supplementation of spinal anaesthe-
sia for caesarean section. Br J Anaesth. 2003;91(3):368–72.
84. Cowan CM, Kendall JB, Barclay PM, Wilkes RG. Comparison of intrathecal fentanyl and
diamorphine in addition to bupivacaine for caesarean section under spinal anaesthesia. Br
J Anaesth. 2002;89(3):452–8.
85. Carvalho B, Drover DR, Ginosar Y, Cohen SE, Riley ET. Intrathecal fentanyl added to bupiva-
caine and morphine for cesarean delivery may induce a subtle acute opioid tolerance. Int
J Obstet Anesth. 2012;21(1):29–34.
86. Cooper DW, Lindsay SL, Ryall DM, Kokri MS, Eldabe SS, Lear GA. Does intrathecal fentanyl
produce acute cross-tolerance to i.V. Morphine? Br J Anaesth. 1997;78(3):311–3.
87. Lavand'homme PM, Roelants F, Waterloos H, Collet V, De Kock MF. An evaluation of the
postoperative antihyperalgesic and analgesic effects of intrathecal clonidine administered dur-
ing elective cesarean delivery. Anesth Analg. 2008;107(3):948–55.
88. Cossu AP, De Giudici LM, Piras D, Mura P, Scanu M, Cossu M, et al. A systematic review of
the effects of adding neostigmine to local anesthetics for neuraxial administration in obstetric
anesthesia and analgesia. Int J Obstet Anesth. 2015;24(3):237–46.
89. Alonso E, Gilsanz F, Gredilla E, Martínez B, Canser E, Alsina E. Observational study of con-
tinuous spinal anesthesia with the catheter-over-needle technique for cesarean delivery. Int
J Obstet Anesth. 2009, Apr;18(2):137–41.
90. Arkoosh VA, Palmer CM, Yun EM, Sharma SK, Bates JN, Wissler RN, et al. A randomized,
double-masked, multicenter comparison of the safety of continuous intrathecal labor analgesia
using a 28-gauge catheter versus continuous epidural labor analgesia. Anesthesiology.
2008;108(2):286–98.
91. Rigler ML, Drasner K, Krejcie TC, Yelich SJ, Scholnick FT, DeFontes J, Bohner D. Cauda
equina syndrome after continuous spinal anesthesia. Anesth Analg. 1991;72(3):275–81.
Epidural and CSE Anesthesia
(Technique–Drugs) 5
Giorgio Capogna
“Last November, whilst giving a spinal anaesthetic, it occurred to me to block the

nerves between the intervertebral spaces and the meninges rather than pierce the
dura.” This is the first description on the intentional injection of anesthetic drugs
in the lumbar epidural space, as described by the Spanish surgeon Fidel Pages in
1921 [1].
Ten years later, the Italian surgeon Achille Mario Dogliotti described, published,
and popularized the loss of resistance technique to identify the epidural space,
which remains in use at present and is commonly referred to as the loss of resistance
to saline (LORS) technique or its variation [2].
A few years later, Graffagnino and Seyler published one of the first reports on the
use of epidural block in obstetrics, which included ten cesarean sections: “in the
Charity Hospital of New Orleans, we have attempted to add to the anesthetic arma-
mentarium of the obstetrician another procedure, epidural anesthesia, which we
have thus far administered to 76 patients [3].”
5.1 Epidural Technique
The following description of the epidural technique is that used for 30 years by the
author, and it is consistent with the original one described by Dogliotti in 1935 and
with the subsequent modifications adapted for the obstetric patient by Bromage,
Moore, and Bonica [4–7].
G. Capogna
e-mail: dipartimento.anestesia@gruppogarofalo.com

DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-42053-0_5
68 G. Capogna
5.1.1 Preparation and Position of the Patient
Epidural block may be performed in a lateral or in a sitting position. The favorite,

routine position of the author is the lateral one. Aortocaval compression is minimized
in the lateral position and uteroplacental blood flow is optimized; in addition, there is
a lower incidence of epidural vein cannulation compared to the sitting position [8].
However, since the ability to identify the midline of the back and iliac crests may
be easier and the distance to the epidural space is reduced [9, 10], the sitting position
may be preferred particularly for trainees or for obese women [11].
The parturient is placed in the lateral position with her back at the edge of the
bed, legs drawn up to her abdomen, upper arm lying across her chest and the lower
arm lying tight on the bed, with the head resting on a pillow, flexed on the abdomen.
Every effort is made to keep the spinous process of the vertebral column parallel to
the table and the patient well flexed, so as to open the interspaces. In order to do that
the shoulders and the iliac crest should be perpendicular to the table plane.
However, parturients may not flex their back very well, due to the gravid uterus.
Repeated or inappropriate efforts to improve dorsal flexion may result in bring-
ing the upper shoulder forward toward the abdomen which rotates the spinous pro-
cess of the vertebral column out of the parallel alignment with the bed surface and
thus favoring the contact of the epidural needle on the vertebral bony arch during the
attempt to reach the epidural space.
The epidural anesthesia tray and all the material necessary for the procedure should
have been previously placed on a cart at the disposal of the operator. The cart is placed
conveniently close to the back of the patient and to the right side of the operator
(unless he/she is left handed, and in this case it will be placed on the left side).
The anesthesiologist wearing cap, facial mask, and sterile gloves applies the anti-
septic solution, usually more than once, over a wide area, including the iliac crest
region down to the surface of the bed. While the applied antiseptic solution is dry-
ing, the anesthesia tray is checked for proper materials.
5.1.2 Landmarks
It is commonly believed that Tuffier’s line (the transverse line connecting the tops
of the iliac crests) intersects the spine at the L4 spinous process or at the L4-L5
intervertebral space. However, full-term parturient women undergo various physical
changes and determining the vertebral level with Tuffier’s line based on palpation
may not be very accurate. Vertebral levels are more cephalad in the parturient
women compared to the non-parturient women and this should be taken into account
when performing an epidural block in term pregnant women [12].
Several spinous processes and interspaces should be palpated to determine the
widest interspace and the possible presence of scoliosis or vertebral column
deviations.
Since the epidural space is widest at L2-L3 and the spinal cord usually ends at L1
but may extend to L2, midlumbar interspaces are usually selected.
5 Epidural and CSE Anesthesia (Technique–Drugs) 69
5.1.3 Procedure
The index finger and the middle finger of the nondominant hand are placed parallel
to the spine, indicating the interspace chosen (“landmark fingers”) (Fig. 5.1). They
facilitate the proper placement of the needle in the center of the interspinous space,
indicate the landmark for the Tuohy needle insertion, and should be kept in place
until the Tuohy needle reaches the next landmark, which is the ligamentum
flavum.
A small gauge needle attached to a 5 mL disposable syringe containing the local
anesthetic solution (such as 1 or 2% lidocaine) is inserted through the skin to make
a wheal over the selected interspace and eventually gently inserted into the underly-
ing tissues until the interspinous ligament, while the local anesthetic solution is
slowly injected.
The angle of penetration should be the same as planned for the epidural needle.
Without moving the “landmark fingers,” the epidural Tuohy needle is inserted
through the skin wheal previously made exactly in the middle of the
interspace.
The epidural needle is held with the palm of the hand resting on the hub, and the
shaft of the needle between the fingers of the dominant hand (Fig. 5.2).
Once inserted into the skin, the epidural needle should be advanced with the
bevel directed cephalad, taking care to remain in the midline. The needle must be
Fig. 5.1 Choice of lumbar

interspace
Fig. 5.2 Introduction of

the needle
70 G. Capogna
Fig. 5.3 Loss of resistance
advanced very slowly but constantly, without any interruption, in order to be able to
recognize the different densities of the underlying tissues (subcutaneous tissue,
supraspinous and interspinous ligaments) during its advancement. As soon as it
reaches the supraspinous ligament, a resistance is encountered due to the nature of
the bevel and the density of the ligament. The needle is then advanced through the
loose interspinous ligament which offers much less resistance than the supraspinous
ligament (often felt as a “no resistance feeling” in the obstetric patient), until the
point of the needle is felt to meet the third, and greater, point of resistance, the liga-
mentum flavum. This feeling of a greater increase of resistance is often associated
with a “crunch” that indicates the initial penetration of the needle in the rear wall of
the ligamentum flavum. Instead, if the resistance is absolute the bevel of the needle
may be against the bony vertebral arch and any attempt to force the needle may
result in pain for the patient due to periostium stimulation. In this case, the needle
should be withdrawn, its angle of inclination checked, and the direction changed
accordingly.
As soon as the point of the needle has engaged the ligamentum flavum, the
advancement of the needle is immediately stopped, and the hands of the opera-
tor must change their initial position. The back of the nondominant hand (usu-
ally the left hand) rests firmly against the patient’s back to prevent advancement
as the needle enters the epidural space with the hub of the needle grasped
between the thumb and index fingers. The dominant hand (usually the right
hand) removes the stylet and gently attaches to the needle a disposable 10 mL
loss of resistance syringe containing a few milliliters (5–7 mL) of sterile saline
solution.
Constant, unremitting, pressure is now exerted on the plunger of the syringe by
the thumb of the dominant hand and since the content of the syringe (saline) is
incompressible, the syringe and needle advance together solely by means of the
pressure exerted by the operator on the plunger of the syringe (Fig. 5.3).
As long as the needle point is in the ligamentum flavum there is a great resistance
to injection and the pressure exerted by the thumb on the plunger causes the advance-
ment of the needle.
As the point of the needle emerges from the ligamentum flavum into the epidural
space, the resistance suddenly disappears and the advancement of the needle
immediately stops, since the driving force exerted on the piston is discharged by the
sudden entering of the liquid in the epidural space.
When the epidural needle is positioned in the epidural space, the syringe is
removed and the needle observed for the appearance of spinal fluid (a few drops of
syringe solution may leak from the needle).
5.1.4 Air or Rebound Test
After negative aspiration for blood or cerebrospinal fluid, proper placement of

the needle may be further checked with the air or rebound test. A very small
amount of air (1–1.5 mL) is drawn in the loss of resistance syringe and attached
to the needle and the plunger of the syringe is tapped sharply. A positive test
results when the syringe collapses and does not refill at all, or only refills
0.1–0.2 mL.
This rapid injection of a very few millimeters of air, mixed with the previously
injected liquid already in the epidural space, may occasionally result in small air-
water bubbles escaping from the hub of the needle. If this occurs, it may be consid-
ered another indirect sign of confirmation that the epidural needle is in the right
place.
When the plunger rebounds, a partially inserted bevel of the needle in the epi-
dural space could be suspected.
5.1.5 Catheter Placement and Needle Removal
Once the needle is in place, the epidural catheter is advanced through the needle by
the dominant hand while the back of the nondominant hand (usually the left hand)
keeps resting firmly against the patient’s back with the hub of the needle grasped
between the thumb and index fingers.
The parturient should be warned that she might feel an “intense tingle” in her hip
or legs when the catheter is advanced a few centimeters beyond the bevel. Such
paresthesia may occur when the epidural catheter contacts a spinal nerve root,
depending on the type and material of the catheter, on the needle position (midline,
paramedian), and on the epidural anatomy of the patient. It may be interpreted as an
indirect sign that the catheter is in the epidural space.
Before removing the needle, the catheter should be aspirated with a 2 or 5 mL
empty syringe in order to detect blood or cerebrospinal fluid which are, respec-
tively, signs of accidental intravascular or subarachnoid placement of the
catheter.
If the aspiration test is negative, the needle is removed. This is an important
maneuver since the catheter may be dislodged from the epidural space while
removing the needle. The catheter is grasped 1–2 cm distal to the hub of the
needle by the thumb and the index finger of the dominant hand while the thumb
and the index finger of the other hand pull the needle out of the back of the
72 G. Capogna
patient. The dominant hand should attempt to advance the catheter while the
nondominant is pulling out the catheter. At the end of the procedure, the catheter
distance marks are checked and the catheter properly positioned. Placement of
the catheter more than 5 cm in the lumbar epidural space may be associated with
a higher incidence of unilateral block and a greater likelihood of the tip entering
an epidural blood vessel, while too little catheter length predisposes the catheter
to falling out [13].
The catheter is then secured with tape and adhesive dressings, and used for the
intended purpose.
Once the catheter is placed, after a test dose, anesthesia for cesarean delivery is
achieved by administration of local anesthetics with or without opioids.
Box 1 Dogliotti’s Loss of Resistance to Saline Technique

“When the needle has penetrated the ligamentum interspinosum for a certain
distance and before it has gone through the ligamenta subflava into the spinal
canal one removes the trocar and attaches a syringe filled with physiological
saline. When an attempt is made to inject this fluid a very great resistance is
met with since the ligamentum interspinosum and the ligamenta subflava are
so dense. If they can be injected at all, it will be only after the employment of
considerable force. This resistance is most certain evidence that the needle is
still in the posterior fibers of these tissues. The following manoeuvres are then
carried out: the syringe is held in one hand the thumb of which applies a con-
tinued and uniform pressure to the piston. The other hand slowly advances the
needle into the tissues and when it has traversed a few millimetres the hand
which is holding it will suddenly note a diminution in the resistance to its pas-
sage which has previously been due to the tissues of the ligamenta subflava. At
the same instant the injection fluid enters freely. This is certain, practical, and
unequivocal evidence that the point of the needle has pierced the ligamenta
subflava and is in the peridural space which offers no resistance to the flow of
the injected fluid. As soon as this position has been recognized the needle
should be left in the position which it now occupies for its point is in the peri-
dural space; any attempt to advance it farther would entail the risk of penetrat-
ing the dura.” (Reprinted from [14] with the permission of the Publisher)
5.1.6 Ultrasound Assisted Identification of the Epidural Space
Evidence on ultrasound-guided identification of the epidural space in pregnancy is

still limited and this technique is not commonly used as a routine tool to detect the
epidural space in obstetrics.
In addition, the visibility of the ligamentum flavum, the dura mater, and of the
epidural space decreases significantly during pregnancy [15]. However, prelimi-
nary evidence suggests that it is safe and may be helpful in achieving correct
placement, especially for teaching purposes and in the obese parturient [16, 17].
Ultrasound can be used in two different ways to ease the performance of an epi-
dural block [18]. One method is to use real-time ultrasound imaging, under sterile
conditions, to observe the passage of the needle on the way to the epidural space. In
the second method (prepuncture ultrasound), an initial ultrasound scan of the
patient’s lumbar area is performed to find the midline and the interspinous space in
order to mark on the skin the position of each. The depth of the epidural space may
also be determined by using the ultrasound scan. Epidural block is eventually per-
formed in the usual way with the skin markings as an additional guide.
5.2 Epidural Anesthesia
One of the main advantages of epidural anesthesia is that the local anesthetic can be
administered in incremental doses and that the total dose can be titrated to the
desired sensory level.
This, with the slower onset of anesthesia, allows the maternal cardiovascular
system to compensate for the occurrence of sympathetic block reducing the risk of
severe hypotension and reduced uteroplacental perfusion.
The use of the epidural catheter, and therefore of a continuous technique, allows
the anesthesiologist to give additional local anesthetic to maintain anesthesia,
regardless of the duration of surgery and the intensity of surgical stimulation.
Usually epidural anesthesia results in less intense motor block than dose spinal
anesthesia, especially at the beginning of the block. This may be advantageous for
patients in which a high level of motor block may impair ventilation, such as mul-
tiple gestation or pulmonary diseases. The epidural catheter may also be used for
postoperative analgesia either with exclusive epidural opiods or with an analgesic
ultra low concentration solution of local anesthetic and opioids.
5.2.1 Test Dose
The aim of the epidural test dose is to detect the inadvertent intravenous or sub-
arachnoid placement of the epidural catheter in order to avoid, respectively, a too
high or a total spinal block or local anesthetic toxicity. The test dose must be formu-
lated to produce a rapid, reliable, and easily detected result when in one of these two
situations, without compromising the safety of the mother and the fetus.
In all cases, careful aspiration of the epidural catheter before administering any
dose of anesthetic solution is the first extremely important step.
Subarachnoid placement is relatively easy to detect. For practical reasons, the
same local anesthetic that is used for producing the anesthetic block is usually cho-
sen. Lidocaine 20–60 mg or bupivacaine (or levobupivacaine or ropivacaine) 7.5–
12.5 mg are commonly used. Signs of sensory block in the lower lumbar segments
and, most importantly, motor block of the legs should be sought after 3–5 min and
this is considered to be specific and sensitive in almost 100% of cases. When the test
dose is performed with a relatively “high dose” of local anesthetic, such as 40–60 mg
74 G. Capogna
of lidocaine or 12 mg of bupivacaine, in the case of accidental intrathecal injection,

a safe but complete sensory and motor block accompanied by maternal hypotension
may be observed [19].
Inadvertent intravascular placement of the epidural catheter usually relies on the
use of a dose of epinephrine (15 μg) capable of producing detectable changes in
heart rate and blood pressure but unfortunately, in obstetrics, intravenous injection
of epinephrine has been shown to have a low positive predictive value and may be
associated with side effects [20].
Therefore, detection of intravascular multiorifice epidural catheter placement relies
on repeated catheter aspiration, observation of gravity-induced fluid efflux within an
open-ended catheter, failure of local anesthetic to produce the anticipated effect, and
detection of early signs of toxicity by means of slow and incremental injection.
It is therefore vital to aspirate the catheter before giving each dose and fraction-
ate the whole anesthetic dose in small boluses given intermittently, always.
5.2.2 Anesthetic Solution
Approximately 3–5 min after a negative aspiration test and a negative test dose, the
therapeutic dose is then administered, in fractionated boluses of 5 mL each.
Although the nerve supply to the uterus extends no higher than the eighth to tenth
thoracic nerve roots, it is generally agreed among anesthesiologists that anesthesia
for cesarean section should extend to the level of the fourth thoracic dermatome to
include afferent fibers running in the greater splanchic nerve. However in some
cases, peritoneal stimulation may require a sensory block up to the first thoracic
dermatome. An adequate sacral anesthesia level is also required to prevent pain
from bladder retraction or uterosacral ligaments traction.
An inadequate sensory assessment prior to surgery or an unrecognized sensory
block regression during surgery is a common cause of intraoperative pain. It is
therefore most important to check the sensory block with an appropriate and reli-
able method, such as the loss of sensation to pinprick or to light touch and by using
an appropriate evaluation scale [21].
A bilateral, adequately, dense sensory level to T4 is required for cesarean surgery
and this could be reached in the majority of cases with 20–25 mL of local
anesthetic.
A frequent assessment of the sensory block allows a careful titration of the anes-
thetic dose at the desired level.
Most anesthesiologists use lidocaine 2%, bupivacaine 0.5%, levobupivacaine 0.5
or 0.75%, or ropivacaine 0.75–1%. 2-chlorprocaine is also used where available
(not in Europe).
Epinephrine may be added at the concentration of 1:200,000 or 1:400,000 to
decrease vascular absorption of the local anesthetic and to prolong the duration of
the block. Due to the well-known pharmacological characteristics of the different
local anesthetics, the addition of epinephrine appears to have a rationale only with
lidocaine. The addition of sodium bicarbonate to lidocaine hastens the onset of

anesthesia and may also improve the quality of analgesia [22].
Opioids are frequently given epidurally to enhance intraoperative analgesia and
to provide postoperative pain relief. Fentanyl 50–100 μg or sufentanil 10 μg may be
added to the therapeutic dose or given separately at some point during the adminis-
tration of the epidural boluses without adversely affecting the neonate.
The choice of the drug depends on the desired onset of action and the expected
duration of surgery and may vary with the local clinical practice. The most effective
solution is 2% lidocaine with epinephrine with a liposoluble opioid, the least is
0.5% plain bupivacaine.
The local anesthetic solution used by the author is a pH adjusted solution of 2%
lidocaine with epinephrine 1:400,000 with the addition of 10 μg of sufentanil.
5.2.3 Fluid Preloading and Control of Maternal Hypotension
The incidence and the degree of maternal hypotension after epidural block are
dependent on the speed of onset of the sympathetic block, being less with fractioned
incremental boluses.
Maternal hypotension may be prevented and/or treated with fluid preloading and
vasopressor drugs.
Unfortunately, almost all the recent studies on this topic investigated exclusively
spinal rather than epidural anesthesia.
Current literature highlights that prevention of hypotension during spinal anes-
thesia for cesarean section is mainly based on the use of vasopressor drugs prophy-
laxis. However, fluid administration remains helpful to further decrease the incidence
and severity of maternal hypotension and vasopressor requirement. Hydroxyethyl
starch (HES) solution preloading or coloading is the best acknowledged and the
more consistent method [23].
With regard to vasopressor use, ephedrine seemed initially to be the logical vaso-
pressor for obstetrics, with both α- and β-sympathomimetic effects, the ideal protec-
tion for placental intervillous blood flow. Most likely ephedrine is still the most
commonly used vasopressor to prevent and treat maternal hypotension after a spinal
block for cesarean section.
Now numerous studies have compared this agent with pure α stimulants, usu-
ally phenylephrine, with confusing results, but meta-analysis has shown convinc-
ingly that ephedrine is associated with lower pH and BE of the neonate and with
a higher risk for fetal acidosis when compared with phenylephrine. Comparing
the maternal effects, phenylephrine is associated with an increased risk of mater-
nal bradycardia. Unfortunately, a number of not controlled factors that may also
influence fetal blood gases such as the total amount of vasopressor given before
delivery, timing of administration, duration, and severity of maternal hypotension
and, in addition, a clear definition of hypotension is often not reported in these
studies [24, 25].
76 G. Capogna
However, these findings concern spinal rather than epidural anesthesia, and a
comparison between vasopressors during epidural anesthesia has not been
performed.
Placental intervillous blood flow is not exclusively dependent on maternal blood
pressure but also on maternal cardiac output and its distribution. It has been shown
that spinal but not epidural anesthesia is associated with a reduction in cardiac out-
put even in the presence of a normal blood pressure [26] and this must be taken into
account when interpreting the results of the spinal studies.
5.2.4 Intraoperative Discomfort and Pain
One of the major concerns about epidural anesthesia along with the more techni-
cal difficulty in performing the block and the relatively slow onset time is the
frequent occurrence of intraoperative discomfort or pain when compared to spi-
nal anesthesia. This problem may require additional measures and, depending on
the severity of pain, conversion to general anesthesia may be occasionally
necessary.
However, the percentage of patients experiencing intraoperative pain requiring
additional medications during surgery is extremely variable, and has been reported
to be up to 50% [27], depending on a number of factors, such as the expertise of the
operator, the epidural technique, the local anesthetic solution, the method of sensory
block assessment, and the type of surgery [28].
The best analgesic success, comparable to that obtained with spinal anesthesia,
is usually achieved when the block is performed by an experienced anesthesiologist,
with loss of resistance to saline, with 2% lidocaine with epinephrine and opioids or
2-chlorprocaine, with a complete loss of sensations from S5 to at least T4 assessed
by pinprick or light touch, and with a surgery without the uterine exteriorization
maneuver. The least successful rate is associated with physicians in training, loss of
resistance with air, 0.5% bupivacaine, assessment of the sensory block with cold,
and uterine exteriorization. I have used for 20 years, in a teaching hospital, a pH
adjusted solution of 2% lidocaine with epinephrine 1:400,000 with the addition of
10 μg of sufentanil and the incidence of inadequate intraoperative anesthesia was as
low as 3% [22].
Among the causes of maternal intraoperative discomfort is the sensation of pres-
sure on the chest and on the abdomen, shivering, nausea and vomiting, and discom-
fort due to the position on the operating table is worth mentioning.
The sensation of pressure on the chest is usually associated with a sensory block
above T2 and this may generate anxiety in the unprepared patient. This sensation
may be prevented by carefully titrating the individual dose of local anesthetic solu-
tion, extending the block incrementally and frequently checking the block. If it is
necessary to obtain a block above T2 to eliminate the occurrence of visceral pain,
the patient should be informed to consider this as a “normal effect” of anesthesia.
The sensation of pressure on the abdomen is typically due to the excessive pres-
sure of the obstetric maneuvers during fetal extraction, especially if they are
difficult or prolonged. Mothers should always be advised of this possible sensation

of pressure during the extraction of the baby and surgeons should always consider
the condition of the mother and be as gentle as possible. This sensation is more
frequent with epidural rather than with spinal anesthesia, due to a denser sensory
block with the latter.
Shivering remains a common symptom after the delivery. It may be a compen-
satory mechanism for heat loss from increased cutaneous blood flow but its etiol-
ogy is not well known. If severe, it may lead to significant discomfort for the
mother. A force air warmer before and during surgery may be used to reduce this
phenomenon [29].
Nausea and vomiting are unpleasant, disturbing symptoms occurring with differ-
ent frequency during cesarean section under epidural or spinal anesthesia, depend-
ing on the technique used and thus on the rapidity of onset of the block, the depth
and duration of hypotension (more frequent with spinal), the occurrence of visceral
surgical stimuli (such as uterine exteriorization or peritoneal tractions), the patient’s
position (the Trendelenburg position may favor gastric reflux), and the drug used
(opioids, oxytocin, or ergometrine).
Nausea and vomiting, due to relative cerebral hypoxia, are very often the very
first symptom of hypotension, especially if they occur immediately after the perfor-
mance of the anesthetic block.
Causes of intraoperative pain include inadequate block, visceral pain, and shoul-
der and precordial pain.
Even in the presence of an adequate sensory block provided by a sufficient local
anesthetic dose to produce a complete sensory block to T4, sometimes, if peritoneal
structures are vigorously stimulated or the uterus is exteriorized, visceral pain may
occur. Pain is often preceded by vague symptoms of nausea and discomfort which
are indicators of subliminal visceral pain. In these cases, the sensory block should
be immediately rechecked and the epidural catheter redosed as necessary. According
to the intensity and duration of intraoperative visceral pain a wide range of drugs
have been proposed and used, according to local anesthetic practice (such as ev
fentanyl, ketamine, propofol, nitrous oxide) but it should be remembered that pro-
found sedation may put the mother at risk if her airways are not secured.
The incidence of visceral pain may be reduced using epidural opioids in the
anesthetic mixture.
Another kind of visceral pain that may occur during cesarean section is shoul-
der pain due to the presence of amniotic fluid or blood in the subdiaphragmatic
region. This region is innervated by the phrenic nerve (C3–C5) and therefore this
pain cannot be abolished by any safe anesthetic block. It may be prevented by
elevating the mother’s head by 10 degrees to reduce the cephalad spread of the
fluids [30].
Precordial pain, mostly due to venous air embolism (VAE), has also been reported
during cesarean section under regional anesthesia. A negative pressure gradient
between the uterus and the heart due to the Trendelenburg position or to the exteri-
orization of the uterus may predispose to VAE and therefore the simultaneous
performance of these two maneuvers should be banned [31].
78 G. Capogna
5.2.5 Epidural Postoperative Analgesia
For this topic, please refer to Chap. 11.
5.3 Extension of a Preexisting Epidural Analgesia
The use of epidural analgesia during labor offers the possibility of rapid extension
of the block in the case of emergency cesarean section by the injection through the
catheter of a dose of a local anesthetic of a suitable concentration for surgical anes-
thesia. This is most important considering the consequences of possible complica-
tions during an urgent induction of general anesthesia, including a difficult or failed
intubation combined with a significantly reduced maternal oxygen reserve and a
high risk of regurgitation and aspiration.
The conversion of epidural labor analgesia to surgical anesthesia for cesarean
section was first reported by Milne and Lawson in 1973 [32] who reported that 93%
of parturients underwent successful epidural extension using 2% lidocaine with
1:200,000 epinephrine.
The current literature does not strongly support one particular epidural top-up
solution when converting labor epidural analgesia to epidural anesthesia for surgery.
Meta-analysis of the few trials investigating this topic although limited by both
small numbers of studies and methodological variance [33] indicates that bupiva-
caine or levobupivacaine 0.5% is the least efficacious solution with respect to both
the speed of onset and quality of block, while lidocaine 2% with epinephrine, with
or without fentanyl, produces the fastest onset of surgical block. Establishment of a
sensory block is more rapid with chloroprocaine [34], but the difference is clinically
small and this agent is not available in Europe.
At our institution, we only use a pH adjusted solution of lidocaine 2% with epi-
nephrine solution to augment labor epidurals for emergency cesarean section and
this practice is similar to that of other European colleagues [35–37].
The success rate of epidural conversion to anesthesia is usually high [38], however,
even a small percentage of failures or inadequacies in extending the block for an emer-
gency cesarean section may not be tolerable and therefore the importance of maintain-
ing effective epidural labor analgesia should be highlighted, frequently checking the
efficiency of the block during labor, not solely for the purpose of providing analgesia,
but, more importantly, to increase the success rate of conversion to epidural surgical
anesthesia should an emergency or unplanned cesarean section become necessary.
Inadequate labor epidural is associated with inadequate epidural extension for
cesarean [38] and there are some factors, such as obesity [39] that may be associated
with a higher failure rate.
Whether the top-up should be administered in the delivery room or in the surgi-
cal theater is controversial and depends on the local hospital organization. Extending
the block in the delivery room might save time, but maternal monitoring may be
suboptimal when the risk of high block or systemic local anesthetic toxicity is great-
est. Waiting until arrival in theater before starting to extend the block can facilitate
obstetrician impatience and a call for general anesthesia. A compromise may be to

administer a small initial dose in the delivery room (such as the test dose) and to
proceed to the full extension of the block in the surgical theater by using 5 mL incre-
ments as needed.
5.4 Combined Spinal Epidural Anesthesia (CSEA)
“By combining the two methods many of the disadvantages of both methods are
eliminated and their advantages are enhanced to an almost incredible degree” with
these words Angelo Luigi Soresi, an Italian surgeon settled in the USA, introduced
the “episubdural anesthesia” in 1937 [40]. This procedure involved use of the same
needle for both the epidural and the subarachnoid injection.
In theory, the combination of two different routes of anesthesia administration on
the same patient improves effectiveness and reduces side effects. The spinal anes-
thesia component provides fast and reliable segmental anesthesia with minimal risk
of toxicity, while the epidural anesthesia component may contribute, if necessary, to
intraoperative anesthesia, may be used to maintain anesthesia in the case of pro-
longed surgery and may be used for excellent analgesia in the postoperative period.
5.5 Technique
5.5.1 Needle-Through-Needle
This is the most widely used CSEA technique. An epidural needle is used to identify
the epidural space according to the previously described technique. A long spinal
needle is then passed through the epidural needle into the subarachnoid space and
the subarachnoid block performed. After the removal of the spinal needle, an epi-
dural catheter is placed and can be used subsequently.
The spinal needle must be long enough to extend beyond the tip of the epidural
needle to reliably puncture the dura and therefore special needles have been designed
specifically for this technique. A minimum of 13 mm length of the spinal needle
protrusion beyond the epidural needle tip is recommended for the CSEA sets for a
reasonably high success rate [41].
During the needle-through-needle technique, the epidural needle acts as the spi-
nal needle introducer and therefore the spinal needle is poorly anchored and inad-
vertent spinal needle displacement during injection may occur. For this reason some
commercial kits include spinal needles with Luer-locks or other devices to allow
fixation to the epidural needle to reduce the risk of spinal needle displacement dur-
ing intrathecal injection with the subsequent risk of failure of spinal anesthesia.
The epidural needle can also be modified to facilitate the procedure with the
addition of a small hole at the tip to minimize damage of the spinal needle or with
the addition of “backeyes” or holes in the greater curvature to allow the epidural
catheter to be inserted away from the dural puncture site.
80 G. Capogna
The addition of a separate conduit for the spinal needle has also been described.
These needles have been designed with two barrels: one for the performance of the
spinal component and the other for the passage of the epidural catheter, allowing the
separation of the sites of dural puncture and epidural catheter placement. However,
they are not commonly used.
Once having injected the spinal anesthetic dose, in the case of difficulties in plac-
ing or replacing the epidural catheter, the spinal block inevitably starts developing
before the completion of the procedure.
Parturients undergoing cesarean section are at particular risk as onset of sub-
arachnoid block is fast and hypotension may occur rapidly. Hyperbaric local anes-
thetic solutions are frequently used and any delay in positioning the patient can
potentially lead to unilateral or too low a block depending on the patient’s position.
In my practice this problem is easily overcome by rolling the patient onto the other
side immediately after the end of the procedure in the case of the block being per-
formed in the lateral position. If the performance of the block is carried out in the
sitting position, the patient can be positioned in the Trendelenburg position to extend
the block until an adequate anesthetic spread occurs.
5.5.2 Separate Needle
This technique uses two separate needles to perform the spinal and epidural compo-
nents of the CSEA. Both needles can be inserted at the same vertebral interspace or
at two separate interspaces. The spinal and epidural components of the CSEA can
be performed in either order.
The major advantage of performing the epidural component first is the chance to
test the epidural catheter before the occurrence of the spinal block, since the loca-
tion of the epidural catheter cannot be tested with the needle-through-needle tech-
nique after the injection of the spinal anesthetic dose. The advantage of performing
the spinal component first may also be that the rapid onset of analgesia reduces the
risk of the patient moving during the subsequent insertion of the epidural needle.
Although a higher rate of failure of the spinal component with the needle-
through-needle technique has been reported [42], in experienced hands, there are
most likely no differences between the two techniques even if the needle-through-
needle technique is associated with greater patient satisfaction (only one puncture)
and may be quicker to perform.
5.5.3 Epidural Test Dose After CSEA
When spinal block is established before placing an epidural catheter, a conventional

epidural ‘test dose’ cannot be interpreted and may be potentially dangerous by
extending subarachnoid block. In theory, the test dose could be delayed until
subarachnoid block is regressing but this interrupts analgesia and correct interpreta-
tion remains difficult if residual block persists.
The problem cannot be avoided using needle-through-needle technique but may
be if the separate-needle technique is used and the epidural catheter is placed and
tested before subarachnoid block. However, this may often be impractical and time
consuming.
Problems with test doses may lead to greater reliance on negative aspiration
tests to confirm epidural catheter placement. It is self-evident, therefore, that all
boluses injected into an epidural catheter after CSEA should be regarded as a
test dose and of such a nature that unintentional subarachnoid administration
will not be dangerous and neural blockade should be monitored rigorously after
boluses.
5.5.4 Anesthetic Solution
CSEA may be used in two different ways:

(1) Surgical anesthesia is provided exclusively by the spinal component of the
block and the epidural catheter is eventually used for postoperative analgesia or in
the case of insufficient spinal block or prolonged surgery (“parachute” usage). In
this case the local anesthetic solution used for the spinal component is equal to that
used for the single shot spinal technique and the prevention and treatment of mater-
nal hypotension is also similar (see also Chap. 4).
(2) A small spinal dose is administered to develop a low block, and this is eventu-
ally extended by using the epidural catheter to gradually achieve an adequate level
of surgical anesthesia (“sequential CSE”) [43].
In this case a dense sacral anesthesia associated to a slow onset of the anesthetic
block is obtained. This technique may be particularly suitable for patients with car-
diac disease or to avoid maternal hypotension since it minimizes sympathetic
blockade.
The disadvantage of the sequential technique is that adequate block takes longer
to be produced than with full doses, making it unsuitable for urgent surgery.
5.6 CSEA vs. Epidural or Spinal Block
Neither epidural nor subarachnoid blockade are able to totally abolish neural trans-
mission in the anesthetized regions. One study compared the two techniques [44]
using a double catheter technique to evaluate electrical sensory thresholds with epi-
dural, subarachnoid, or CSEA blocks. CSEA raised sensory thresholds more than
spinal or epidural block suggesting that CSEA may produce a physiologically
denser block than either technique alone, but whether this may be of any clinical
benefit is not known.
82 G. Capogna
References
1. Pages MF. Segmental anestesia. Rev Sanid Mil. 1921;11:351–65.
2. Dogliotti AM. Research and clinical observations on spinal anesthesia: with special reference
to the peridural technique. Anesth Analg. 1933;12:59–65.
3. Graffagnino P, Seyler LW. Anesth Analg. 1939;18:48–51.
4. Dogliotti AM. Trattato di anestesia. Torino: UTET; 1935.
5. Moore DC. Regional block. Springfield: CH Thomas Publisher; 1953.
6. Bonica JJ. The management of pain. Philadelphia: Lea & Febiger; 1953.
7. Bromage PR. Epidural analgesia. 2nd ed. Philadelphia: WB Saunders Company; 1978.
8. Tsen LC. Neuraxial techniques for labor analgesia should be placed in the lateral position. Int
9. Hamilton CL, Riley ET, Cohen SE. Changes in the position of epidural catheters associated
with patient movement. Anesthesiology. 1997;86:778–84.
10. Hamza J, Smida M, Benhamou D, et al. Parturient’s posture during epidural puncture affects
the distance from skin to epidural space. J Clin Anesth. 1995;7:1–4.
11. Vincent RD, Chestnut DH. Which position is more comfortable for the parturient during iden-
tification of the epidural space? Int J Obstet Anesth. 1991;1:9–11.
12. Kim SH, Kim DY, Han JI, et al. Vertebral level of Tuffier's line measured by ultrasonography
in parturients in the lateral decubitus position. Korean J Anesthesiol. 2014;67:181–5.
13. Beilin Y, Bernstein HH, Zucker-Pinchoff B. The optimal distance that a multiorifice epidural
catheter should be threaded into the epidural space. Anesth Analg. 1995;81:301–3.
14. Dogliotti AM. Segmental peridural spinal anesthesia. A new method of block anesthesia. Am
J Surg. 1933. April, 04
15. Grau T, Leipold RW, Horter J, et al. The lumbar epidural space in pregnancy : visualization by
ultrasonography. Br J Anaesth. 2001;86:798–804.
16. Grau T, Bartusseck E, Conradi R, et al. Ultrasound imaging improves learning curves in
obstetric epidural anesthesia: a preliminary study. Can J Anaesth. 2003;50:1047–50.
17. Balki M, Lee Y, Halpern S, et al. Ultrasound imaging of the lumbar spine in the transverse
plane: the correlation between estimated and actual depth to the epidural space in obese partu-
rients. Anesth Analg. 2009;108:1876–81.
18. Carvalho JC. Ultrasound-facilitated epidurals and spinals in obstetrics. Anesthesiol Clin.
2008;26:145–58.
19. Carmocia M. Testing the epidural catheter. Curr Opin Anaesthesiol. 2009;22:336–40.
20. Guay J. The epidural test dose: a review. Anesth Analg. 2006;102:921–9.
21. Camorcia M, Capogna G. Sensory assessment of epidural block for caesarean section: a sys-
tematic comparison of pinprick, cold and touch sensation. Eur J Anaesthesiol. 2006;23:
611–7.
22. Capogna G, Celleno D, Costantino P. Alkalinization improves the quality of lidocaine-fentanyl
epidural anaesthesia for caesarean section. Can J Anaesth. 1993;40:425–30.
23. Mercier F. Cesarean delivery fluid management. Curr Opin Anesthesiol. 2012;25:286–91.
24. Veeser M, Hofman T, Toth R, et al. Vasopressors for the management of hypotension after
spinal anesthesia for elective caesarean section. Systematic review and cumulative meta-
analysis. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 2012;56:810–6.
sia for cesarean delivery. Anesth Analg. 2002;94:920–6.
26. Robson SC, Boys RJ, Rodeck C, Morgan B. Maternal and fetal haemodynamic effects of spi-
nal and extradural anaesthesia for elective caesarean section. Br J Anaesth. 1992;68:54–9.
27. Alahuhta S, Kangas-Saarela T, Hollmén AI, et al. Visceral pain during caesarean section under
spinal and epidural anaesthesia with bupivacaine. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 1990;34:95–9.
28. Capogna G, Celleno D. Improving epidural anesthesia during cesarean section: causes of
maternal discomfort or pain during surgery. Int J Obstet Anesth. 1994;3:149–52.
29. Horn EP, Schroeder F, Gottschalk A, et al. Active warming during cesarean delivery. Anesth
Analg. 2002;94:409–15.
30. Skikuchi C, Tonozaki S, Gi E, et al. Shoulder-tip pain during cesarean section under combined
spinal-epidural anesthesia. Masui. 2014;63:149–52.
31. Kim CS, Liu J, Know JY, et al. Venous air embolism during surgery, especially cesarean deliv-
ery. J Korean Med Sci. 2008;23:753–61.
32. Milne MK, Lawson JI. Epidural analgesia for caesarean section. A review of 182 cases. Br
J Anaesth. 1973;45:1206–10.
33. Hillyard SG, Bate TE, Corcoran TB, et al. Extending epidural analgesia for emergency caesar-
ean section: a meta-analysis. Br J Anaesth. 2011;107:668–78.
34. Gaiser RR, Cheek TG, Gutsche BB. Epidural lidocaine versus 2-chloroprocaine for fetal dis-
tress requiring urgent cesarean section. Int J Obstet Anesth. 1994;3:208–10.
35. Malhotra S, Yentis S, Lucas N. Extending epidural analgesia for emergency caesarean section.
Br J Anaesth. 2012;108:879–80.
36. Allam J, Malhotra S, Hemingway C, et al. Epidural lidocaine–bicarbonate–adrenaline vs
levobupivacaine for emergency caesarean section: a randomized controlled trial. Anaesthesia.
2008;63(243-9):37.
37. Tortosa JC, Parry NS, Mercier FJ. Efficacy of augmentation of epidural analgesia for caesarean
section. Br J Anaesth. 2003;91:532–5.
38. Dc C, Tan T. Conversion of epidural labour analgesia to epidural anesthesia for intrapartum
cesarean delivery. Can J Anaesth. 2009;56:19–26.
39. Eley V, Van Zundert A, Callaway L. What is the failure rate in extending labour analgesia in
patients with a body mass index ≥ 40 kg/m2compared with patients with a body mass index < 30
kg/m2? A retrospective pilot study. BMC Anesthesiol. 2015;15:115.
40. Soresi AL. Episubdural anesthesia. Anesth Analg. 1937;16:306–10.
41. Joshi GP, McCaroll MC. Evaluation of combined spinal-epidural anesthesia using two differ-
ent techniques. Reg Anesth. 1994;19:169–74.
42. Lyons G, Macdonald R, Mikl B. Combined epidural-spinal anaesthesia for caesarean section.
Through the needle or in separate spaces? Anaesthesia. 1992;47:199–201.
43. Rawal N, Schollin J, Wesstrom G. Epidural versus spinal epidural block for caesarean section.
Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 1988;32:61–6.
44. Dirkes WE, Rosenberg J, Lund C, Kehlet H. The effect of subarachnoid lidocaine and com-
bined subarachnoid lidocaine and epidural bupivacaine on electrical sensory thresholds. Reg
Anesth. 1991;16:262–4.
General Anaesthesia for Caesarean
Section 6
Pierre Diemunsch and Eric Noll
6.1 Introduction
Caesarean section delivery consists of birth after surgical laparotomy and hysterot-
omy. Originally only used as a life-saving procedure for the mother and child, its
use has increased with the progression of both obstetrical and anesthesiological arts
[1]. It is a common procedure for many anaesthesiologists as part of their daily or
on call activities because of its high frequency in most developed countries. In the
United States, the rate of birth through caesarean delivery has constantly increased,
over the last decade [2]. Additionally, the rate of caesarean delivery in the United
States was 32.9% [2] in 2009, corresponding to an absolute number of approxi-
mately one million births per year. In England, NHS trusts reports the rate of cae-
sarean section delivery for singleton pregnancies at 24% in 2008 [3], corresponding
to more than 147,000 interventions. Numerous reasons are involved in the increas-
ing proportion of caesarean section delivery, including maternal, obstetrical, foetal,
and environmental aspects [4], but a clearly defined reason for the underlying pat-
tern remains a challenge [5, 6].
In developed countries, caesarean indications can be divided into two main cat-
egories: scheduled caesarean section and emergency caesarean section. Scheduled
caesarean sections are indicated in cases of anticipated maternal, foetal, or obstetri-
cian reasons, such as a prior uterine incision, prior dystocia, suspected macrosomia,
or maternal request. Emergency caesarean sections are performed in acutely evolv-
ing situations, for example, foetal intolerance of labour or impairment of maternal
status.
Despite being a major factor of improvement for neonatal, maternal, and foetal
morbidity and mortality [1], caesarean section delivery, as a rescue therapy in many
P. Diemunsch (*) • E. Noll

Service d’Anesthésie—Réanimation Chirurgicale, Hôpitaux de Hautepierre,
CCOM-Illkirch et CMCO-Schiltigheim, Strasbourg, France
e-mail: pierre.diemunsch@chru-strasbourg.fr

DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-42053-0_6
86 P. Diemunsch and E. Noll
pathological cases, is associated with higher morbidity and mortality than vaginal
delivery [7, 8].
Anaesthesia for caesarean section can involve neuraxial (spinal/epidural) analgesia
or general anaesthesia. Neuraxial techniques are predominantly used for caesarean
section delivery [9] because of the several advantages compared to general anaesthe-
sia, which include limited systemic drug exposure for both the mother and child, lim-
ited airway management issues, and allowance of the mother to actively experience
her child’s birth. However, general anaesthesia may be the preferred choice in certain
situations like profound foetal bradycardia, ruptured uterus, severe haemorrhage, pla-
cental abruption, umbilical cord prolapse, and preterm footling breech [10].
Considering the overwhelming majority of neuraxial-based anaesthesia for cae-
sarean section in the actual clinical setting, it is challenging to broadly gain and
maintain skills in performing general anaesthesia-based caesarean delivery.
6.2 reanaesthesia Assessment for General Anaesthesia

P
Caesarean Section
As standard of care for every anesthesiological case, a focused history and physical
examination should be conducted prior to any procedure initiation [10, 11].
Particularly in the comfortable setting of scheduled caesarean section delivery, pre-
anaesthesia assessment should include maternal health and anaesthetic history,
baseline blood pressure measurement, and an airway, heart, and lung examination.
Airway management issues should be meticulously anticipated. Unfortunately,
pregnant women have several criteria for intubation-related morbidity. Pregnancy-
induced anatomical changes on the airway increase the Mallampati class and the
likelihood of airway bleeding or swelling [12–15]. Breast hypertrophy can alter the
laryngoscope’s insertion. Apnoea tolerance time is decreased due to the reduced
functional residual capacity [15]. Gastric reflux can occur due to a reduced lower
oesophageal sphincter tone and horizontalization of the stomach since gastric emp-
tying can be delayed during labour. All these factors lead to an increased risk for
pulmonary aspiration of the gastric content which is of higher volume and lower pH
due to the placental gastrine-like activity.
The Obstetric Anaesthetists Association and the Difficult Airway Society devel-
oped guidelines for the management of difficult and failed tracheal intubation in
obstetrics [15]. They recommend a thorough airway assessment for any possible
criteria of difficult tracheal intubation, mask ventilation, and supraglottic airway
device insertion. Oral piercing and haircut support devices should be removed
before the initiation of anaesthesia. Concerning fasting for elective caesarean deliv-
ery, food should be withheld for at least 6 h before anaesthesia and clear liquids 2 h
before surgery (in the absence of any risk factors for delayed gastric clearance). In
case of doubt, an US evaluation of the stomach will provide information about the
volume and the type of the gastric content.
Strategies for bleeding management should also be clearly anticipated by evalu-
ating particularly the obstetrical risk factors for perioperative bleeding, the ease of
6 General Anaesthesia for Caesarean Section 87
venous access, preoperative blood type and screen, the blood product availability,
and transfusion equipment availability. Caesarean delivery comes with an increased
bleeding risk compared with vaginal delivery [16]. The precise criteria for preopera-
tive assessment of blood type and screen or cross-match are not consensual. In our
institution, however, it is done for every caesarean section delivery.
In the case of general anaesthesia for caesarean section, the risk–benefit assessment
and discussion should be clearly documented. The reasons for avoiding neuraxial
anaesthesia should be especially listed and explained to the patient. The patient should
also be informed the procedural implications (e.g. preoperative fasting, operative day
timeline, and postoperative recovery) and risks of general anaesthesia prior to obtain-
ing consent. Particularly, the risk ratio of general versus neuraxial anaesthesia (i.e., 1.7)
should be mentioned and explained in the context of the actual situation. Additionally,
the anaesthesiology strategy should be communicated early to the obstetrical team.
In case of emergency caesarean delivery, whatever the indication, the preanaes-
thesia assessment should not be disregarded in order to gain a few seconds, but
rather be pragmatically conducted to promptly ensure that all key safety points are
gathered prior to anaesthesia initiation.
6.3 rocedural Aspects of Caesarean Delivery

P
Under General Anaesthesia
6.3.1 Premedication
The goal of maternal premedication is to reduce the gastric content and increase
gastric pH to minimize the potential damage in cases of pulmonary aspiration. H2
receptor antagonists can be administered the night before and 2 h before anaesthesia
[15]. Prokinetic drugs like metoclopramide [17] may be considered to improve gas-
tric emptying. Ingestion of a clear, non-particulate solution of sodium citrate may
help buffer gastric contents.
6.3.2 Preoperative Setup
Patients should be preferably laid in the left lateral decubitus position until placed
supine on the operating table with a left uterine displacement.
When possible, some procedures should be anticipated in a warm and comfort-
able setting. These include bladder catheterization, peripheral venous access, and
compression stockings placement. Though historically administered after umbilical
cord clamping to minimize foetal exposure, the UK National Institute for Health
and Clinical Excellence guidelines for caesarean section now recommend “appro-
priate prophylactic antibiotics before skin incision” in accordance with evidence
showing reduced maternal infectious morbidity without negative foetal conse-
quences [18–23]. Also, in cases of scheduled caesarean section, the foetal heart rate
should be monitored before anaesthesia initiation.
6.3.3 Intraoperative Positioning
Patients should be placed supine on the operating table with left uterine displace-
ment. If possible, the operating table should have a left lateral tilt of 15° [18].
In order to facilitate the laryngoscope introduction, and improve laryngoscopic
view [24], functional residual capacity [25], and apnoea tolerance time [26, 27], the
patient may be placed in a 20–30° head-up position.
6.3.4 Patient Monitoring
Standard general monitoring should be used, including ECG, non-invasive blood

pressure, pulse oximetry, and capnography. The use of an EEG-derived depth of
anaesthesia monitoring device to prevent awareness and recollection during caesar-
ean delivery under general anaesthesia is still a topic of debate and investigation
[28–30]. Peripheral nerve stimulators should be available and used after induction
to assess neuromuscular transmission abolition as well as recovery.
In order to minimize the time between anaesthesia induction and delivery, the
patient’s abdomen should be prepared and draped prior to initiation of the general
anaesthesia. In every situation and particularly in the stressful and complicated con-
text of emergency caesarean sections, the World Health Organization’s Surgical
Safety Checklist should be completed [31]. In this situation, particular attention is
paid to the items concerning difficult airway, aspiration, and blood loss, for strategy
planning and assistance availability.
In addition to the preparation and monitoring of the mother, the anaesthesiologist
should make sure the neonatal resuscitation team is prepared to receive and care for
the newborn.
6.3.5 Anaesthesia Induction
Preoxygenation should be performed to lengthen the time of safe apnoea.

Preoxygenation requires that a high fresh high gas flow (≥10 l.min−1) of 100% oxy-
gen be applied to the respiratory circuit [32]. Gas leaks should be minimized with a
tight mask-to-face seal. End-tidal oxygen fraction (FETO2) ≥0.9 is an optimal end-
point for efficient preoxygenation [15] and should be obtained within 2–3 min. The
place of the THRIVE oxygenation method is of the highest interest in difficult situ-
ations but is not yet specifically validated in obstetrics.
After the preoxygenation sequence is performed, a rapid sequence induction is
initiated to minimize the risk of gastric content aspiration until intubation is secured.
To be properly performed, this requires at least two persons. The rapid sequence
induction begins with the application of the Sellick’s manoeuvre as the induction
agents are administered. Induction agents include a hypnotic drug and a myorelax-
ant. The most commonly used hypnotic agent is thiopental (4–5 mg.kg−1). A survey
by the UK Obstetric Anaesthetists Association in 2011 concerning the current
choice for induction and inhalation agents [33] found that thiopental was the routine
induction agent for 93% of the responders. It has been substituted by propofol (2–3
mg.kg−1) in many US and European institutions due to thiopental shortage. In case
of maternal haemodynamic instability, ketamine (1–1.5 mg.kg−1) or etomidate (0.3
mg.kg−1) should be considered for hypnosis. Etomidate may promote neonatal
hypoglycemia and the paediatric team should be informed of its use.
The most commonly used myorelaxant for these situations is succinylcholine (1–1.5
mg.kg−1) because of its rapid onset of action and short span of duration. Rocuronium
(1–1.2 mg.kg−1) may be an alternate medication for rapid onset of myorelaxation. If
needed, this aminosteroid compound can be reversed by sugammadex (16 mg.kg−1).
After loss of consciousness, cricoid pressure should be increased from 10 N to
30 N. The master algorithm guidelines (Fig. 6.1) of the Obstetric Anaesthetists’
Association and the Difficult Airway Society state that facemask ventilation with a
maximal ventilation pressure <20 cmH2O may be considered [15]. To improve the
intubation success rate and to limit trauma, a reduced tracheal size tube (6.0–
7.0 mm, inner diameter) should be preferred [15] and a soft intubation stylet is used
as a routine in many institutions. A difficult intubation cart and a video laryngo-
scope should be readily available.
Tracheal intubations should be confirmed successful using capnography trace
inspection, thorax inspection, and auscultation. Additionally, the management of
Master algorithm – obstetric general anaesthesia and failed tracheal intubation
Algorithm 1 Pre-induction planning and preparation

Safe obstetric Team discussion
general
anaesthesia
Rapid sequence induction
Consider facemask ventilation (Pmax 20 cmH2O)
Laryngoscopy Success Verify successful tracheal

(maximum 2 intubation attempts; 3rd intubation intubation and proceed
attempt only by experienced colleague) Plan extubation
Fail
Algorithm 2 Declare failed intubation

Obstetric failed Call for help
tracheal Maintain oxygenation
intubation Supraglottic airway device
(maximum 2 attempts) or facemask
Success Is it essential/safe
Fail to proceed with surgery
Algorithm 3 immediately?
Declare CICO
Can,t intubate, Give 100% oxygen No Yes
can,t oxygenate Exclude laryngospasm – ensure
neuromuscular blockade
Front-of-neck access
Wake Proceed with surgery
c Obstetric Anaesthetists’ Association/Difficult Airway Society (2015)
Fig. 6.1 Master algorithm—obstetric general anaesthesia and failed intubation. The yellow dia-
mond represents a decision-making step. Pmax, maximal inflation pressure; CICO, “can’t intubate,
can’t oxygenate”. The algorithms and tables are reproduced with permission from the OAA and
DAS and are available online in pdf and PowerPoint formats
failed tracheal intubation and “can’t intubate, can’t oxygenate” scenarios are
detailed in the Obstetric Anaesthetist Association and the Difficult Airway Society
algorithms [15]. There is a strong emphasis on the importance of a supraglottic
airway device placement for proper oxygenation after two or at the most three intu-
bation attempts. Once oxygenation is secured, tracheal intubation via the supraglot-
tic airway device is performed, best under bronchoscopic visual control.
6.3.6 Anaesthesia Maintenance
Anaesthetic maintenance requires optimal maternal and foetal oxygenation, normo-

capnia, avoidance of awareness and recall, optimal surgical conditions, maternal
comfort, and unimpaired uterine tone [4]. In our institution, we maintain an FiO2 of
100% until clamping of the umbilical vessels. Ventilation settings are aimed to
maintain normocapnia (corresponding to a PaCO2 of 30 to 32 mmHg at term).
In 2011, a UK Obstetric Anaesthetists Association survey found that volatile
halogenated anaesthetics were used in 98.8% of the cases. Experimental [34] and
clinical [35] data suggest that volatile halogenated anaesthetic requirements are
reduced during pregnancy. Volatile halogenated anaesthetic concentration should
not exceed one minimum alveolar concentration (MAC). Higher doses of volatile
halogenated anaesthetics may not be given before delivery to avoid significant foe-
tal depression and after delivery to prevent myometrial contraction alteration [4,
36–38]. Usually administration of opioids under general anaesthesia is performed
only after umbilical cord clamping to avoid foetal opioid impregnation. Recently, it
has been suggested that short-acting lipid-soluble opioids like remifentanil at gen-
eral anaesthesia induction may limit the stress induced with laryngoscopy in high-
risk patients (e.g. severe preeclampsia) [4, 36]. However, use of this strategy must
be complemented with informing the neonatological team so as to adjust their neo-
natal care.
The use of non-depolarizing myorelaxants is not mandatory to proceed with
good surgical comfort. However, if required, they may be administered and do not
cross the placenta in significant amounts. Neuromuscular transmission recovery
should always be monitored, even if succinylcholine was the only myorelaxant used
(to rule out plasmatic pseudocholynesterase deficiency).
After delivery, to prevent postpartum haemorrhage due to uterine atony, utero-
tonic medications are usually administered to the patient. In our institution we rou-
tinely administer an initial slow bolus of oxytocin after delivery followed by a
continuous perfusion.
Any hypotension should be promptly treated with phenylephrine or in case of
low heart rate, with ephedrine titration. The use of fluid therapy is also usually ben-
eficial to treat hypotension. Glucose-free crystalloid solutions are preferred since
they do not promote neonatal hypoglycaemia.
It is important to record the anaesthesia induction to umbilical cord clamping
time interval and the hysterotomy to extraction time interval. Ideally, these intervals
should stay below 30 min and 180 sec, respectively.
6.3.7 Emergence from Anaesthesia
Emergence from anaesthesia must be prepared with the initiation of postoperative

analgesia taking any comorbidities into account. Paracetamol, ketoprofene, and res-
cue therapy with IV morphine titration during the PACU stay, and oral morphine
after PACU (Post Anaesthesia Care Unit) discharge can be considered as analgesic
strategies.
As part of the “End of Procedure” checklist and before initiating awakening,
both the obstetrician and the anaesthesiologist should share critical information,
including the absence of residual bleeding and maternal stability status.
After the patient is cleared for awakening, the appropriate reversal of all neuro-
muscular blocking agents should be assessed.
It must be remembered that a significant part of the anaesthesia-related compli-
cations, particularly pulmonary aspiration, may occur during extubation and post-
operative care [15, 39, 40]. In case of hypertensive disorder of pregnancy and/or
after a difficult intubation with several attempts, a leak test should be performed
before considering extubation. Where the risk for a potentially difficult reintubation
is present, an airway exchange catheter may be left in place for 2–4 h following
removal of the tracheal tube [41].
After a caesarean section under general anaesthesia, the early contact with the
baby, with early breast-feeding where appropriate, is an important part of the gen-
eral enhanced recovery programme.
Conclusion
General anaesthesia for caesarean section is a challenging scenario that the
majority of the anaesthesiologists may have to manage although its occurence
became rare when compared with spinal or epidural techniques. Two different
clinical vignettes can summarize the most frequent cases: the scheduled caesar-
ean delivery for non-favourable vaginal delivery planning and the emergency
caesarean procedure for severe altered foetal or maternal status. If the opera-
tional procedure for both situations is similar, the environmental system differs
dramatically. The holy grail of the emergency caesarean delivery is to combine a
very short decision-to-delivery time period and maximizing the safety of every
procedure step. To achieve this goal, optimal teaching aims at reducing the risk
of cognitive overload by mastering the different technical and non-technical
skills involved. Improving the initial teaching and skill retention is particularly
important given the low number of general anaesthesia for caesarean section an
anesthesiologist has to give in the actual context.
References
1. Gibbons L, Belizan JM, Lauer JA, Betran AP, Merialdi M, Althabe F. Inequities in the use of
cesarean section deliveries in the world. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2012;206:331. e1–19
2. Kochanek KD, Kirmeyer SE, Martin JA, Strobino DM, Guyer B. Annual summary of vital
statistics: 2009. Pediatrics. 2012;129:338–48.
3. Bragg F, Cromwell DA, Edozien LC, Gurol-Urganci I, Mahmood TA, Templeton A, van der
Meulen JH. Variation in rates of caesarean section among English NHS trusts after accounting
for maternal and clinical risk: cross sectional study. BMJ. 2010;341:c5065.
4. Tsen LC. Anesthesia for ceasarian delivery, Chestnut’s Obstetric Anesthesia: Principles and
Practice. 5th ed. Elsevier. pp. 545–603.
5. Hanley GE, Janssen PA, Greyson D. Regional variation in the cesarean delivery and assisted
vaginal delivery rates. Obstet Gynecol. 2010;115:1201–8.
6. Clark SL, Belfort MA, Hankins GDV, Meyers JA, Houser FM. Variation in the rates of opera-
tive delivery in the United States. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2007;196:526. e1–5
7. Pallasmaa N, Ekblad U, Gissler M. Severe maternal morbidity and the mode of delivery. Acta
Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2008;87:662–8.
8. van Dillen J, Zwart JJ, Schutte J, Bloemenkamp KWM, van Roosmalen J. Severe acute maternal
morbidity and mode of delivery in the Netherlands. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2010;89:1460–5.
9. Bucklin BA, Hawkins JL, Anderson JR, Ullrich FA. Obstetric anesthesia workforce survey:
twenty-year update. Anesthesiology. 2005;103:645–53.
10. Practice guidelines for obstetric anesthesia: an updated report by the American Society of
Anesthesiologists Task Force on obstetric anesthesia and the Society for Obstetric Anesthesia
and Perinatology. Anesthesiology. 2016;124:270–300.
11. Committee on Standards and Practice Parameters, Apfelbaum JL, Connis RT, Nickinovich
DG, American Society of Anesthesiologists Task Force on Preanesthesia Evaluation, Pasternak
LR, Arens JF, Caplan RA, Connis RT, Fleisher LA, Flowerdew R, Gold BS, Mayhew JF,
Nickinovich DG, Rice LJ, Roizen MF, Twersky RS. Practice advisory for preanesthesia evalu-
ation: an updated report by the American Society of Anesthesiologists Task Force on preanes-
thesia evaluation. Anesthesiology. 2012;116:522–38.
12. Pilkington S, Carli F, Dakin MJ, Romney M, De Witt KA, Doré CJ, Cormack RS. Increase in
Mallampati score during pregnancy. Br J Anaesth. 1995;74:638–42.
13. Kodali B-S, Chandrasekhar S, Bulich LN, Topulos GP, Datta S. Airway changes during labor
and delivery. Anesthesiology. 2008;108:357–62.
14. Leboulanger N, Louvet N, Rigouzzo A, de Mesmay M, Louis B, Farrugia M, Girault L,
Ramirez A, Constant I, Jouannic J-M, Fauroux B. Pregnancy is associated with a decrease in
pharyngeal but not tracheal or laryngeal cross-sectional area: a pilot study using the acoustic
reflection method. Int J Obstet Anesth. 2014;23:35–9.
15. Mushambi MC, Kinsella SM, Popat M, Swales H, Ramaswamy KK, Winton AL, Quinn
AC. Obstetric Anaesthetists’ association, difficult airway society: obstetric Anaesthetists’
association and difficult airway society guidelines for the management of difficult and failed
tracheal intubation in obstetrics. Anaesthesia. 2015;70:1286–306.
16. Al-Zirqi I, Vangen S, Forsen L, Stray-Pedersen B. Prevalence and risk factors of severe obstet-
ric haemorrhage. BJOG. 2008;115:1265–72.
17. Murphy DF, Nally B, Gardiner J, Unwin A. Effect of metoclopramide on gastric emptying
before elective and emergency caesarean section. Br J Anaesth. 1984;56:1113–6.
18. Soltanifar S, Russell R. The National Institute for health and clinical excellence (NICE) guide-
lines for caesarean section, 2011 update: implications for the anaesthetist. Int J Obstet Anesth.
2012;21:264–72.
19. Gordon HR, Phelps D, Blanchard K. Prophylactic cesarean section antibiotics: maternal and
neonatal morbidity before or after cord clamping. Obstet Gynecol. 1979;53:151–6.
20. Sullivan SA, Smith T, Chang E, Hulsey T, Vandorsten JP, Soper D. Administration of cefazolin
prior to skin incision is superior to cefazolin at cord clamping in preventing postcesarean infec-
tious morbidity: a randomized, controlled trial. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2007;196:455. e1–5
21. Thigpen BD, Hood WA, Chauhan S, Bufkin L, Bofill J, Magann E, Morrison JC. Timing of
prophylactic antibiotic administration in the uninfected laboring gravida: a randomized clini-
cal trial. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2005;192:1864–8. discussion 1868–71
22. Wax JR, Hersey K, Philput C, Wright MS, Nichols KV, Eggleston MK, Smith JF. Single dose
cefazolin prophylaxis for postcesarean infections: before vs. after cord clamping. J Matern
Fetal Med. 1997;6:61–5.
23. Yildirim G, Gungorduk K, Guven HZ, Aslan H, Celikkol O, Sudolmus S, Ceylan Y. When
should we perform prophylactic antibiotics in elective cesarean cases? Arch Gynecol Obstet.
2009;280:13–8.
24. Lee BJ, Kang JM, Kim DO. Laryngeal exposure during laryngoscopy is better in the 25
degrees back-up position than in the supine position. Br J Anaesth. 2007;99:581–6.
25. Hignett R, Fernando R, McGlennan A, McDonald S, Stewart A, Columb M, Adamou T,
Dilworth P. A randomized crossover study to determine the effect of a 30° head-up versus a
supine position on the functional residual capacity of term parturients. Anesth Analg.
2011;113:1098–102.
26. Lane S, Saunders D, Schofield A, Padmanabhan R, Hildreth A, Laws D. A prospective, ran-
domised controlled trial comparing the efficacy of pre-oxygenation in the 20 degrees head-up
vs supine position. Anaesthesia. 2005;60:1064–7.
27. Ramkumar V, Umesh G, Philip FA. Preoxygenation with 20o head-up tilt provides longer dura-
tion of non-hypoxic apnea than conventional preoxygenation in non-obese healthy adults.
J Anesth. 2011;25:189–94.
28. Zand F, Hadavi SMR, Chohedri A, Sabetian P. Survey on the adequacy of depth of anaesthesia
with bispectral index and isolated forearm technique in elective caesarean section under gen-
eral anaesthesia with sevoflurane. Br J Anaesth. 2014;112:871–8.
29. Robins K, Lyons G. Intraoperative awareness during general anesthesia for cesarean delivery.
Anesth Analg. 2009;109:886–90.
30. Sanders RD, Avidan MS. Evidence is lacking for interventions proposed to prevent unintended
awareness during general anesthesia for cesarean delivery. Anesth Analg. 2010;110:972–3.
author reply 973–4
31. Haynes AB, Weiser TG, Berry WR, Lipsitz SR, Breizat A-HS, Dellinger EP, Herbosa T,
Joseph S, Kibatala PL, Lapitan MCM, Merry AF, Moorthy K, Reznick RK, Taylor B, Gawande
AA. Safe surgery saves lives study group: a surgical safety checklist to reduce morbidity and
mortality in a global population. N Engl J Med. 2009;360:491–9.
32. Russell EC, Wrench I, Feast M, Mohammed F. Pre-oxygenation in pregnancy: the effect of
fresh gas flow rates within a circle breathing system. Anaesthesia. 2008;63:833–6.
33. Murdoch H, Scrutton M, Laxton CH. Choice of anaesthetic agents for caesarean section: a UK
survey of current practice. Int J Obstet Anesth. 2013;22:31–5.
34. Palahniuk RJ, Shnider SM, Eger EI. Pregnancy decreases the requirement for inhaled anes-
thetic agents. Anesthesiology. 1974;41:82–3.
35. Erden V, Erkalp K, Yangin Z, Delatioglu H, Kiroglu S, Ortaküz S, Ozdemir B. The effect of
labor on sevoflurane requirements during cesarean delivery. Int J Obstet Anesth.
2011;20:17–21.
36. Devroe S, Van de Velde M, Rex S. General anesthesia for caesarean section. Curr Opin
Anaesthesiol. 2015;28:240–6.
37. Gultekin H, Yildiz K, Sezer Z, Dogru K. Comparing the relaxing effects of desflurane and
sevoflurane on oxytocin-induced contractions of isolated myometrium in both pregnant and
nonpregnant rats. Adv Ther. 2006;23:39–46.
38. Dogru K, Yildiz K, Dalgiç H, Sezer Z, Yaba G, Madenoglu H. Inhibitory effects of desflurane
and sevoflurane on contractions of isolated gravid rat myometrium under oxytocin stimulation.
39. McDonnell NJ, Paech MJ, Clavisi OM, Scott KL, ANZCA Trials Group. Difficult and failed
intubation in obstetric anaesthesia: an observational study of airway management and compli-
cations associated with general anaesthesia for caesarean section. Int J Obstet Anesth.
2008;17:292–7.
40. Cook TM, Woodall N, Frerk C. Fourth National Audit Project: major complications of airway
management in the UK: results of the fourth National Audit Project of the Royal College of
Anaesthetists and the difficult airway society. Part 1: anaesthesia. Br J Anaesth.
2011;106:617–31.
41. Spong AD, Vaughan DJ. Safe extubation of a parturient using an airway exchange technique.
Int J Obstet Anesth. 2014;23:282–5.
Anaesthesia for Caesarean Section:
Effect on the Foetus, Neonate and 7
Breastfeeding
Sarah Devroe
7.1 ffects on the Foetus and Neonate of Anaesthesia

E
During Caesarean Section
If we want to compare the neonatal effect of different anaesthetic techniques for

caesarean section, various markers of neonatal outcome and their clinical relevance
should be discussed. This chapter will firstly summarize the most commonly used
parameters of neonatal and foetal outcome. Secondly, direct and indirect effects of
general and regional anaesthesia on the neonate will be discussed. Finally, neonatal
outcomes of both techniques will be compared.
7.1.1 Assessment of Foetal Wellbeing and Neonatal Outcome
7.1.1.1 Foetal Heart Rate Monitoring

The primary goal of intrapartum monitoring of the foetal heart rate (FHR) and anal-
ysis of the patterns of the FHR is to identify foetuses at risk for intrapartum asphyxia.
Based on baseline heart rate, FHR variability, accelerations and deceleration, in
relation to uterine activity, FHR tracings are classified into three categories. Category
I tracings are strongly predictive of a healthy non-acidotic foetus; Category III trac-
ings are associated with acidemia and require immediate intervention. Category II
tracings are not predictive of asphyxia but need frequent re-evaluation. Anaesthetic
interventions can cause FHR changes directly (tachycardia after atropine adminis-
tration to the mother, decreased FHR variability during general anaesthesia and
direct anaesthetic effects due to trans-placental passage) or indirectly (bradycardia
due to spinal-induced hypotension and consequent decreased uterine perfusion).
S. Devroe
Department of Anaesthesiology, University Hospital Leuven,
Herestraat 49, 3000 Leuven, Belgium
e-mail: Sarah.devroe@uzleuven.be

DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-42053-0_7
96 S. Devroe
Following, FHR patterns should be assessed taking the anaesthetic action into
account and prompt identification (e.g. spinal-induced hypotension) and treatment
(e.g. vasopressor) of the cause of non-reassuring FHR can prevent an emergency
caesarean section [1].
7.1.1.2 Mortality and Resuscitation

Although the most significant adverse outcome, mortality is not a useful parameter
to compare the safety of different anaesthetic techniques used for caesarean section,
due to its extreme low incidence. The need for a life-saving intervention (bag and
mask ventilation or need for intubation) by a paediatrician is another frequently
used parameter for adverse neonatal outcome.
7.1.1.3 Neuro-Behaviour Scores: Apgar Score and NASC

In most studies neonatal outcome is assessed using Apgar scores in combination
with umbilical cord blood gas with pH analysis. The Apgar score gives us an idea
of the condition of the neonate in the first minutes after birth. It is important to
underline that the Apgar score does not predict individual neonatal mortality or
adverse neurological outcome but Apgar scores of <5 at 5 min may correlate with
some degree of cerebral palsy. Many factors may influence the Apgar score, includ-
ing maternal anaesthesia, resuscitation setting, prematurity and congenital pathol-
ogy. Apgar scores alone can certainly not be used to determine the diagnosis of
asphyxia [2].
The neonatal Neurologic and Adaptive Capacity Score (NASC) is another tool to
evaluate neonatal outcome and was designed to assess the effect of labour medica-
tion on full-term healthy babies [3]. It scores the adaptation of the newborn by
observing and scoring adaptive capacity, passive and active tone, primary reflexes
and alertness, and crying and motor activity (Tables 7.1 and 7.2).
7.1.1.4 Umbilical Blood Gas Analysis

Umbilical blood gas and pH analysis reflects more the foetal condition immediately
before birth and is considered a crucial outcome measure. Low arterial pH is strongly
associated with long-term sequelae. But what pH threshold is significant for long-term
outcome? An observational cohort study, in which 51,519 umbilical blood gas samples
were related to neonatal outcome, concluded that the threshold pH of adverse neuro-
logical outcome was 7.10 and the ideal cord pH was 7.26–7.30. But most neonates
with neurological morbidity had normal pH values, suggesting that other variables
than acidemia are important in the prediction of neurological outcome [7]. Increasing
Table 7.1 Components of the Apgar score and scoring guidelines [4–6]
Sign 0 1 2
Heart rate Absent <100 ≥100
Respiratory effort Absent Weak cry, hypoventilation Good, crying
Reflex irritability No response Grimace Cry or active withdrawal
Muscle tone Limp Some flexion of extremities Active motion
Colour Blue, pale Body pink, extremities blue Completely pink
7 Anaesthesia for Caesarean Section: Effect on the Foetus, Neonate and Breastfeeding 97
Table 7.2 NASC score [3]

NEUROLOGICAL AND ADAPTIVE CAPACITY SCORES
0 1 2
1 Response to Sound absent: mild: Vigorous
2 Habituation to Sound absent: 7-12 stimuli: < 6 stimuli:

Capacity
Adaptive
3 Response to Light absent: mild: brisk blink or startle:
4 Habituation to Light absent: 7-12 stimuli: < 6 stimuli:
5 Consolability absent: difficult: easy:
TOTAL ADAPTIVE CAPACITY
0 1 2
encircles the elbow slightly elbow doss not
6 Scarf Sign
neck passes midline: reach midline:
Passive
7 Recoil of Elbows absent slow, week brisk: reproducible:

Tone
8 Popliteal Angle >110° 100°−110° <90°

9 Recoil of Lower Limbs absent slow. weak. brisk: reproducible:
10 Active Contraction of absent or good: head is maintained

difficult
Neck Flexors abnormal in the axis of the body:
11 Active Contraction of
absent or good: head is maintained
Active Tone
Neck Extensors (from difficult

abnormal in the axis of the body:
leaning forward position)
12 Palmar Grasp* absent weak* excellent: reproducible:
13 Response to Traction Lifts part of the Lifts all of the body
absent
(following palmar grasp) body weight: weight:
14 supporting Reaction incomplete Strong: supports all

absent
(upright position) transitory: body weight:
15 Automatic Walking* absent difficult to obtain* Perfect: reproducible:
*Primary
reflexes
16 Moro Reflex* absent weak: incomplete. pertect: complete:

pertect: synchronous
17 Sucking* absent weak:
with swallowing:
18 Alertness coma lethargy: normal:
Assessment
General
weak: high pitched:

19 Crying absent normal:
excessive:
absent of grossly diminished or
20 Motor Activity normal:
excessive mildly excessive
TOTAL NEUROLOGICAL
TOTAL SCORE AT MINUTES OF LIFE
arterial base deficits (base excess [BE]) are associated with higher complication rates.
The BE threshold has been quoted as −12 mmol/L. When using umbilical arterial
values as an outcome parameter in research in severe acidosis (pH < 7), a low pH is
probably sufficient. The metabolic component (BE) does not predict the neonates that
are more at risk of adverse outcomes than the ones predicted by the low pH [8].
98 S. Devroe
7.1.2 Effect of Anaesthesia on the Foetus and the Neonate
7.1.2.1 General Anaesthesia

General anaesthesia for caesarean section (CS) is nowadays mostly used in emer-
gency situations or when neuraxial anaesthesia techniques have failed or are contra-
indicated. Nearly all drugs used for this purpose will have some degree of placental
transfer resulting in direct foetal or neonatal effects. Alternatively, maternal haemo-
dynamic effects of anaesthetic drugs will indirectly affect the foetus by interference
of uteroplacental blood flow. Moreover, general anaesthesia for CS implies muscle
relaxation, intubation and positive pressure ventilation, also resulting in indirect
consequences for foetus and neonate.
Direct Effects
Induction Agents
Most textbooks still recommend a single dose of thiopental 4–5 mg/kg as induc-
tion agent of choice for GA in CS, arguing that this approach should result in an
acceptable depth of anaesthesia for the mother with only limited neonatal
depression. Propofol, in a dose sufficient for induction and to prevent maternal
awareness (2–2.5 mg/kg), depresses the infant more (lower Apgar and NASC)
than thiopental and causes a reduction in maternal blood pressure. Neither the
use of propofol in general nor a thiopental dose exceeding 250 mg is licenced
for the use in pregnancy. Hence, their use is off-label. Because of the limited
global availability of thiopental, propofol becomes increasingly popular for
induction. Ketamine crosses the placenta rapidly but an induction dose of
1 mg/ kg appeared not to be associated with lower Apgar scores or more need
for resuscitation. Based on current literature, all three induction agents can be
used safely.
Opioids
Historically, opioids were administered only after umbilical cord clamping in an
attempt to avoid respiratory depression of the neonate. However, in the presence of
maternal disease, a judicious use of opioids can provide haemodynamic stability
offering protection from an abrupt increase in arterial pressure. Opioids at induction
might also increase anaesthetic depth and help to avoid awareness, which is a sig-
nificant problem in obstetric general anaesthesia. All opioids have a high trans-
placental passage resulting in dose-dependent neonatal depression. Due to its rapid
onset and offset, the use of remifentanil has gained increasing popularity for obstet-
ric GA in high-risk women. A recent meta-analysis on the maternal and foetal
effects of remifentanil for GA in parturients undergoing CS found that remifentanil
attenuated the maternal circulatory response to intubation and surgery. Less nega-
tive base excess and higher pH in the remifentanil group suggested a beneficial
neonatal effect. It was concluded that an adequately powered trial addressing neona-
tal side effects of remifentanil is warranted. Remifentanil doses differed sharply
among the included studies and dose–response effects should be further defined to
find the optimal dose for both mother and infant [9, 10]. All doses of remifentanil
are associated with a transient respiratory depression of the newborn. It is manda-
tory to anticipate neonatal resuscitation when remifentanil is used, especially in
preterm infants.
Muscle Relaxants
Muscle relaxants are used to facilitate endotracheal intubation and to provide opti-
mal surgical conditions. Until recently, 1 mg/kg of succinylcholine was routinely
used for RSI because of its rapid onset. Succinylcholine is highly ionized and poorly
lipid soluble, and only small amounts undergo trans-placental transfer without clini-
cal relevance for the neonate. Rocuronium was introduced in 1994. Due to its rapid
onset in higher doses (1 mg/kg), it soon gained popularity for RSI in the obstetric
patient. Rocuronium did not adversely affect neonatal Apgar scores, acid-base mea-
surements, time to sustained respiration or neurobehavioural scores [11].
Volatile Anaesthetics
All volatile anaesthetics cross the placenta and will cause a dose-dependent neuro-
logical depression of the neonate. Moreover, high doses of volatile anaesthetic
agents have been associated with acute cardiovascular depression of the neonate
[12]. Concentrations of volatile anaesthetics higher than 1 minimum alveolar con-
centration (MAC) should be avoided during caesarean section to avoid inappropri-
ate respiratory adaptation because of neurological depression. Moreover, long-term
neurological effects should be considered.
Long-Term Effect of Anaesthetic Drugs on the Developing Brain

When exposed to anaesthetics drugs, the foetal or neonatal brain can be injured,
resulting in long-term neurobehavioral deficits. Preclinical studies noted anaesthetic-
induced developmental neurotoxicity (AIDN) with all general anaesthetic agents,
even the ones approved for paediatric anaesthesia. The degree of which this AIDN
occurs in humans has yet to be confirmed in well-designed clinical trials [13].
Indirect Effects
Maternal Haemodynamic Changes

Normal perfusion of the foeto-maternal unit is mandatory for foetal wellbeing.
Uterine-placental blood flow is mostly dependent upon maternal cardiac output and
blood pressure. Vascular re-modelling of the uterine spiral arteries in a normal preg-
nancy involves a loss of smooth muscle and the elastic lamina from the vessel wall
and a 5–10 fold dilation of the vessel mouth. This loss of smooth muscle makes the
arteries less responsive to endogenous or exogenous sympathetic input.
Most anaesthetic drugs used for a general anaesthesia reduce maternal cardiac
output, resulting in a lower blood pressure. This reduction in maternal cardiac
output may lead to a reduction of uteroplacental blood flow. Since spiral arteries
100 S. Devroe
are not responsive to vaso-active drugs, the use of these drugs will correct mater-
nal cardiac output and blood pressure and re-establish placental blood flow. In
case of pre-eclampsia, spiral arteries do not manage to develop normally and will
still respond to vaso-active drugs. Vasoconstriction of the spiral arteries will
reduce the already impaired placental blood flow in pre-eclampsia and can acutely
jeopardize the foetuses’ life. In pre-eclampsia, the ideal vasopressor is still a field
of research.
Due to an inadequate technique of general anaesthesia for caesarean section
(light anaesthesia with omission of opioids), a hypertensive response may occur
during laryngoscopy and intubation. In healthy parturients, this time-limited rise in
blood pressure will probably not cause any harm to the mother but in some patients
with co-existing disease (especially pre-eclampsia) a sudden rise in blood pressure
can cause intracranial haemorrhage. Though, the increase of catecholamine levels
that accompanies the increase in blood pressure can jeopardize the uteroplacental
blood flow that is of utmost importance if the foetus is in acute distress (often the
case if general anaesthesia for caesarean section is warranted).
Many medications have been used to attenuate this response with varying suc-
cess. Most of these drugs have been studied in patients with pre-eclampsia. Some
authors prefer esmolol (1.5 mg/kg) or NTG (2 μg/kg), in combination with propofol
(2 mg/kg) [14] while others will use, for reasons of availability, cost-effectiveness
and safety, magnesium for the control of the hypertensive response in pre-eclampsia.
The institution of the author of this chapter prefers the use of remifentanil for this
purpose. Apart from the fact that remifentanil is a perfect surgical analgesic that in
addition to propofol will prevent awareness during caesarean section, it permits to
attenuate the maternal response to laryngoscopy with a time-limited neonatal
depression [15]. A recent meta-analysis on the maternal and foetal effects of remi-
fentanil for general anaesthesia in parturients undergoing caesarean section found
that remifentanil attenuated the maternal circulatory response to intubation and sur-
gery [9]. Less negative base excess and higher pH in the remifentanil group sug-
gested a beneficial neonatal effect. It was concluded that an adequately powered
trial addressing neonatal side effects of remifentanil is warranted. Remifentanil
doses differed strongly among the included studies and dose–response effects
should be further defined to find the optimal dose for both mother and infant [9].
Park et al. demonstrated that a single bolus of remifentanil of 0.5 or 1 mg/kg for
induction of anaesthesia in severely pre-eclamptic patients attenuated maternal
heart rate and pressor responses, with only minimal and transient neonatal respira-
tory depression [16]. More recently, Yoo et al. determined the effective dose (ED50/
ED95) of remifentanil to prevent the pressor response to intubation in patients with
severe pre-eclampsia. Intubation-induced increases of heart rate and blood pressure
were attenuated in a dose-dependent manner by remifentanil, with the ED50 and
ED95 being 0.59 [95% confidence interval (95% CI) 0.47–0.70] and 1.34 (1.04–
2.19) mg/kg, respectively. However, all doses of remifentanil were associated with
a transient respiratory depression of the newborn, and higher doses were associated
with maternal hypotension (13%) [17]. The anticipation of brief neonatal resuscita-
tion is necessary when remifentanil is used.
Maternal Respiratory Changes

Rapid sequence induction with cricoid pressure, no mask ventilation and tracheal
intubation remains the gold standard for a caesarean section under general anaes-
thesia. Reduced oxygen reserve due to a reduced functional residual capacity and
an increased oxygen demand result in a shorter time to desaturation during apnoea.
Preoxygenation with 100% oxygen is an effective measurement to prologue the
time to desaturation, resulting in a longer time between induction and intubation.
Keeping in mind that airway management and difficult intubation in pregnant
patients are more frequent than in the routine surgical population, a difficult air-
way should always be anticipated with the right equipment and algorithms.
Oxygenation and ventilator goals should be a PaO2 above 70 mmHg and a PaCO2
of 28–32 mmHg. Maternal hypoxia results in foetoplacental vasoconstriction,
which reduces placental blood flow and foetal oxygen transfer and will compro-
mise the foetus [18]. Maternal hypocarbia and lower bicarbonate are normal adap-
tations to pregnancy. Further hyperventilation should be avoided to prevent
impairment of the uterine blood flow and maternal pH control within normal
ranges for pregnancy is essential [18].
During mechanical ventilation, pregnant patients usually need higher peak inspi-
ratory pressures and a positive end-expiratory pressure to overcome the increased
chest wall compliance and the higher abdominal pressure due to the pregnant uterus
[18]. The increased intrathoracic pressure can result in a reduction of the venous
return and cardiac output and thus aggravate the haemodynamic effects of the aor-
tocaval compression.
7.1.2.2 Neuraxial Anaesthesia
Direct Effects
Spinal drug doses of local anaesthetics and opioids used for a caesarean section are
usually so small that plasma levels will never reach sufficient height to exert any
foetal pharmacological effect [19]. Concerns have been raised about foetal heart
rate abnormalities after CSE with opioids during labour. Van de Velde et al. sug-
gested not to use high-dose intrathecal opioids for the induction of labour analgesia
in the case of non-reassuring foetal heart rate or indications of uterine hypertonia
during labour [20]. No such studies have been performed in the scenario of an
urgent caesarean section, so we do not know if we can extrapolate the omission of
spinal opioids for C-section. Epidural local anaesthetics will only reach significant
plasma concentration when accidently administered intravenously. Maternal-
administered epidural opioids can be detected in the umbilical vein and artery sug-
gesting foetal uptake or metabolism [21]. When converting a labour epidural
analgesia with a continuous opioid infusion to a surgical epidural for an emergency
caesarean section, supplemental epidural opioids should be avoided until after
delivery. The opioid in the epidural labour solution has probably already produced
its near-maximal effect [22], and an extra dose can result in neonatal neurological
depression. More research is needed to evaluate opioid-induced side effects on the
neonate after maternal administration of neuraxial opioids [23].
102 S. Devroe
Indirect Effects
Nausea and Vomiting
Nausea and vomiting are common symptoms after anaesthesia (general and loco-
regional) for caesarean section with an incidence of 20–60%. Intraoperatively this
can be challenging for the obstetrician, and it can be associated with accidental surgi-
cal trauma, jeopardizing the mother and the foetus. Moreover, there is a risk for
aspiration of gastric content, resulting in bronchospasm, hypoxemia and postopera-
tively pneumonitis. Maternal hypoxemia can also adversely affect the foetus.
Hypotension, reduced cardiac output, surgical stimulation and peri-operatively used
drugs (opioids and uterotonics) have all been suggested to contribute to this high
incidence. Many agents are efficacious in the prevention of nausea and vomiting, but
there are no data on the potential adverse effects on the mother and neonate [24].
Hypotension is probably the most important cause of intraoperative nausea and vom-
iting (IONV). Hypoperfusion and consequent ischemia of the brainstem may lead to
the activation of the vomiting centre. Also, gut hypoperfusion with the release of
emetogenic substances has been suggested as possible cause of IONV [25]. Prevention
or treatment of hypotension will decrease the incidence of IONV. Phenylephrine may
be associated with less IONV compared to ephedrine, and a prophylactic continuous
infusion seems more effective than bolus administration [25]. Interestingly, a recent
study suggested that prophylactic ondansetron in obstetric patients undergoing spinal
anaesthesia not only decreased the incidence of IONV but also improved the degree
of hypotension and reduced the required amount of vasopressors [26].
Hypotension
Hypotension remains the most important side effect of spinal anaesthesia for a caesar-
ean section with a reported incidence between 20% and 80%. The sympathetic block
will result in a decreased systemic vascular resistance and venous return, impaired
cardiac output and eventually decreased uteroplacental perfusion. The risk of foetal
acidemia depends on the severity and duration of the hypotensive episode [27]. Active
management to prevent spinal-induced hypotension and prompt treatment of spinal-
induced haemodynamic changes minimize the adverse effect on foetal outcome.
Several methods have been described to prevent or treat spinal hypotension.
Physical methods (e.g. leg wrapping) and the prevention of aortocaval compression
(left lateral tilt) have been useful preventive measurements to attenuate the severity
of hypotension. Also lowering the dose of spinal anaesthetic drugs can reduce the
incidence and the severity of the spinal hypotension. However, the cornerstone of
the management of spinal-induced hypotension relies on the use of vasopressors,
intravascular fluid therapy or a combination of both. All described preventive inter-
ventions have been shown to reduce the incidence but did not eliminate the need for
active treatment of hypotension [28].
Physiological Methods
A recent randomized double-blind placebo-controlled study concluded that leg
wrapping prevented hypotension compared with no intervention by attenuating spi-
nal anaesthesia-mediated venodilatation. In that same study phenylephrine (bolus
followed by low-dose infusion) was superior in preventing hypotension, by correct-

ing the spinal-induced reduction in PVR [29].
Aortocaval Compression
Hypotension during advanced pregnancy can be exacerbated by aortocaval com-
pression. The gravid uterus compresses the inferior vena cava, impending venous
return and leading to a decreased cardiac output. Moreover, in severe cases, direct
compression of the aorta may reduce the uteroplacental perfusion, even more, pos-
sibly resulting in foetal acidosis. In non-labouring women, aortocaval compression
is mostly asymptomatic, and the patients manage to maintain normal arterial blood
pressure, despite a reduction in cardiac output. Additional sympathetic blockade
during neuraxial anaesthesia in these patients will result in severe hypotension. Left
uterine displacement by placing a wedge under the right hip of the patient or by tilt-
ing the table can prevent the aortocaval component of the hypotension by improving
the venous return and cardiac output but will not prevent spinal-induced hypoten-
sion. The optimal degree of tilt is unknown, but a recent trial showed that the effect
of aortocaval compression on the cardiac output could be minimized by a tilt of at
least 15° [30]. Though, magnetic resonance imaging could not confirm that 15° left
lateral tilt effectively reduced the compression of the inferior vena cava in term
pregnant women [31].
Intravenous Fluids: Choice, Dosage and Timing

Crystalloids and colloids, in different volumes and at different time points, have
been used to increase the intravascular volume to overcome hypotension associ-
ated with spinal anaesthesia. The higher intravascular volume will increase venous
return, cardiac output and systolic blood pressure. The timing of this administra-
tion can be before the spinal anaesthesia (‘preload’) or at the time of the initiation
of the spinal anaesthesia (‘coload’). Current data show that that preloading with
crystalloids is inefficacious, and that coloading with colloids is more efficient
than with crystalloids in preventing maternal spinal-induced hypotension.
However colloids always carry the risk of an anaphylactic reaction, cannot be
used in case of renal impairment and are very costly [32]. Mercier et al. provided
the most recent data (CAESAR trial) showing that compared with pure crystalloid
preload, a mixed HES–Ringer lactate preload, together with early phenylephrine
bolus administration (if blood pressure dropped 5% from the baseline), can
improve the prevention of spinal-induced hypotension. Based on this study, a
third-generation HES preload in combination with phenylephrine can be consid-
ered as efficacious against spinal-induced hypotension and safe for mother and
foetus [33].
Vasopressors
Because physical methods, reducing the aortocaval compression and fluid loading
are only moderately efficient in preventing hypotension after spinal anaesthesia,
vasopressors are considered crucial in the management of spinal-induced hypoten-
sion. As with the fluid management, various vasopressors, at different doses and
variable timings, have been studied over the last two decades. Ephedrine was
104 S. Devroe
considered the vasopressor of choice in obstetric patients undergoing neuraxial

anaesthesia, until Lee et al. [34] showed that ephedrine and phenylephrine were
equally efficient but that the umbilical cord blood pH of neonates born from moth-
ers who received ephedrine was lower than of those from mothers who received
phenylephrine, although the risk of true acidosis (pH < 7.20) was not different in
both groups and clinical neonatal outcome, as measured by Apgar scores, was simi-
lar. As a consequence of that publication, ephedrine lost its position as ‘gold stan-
dard’ vasopressor and the quest for the optimal vasopressor regime started. From
then on a plethora of trials on different vasopressor regimes (ephedrine vs. phenyl-
ephrine vs. the combination of both, continuous vs. bolus, prophylactic vs. thera-
peutic) in different circumstances (healthy vs. compromised mothers and foetuses)
have been investigated. In all of these studies neonatal outcome was assessed using
Apgar scores and umbilical cord blood gas and pH analysis. As mentioned before,
Apgar scores give us an idea of the condition of the neonate in the first minutes after
birth, but its role as a predictor of neonatal outcome remains unclear. Umbilical
blood gas and pH analysis reflects more the foetal condition immediately before
birth and is considered more indicative when assessing the foetal impact of different
vasopressor regimes. A systematic review analysing all studies that compared
ephedrine and phenylephrine during spinal anaesthesia for elective caesarean sec-
tion showed that neonates from women given phenylephrine had higher arterial pH
values compared to neonates from mothers given ephedrine. Of note, no difference
was observed between both groups in the incidence of true acidosis or Apgar
score < 7 at 1 and 5 min [34]. The greater placental transfer of ephedrine is probably
responsible for an increased foetal metabolism with depression of the foetal pH.
Titrated phenylephrine infusions (starting at 50 μg/min) are currently recom-
mended to keep maternal arterial blood pressure as close as possible to the base-
line values (and not within 20% range as advised previously) [35], resulting in
better foetal umbilical gas values and lower incidence of postoperative nausea and
vomiting [36].
Others
As mentioned previously, the prophylactic use of ondansetron may also reduce spi-
nal hypotension and the consequent consumption of vasopressors [26].
7.1.3 R
egional Versus General Anaesthesia for Caesarean
Section and Neonatal Outcome
Literature addressing the comparison of neonatal outcome after general or regional

anaesthesia for caesarean section must be interpreted with caution. Most studies are
retrospective, not randomized or not blinded.
There was heterogeneity in indication for caesarean section (elective or emer-
gency) or the indication for either anaesthetic technique. Choice of anaesthesia
technique or mode of delivery can be dependent on maternal and foetal risk factors
already independently responsible for an increased risk of adverse outcome. The
grade of foetal or maternal compromise has an influence on the choice of anaesthe-

sia. Moreover, general anaesthesia because of failed loco-regional techniques was
categorized into the general anaesthesia group in most of the studies. In these cases,
the delay in providing anaesthesia had certainly more consequences on the neonatal
outcome in emergency caesarean sections than the effects of general anaesthesia.
Some studies used Apgar scores as a surrogate of neonatal outcome. Mancuso et al.
found lower Apgar scores at 1 and 5 min in neonates whose mothers had a general
anaesthesia compared to infants whose mothers had spinal anaesthesia. Trans-placental
passage of anaesthetic drugs was mentioned to contribute to the transient depression
of the neonate [37]. Algert et al. found in a major cohort study, involving 50,806 cae-
sarean deliveries, an increased risk of adverse neonatal outcome for caesarean sections
under general anaesthesia. Neonatal outcome was assessed by the need for neonatal
intubation and Apgar scores of <7 at 5 min. Moreover, this study controlled for con-
founding by the specification of pregnancy risk (low-moderate or high) and indication
(planned-failure to progress-foetal distress). They concluded that the neonate already
compromised before the caesarean section suffered the most of the general anaesthe-
sia. They also suggested that based on the effect on the Apgar score at 5 min, the
adverse effects of a general anaesthesia lasted longer than previously thought [38].
In a meta-analysis comparing neonatal acid-base status for different techniques
of anaesthesia for caesarean section, Reynolds and co-workers found significant
lower cord pH after spinal than after both general and epidural anaesthesia. Most
data of the analysed studies came from the era in which ephedrine was the first
choice vasopressor. They contributed the lower pH to the large doses of ephedrine
given to overcome spinal-induced hypotension [39]. Although proven safer for the
mothers, spinal anaesthesia for an elective caesarean section is not associated with
better neonatal outcome if defined by umbilical cord pH.
Choice of anaesthesia technique will eventually depend on the grade of maternal
or foetal compromise, the experience of the anaesthesiologist and the availability of
a paediatric team. It is mandatory to anticipate neonatal resuscitation when general
anaesthesia is provided.
7.2 Effects on the Breastfeeding
The beneficial health effects of breastfeeding are well recognized and apply to
mothers and children in developed nations as well as to those in developing coun-
tries. Supported by the international recommendations of the World Health
Organization (WHO), there has been a worldwide increase in breastfeeding inci-
dence. Good knowledge of the physiology of breastfeeding and the possible effects
of anaesthetic drugs on the suckling infants are mandatory in guiding the decision
to permit breastfeeding after maternal anaesthesia [40]. The most up-to-date infor-
mation can be found in the drugs and lactation database (Lactmed) of the National
Library of Medicines Toxicology Data Network (TOXNET). (Drugs and Lactation
Database [LactMed] is available at http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/cgi-bin/sis/
htmlgen?LACT.)
106 S. Devroe
7.2.1 Effect of Caesarean Section on Breastfeeding
Caesarean delivery is believed to affect the rate of breastfeeding adversely. Timely

breastfeeding initiation is thought to be the key to a successful breastfeeding and the
delay in first breastfeeding was considered to be the principal reason for the lower
success in breastfeeding following a caesarean section. In the literature, studies
have shown that caesarean delivery was a risk factor for not initiating breastfeeding
within the first hour of life and for not initiating breastfeeding at all. Moreover,
babies born by caesarean section and exclusively breastfed had less weight gain pat-
terns than infants born by vaginal delivery [41].
But recently, a meta-analysis of the world literature on breastfeeding success after
caesarean delivery, including over 500,000 subjects, only showed a negative associa-
tion between prelabour caesarean section and early breastfeeding. Once breastfeed-
ing was initiated, mode of delivery did not affect the long-term continuation
(6 months) of breastfeeding. Numbers of prelabour-elective caesarean sections are
rising each year, partially explained by an increased preference of pregnant women.
Sub-group analysis in that same study showed that early breastfeeding was not dif-
ferent in women who had an emergency caesarean section compared with those who
had a vaginal delivery. Since emergency caesarean sections mostly occur during
labour, this finding supports the theory that the metabolic and endocrine milieu of
labour may also be crucial in the initiation of lactation [42]. The lower breastfeeding
rate, together with other minor adverse clinical outcomes in children born by prela-
bour caesarean sections, is of matter of public health, and indications may need
reconsideration. Prospective mothers and health providers involved in perinatal care
should be informed about the negative association between elective caesarean sec-
tions and breastfeeding success. Women that underwent an elective caesarean deliv-
ery could benefit from increased professional breastfeeding support [42].
7.2.2 Mode of Anaesthesia and Its Effect on Breastfeeding
7.2.2.1 Spinal/Epidural Anaesthesia

Very little research has been done on the influence of the anaesthetic technique for
caesarean section on breastfeeding. Sener et al. found that breastfeeding was initi-
ated earlier following neuraxial than general anaesthesia for caesarean section [43].
7.2.2.2 General Anaesthesia

Direct effects of drug passage through the placenta can influence the adaptation of
neonate and delay early feeding reflexes.
Because of the delay of awakening and recovery of cognitive functions of the
mother following general anaesthesia, communication between the mother and the
newborn can also be postponed. This interval between birth and the first feeding can
negatively affect the success of breastfeeding. Skin-to-skin contact immediately
after birth is crucial in this process. If the mother is not able to do this herself during
the surgical procedure, a companion present at birth and designated by the mother
can perform the skin-to-skin contact [44].
Only tiny concentrations of the frequently used drugs during the anaesthesia for
a caesarean section will pass into the colostrum, making them unlikely to affect the
neonate. Discarding breast milk after anaesthesia is not considered necessary for the
safety of the infant.
References
1. Macones GA, Hankins GDV, Spong CY, et al. The 2008 National Institute of Child Health and
Human Development workshop report on electronic fetal monitoring: update on definitions,
interpretation, and research guidelines. Obstet Gynecol. 2008;112(3):661–6.
2. American Academy of Pediatrics Committee on Fetus and Newborn, American College of
Obstetricians, and Gynecologists Committee on Obstetric Practice. The Apgar score.
Pediatrics. 2015;136:819–22. doi:10.1542/peds.2015-2651.
3. Amiel-Tison C, Barrier G, Shnider SM, et al. The neonatal neurologic and adaptive capacity
score (NACS). Anesthesiology. 1982;56:492–3.
4. Committee on Obstetric Practice, ACOG, American Academy of Pediatrics, Committee on
Fetus and Newborn, ACOG. ACOG Committee Opinion. Number 333, May 2006 (replaces
No. 174, 1996): the Apgar score. Obstet Gynecol. 2006;107:1209–12.
5. Ehrenstein V. Association of Apgar scores with death and neurologic disability. Clin
Epigenetics. 2009;1:45–53.
6. Apgar V. A proposal for a new method of evaluation of the newborn infant. Originally pub-
lished in July 1953, volume 32, pages 250-259. Anesth Analg. 2015;120:1056–9. doi:10.1213/
ANE.0b013e31829bdc5c.
7. Yeh P, Emary K, Impey L. The relationship between umbilical cord arterial pH and serious
adverse neonatal outcome: analysis of 51,519 consecutive validated samples. BJOG.
2012;119:824–31. doi:10.1111/j.1471-0528.2012.03335.x.
8. Knutzen L, Svirko E, Impey L. The significance of base deficit in acidemic term neonates. Am
J Obstet Gynecol. 2015;213:373.e1–7. doi:10.1016/j.ajog.2015.03.051.
9. Heesen M, Klöhr S, Hofmann T, et al. Maternal and foetal effects of remifentanil for general
anaesthesia in parturients undergoing caesarean section: a systematic review and meta-
analysis. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 2013;57:29–36. doi:10.1111/j.1399-6576.2012.02723.x.
10. Devroe S, van de Velde M, Rex S. General anesthesia for caesarean section. Curr Opin
Anaesthesiol. 2015;28:240–6. doi:10.1097/ACO.0000000000000185.
11. Abouleish E, Abboud T, Lechevalier T, et al. Rocuronium (Org 9426) for caesarean section. Br
J Anaesth. 1994;73:336–41. doi:10.1093/bja/73.3.336.
12. Rychik J. Acute cardiovascular effects of fetal surgery in the human. Circulation.

2004;110:1549–56. doi:10.1161/01.CIR.0000142294.95388.C4.
13. Maze M. Preclinical neuroprotective actions of xenon and possible implications for human ther-
apeutics: a narrative review. Can J Anaesth. 2016;63:212–26. doi:10.1007/s12630-015-0507-8.
14. Pant M, Fong R, Scavone B. Prevention of peri-induction hypertension in preeclamptic patients:
a focused review. Anesth Analg. 2014;119:1350–6. doi:10.1213/ANE.0000000000000424.
15. van de Velde M, Teunkens A, Kuypers M, et al. General anaesthesia with target controlled
infusion of propofol for planned caesarean section: maternal and neonatal effects of a
remifentanil-based technique. Int J Obstet Anesth. 2004;13:153–8. doi:10.1016/j.
ijoa.2004.01.005.
16. Park BY, Jeong CW, Jang EA, et al. Dose-related attenuation of cardiovascular responses to
tracheal intubation by intravenous remifentanil bolus in severe pre-eclamptic patients undergo-
ing caesarean delivery. Br J Anaesth. 2011;106:82–7. doi:10.1093/bja/aeq275.
108 S. Devroe
17. Yoo KY, Kang DH, Jeong H, et al. A dose-response study of remifentanil for attenuation of the
hypertensive response to laryngoscopy and tracheal intubation in severely preeclamptic
women undergoing caesarean delivery under general anaesthesia. Int J Obstet Anesth.
2013;22:10–8. doi:10.1016/j.ijoa.2012.09.010.
18. Schwaiberger D, Karcz M, Menk M, et al. Respiratory failure and mechanical ventilation in
the pregnant patient. Crit Care Clin. 2016;32:85–95. doi:10.1016/j.ccc.2015.08.001.
19. Ginosar Y, Reynolds F, Halpern SH, Weiner C. Anesthesia and the fetus. 2012.

doi:10.1002/9781118477076
20. van de Velde M, Teunkens A, Hanssens M, et al. Intrathecal sufentanil and fetal heart rate
abnormalities: a double-blind, double placebo-controlled trial comparing two forms of com-
bined spinal epidural analgesia with epidural analgesia in labor. Anesth Analg.
2004;98:1153–1159.
21. Desprats R, Dumas JC, Giroux M, et al. Maternal and umbilical cord concentrations of fen-
tanyl after epidural analgesia for cesarean section. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol.
1991;42:89–94.
22. Hillyard SG, Bate TE, Corcoran TB, et al. Extending epidural analgesia for emergency caesar-
ean section: a meta-analysis. Br J Anaesth. 2011;107:668–78. doi:10.1093/bja/aer300.
23. Armstrong S, Fernando R. Side effects and efficacy of neuraxial opioids in pregnant patients
at delivery: a comprehensive review. Drug Saf. 2016;39(5):381–99. doi:10.1007/
s40264-015-0386-5.
24. Griffiths JD, Gyte GML, Paranjothy S, et al. Interventions for preventing nausea and vomiting
in women undergoing regional anaesthesia for caesarean section. Cochrane Database Syst Rev.
2012;9:CD007579. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD007579.pub2.
25. Habib AS. A review of the impact of phenylephrine administration on maternal hemodynamics
and maternal and neonatal outcomes in women undergoing cesarean delivery under spinal
anesthesia. Anesth Analg. 2012;114:377–90. doi:10.1213/ANE.0b013e3182373a3e.
26. Gao L, Zheng G, Han J, et al. Effects of prophylactic ondansetron on spinal anesthesia-induced
hypotension: a meta-analysis. Int J Obstet Anesth. 2015;24:335–43. doi:10.1016/j.
ijoa.2015.08.012.
27. Roofthooft E, van de Velde M. Low-dose spinal anaesthesia for caesarean section to prevent
spinal-induced hypotension. Curr Opin Anaesthesiol. 2008;21:259–62. doi:10.1097/
ACO.0b013e3282ff5e41.
28. Cyna AM, Andrew M, Emmett RS, et al. Techniques for preventing hypotension during spinal
anaesthesia for caesarean section. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2006;(18):CD002251.
doi:10.1002/14651858.CD002251.pub2.
29. Kuhn JC, Hauge TH, Rosseland LA, et al. Hemodynamics of phenylephrine infusion versus
lower extremity compression during spinal anesthesia for cesarean delivery: a randomized,
double-blind, placebo-controlled study. Anesth Analg. 2016;122:1120–9. doi:10.1213/
ANE.0000000000001174.
30. Lee SWY, Khaw KS, Ngan Kee WD, et al. Haemodynamic effects from aortocaval compres-
sion at different angles of lateral tilt in non-labouring term pregnant women. Br J Anaesth.
2012;109:950–6. doi:10.1093/bja/aes349.
31. Higuchi H, Takagi S, Zhang K, et al. Effect of lateral tilt angle on the volume of the abdominal
aorta and inferior vena cava in pregnant and nonpregnant women determined by magnetic
resonance imaging. Anesthesiology. 2015;122:286–93. doi:10.1097/ALN.0000000000000553.
32. Teoh WHL, Westphal M, Kampmeier TG. Update on volume therapy in obstetrics. Best Pract
Res Clin Anaesthesiol. 2014;28:297–303. doi:10.1016/j.bpa.2014.07.004.
33. Mercier FJ, Diemunsch P, Ducloy-Bouthors A-S, et al. 6% Hydroxyethyl starch (130/0.4) vs
Ringer’s lactate preloading before spinal anaesthesia for caesarean delivery: the randomized,
double-blind, multicentre CAESAR trial. Br J Anaesth. 2014;113:459–67. doi:10.1093/bja/
aeu103.
sia for cesarean delivery. Anesth Analg. 2002;94:920–926; table of contents.
doi:10.1097/00000539-200204000-00028
35. Butwick AJ, Columb MO, Carvalho B. Preventing spinal hypotension during caesarean deliv-
ery: what is the latest? Br J Anaesth. 2015;114:183–6. doi:10.1093/bja/aeu267.
36. Lee AJ, Smiley RM. Phenylephrine infusions during cesarean section under spinal anesthesia.
Int Anesthesiol Clin. 2014;52:29–47. doi:10.1097/AIA.0000000000000010.
37. Mancuso A, De Vivo A, Giacobbe A, et al. General versus spinal anaesthesia for elective cae-
sarean sections: effects on neonatal short-term outcome. A prospective randomised study.
J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2010;23:1114–8. doi:10.3109/14767050903572158.
38. Algert CS, Bowen JR, Giles WB, et al. Regional block versus general anaesthesia for caesar-
ean section and neonatal outcomes: a population-based study. BMC Med. 2009;7:20.
doi:10.1186/1741-7015-7-20.
39. Reynolds F, Seed PT. Anaesthesia for caesarean section and neonatal acid-base status: a meta-
analysis. Anaesthesia. 2005;60:636–53. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2044.2005.04223.x.
40. Masho SW. Leadership, expertise, and creativity: the right mix for breastfeeding research.
Breastfeed Med. 2015;10(8):397–8. doi:10.1089/bfm.2015.0105.
41. Samayam P, Ranganathan PK, Balasundaram R. Study of weight patterns in exclusively breast
fed neonates—does the route of delivery have an impact? J Clin Diagn Res. 2016;10:SC01–3.
doi:10.7860/JCDR/2016/17889.7025.
42. Prior E, Santhakumaran S, Gale C, et al. Breastfeeding after cesarean delivery: a systematic
review and meta-analysis of world literature. Am J Clin Nutr. 2012;95:1113–35. doi:10.3945/
ajcn.111.030254.
43. Sener EB, Guldogus F, Karakaya D, et al. Comparison of neonatal effects of epidural and
general anesthesia for cesarean section. Gynecol Obstet Investig. 2003;55:41–5.
doi:10.1159/000068956.
44. de Alba-Romero C, Camaño-Gutiérrez I, López-Hernández P, et al. Postcesarean section skin-
to-skin contact of mother and child. J Hum Lact. 2014;30:283–6. doi:10.1177/0890334414535506.
Choice of Anaesthesia for Emergency
Caesarean Section 8
Olivia Clancy and Nuala Lucas
The number of caesarean sections performed worldwide has increased over the last
two decades. There are many reasons for including: changing demographics, the
rising age of first-time mothers, rising levels of obesity, a maternal preference in
some countries for caesarean section over vaginal delivery, a rising proportion of
multiple births, increasing medico-legal concerns and organizational factors. Many
of these factors are interrelated.
Data from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development
(OECD) demonstrates that in 2013 caesarean section rates were lowest in Nordic
countries (Iceland being the lowest with a rate of 15/100 live births), Israel and the
Netherlands. The highest rates were observed in Turkey, Mexico and Chile, with
rates ranging from 45 to 50% [1].
Caesarean section is a unique situation where the anaesthetist has to provide care
to both the mother and the baby. A team approach is vital to ensure optimal out-
come for both while ensuring that the process is a safe and pleasant experience for
the parturient.
8.1 actors Affecting the Choice of Anaesthesia

F
for Emergency Caesarean Section
There are several factors that may affect the choice of anaesthesia in the emergency
situation and these may be categorised as patient, anaesthetic and surgical factors
(Table 8.1). In addition, the risks and benefits of the anaesthetic options need to be
quickly evaluated in the context of these factors. This evaluation can be aided by
anticipation and planning, along with good communication with the obstetric team.
It is important to remember that many ‘emergencies’ do not occur entirely de novo
O. Clancy • N. Lucas (*)

Northwick Park Hospital, Harrow, UK
e-mail: nuala@tuesday5.co.uk

DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-42053-0_8
112 O. Clancy and N. Lucas
Table 8.1 Factors affecting choice of anaesthesia for emergency CS

Patient factors
• Pre-existing co-morbidities, e.g. obesity, cardiac disease
• Pregnancy-related pathology, e.g. pre-eclampsia, thrombocytopenia
• Acute physiological derangement, e.g. sepsis, major haemorrhage
• Fasting status
Anaesthetic factors
• Anticipated difficulty with either neuraxial or general anaesthesia, e.g. obesity, airway
examination
• The presence (or not) of an epidural in situ
• Contraindications to neuraxial block
• Experience of the anaesthetist
Surgical factors
• The urgency of caesarean section
• Nature of emergency, e.g. major haemorrhage
[2] and some anaesthetic planning can take place in advance of the obstetric deci-
sion to proceed to emergency caesarean section. When planning has not been pos-
sible, it is fundamental that the anaesthetist be quickly familiarized with salient
points in the history and perform a rapid airway assessment.
8.2 The Urgency of Caesarean Section
The traditional classification of urgency of caesarean section categorized all-planned

operations as ‘elective’ while all others were ‘emergencies’. These definitions were
clearly inadequate in terms of communication (between obstetricians, midwives
and anaesthetists) with further implications for training and audit/data collection.
An agreed classification system would improve communication between obstetri-
cians/anaesthetists and midwives and facilitate prioritization of the most urgent
cases, potentially leading to improved maternal and neonatal outcomes. The clas-
sification advocated by the UK Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists
is shown in Table 8.2 [3].
The recommendation for this classification was accompanied by additional com-
mentary that highlighted other important considerations. It stresses that in the non-
elective caesarean section there is a continuum of urgency and that each situation should
be assessed on a case-by-case basis; to emphasize this point, the statement includes a
colour scale. The adoption of a single classification system leading to improved clarity
for the rationale for individual caesarean sections can assist with data collection, which
can then be used as part of routine audit of which can in turn improve outcomes.
One of the most contentious aspects in describing emergency caesarean section is
the optimal decision-to-delivery interval (DDI). Thirty minutes is the widely cited
‘decision-to-delivery’ time that should be achieved in emergency caesarean section.
However, whether this is a meaningful time to aim for has become increasingly
8 Choice of Anaesthesia for Caesarean Section 113
Table 8.2 Classification of urgency of caesarean section relating the degree of urgency to the
presence or absence of maternal or fetal compromise
Definition Category
Maternal or fetal compromise Immediate threat to life of woman or foetus 1
No immediate threat to life of woman or foetus 2
No maternal or fetal Requires early delivery 3
compromise At a time to suit the woman and maternity 4
services
controversial. Use of this figure has various inherent problems. Firstly there is no
compelling evidence that delivery within 30 min of the decision is meaningful in
terms of neonatal outcome. There are no randomized controlled trials demonstrating
that the faster a baby is delivered the better the neonatal (or maternal) outcome.
Studies suggest that either no difference or reduced neonatal morbidity with longer
decision-to-delivery interval. One of the largest studies used data from the National
Sentinel Caesarean Section Audit to determine whether decision-to-delivery interval
is critical in emergency caesarean section. The National Cross Sectional Survey
looked at 17,780 CS performed between over a 3-month period [4]. Maternal and
neonatal outcomes were correlated with decision to delivery. Data were categorized
into 15 min intervals. No difference in neonatal outcome was found with a decision
to delivery of less than 30 min compared to time intervals greater than 30 min. In fact,
there was no difference in neonatal outcome with a DDI of less than 15 min compared
to all time intervals greater than 15 min up to 75 min at which point neonatal out-
comes started to deteriorate. Maternal outcome was similarly unaffected; only women
who were delivered after 75 min, compared to women who were delivered within 30
min, had an increase in requirement for post-operative special care although maternal
outcome in this context may be affected by the presence of co-morbid disease.
The second problem with the 30 min figure is that it is often used as a response
time to a situation that is in itself poorly understood—that is foetal distress. The
term ‘foetal distress’ describes abnormalities of the foetal heart rate detected with
cardiotocography or a disturbance in foetal pH assessed using foetal blood sam-
pling, which are in turn deemed to be a sign of hypoxia; both of these tools have
limitations [5]. Furthermore, the development of intrapartum hypoxia (and conse-
quent foetal distress) is multifactorial [6]. Factors such as congenital disease and
infection may play a part, so that when foetal distress develops in labour it may be
difficult to determine whether the abnormalities represent an acute event, such as
cord compression or the effect of labour on a chronically compromised foetus [7].
8.3 Modes of Anaesthesia for Caesarean Section
Neuraxial anaesthesia is the preferred mode of anaesthesia for elective or emer-

gency caesarean section and the proportion of caesarean sections performed under
neuraxial anaesthesia has increased dramatically over the last 30 years [8]. The
main types of regional techniques used for caesarean delivery are single-shot spinal
anaesthesia, epidural anaesthesia (as extension of labour epidural analgesia) and

combined spinal–epidural anaesthesia (CSE). Recommendations in the United
Kingdom have proposed that more than 95% of elective caesarean deliveries and
more than 85% of emergency caesarean deliveries should be performed using neur-
axial anaesthetic techniques [9].
The relative merits of spinal, epidural, combined spinal anaesthesia and general
anaesthesia are summarized in Table 8.3.
Table 8.3 Benefits and risks of different modes of anaesthesia for caesarean section
Anaesthetic
technique Benefit Risk
General • Generally considered to be faster option • Increased maternal mortality and
anaesthetic for foetal delivery morbidity
• Suitable if neuraxial block • Risks associated with airway
contraindicated, e.g. the presence of management (increased risk of
coagulopathy difficult intubation/high risk of
pulmonary aspiration of gastric
contents)
• May be easier to manage an asleep • Risk of awareness
patient in some emergency situations,
e.g. major haemorrhage
• Can modify drugs used for rapid • Uterine atony with volatile
sequence induction if haemodynamic anaesthetic agents
instability present
• Not contraindicated in systemic sepsis • Maternal transfer of drugs with
risk of foetal sedation and
respiratory depression
• Lack of parental presence at
delivery
• Does not provide post-operative
analgesia
Spinal • Generally considered to be the fastest • Least suitable for lengthy
option for neuraxial blockade procedures
• Low incidence of maternal morbidity • May require conversion to
including infection and nerve damage general anaesthesia if technical
• Avoids risks of general anaesthesia failure
• Can maintain patient in lateral position if
situations such as cord prolapse present
• Patient remains awake for birth of child
Epidural • Relatively fast onset • Generally considered to take longer
extension than general anaesthesia or spinal
of labour techniques
analgesia • Avoids risk of technical failure (e.g. with • Requires adequately working
spinal) in high-risk situation epidural
CSE • Can be used to provide a more stable • Higher maternal morbidity than
induction of neuraxial anaesthesia in spinal or epidural anaesthesia
cases such as failed top-up of previous alone
epidural, or cardiac disease
• Can ‘top-up’ for longer procedures
8.3.1 Spinal Anaesthesia
Spinal anaesthesia is the most popular mode of neuraxial anaesthesia used for cae-
sarean section [8, 10]. The incidence of post-dural puncture headache, which for
many years made the technique unacceptable, has been dramatically reduced with
the evolution in small gauge spinal needles with pencil point tips. Spinal anaesthesia
is fast and effective and there is an extremely low risk of systemic toxicity as the
doses of drugs used are minimal. The addition of intrathecal opioids (fentanyl, mor-
phine and diamorphine) has been demonstrated to improve the quality of block and
reduce intraoperative pain and is recommended [11, 12]. Morphine and diamor-
phine (though not fentanyl) can contribute to post-operative analgesia between 12
and 24 h.
The most significant acute complication of spinal anaesthesia is maternal hypo-
tension, which occurs in up to three quarters of women without prophylactic mea-
sures [13]. This can be associated with maternal nausea and vomiting and impaired
uteroplacental perfusion that can lead to foetal acidaemia. Prophylactic measures to
avoid/minimize hypotension are mandatory and include the use of an intravenous
fluid bolus, given as a pre-load or co-load and the use of vasopressor drugs. For
many years ephedrine was the main vasopressor used for the treatment of spinal
hypotension. This was based on studies in pregnant ewes that demonstrated it was
associated with less reduction in uterine blood flow and thus recommended it over
metaraminol and other α-adrenoreceptor agonists [14]. However, subsequent work
demonstrated that although blood pressure control was better with ephedrine than
without, there was no improvement in neonatal outcome; indeed, the use of ephed-
rine was associated with a higher incidence of umbilical arterial pH < 7.2 compared
to controls [15]. This renewed interest in vasopressors with more α-agonist activity
(phenylephrine and metaraminol) and studies with these agents showed there was
improved foetal acid-base status compared with ephedrine [16]. Subsequently,
phenylephrine has emerged as the vasopressor of choice to minimize hypotension
associated with spinal anaesthesia [17]. There has been some debate about whether
phenylephrine should be given as an infusion started immediately after initiation of
spinal anaesthesia or as a bolus dose (either given only in response to a fall in blood
pressure or prophylactically). Prophylactic administration of phenylephrine could
potentially cause reactive hypertension and associated bradycardia. A meta-analysis
looking at the use of prophylactic phenylephrine for caesarean section under spinal
anaesthesia concluded that a continuous infusion started immediately after initia-
tion of spinal anaesthesia significantly reduced the incidence of spinal hypotension
compared with bolus doses given only in response to a fall in blood pressure [17].
In addition, a more recent study demonstrated a reduction in anaesthetists’ work-
load by the use of an algorithm adjusting the infusion rate of a prophylactic phenyl-
ephrine infusion according to changes in blood pressure and heart rate [18]. The
ideal infusion regimen that will control the maternal blood pressure, with minimal
maternal side effects, while avoiding maternal hypertension has not yet been
identified.
A major reason cited as to why general anaesthesia continues to be used over
spinal anaesthesia in cases of extreme urgency is speed, general anaesthesia
being perceived as faster and consistently reliable. Although spinal anaesthesia

can be almost as fast as general anaesthesia in skilled anaesthetists there are
inherent aspects, such as the time required for an adequate surgical block to
develop, that will in general make it slower than general anaesthesia [19]. The
‘rapid sequence spinal’ has been described as an approach for spinal anaesthesia
for Category 1 caesarean section [20]. Principles of this approach include using
a ‘no-touch’ technique and using sterile gloves only, utilizing other staff mem-
bers to perform i.v. cannulation, limiting the number of attempts to one and
preparing the patient for general anaesthesia during attempted spinal insertion.
The authors of this study reported successful reduction in the decision to deliv-
ery interval with this approach; however, concerns exist around minimizing the
aseptic technique.
8.3.2 Epidural Analgesia
The role of epidural anaesthesia in emergency caesarean section is largely confined

to when an existing labour epidural is extended to provide surgical anaesthesia.
Epidural anaesthesia alone is generally not preferred for elective caesarean section
as the quality of anaesthesia is less than that achieved by spinal anaesthesia. The
ability to site an epidural when the woman is in labour and then utilize that epidural
should caesarean section be required can avoid the need for general anaesthesia. The
use of epidural analgesia in this context can be particularly useful in ‘high-risk’
women who may require intrapartum delivery.
Before extending a labour epidural block for caesarean section, it is vital to
ensure that the epidural has been working well during labour. Other considerations
when extending a labour epidural block for caesarean section include the choice of
drug and where the top-up drug should be administered.
The choice of local anaesthetic agent to use in this situation has been widely but
not extensively studied. Comparison of these studies is limited by a number of fac-
tors including differing end points and the use of different labour analgesia regi-
mens. The ideal agent should have a fast onset but be associated with minimal side
effects as a large bolus of local anaesthetic is being administered over a short time
period. A meta-analysis on the subject looked at 11 randomized controlled trials,
involving 779 parturients [21]. The local anaesthetic agents used in the various
studies were classified into three groups: 0.5% bupivacaine or levobupivacaine;
2% lidocaine and 1: 200 000 epinephrine, with or without fentanyl; and 0.75%
ropivacaine. The authors found that lidocaine and epinephrine, with or without
fentanyl, resulted in a significantly faster onset of sensory. The bupivacaine or
levobupivacaine group was associated with a significantly increased risk of intraop-
erative supplementation compared with the other groups. The addition of fentanyl
to a local anaesthetic resulted in a significantly faster onset but did not affect the
need for intraoperative supplementation. The authors concluded that if the speed of
onset is important, then a lidocaine and epinephrine solution, with or without fen-
tanyl, was preferable, but for quality of epidural block then 0.75% ropivacaine
preferable. There were insufficient trials to assess the effect of adding sodium
bicarbonate in this meta-analysis, although it was noted that the reduction in onset
time appeared more pronounced when bicarbonate was added in two studies.
However, the time required to prepare solutions of drugs could outweigh any reduc-
tion in onset times, and there are safety implications when mixing drugs in emer-
gency situations [22].
The location where the epidural ‘top-up’ should be given is controversial and can
be affected by a variety of factors including the urgency of delivery, local practice
factors and the layout of an individual unit [23]. Initiating the ‘top-up’ in the labour
ward can help to expedite the establishment of an adequate block height and mini-
mize the decision to delivery interval. However, any large epidural top-up is associ-
ated with the risks of significant hypotension, high blockade and local anaesthetic
toxicity. The anaesthetist’s ability to effectively monitor for the development of
these complications and manage them may be compromised by being in the deliv-
ery room. If the top-up is given only after the patient has arrived in the operating
room there may not be sufficient time to allow an adequate block height to develop
and general anaesthesia may be required [24]. A compromise would be to adminis-
ter a small dose of local anaesthetic in the delivery room and then giving the rest of
the top-up once the patient has arrived in theatre.
8.3.3 General Anaesthesia
The use of general anaesthesia for caesarean section has fallen dramatically in the
past two decades particularly in the resourced world. It has been estimated that
less than 5% of all elective caesarean deliveries in the United States and United
Kingdom are performed under general anaesthesia. Recommendations from the
United Kingdom are that less than 15% of emergency (Category 1, 2 and 3 caesar-
ean sections) and 5% of elective (Category 4 CS) be performed with general
anaesthesia [9].
Indications for general anaesthesia for caesarean section include:
• Contraindication to regional anaesthesia

• Maternal refusal
• Failure of regional anaesthesia
• Insufficient time to establish neuraxial anaesthesia for urgent delivery in the
presence of severe maternal/foetal compromise
The safe delivery of general anaesthesia depends on rigorous planning and prep-
aration. General anaesthesia is frequently performed in an urgent situation, and time
for planning and preparation may be limited. Effective multidisciplinary team com-
munication is essential so that high-risk women can be identified early before an
emergency situation develops thus facilitating optimization, the administration of
antacid prophylaxis, assessment of the haemoglobin and confirmation that a group
and save sample has been sent for laboratory analysis.
The key elements of general anaesthesia include:
1. Pre-assessment is the cornerstone of maintaining safety, particularly in the emer-

gency situation. This includes routine assessment for general co-morbidities and
relevant pregnancy-related problems but most importantly a thorough appraisal
of the airway. Airway assessment should not only evaluate possible difficulty
with intubation but also with mask ventilation/supraglottic airway device inser-
tion and front-of-neck access.
2. Prevention of pulmonary aspiration of gastric contents. Risk factors for aspira-
tion include a prolonged gastric emptying time in labour, increased intra-
abdominal pressure due to the gravid uterus and relaxation of the lower
oesophageal sphincter due to hormonal changes. To reduce the risk, prophylaxis
against acid aspiration should be given prior to anaesthesia.
3. The use of rapid sequence induction for induction and intubation.
The use of thiopental and succinylcholine for general anaesthesia for caesarean

section has remained standard for many decades although propofol is also now
widely used as the induction agent. The publication of a major investigation into
accidental awareness during general anaesthesia has highlighted obstetric patients
being at particular risk [25]. Factors associated with an increased risk of awareness
include:
• Induction or emergence of anaesthesia

• Use of neuromuscular blockade
• Use of thiopentone
• Rapid sequence induction
• Obesity
• Difficult airway management
• Out-of-hours operating, emergencies.
Following general anaesthesia for a Category 1 caesarean section, surgery may

commence very soon after induction. This is a period when rapid redistribution of
the intravenous induction agent and slowly increasing partial pressure of the volatile
anaesthetic may lead to a gap in effective anaesthetic depth and consequent aware-
ness. Accidental awareness may lead to psychological morbidity, which can have a
significant impact on the maternal experience and maternal-infant bonding.
Anaesthetists should consider obstetric cases as having a high risk of awareness,
and include the risk of awareness as part of the consent process. Recommended
strategies to minimize the risk of awareness include an additional syringe of induc-
tion agent being available to maintain anaesthesia in case of airway difficulties at
induction and intubation, strategies to ensure the rapid attainment of adequate end-
tidal volatile levels after intravenous induction (additional uterotonics may be
required to allow ‘enough’ volatile agent to be used) and the use of opioids at
induction.
The advent of videolaryngoscopy, second-generation supraglottic devices

and now transnasal humidified rapid-insufflation ventilatory exchange devices
such as Optiflow™ is providing an increasingly safer environment for the emer-
gency GA section. However, as there remains a relatively low rate of general
anaesthesia for caesarean section, training remains challenging; it has been sug-
gested that the use of emergency drills in the simulation environment can be
helpful [26, 27].
8.4 Special Circumstances
8.4.1 The Bleeding Patient
Maternal haemorrhage is a leading cause of maternal mortality and morbidity, and

if it occurs antenatally can cause foetal hypoxia and death. Antepartum haemor-
rhage has an incidence of 2–5% over 24 weeks gestation [28]. The major causes are
abruption, uterine rupture and placenta previa. The anaesthetic management of
these patients is key to ensuring a good outcome for mother and baby. Surgical
intervention is lifesaving and must be accompanied by the safe provision of rapid
anaesthesia. Particular features that complicate decision-making when choosing the
best mode of anaesthesia relate to concerns about the presence of a coagulopathy
and the administration of anaesthesia to a patient with cardiovascular compromise.
Major obstetric haemorrhage may precipitate disseminated intra-vascular coagu-
lopathy (DIC), which is incompatible with safe neuraxial blockade [29]. The most
common cause of clinically significant consumptive coagulopathy in obstetrics is
placental abruption accounting for approximately one third of cases of disseminated
intra-vascular in the obstetric patient [30]. It is particularly likely to arise in the
presence of antenatal foetal demise. It is more likely in a concealed abruption as the
intrauterine pressure will increase and force more thromboplastin into the maternal
venous system, leading to reduced fibrinogen levels with or without thrombocyto-
paenia [31].
A further concern when considering anaesthetic choice for a patient who has had
an obstetric haemorrhage or has the potential to do so, for example a woman with
placenta praevia, is an anxiety that the sympathetic blockade induced by neuraxial
anaesthesia would make it difficult to manage blood pressure in the event of a
haemorrhage.
In general, consensus advice appears to favour neuraxial blockade in situations
in which the patient remains relatively haemodynamically stable and in which there
are no clear contraindications [32]. The caveat remains that induction of any type of
surgical anaesthesia will require appropriate fluid resuscitation and the use of vaso-
pressors to avoid hypotension and cardiovascular collapse. A further consideration
is that in a woman who has received neuraxial anaesthesia and suffered obstetric
haemorrhage, significant reassurance or resuscitative management will require
additional skilled anaesthetic assistance.
Other situations in which coagulation may be affected are in cases of massive

transfusion, where there is altered haemostasis, dilution and consumption of clot-
ting factors. This is particularly relevant when considering the timing of removal of
an epidural catheter. The catheter should only be removed once the bleeding is
controlled, the patient is stable and the coagulation can be assessed [29].
8.4.2 The Patient with Severe Pre-eclampsia
A hypertensive response to laryngoscopy and intubation in patients with pre-

eclampsia requiring emergency operative delivery has been reported as a direct
cause of mortality in UK Confidential Enquiry Reports [33]. In a woman with severe
pre-eclampsia there is also an increased incidence of laryngeal oedema and there-
fore increased potential for difficult intubation. As a result, neuraxial blockade is
considered the preferred choice in the absence of absolute contraindications [34,
35]; this includes circumstances following eclampsia seizures in which patients
have regained a full level of consciousness [35].
Pre-eclampsia and particularly HELLP(Hemolysis, Elevated Liver enzymes and
Low Platelet count) syndrome can be associated with thrombocytopenia, the extent
of which may contraindicate neuraxial anaesthesia. There is no universally accepted
optimum platelet count at which neuraxial anaesthesia procedures can be safely
performed [29]. Obstetric neuraxial anaesthetic procedures are generally associated
with a lower risk of the serious complications, including epidural haematoma [36].
Reports of epidural haematoma are often confounded by the presence of other risk
factors including the use of anticoagulants or antiplatelet agents or in the case of
pre-eclampsia with rapidly falling platelet counts. There are two important consid-
erations in decision-making for the obstetric anaesthetist. Firstly, what the preferred
mode of neuraxial anaesthesia is, spinal anaesthesia posing less risks than epidural
anaesthesia; and secondly, the nature of the thrombocytopenia, a woman who has
developed a physiological thrombocytopenia during pregnancy is at less risk of spi-
nal haematoma than a woman who has severe pre-eclampsia with a falling platelet
count.
In circumstances in which general anaesthesia cannot be avoided, care should be
taken to reduce the hypertensive response to laryngoscopy using opiates, beta-
blockers, magnesium or lidocaine and careful consideration to the likelihood of
difficult intubation with appropriate provision made.
8.4.3 The Obese Patient
Obesity poses additional risks and difficulties for both general and neuraxial anaes-
thesia; an obese parturient presenting for emergency caesarean section may be par-
ticularly problematic [37]. Adequate multidisciplinary antenatal planning and early
provision of epidural anaesthesia in labour are essential [38]. The safety of the
mother is paramount and where possible general anaesthesia should be avoided.
Ultrasound may be a useful guide to establishing the midline when this proves dif-
ficult [39]; extra length spinal and epidural kits should be available when necessary,
although it is generally considered that a standard set is suitable for most first
attempts. Ultrasound may also be required for establishing intravenous access.
Consideration should be made to the likelihood of increased surgical complexity
and length of operation, which may make a combined spinal epidural approach the
most suitable choice, as converting to general anaesthesia mid procedure would be
less than ideal. Obstructive sleep apnoea is underdiagnosed in the obese pregnant
population and confers additional risks peri-operatively, and is a further reason to
avoid general anaesthesia [40].
Where general anaesthesia is unavoidable, comprehensive preparation even in
the emergency is essential. This will include adequate monitoring which may mean
establishing arterial access prior to attempting any anaesthetic procedure. Antacid
treatment is essential and if the airway is assessed as difficult, awake fibreoptic
intubation should be considered. Otherwise, a rapid sequence induction in the
ramped position after thorough pre-oxygenation with the presence of an experi-
enced anaesthetist and the availability of videolaryngoscope can assist with mini-
mizing the otherwise inevitable desaturation following induction.
8.5 Planning for Failure
Despite all best efforts, occasionally the primary anaesthetic plan fails. Failure of
neuraxial anaesthesia can mean the need to convert to general anaesthesia or conver-
sion to a different form of anaesthesia [41–44]. In an audit of over 5000 caesarean
sections, conducted over a 5-year period, the rate of general anaesthesia conversion
of regional anaesthesia was 0.8% for elective and 4.9% for emergency caesarean
sections, but for Category 1 caesarean sections the general anaesthesia conversion
rate was 20% [45]. The rate of failure to achieve a pain-free operation was 6% with
spinals, 24% with epidural top-up and 18% with combined spinal–epidural. A retro-
spective analysis of over 19,000 deliveries for failure rates for labour analgesia and
caesarean section anaesthesia found that for caesarean section, 7.1% of pre-existing
labour epidural catheters failed and 4.3% of patients required conversion to general
anaesthesia. Spinal anaesthesia for caesarean section had a lower failure rate of
2.7%, with 1.2% of the patients requiring general anaesthesia [46].
When there is a problem in the emergency situation, rapid recognition and deci-
sion making is required to identify the next best course of action and an intrinsic
part of anaesthetic training is the provision of a ‘Plan B’ in the case of failure. There
is little evidence on which to make recommendations about the best mode of anaes-
thesia after failure of the primary technique. In addition, the options for an alterna-
tive mode of anaesthesia will be affected by the stage of the caesarean section; for
example, if the regional block (spinal or epidural top-up) has not reached a suffi-
cient height and maternal/foetal condition allows, there is the option to repeat the
spinal anaesthetic. Some evidence suggest that performing a spinal anaesthetic after
failure of an epidural top-up can be associated with the development of a high block
[47, 48]. If surgery has started, the options for alternative anaesthesia are more lim-
ited and conversion to general anaesthesia may be required. There is limited evi-
dence to suggest superiority of a well-performed regional or general anaesthetic
technique on neonatal outcome and the risk to mother for general anaesthesia varies
in terms of the individual circumstances [49, 50].
Communication is also key, as decision for emergency caesarean section is a
dynamic process, and the degree of urgency of a particular case may change.
Decision-making should always be in the mother’s best interests, and options should
include seeking further assistance and advice as far as possible. There is increasing
recognition of the impact of ‘human factors’ in these situations and how they can
impact on a situation. In the 2014 UK Confidential Enquiry into Maternal Death, the
MBRRACE Report (Mothers and Babies: Reducing Risk through Audits and
Confidential Enquiries), fixation error was highlighted as an issue in anaesthetic-
related maternal deaths [33]. A fixation error is said to occur when a practitioner
concentrates solely upon a single aspect of a case to the detriment of other more
relevant aspects; it can be associated with delayed diagnosis and a failure to change
management plans appropriately. Training in non-technical skills is likely to become
increasingly important in all areas of anaesthesia in the future.
References
1. http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/sites/health_glance-2015-en/06/08/index.html?itemId=/content/
chapter/health_glance-2015-37-en&mimeType=text/html. Accessed July 2016.
2. Morgan BM, Magni V, Goroszenuik T. Anaesthesia for emergency caesarean section. BJOG.
1990;97:420–4.
3. Classification of urgency of caesarean section—a continuum of risk, Good Practice No. 11.
http://www.rcog.org.uk/classification-of-urgency-of-caesarean-section-good-practice-11.
4. Thomas J, Paranjothy S, James D. National cross sectional survey to determine whether the
decision to delivery interval is critical in emergency caesarean section. BMJ. 2004;328:665–9.
5. Yentis SM. Whose distress is it anyway? ‘Fetal distress’ and the 30-minute rule. Anaesthesia.
2003;58:732–3.
6. James D. Caesarean section for fetal distress. BMJ. 2001;322:1316–7.
7. MacLennan A. For the international cerebral palsy task force. A template for defining a causal
relation between acute intra-partum events and cerebral palsy: international consensus state-
ment. BMJ. 1999;319:1054–9.
8. Bucklin BA, Hawkins JL, Anderson JR, Ullrich FA. Obstetric anesthesia workforce survey.
Twenty year update. Anesthesiology. 2005;103:645–53.
9. Colvin JR. Raising the standard: a compendium of audit recipes. 3rd ed. London: RCOA;
2012.
10. http://www.oaa-anaes.ac.uk/assets/_managed/cms/files/NOAD%20REPORTS/National%20
Obstetric%20Anaesthesia%20Data%20for%202012%20final.pdf. Accesses July 2016.
11. National Institute For Health And Care Excellence (Nice). Caesarean section. London: NICE;
2011.
12. Practice guidelines for obstetric anesthesia: an updated report by the American Society of
Anesthesiologists Task Force on Obstetric Anesthesia and the Society for Obstetric Anesthesia
and Perinatology. Anesthesiology. 2016;124:270–300.
13. Rout CC, Rocke DA, Levin J, Gouws E, Reddy D. A reevaluation of the role of crystalloid
preload in the prevention of hypotension associated with spinal anesthesia for elective Cesarean
section. Anesthesiology. 1993;79:262–9.
14. Ralston DH, Shnider SM, DeLorimier AA. Effects of equipotent ephedrine, metaraminol,
mephentermine and methoxamine on uterine blood flow in the pregnant ewe. Anesthesiology.
1974;40:354–70.
15. Ngan Kee WD, Khaw KS, Lee BB, et al. A dose-response study of prophylactic intravenous
ephedrine for the prevention of hypotension during spinal anaesthesia for cesarean delivery.
Anesth Analg. 2000;90:1390–5.
16. Heesen M, Stewart A, Fernando R. Vasopressors for the treatment of maternal hypotension
following spinal anaesthesia for elective caesarean section: past, present and future.
Anaesthesia. 2015;70:252–7.
17. Heesen M, Klöhr S, Rossaint R, et al. Prophylactic phenylephrine for caesarean section under
spinal anaesthesia: systematic review and meta-analysis. Anaesthesia. 2014;69:143–65.
18. Siddik-Sayyid SM, Taha SK, Kanazi GE, et al. A randomized controlled trial of variable rate
phenylephrine infusion with rescue phenylephrine boluses versus rescue boluses alone on phy-
sician interventions during spinal anesthesia for elective cesarean delivery. Anesth Analg.
2014;118:611–8.
19. Kathirgamanathan A, Douglas MJ, Tyler J, Saran S, Gunka V, Preston R, Kliffer P. Speed of
spinal vs. general anaesthesia for category-1 caesarean section: a simulation and clinical
observation-based study. Anaesthesia. 2013;68:753–9.
20. Kinsella SM, Girgirah K, Scrutton MJL. Rapid sequence spinal anaesthesia for category-1
urgency caesarean section: a case series. Anaesthesia. 2010;65:664–9.
21. SG Hillyard, TE Bate, TB Corcoran, MJ Paech, G O'Sullivan; Extending epidural analgesia
for emergency Caesarean section: a meta-analysis. Br J Anaesth 2011; 107: 668-678.
22. Lucas DN, Borra PJ, Yentis SM. Epidural top-up solutions for emergency caesarean section: a
comparison of preparation times. Br J Anaesth. 2000;84:494–6.
23. Regan KJ, O’Sullivan G. The extension of epidural blockade for emergency Caesarean sec-
tion: a survey of current UK practice. Anaesthesia. 2008;63:136–42.
24. Moore P, Russell IF. Epidural top-ups for category I/II emergency caesarian section should be
given only in the operating theatre. IJOA. 2004;13:257–65.
25. Pandit JJ, Andrade J, Bogod DG, et al. The 5th National Audit Project (NAP5) on accidental
awareness during general anaesthesia: summary of main findings and risk factors. Anaesthesia.
2014;69:1089–101.
26. Lipman S, Carvalho B, Brock-Utne J. The demise of general anesthesia in obstetrics revisited:
prescription for a cure. IJOA. 2005;14:2–4.
27. Mushambi MC, Kinsella SM, Popat M, et al. Obstetric anaesthetists’ association and difficult
airway society guidelines for the management of difficult and failed tracheal intubation in
obstetrics. Anaesthesia. 2015;70:1286–306.
28. Calleja-Aguus J, Custo R. Placental abruption and placenta previa. Eur J Clin Obstet Gynaecol.
2006;2:121–7.
29. Working Party. Regional anaesthesia and patients with abnormalities of coagulation: The
Association of Anaesthetists of Great Britain & Ireland, the Obstetric Anaesthetists’
Association, Regional Anaesthesia UK. Anaesthesia. 2013;68:966–72.
30. Rattray DD, O’Connell CM, Baskett TF. Acute disseminated intravascular coagulation in
obstetrics: a tertiary centre population review (1980–2009). J Obstet Gynaecol Can.
2012;34:341–7.
31. Daflapurkar SB. High risk cases in obstetrics. 1st ed. London: JP Medical Ltd.; 2014. ISBN:
978-93-5152-218-8.
32. Walfish M, Neuman A, Wlody D. Maternal haemorrhage. Br J Anaesth. 2009;103:47–56.
33. Knight M, Kenyon S, Brocklehurst P, Neilson J, Shakespeare J, Kurinczuk JJ, editors., on
behalf of MBRRACE-UK. Saving lives, improving mothers’ care–lessons learned to inform
future maternity care from the UK and Ireland Confidential Enquiries into Maternal Deaths
and Morbidity 2009–12. Oxford: National Perinatal Epidemiology Unit, University of Oxford;
2014.
34. Dennis AT. Management of pre-eclampsia: issues for anaesthetists. Anaesthesia. 2012;67:
1009–20.
35. Dyer RA, Piercy JL, Reed AR. The role of the anaesthetist in the pre-eclampsia patient. Curr
Opin Anaesthesiol. 2007;20:168–74.
36. Cook TM, Counsell D, Wildsmith JAW. Major complications of central neuraxial block: report
on the Third National Audit of the Royal College of Anaesthetists. Br J Anaesth.
2009;102:179–90.
37. Mace HS, Paech MJ, McDonnell NJ. Obesity and obstetric anaesthesia. Anaesth Intensive
Care. 2011;39:559–70.
38. Members of the Working Party, Nightingale CE, Margarson MP, Shearer E, Redman JW,
Lucas DN, Cousins JM, Fox WTA, Kennedy NJ, Venn PJ, Skues M, Gabbott D, Misra U,
Pandit JJ, Popat MT, Griffiths R. Peri-operative management of the obese surgical patient
2015. Anaesthesia. 2015;70:859–76.
39. Sahin T, Balaban O, Sahin L, Solak M, Toker K. A randomized controlled trial of preinsertion
ultrasound guidance for spinal anaesthesia in pregnancy: outcomes among obese and lean
parturients: ultrasound for spinal anaesthesia in pregnancy. J Anesth. 2014;28:413–9.
40. Ankichetty SP, Angle P, Joselyn AS, Chinnappa V, Halpern S. Anesthetic considerations of
parturients with obesity and obstructive sleep apnea. J Anaesthesiol Clin Pharmacol.
2012;28:436–43.
41. Shibli KU, Russell IF. A survey of anaesthetic techniques used for caesarean section in the UK
in 1997. Int J Obstet Anesth. 2000;9:160–7.
42. Jenkins JG, Khan MM. Anaesthesia for caesarean section: a survey in a UK region from 1992
to 2002. Anaesthesia. 2003;58:1114–8.
43. Riley ET, Papasin J. Epidural catheter function during labor predicts anesthetic efficacy for
subsequent cesarean delivery. Int J Obstet Anesth. 2002;11:81–4.
44. Garry M, Davies S. Failure of regional blockade for caesarean section. Int J Obstet Anesth.
2002;11:9–12.
45. Kinsella SM. A prospective audit of regional anaesthesia failure in 5080 Caesarean sections.
Anaesthesia. 2008;63:822–32.
46. Pan PH, Bogard TD, Owen MD. Incidence and characteristics of failures in obstetric neuraxial
analgesia and anesthesia: a retrospective analysis of 19,259 deliveries. Int J Obstet Anesth.
2004;13:227–33.
47. Dresner M, Brennan A, Freeman J. Six year audit of high regional blocks in obstetric anaes-
thesia. Int J Obstet Anesth. 2003;12:S10.
48. D’Angelo R, Smiley RM, Riley ET, Segal S. Serious complications related to obstetric anes-
thesia: the serious complication repository project of the society for obstetric anesthesia and
perinatology. Anesthesiology. 2014;120:1505–12.
49. Afolabi BB, Lesi FEA, Merah NA. Regional versus general anaesthesia for caesarean section.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2006,(4):CD004350. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD004350.pub2.
50. Dyer RA, Els I, Farbas J, et al. Prospective, randomised trial comparing general with spinal
anaesthesia for Caesarian delivery in preeclamptic patients with a non reassuring fetal heart
trace. Anaesthesiology. 2003;99:561–9.
Surgical Difficulties and Complications
9
Vincenzo Scotto di Palumbo
9.1 History
We cannot be sure when the term cesarean was derived. In past centuries the proce-
dure was known as cesarean operation. In 1598, Jacques Guillemeau in his book on
midwifery introduced the term section and this replaced the term operation.
The purpose of this procedure was essentially to retrieve the infant from a dead
or dying mother.
In Western societies, women for the most part were not allowed to perform cesar-
ean sections until the late nineteenth century because they were largely denied
admission to medical schools. The first recorded successful cesarean in the British
Empire, however, was conducted by a woman, James Miranda Stuart Barry, who in
1815 performed the operation while masquerading as a man and serving as a physi-
cian to the British army in South Africa.
In 1879, for example, one British traveller, R.W. Felkin, witnessed cesarean sec-
tion performed by Ugandans. The healer used banana wine to semi-intoxicate the
woman and to cleanse his hands and her abdomen prior to surgery. He used a mid-
line incision and applied cautery to minimize hemorrhaging. He massaged the
uterus to make it contract but did not suture it; the abdominal wound was pinned
with iron needles and dressed with a paste prepared from roots. The patient recov-
ered well, and Felkin concluded that this technique was well-developed and had
clearly been employed for a long time.
In the mid-1860s, Joseph Lister, a British surgeon, introduced an antiseptic
method using carbolic acid, and many operators adopted some part of his
antisepsis.
Using those techniques, the procedure continued to produce many complications
and deaths. According to one estimate, not a single woman survived cesarean
V.S. di Palumbo
UOC Ostetricia e Ginecologia, Ospedale S Spirito, Rome, Italy
e-mail: vscottodipalumbo@gmail.com

DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-42053-0_9
126 V.S. di Palumbo
section in Paris between 1787 and 1876. Surgeons were afraid to suture the uterine
incision because they thought internal stitches, which could not be removed, might
produce infections and cause uterine rupture in subsequent pregnancies. So some
women died of hemorrhage or infection.
In 1876, an Italian doctor Eduardo Porro suggested performing an hysterectomy
at the time of the cesarean section to control uterine hemorrhage and prevent sys-
temic infection. This enabled him to reduce the incidence of postoperative sepsis.
But his mutilating elaboration on cesarean section was soon obviated by the employ-
ment of uterine sutures.
Between 1880 and 1925, obstetricians experimented with transverse incisions in
the lower segment of the uterus. This refinement reduced the risk of infection and of
subsequent uterine rupture in pregnancy.
After the discovery of penicillin by Alexander Fleming in 1928 and its purifica-
tion as a drug in 1940, the procedure became safer and maternal mortality decreased
dramatically.
While the operation was historically performed largely to protect the health of
the mother, more recently the health of the fetus has played a larger role.
An operation that virtually always resulted in a dead woman and dead fetus now
almost always results in a living mother and baby.
In this chapter the complications and the difficulties that can occur performing a
cesarean delivery (CD) will be examined.
9.2 Delivering the Fetal Head in Advanced Labor
Sometimes, when the CD is performed in the second stage, with the head strongly
engaged in the pelvis, the removal of the head can be very difficult, and severe head
trauma can occur, especially nowadays when forceps and vacuum delivery are not
so common as before.
In this condition, the head is deeply engaged in the pelvis. Open the lower segment
of the uterus and insert the hand; wait until the contraction disappears, avoid fighting
against the contraction, because it can produce head trauma. Then when your hand
does not feel the pressure, gently with flection or rotation, easily disengage the head of
the baby. Never use the forceps to pull up the head. In some cases, when this maneuver
is unsuccessful ask the anesthetist to administer terbutaline or glyceryltrinitrate
250 mcg i.v.to relax the uterus. The effect is quite immediate and of short duration.
When accessing the uterus in advanced labor remember that the lower segment
is stretched and the incision must be made 3–4 cm higher than usual to avoid enter-
ing straight into the vagina.
Accessing a uterus which has fibroids is sometimes very difficult. In this case it
is very useful to have a perfect knowledge of the position of the fibroids especially
in the anterior part of the uterus and the thickness of the lower segment; this can be
obtained by performing an ultrasound immediately before the procedure. Sometimes
a large fibroid can rotate the uterus and in this case great attention must be made in
choosing where to cut the uterus to effect the delivery in order to avoid cutting the
uterine vessels.
9 Surgical Difficulties and Complications 127
Some difficulties in accessing the baby can occur when the position is unstable
or abnormal because of uterine anomalies or amniotic bands. In this case it is better
to try to understand the reason prior to surgery and to be helped by an experienced
obstetrician.
9.3 Anterior Placenta
In the case of anterior placenta, it is better, before beginning the procedure, to

check the placental position by ultrasound in order to cut the uterus below the
placenta and so avoid going through it. In some cases, however, this is not possi-
ble and the obstetrician must pay attention when cutting the placenta to avoid the
cord and must immediately clamp the cord itself to minimize any fetal blood loss.
If it occurs advise the neonatologist in case the baby shows signs of acute
hemorrhage.
9.4 Breech
In the CD for a breech presentation make a large incision of the skin and the uterus.
If the incision of the uterus does not seem large enough, continue with a J-shaped
incision avoiding the uterine vessels. Remember not to pull the baby, but invite your
assistant to apply pressure from above; do not lift the baby until the nape is visible;
if the head is trapped, ask the anesthetist to relax the uterus or apply a small forceps
avoiding the hyperextension of the neck during application and traction must flex
the neck.
9.5 Uterine Vessel Injury
If the incision injures the blood vessel a severe hemorrhage occurs and it expands
into the broad ligament. The suggestion in this case is to exteriorize the uterus and
pull it up in order to identify the bleeding vessel and contemporarily to move the
bladder and the ureter away.
Always remember to stop the bleeding first, avoiding catching the ureter in the
suture; when the bleeding has stopped, however, you can open the peritoneum and
identify the ureter following it until the suture. If you are not able, call for the help
of an expert gynecologist or urologist.
9.6 Shoulder Presentation
When the fetal arm is prolapsed through the vagina, perform a large incison of the
skin and the uterus, if necessary also J-shaped and palpate the fetal leg and try to
deliver the breech with Patwardhan’s maneuver [1]. This maneuver can also be used
when the head is deeply engaged in the pelvis in advanced labor.
128 V.S. di Palumbo
9.7 Placenta Accreta
It occurs when the placenta becomes abnormally adherent to the myometrium rather
than the uterine decidua. After delivery of the baby the placenta does not separate from
the uterus leading to severe hemorrhaging. If the placenta invades the myometrium it is
increta, if it invades the uterine serosa and/or adjacent organs it is termed percreta.
Placenta accreta is associated with severe maternal morbidity, including large
volume blood transfusion, hysterectomy, intensive care unit (ICU) admission, and
prolonged hospitalization. Severe hemorrhage can produce disseminated intravas-
cular coagulation (DIC) and multiorgan failure (MOF). Fetal risks are similar to
those for placenta previa and consist of complications related to preterm birth. Rates
of placenta accreta are increased especially in relation to the increased rate of
CD. The incidence was 1:30,000 in the 1960s to 1:500 in 2002 and also more in
recent years.
Usually the trophoblast invades the decidua until a certain level, called Nitabuch’s
layer, and then stops.
In some conditions, after cesarean section or myomectomy there could be a rela-
tive hypoxia at the site of the scar, resulting in the cytotrophoblast invading the
myometrium to an abnormal degree and sometimes the serosa and also adjacent
organs like the bladder. It is therefore evident that the major risk factor for placenta
accrete is multiple prior cesarean deliveries. The combination of placenta previa and
prior cesarean delivery increases the risk of placenta accreta because the placenta
lies on the uterine scar. Obviously, the risk increases with the number of CD, from
11% for the second CD to 61% for the fifth CD [2, 3].
Prior curettage and hysteroscopic surgery are considered risk factors for placenta
accreta; also patients who develop Asherman syndrome, or any injury of the normal
architecture of the endometrium, are at high risk of placenta accreta.
9.7.1 Screening and Diagnosis for Placenta Previa and Accreta
The gold standard for diagnosis of placenta accreta is histology that is possible only
if an hysterectomy is performed. The suspicion, however, of adherent placenta must
be present in any woman who has had previous cesarean or uterine surgery. In those
cases, an ultrasound assessment of the placental site must be done at 32 weeks and
prior to surgery.
9.7.2 Clinical Diagnosis
Clinical suspicion should be raised in all women with vaginal bleeding after
20 weeks of gestation. A high presenting part, an abnormal lie, and painless or
provoked bleeding, irrespective of previous imaging results, are more suggestive of
a low-lying placenta but may not be present, and definitive diagnosis usually relies
on ultrasound imaging [4].
9.7.3 Which Kind of Screening Can Be Done?
Routine ultrasound at 20 weeks of gestation should include placental localization

[4] (evidence level 4).
Sonographic features that suggest accreta are the following: (from NICE Green-
top Guideline no. 27)
9.7.3.1 With Gray Scale

The sonographic features that suggest placenta accreta are:
Loss of retroplacental sonolucent zone

Irregular retroplacental sonolucent zone
Thinning or disruption of the hyperechoic serosa–bladder interface
Presence of focal exophytic masses invading the urinary bladder
Abnormal placental lacunae
9.7.3.2 With Color Doppler

Diffuse or focal lacunar flow
Vascular lakes with turbulent flow (peak systolic velocity over 15 cm/s)
Hypervascularity of serosa–bladder interface
Markedly dilated vessel over peripheral subplacental zone
9.7.3.3 With Three-Dimensional Power Doppler

Numerous coherent vessels involving the whole uterine serosa–bladder junction
(basal view)
Hypervascularity (lateral view)
Inseparable cotyledonal and intervillous circulation, chaotic branching, detour ves-
sels (lateral view)
The sensitivity of the three-dimensional power Doppler is 100%, the specificity

85%, and the positive predictive value 88% [5], higher in comparison with gray
scale and color doppler.
MRI is indicated when the ultrasound scan is inconclusive or percreta is
suspected.
9.7.4 Complications
The primary risk of placenta accreta is hemorrhage and the associated complica-
tions such as DIC and MOF. Bladder and ureter injury occurs in 10–15% of cases;
30–40% of patients require ICU admission for complications such as thromboem-
bolism and pyelonephritis and pneumonia. Maternal death is reported in 5–7% of
cases. Outcome is related to the severity of the case and the expertise of the center
treating the patient. Vesicovaginal fistula is a late complication of cesarean hyster-
ectomy as a result of placenta accreta.
130 V.S. di Palumbo
9.7.5 Management
The milestone for the management of placenta accreta is prenatal diagnosis. This
allows for the best obstetric management and a significant reduction of morbidity.
The suspicion arises from prior multiple cesarean sections, placenta previa, and
Asherman syndrome.
There are no randomized trials, but the following recommendations are based on
retrospective studies and expert opinions and recommendations of the recent NICE
guideline cited above.
9.7.6 Antepartum for Suspected Accreta
Ultrasound to assess the probability as written above

Bed rest or hospitalization in the case of antepartum bleeding
Corticosteroid administration in the case of antepartum bleeding or at the time of
hospitalization
Consultation with the patient and her parents about delivery and risks, including
also the chance of hysterectomy, leaving the placenta in situ, cell salvage, and
interventional radiology; make a note on the chart of all of these.
Prepare a multidisciplinary team at the operating theater
The time of delivery should be between 34 and 36 weeks balancing the risk of
maternal hemorrhage and prematurity of the baby
Heavy bleeding requires immediate delivery
9.7.7 Surgery for Suspected Accreta
Present in the main operating theater:
Consultant obstetrician
Consultant anesthesiologist
Blood and blood products on site
Interventional radiologist to decide if preoperative placement of introducer or bal-
loon is required
Neonatal team especially if surgery is far away from the delivery room
Availability of ICU bed
A vertical skin incision should be made, regardless of a prior abdominal or pelvic scar.
The choice of anesthetic technique (loco, regional, or general) for cesarean sec-
tion for placenta previa or suspected accreta must be made by the anesthetist con-
ducting the procedure; there is insufficient evidence to support one technique over
another [6, 7].
It could be prudent to insert a bilateral ureteral stent preoperatively.
In the case of strongly suspected accreta, a planned cesarean hysterectomy
should be accomplished. A classical hysterotomy that does not disturb the
placenta should be done to deliver the baby [8]. Do not attempt to remove the
placenta! The hysterotomy has to be sutured to achieve hemostasis, followed by
an hysterectomy [9].
Consideration may be given to leaving the placenta in situ and planning a delayed
hysterectomy 6 weeks later [10]. This technique has been advocated in the case of
percreta to avoid bladder resection.
9.7.8 Conservative Management
Some women with placenta accreta desire to preserve fertility. Many strategies
have been suggested to avoid hysterectomy, such as leaving the placenta in situ
after delivery, uterine devascularization made during surgery, embolization of
uterine vessels or intraoperative aorta balloon occlusion [11], oversewing the pla-
cental vascular bed or the use of methotrexate to inhibit trophoblast growth, and
induce postpartum involution of the placenta. The cited techniques, however, may
result in increased morbidity. We do not know what the risk of obstetric complica-
tion and recurrent accrete could be in a future pregnancy. Conservative manage-
ment can be done in selective cases such as posterior or fundal placenta
(Timmerman).
9.7.9 Prevention
The only prevention is to reduce or avoid multiple cesarean deliveries and of course
the primary cesarean. Also the technical modality of suture can be considered as
closing the hysterotomy at cesarean; a two layer suture versus one layer could facili-
tate the endometrial integrity and vascularization.
9.8 Cesarean Myomectomy
The management of myomas during a cesarean delivery is a controversial topic.

In some patients cesarean myomectomy can be associated with increased mor-
bidity, but it can be useful if the myoma compromises the fetal extraction or hystero-
tomic suture and in all cases with pedunculated and subserous myomas of the
anterior wall to avoid multiple hysterotomies for deep intramural nodules, fundal,
and cornual associated with severe surgical complications [12].
9.9 Infections
The most important risk factor for postpartum maternal infection is cesarean section.
Although all guidelines endorse the use of prophylactic antibiotics for women under-
going cesarean section, there is not a uniform interpretation of this recommendation.
The Cochrane review (2014) identified 95 studies enrolling 15,000 women
and stated that the use of a prophylactic antibiotic in women undergoing cesarean
132 V.S. di Palumbo
section reduced the incidence of wound infection (RR 0.40, C.I. 0.35–0.46),
endometritis (RR 0.38, C.I. 0.34–0.42), and maternal serious infection complica-
tions (RR 0.31, C.I. 0.20–0.49). For women undergoing elective cesarean sec-
tion, the protective effect of a prophylactic antibiotic is slightly inferior: for
wound infection (RR 0.62, C.I. 0.47–0.82) and for endometritis (RR 0.38, C.I.
0.24–0.61). There was no difference if the prophylactic antibiotics were admin-
istered before or after the cord was clamped. No study reported the incidence of
oral candidiasis as being a possible effect of the antibiotic in the babies nor if
they could effect the baby’s immune system. The authors conclude that prophy-
lactic antibiotics should be administered to all women undergoing cesarean sec-
tion to prevent infections [13].
9.10 H
ow to Control Major Hemorrhage
During Cesarean Section
Major causes of obstetric hemorrhage are:
Uterine atony
Placenta previa
Retained placenta or placental fragments
Broad ligament hematoma
Uterine rupture
Uterine anatomical anomalies and myomas
All the procedures to control hemorrhage are well recommended in the Green-
top Guideline 52 of the Royal College of Obstetrician and Gynaecologist “Prevention
and Management of Postpartum Haemorrhage” [14]. In this paragraph, we will
examine the advanced techniques adopted when the pharmacological options fail to
control the hemorrhage.
9.10.1 Intrauterine Tamponade with Balloon
The intrauterine tamponade with balloon is suggested in the case of uterine atony
and placenta previa. At the beginning, a Rusch balloon or a condom catheter was
used, but now the Bakri® balloon by Cook Medical is widely used. This balloon has
a drainage lumen that allows blood loss monitoring. It can be inserted after a spon-
taneous delivery or cesarean section, filled with saline until the bleeding is con-
trolled, maintained in situ for 12–24 h, and removed by vaginal route under
uterotonic drugs (syntocinon infusion) and antibiotic regimen [15–17].
In terms of mechanism of action, the intrauterine balloon is believed to act by
exerting inward to outward pressure against the uterine wall, resulting in a reduction
in persistent capillary and venous bleeding from the endometrium and the
myometrium.
The Bakri balloon is used for temporary control or reduction of postpartum hem-
orrhage when conservative management of uterine bleeding is warranted, after
bleeding from genital tract lacerations, and retained product of conception has been
excluded.
When uterotonics fail to cause sustained uterine contractions and satisfactory
control of hemorrhage after vaginal delivery, tamponade of the uterus can be effec-
tive in decreasing hemorrhage secondary to uterine atony.
Although the use of an intrauterine balloon catheter is often successful and serves
as a definite therapy, it can also be used as a temporary measure to decrease hemor-
rhage while waiting and preparing for other definite treatments (i.e., uterine artery
ligation, uterine compression suture, hysterectomy) or while the patient is being
transferred to another unit with more experience and resources.
The use of the balloon is contraindicated in heavy arterial bleeding requiring
surgical exploration or angiographic embolization, congenital uterine anomaly,
uterine distorting pathology (leiomyoma), suspected uterine rupture, purulent
infection of the vagina, cervix, or uterus, and allergy to balloon material
(silicone).
9.10.2 Hemostatic Brace Sutures
The B-Lynch brace suture [18] was devised to control atony after cesarean section
in order to avoid hysterectomy; it is a procedure to keep the uterus contracted when
bimanual pressure has stopped.
With the uterus exteriorized a rapidly absorbable stitch (chromic catgut in the
paper by B-Lynch) with a needle 70 mm diameter is passed 3 cm from the right
lower edge of the uterine incision and 3 cm from the right lateral border.
The stitch is threaded through the uterine cavity to emerge at the upper incision
margin 3 cm above and approximately 4 cm from the lateral border.
The stitch, now visible, is passed over to compress the uterine fundus approxi-
mately 3–4 cm from the right cornual border.
The stitch is fed posteriorly and vertically to enter the posterior wall of the uter-
ine cavity at the same level as the upper anterior entry point.
The stitch is pulled under moderate tension assisted by manual compression
exerted by the first assistant.
The length of the stitch is passed back posteriorly through the same surface
marking as for the right side, the suture lying horizontally.
The stitch is fed through posteriorly and vertically over the fundus to lie anteri-
orly and vertically compressing the fundus on the left side, as occurred on the right.
The needle is passed in the same fashion on the left side through the uterine cavity
and out approximately 3 cm anteriorly and below the lower incision margin on the
left side.
The two lengths of stitch are pulled taught assisted by bimanual compression to
minimize trauma and to achieve or aid compression. During such compression, the
vagina is checked so that the bleeding is controlled.
134 V.S. di Palumbo
As good hemostasis is secured and while the uterus is compressed by an experi-

enced assistant the principal surgeon throws a knot (double throw) followed by two
or three further throws to secure tension.
The lower transverse uterine incision is now closed in the normal way, in two
layers, with or without closure of the lower uterine segment peritoneum.
It is not clear at the moment if fertility can be saved after the procedure. Cases of
Asherman syndrome [19] and successful pregnancy have been reported [20].
a b c
Round ligament Fallopian Ovarian ligament Fallopian
tube tube
Round ligament
Broad
ligament
ANTERIOR VIEW POSTERIOR VIEW ANTERIOR VIEW
Figure (a) and (b) demonstrate the anterior and posterior views of the uterus
showing the application of the B-Lynch Brace suture. Figure (c) shows the anatomi-
cal appearance after competent application.
9.10.3 Stepwise Uterine Artery Ligation and Bilateral

or Unilateral Internal Lliac Artery Ligation
This procedure is rarely indicated because it has to be performed by a very experi-

enced gynecologist and may make the subsequent interventional radiology very
difficult.
References
1. Patwardhan BD, Motashaw ND. Cesarian section. J Obstet Gynaecol India. 1957;8:1–15.
2. Rosen T. Placenta accreta and caesarean scar pregnancy: overlooked cost of rising caesarean
section rate. Clin Perinatol. 2008;35:519–29.
3. Gilliam M, Rosenberg D, Davis E. The likeliwood of placenta praevia with greater number of,
caesarean deliveries and higher parity. Obstet Gynecol. 2002;99:976–80.
4. RCOG. Greentop Guideline N° 27. Placenta praevia, placenta praeviaaccreta and vasapraevia;
diagnosis and management. London: RCOG; 2011.
5. Shih JC, Palacios JM, Su YN, Shyu MK, et al. Role of three-dimensional power Doppler in the
antenatal diagnosis of placenta accrete: comparison with gray scale and color Doppler tec-
niques. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2009;33:193–203.
6. Bonner SM, Haynes SR, Ryall D. The anesthetic management of caesarean section for pla-
centa praevia: a questionary survey. Anaesthesia. 1995;50:992–4.
7. Parekh N, Husaini SW, Russell IF. Caesarean section for placenta praevia: a retrospective
study of anaesthetic management. Br J Anaesth. 2000;84:725–30.
8. Wong HS, Hutton J, Zucollo J, Tait J, Pringle KC. The maternal outcome in placenta accrete:
the significance of antenatal diagnosis and non separation of placenta delivery. NZ Med
J. 2008;121:30–8.
9. Eller AG, Porter TF, Soisson P, Silver RM. Optimal management strategies for placenta
accreta. BJOG. 2009;116:648–54.
10. Timmermans S, van Hof AC, Duvekot JJ. Conservative management of abnormally invasive
placentation. Obstet Gynecol Surv. 2007;62:52939.
11. Panici PB, Anceschi M, Borgia ML, et al. Intraoperative aorta balloon occlusion: fertility
preservation in patients with placenta praeviaaccreta/increta. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med.
2012;25:2512–6.
12. Sparić R, Malvasi A, Kadija S, et al. Caesarean myomectomy trends and controversies: an
appraisal. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2016;21:1–38.
13. Smaill FM, Grivell RM. Antibiotic prohylaxis versus no prophylaxis for preventing infection
after caesarean section. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014.
14. Royal College of Obstetrician and Gynecologist. Greentop Guideline 52 Prevention and
Management of Postpartum Haemorrhage. London: RCOG; 2011.
15. Bakri YN, Amri A, Abdul JF. Tamponade-balloon for obstetrical bleeding. Int J Gynaecol
Obstet. 2001;74(2):139–42.
16. Georgiou C. Balloon tamponade in the management of postpartum haemorrhage: a review.
BJOG. 2009;116(6):748–57.
17. Lo A, St Marie P, Yadav P, Belisle E, Markenson G. The impact of bakri balloon tamponade
on the rate of postpartum hysterectomy for uterine atony. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med.
2016;30:1–15.
18. B-Lynch C, Coker A, Lawal AH, Abu J, Cowen MJ. The B-Lynch surgical technique for the
control of massive postpartum haemorrhage: an alternative to hysterectomy? Five cases
reported. BJOG. 1997;104:372–5.
19. Goojha CA, Case A, Pierson R. Development of Asherman syndrome after conservative surgi-
cal management of intractable postpartum haemorrhage. Fertil Steril. 2010;94(3):1098.
20. Sentilhes L, Gomez A, Trichot C, et al. Fertility after B-Lynvh suture and stepwise uterine
devascularization. Fertil Steril. 2009;91:934–9.
Complications Due to Regional
and General Anaesthesia 10
P.Y. Dewandre and J.F. Brichant
10.1 Introduction
Caesarean delivery is the most frequently performed inpatient surgical procedure

[1]. Compared with vaginal delivery, caesarean delivery is associated with a signifi-
cantly increased risk of anaesthesia-related adverse events (ARAEs) [2–5]. These
obstetric ARAEs are usually preventable because most of them are caused by sub-
standard care [3, 5, 6].The risk of ARAEs increases when caesarean delivery is
performed under general anaesthesia (GA) [2, 7]. Hence, unless existing contrain-
dication, neuraxial anaesthesia techniques are recommended for caesarean delivery
[8, 9]. The actual incidence of serious complications related to obstetric anaesthesia
remains largely unknown but is considered as very rare. Changes in the obstetric
anaesthesia practice in recent decades have improved patient safety, and the
increased use of neuraxial anaesthesia techniques for caesarean deliveries has con-
tributed to this safety improvement [10].
The Serious Complications Repository project (SCORE project) of the Society
for Obstetric Anesthesia and Perinatology (SOAP), collecting data from 2004 to
2009 on 257,000 parturients in the USA, concluded to an overall incidence of seri-
ous complications related to obstetric anaesthesia of 1 in 3000 patients [11]. The
serious complications tracked in this database were maternal death, cardiac arrest,
epidural abscess, meningitis, epidural hematoma, serious neurologic injury, aspira-
tion, failed intubation, high neuraxial block, anaphylaxis and respiratory arrest.
Caesarean deliveries represented 31.3% of all the deliveries, neuraxial anaesthesia
was used in 94.4% of the cases and GA was used in 5.6%. Another recent study
collecting data from 785,864 caesarean deliveries in the state of New York between
2003 and 2012 reported a global incidence of ARAEs of 0.7%. This incidence
increased to 7% in the subgroup of caesarean deliveries under GA. Minor ARAEs
P.Y. Dewandre • J.F. Brichant (*)

Centre Hospitaliere Universitaire de Liège, Liège, Belgium
e-mail: anesrea@ulg.ac.be

DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-42053-0_10
138 P.Y. Dewandre and J.F. Brichant
represented 94% of all ARAEs and major ARAEs accounted for 6% of the total. In
this cohort, no maternal death was related to anaesthesia [12].
10.2 Complications Due to Neuraxial Anaesthesia
10.2.1 Hypotension
Hypotension is a common complication of neuraxial anaesthesia for caesarean

delivery.
Its incidence may be as high as 80% after spinal anaesthesia.
The most widely accepted definition for maternal hypotension is a systolic blood
pressure (SBP) lower than 100 mmHg or a decrease in SBP of more than 20% to
30% from baseline values [13]. Spinal anaesthesia-induced hypotension is princi-
pally related to a decrease in systemic vascular resistances rather than a decrease in
cardiac output which is commonly increased [14]. In case of severe hypotension,
the uteroplacental perfusion may be impaired, resulting in fetal hypoxia, acidosis
and neonatal depression. In the parturient, hypotension may result in nausea and
vomiting, altered consciousness, aspiration, apnoea and cardiac arrest. The severity
of hypotension is related to the rate and extent of the sympathetic blockade [13].
Therefore, hypotension is less common with epidural anaesthesia than with spinal
anaesthesia because of the slower onset of sympathetic blockade and the earlier
recognition and treatment [15]. Although some physical methods (leg wrapping,
thromboembolic stockings) and prevention of aorto-caval compression by left dis-
placement of the uterus are useful, main prevention relies on two pharmacological
methods, vasopressor therapy and intravascular fluid loading generally in combina-
tion [16]. Phenylephrine is now the vasopressor of choice since it has been demon-
strated that as compared to ephedrine, phenylephrine decreases the risk of fetal
acidosis [17]. Crystalloid preloading is ineffective and should be abandoned.
Crystalloid coloading is more effective. Preloading or coloading with hydroxyethyl
starch is equally effective. Combining phenylephrine infusion with hydroxyethyl
starch preloading or with crystalloids coloading is the method of choice to prevent
and reduce the severity of spinal hypotension during caesarean delivery [16].
10.2.2 Failure of Neuraxial Blockade
It is not uncommon that a neuraxial blockade does not provide adequate anaesthesia
to initiate or to complete a caesarean delivery. This can occur in up to 4% of the
cases following spinal anaesthesia and 13% of the cases following epidural anaes-
thesia [18, 19].
In the UK, pain is the most common cause of litigation related to regional anaes-
thesia in obstetrics [20]. In the recent SCORE project of the SOAP, the incidence of
failed neuraxial anaesthesia that required an alternate technique for caesarean delivery
was 1.7% [11]. Initiation of surgery should be delayed until adequate level of thoracic
10 Complications Due to Regional and General Anaesthesia 139
and sacral sensory blockade has been achieved. Management of breakthrough pain
begins with acknowledgement of patient’s discomfort and consideration of fetal, sur-
gical and anaesthetic implications. In case of partial block in an elective procedure, a
second neuraxial technique may be performed with caution. A second epidural after a
failed epidural caries the risk of local anaesthetics toxicity. A second spinal after a
partial but failed spinal or a spinal after a failed epidural is controversial because the
intrathecal administration of a standard dose of bupivacaine in those settings may
result in a high spinal block. Combined spinal-epidural anaesthesia (CSE) is recom-
mended by many practitioners to allow a cautious titration of the rescue neuraxial
anaesthesia [13]. If discomfort arises after the start of surgery and if an epidural cath-
eter is in place, an additional dose of local anaesthetic with an opioid should be admin-
istered. Inhalation of nitrous oxide or intravenous administration of an opioid or
ketamine in 5–10 mg increments, combined with small doses of midazolam, may be
helpful. Care must be taken to avoid deep sedation and loss of consciousness given the
risk of aspiration [13]. Finally, conversion to general anaesthesia may be necessary
and should be offered to the patient in case of persisting pain or discomfort.
10.2.3 High Neuraxial Blockade
High neuraxial blockade can result from an excessive spread of spinal or epidural
drugs or an accidental intrathecal or subdural administration of an “epidural dose”.
When a T2 sensory level is achieved, patient may complain of dyspnoea or the
inability to cough. Impaired phonation, impaired ventilation, unconsciousness, bra-
dycardia and hypotension are potential sequelae of high neuraxial blockade.
Tracheal intubation and circulatory support are required in this setting [13].
In the SCORE project of the SOAP, high neuraxial block has been reported with an
incidence of 1 in 4336 anaesthesia. Forty percent of the cases followed a spinal anaes-
thesia, 36% an epidural and 24% an unrecognized spinal catheter. Obesity and spinal
technique after failed epidural were the most common associated risk factors.
No maternal death was reported as the consequence of high neuraxial block [11].
Similarly, in the last MBBRACE-UK report, no maternal death was related to a
high neuraxial block [4]. It is recommended that anaesthetists remain vigilant for a
potentially misplaced catheter. Aspiration of an epidural catheter for CSF or blood
has a high sensitivity and specificity [21]. The routine use of a test dose in an epidural
catheter to detect an inadvertent intrathecal placement is controversial and does not
guarantee proper placement as the majority of epidural anaesthesia associated with
high neuraxial block and maternal death can occur after an uneventful test dose [6].
10.2.4 Local Anaesthetic Toxicity
Local anaesthetic toxicity (LAST) after epidural anaesthesia is a rare but potentially
catastrophic complication with an incidence of 4 in 10,000 epidural procedures
[22–24]. Clinical signs of LAST range from prodromal signs such as auditory
change, metallic taste, and agitation to seizures, CNS depression and cardiovascular
collapse. The incidence of LAST has decreased during the last decades due to the
implementation of routine safety procedures such as catheter aspiration, test dose
administration and slow injection of divided doses of local anaesthetics [22–24]. No
maternal death related to LAST was reported in the SCORE project of the SOAP or
in the last MBBRACE-UK report [4, 11]. The American Society of Regional
Anesthesia and Pain Medicine (ASRA) and the Association of Aaesthesiologists of
Great Britain and Ireland (AAGBI) have released recommendations for the treat-
ment of LAST. They include prompt and effective airway management in order to
prevent hypoxia and acidosis; treatment of seizures with benzodiazepine, propofol
or thiopental; consideration of lipid emulsion administration at the first signs of
LAST and modified ACLS (Advanced Cardiac Life Support) in the setting of car-
diac arrest. The suggested modifications to ACLS include avoidance of high-dose
epinephrine, vasopressin, calcium-channel and beta-adrenergic blockers and treat-
ment of ventricular dysrhythmias with amiodarone instead of lidocaine. The cur-
rently recommended regimen for intravenous 20% lipid emulsion administration for
LAST is an initial bolus of 1.5 mL/kg followed by an infusion of 0.25 mL/kg/min
with a maximal dose of 10 mL/kg [25, 26].
10.2.5 Neurologic Complications of Neuraxial Anaesthesia
Most of neurologic injuries after childbirth are related to obstetric rather than anaes-
thetic causes. However, in such circumstances, neuraxial anaesthesia is often
wrongly considered as the cause of the neurologic deficit. In the SCORE project of
the SOAP, the incidence of serious neurologic injury following obstetric anaesthesia
was 1 for 35,923 [11].
When neurologic symptoms arise after childbirth, an accurate and prompt diag-
nosis is essential. History, clinical examination and other diagnostic tools such as
radiology, electromyography and nerve conduction studies are paramount. They
allow to localize the lesion and differentiate mononeuropathy or plexus lesions
which are more likely obstetrical complications from radiculopathy or cord lesions,
which are more likely related to neuraxial anaesthesia. The reported incidence of
peripheral nerve palsy which has an obstetric cause ranges between 0.6 and
92/10,000. The most commonly reported lesions are: (a) compression of the lumbo-
sacral trunks, (b) obturator nerve palsy, (c) femoral nerve palsy, (d) meralgia pares-
thetica, (e) sciatic nerve palsy, (f) peroneal nerve palsy. The complete description of
these obstetric palsies are out of the scope of this chapter, but anaesthesiologists
should have an adequate knowledge of segmental and peripheral sensory nerve dis-
tributions useful in the diagnosis of central and peripheral nerve lesions [27, 28].
10.2.5.1 Trauma to Nerve Roots and Spinal Cord

Paraesthesia may occur during insertion of a spinal needle or an epidural catheter.
An epidural catheter with a flexible tip is unlikely to produce persisting damage to
a nerve root. However, an epidural catheter may ensnare a nerve root if an excessive
length is inserted in the epidural space. In case of tethered cord or of undetected

spina bifida, attempts to identify the epidural space may result in spinal cord injury.
Insertion of a spinal needle below the conus medullaris may elicit paraesthesia in
a dermatome that may persist, suggesting nerve root injury. Symptoms in more than
one dermatome suggest a spinal cord lesion. Conus medullaris injuries have been
reported after spinal and after CSE blockade [29]. In these cases, the supposed ver-
tebral interspace is L2–L3 and the parturient complains of pain during the spinal
needle insertion before any injection. Subsequently, a normal CSF flow and an easy
local anaesthetic injection lead to a normal neural blockade. After recovery, numb-
ness is followed by pain; paresthesia in the L5–S1 distribution is observed. Foot drop
and urinary symptoms can be observed. MRI may exhibit small syrinx or hematoma
within the conus medularis. Sensory symptoms may last for months or years.
Anaesthesia providers must keep in mind that identification of lumbar interspace
with anatomical landmarks is far from being accurate. The use of Tuffier’s line,
joining the iliac crest, is supposed to identify the L4 spinous process. However, this
landmark can lie anywhere between the L3–L4 and L5–S1 interspace. Moreover,
this method is particularly inaccurate in obese and pregnant patients. Frequently, the
selected interspace is higher by one or two levels. In adults, the spinal cord typically
ends at the level of the lower body of L1 or at the L1–L2 interspace. At the L1–L2
interspace, the spinal needle can reach the conus medularis in 27% of men and 43%
of women [29].
For all these reasons, the spinal needle should not be inserted above the L3 spi-
nous process.
10.2.5.2 Epidural Hematoma after Neuraxial Blockade

Epidural hematoma after neuraxial blockade is a very rare complication, making the
quantification of its probability very difficult. From an analysis of 850,000 epidural
blocks and 650,000 spinal blocks, its incidence has been quoted as 1:150,000 after
epidural block and 1:220,000 after spinal block [30]. A review of 61 published cases
of spinal hematoma between 1906 and 1994 and involving central nervous blocks
identified five cases in pregnant women. Among these five cases, three had associ-
ated risk factors: pre-eclampsia, thrombocytopenia and epidural ependymoma [31].
A 10-year review (1990–1999) in Sweden collecting 1,260,000 spinal anaesthesia
and 450,000 epidural blocks (200,000 during labour) identified 33 spinal hematoma
and only two cases in obstetrics. Both cases were associated with a Hellp syndrome
and apparent signs of coagulopathy, one case after a spinal anaesthesia and one case
after removal of an epidural catheter. The calculated incidence of epidural hematoma
following an epidural block in obstetrics was 1:200,000 [32]. More recently, an
extensive review of the complications associated with spinal and epidural anaesthe-
sia in Finland between 2000 and 2009, and collecting 1,400,000 neuraxial blocks,
identified 13 epidural hematomas of which none was in obstetrics [33]. In the SCORE
project of the SOAP, one epidural hematoma has been described among 251,463
parturients [11]. The most common risk factors for this complication are multiple
attempts, bloody tap, the use of LMWH (Low Molecular Weight Heparin) and other
haemostasis abnormalities more specifically in the context of severe pre-eclampsia.
Even if rare, this complication must be promptly recognized. Signs and symp-
toms of spinal/epidural hematoma include acute onset of back and radicular lower
limbs pain, weakness and numbness of legs and bladder and bowel dysfunction.
These complaints should generate prompt neurological evaluation and MRI to allow
a surgical decompression within 6 h of the onset of symptoms.
10.2.5.3 Epidural Abscess and Meningitis

Epidural abscess and meningitis are rare but potentially devastating complications
of neuraxial blocks. They can lead to permanent disability or even to death.
These complications seem to occur less frequently in obstetric patients than in
general surgery patients. In a 10-year retrospective study in Sweden (1990–1999)
on severe neurological complications after neuraxial block, 29 meningitis cases
were identified among 1,260,000 patients receiving spinal anaesthesia. None of the
cases was described among the 55,000 patients receiving spinal anaesthesia for cae-
sarean section. Similarly, 12 epidural abscess cases were identified among 460,000
patients who received an epidural in general surgery versus 1 in 200,000 patients
who received an epidural for labour analgesia [32].
In a 10-year retrospective study in Finland (2000–2009) on complications
associated with 1,400,0000 neuraxial procedures, 4 epidural abscess cases were
identified in general surgery and in chronic pain but 0 in obstetric anaesthesia. In the
same study, none of the 8 observed meningitis cases was a complication of spinal
anaesthesia in obstetrics [33].
A recent review dedicated to neurological infections after neuraxial anaesthesia in
obstetrics calculated a risk of meningitis of 1/39,000 spinals and the risk of epidural
abscess of 1/303,000 epidurals [34]. Of note, only 16 epidural abscess cases have been
reported in the literature until 2005 as a complication of neuraxial blocks in obstetrics.
In the SCORE project of the SOAP, infectious complications (epidural abscess
and meningitis) occurred with a frequency of 1 for 62,866 procedures [11].
Most of the time, meningitis is a complication of a dural puncture and an unevent-
ful spinal anaesthesia. The most frequently identified pathogen is a Streptococcus
viridans or Streptococcus α-hemolyticus and the source of the pathogen is either the
upper airway of the operator or the vagina. This complication is less frequent when
a spinal anaesthesia is performed in an operating room and for an elective caesarean
section than during labour. The use of an antibiotic prophylaxis, the absence of
Streptococcus bacteraemia during elective C-section and a better aseptic technique
in an operating room as compared to a delivery room might contribute to the reduced
incidence of meningitis in this situation [34–36].
The classical clinical picture of meningitis is of headache, fever, altered conscious-
ness, emesis and meningism. Symptoms appear a few hours or days after anaesthesia.
Diagnosis is confirmed by lumbar puncture and CSF analysis. CSF is cloudy and
exhibits hyperleucocytosis, decreased glucose (<30 mg/dl) and increased proteins
(>150 mg/dl). One third of cultures yield no growth. The initial antibiotic therapy
relies on vancomycin and a third-generation cephalosporin pending further informa-
tion [28]. Delay of a few hours worsens neurologic outcome [34]. The outcome of
meningitis ranges from complete recovery to cerebral oedema, coma or death.
Epidural abscess is almost exclusively a complication of an epidural catheter

and almost never a complication of single-shot spinal. This complication increases
with the prolonged duration of the catheter and patient’s comorbidities. This may
explain why epidural abscess is so rare in obstetric anaesthesia. The most com-
monly identified pathogen is a Staphylococcus aureus, the source being the
patient’s skin.
Symptoms appear a few days or even weeks after anaesthesia. The clinical pic-
ture of an epidural abscess is of backache, local tenderness, local inflammation and
fluid leak at the insertion point, fever, hyperleucocytosis, increased CRP, radiating
root pain, weakness of legs, bladder disturbance and cauda equina syndrome. MRI
is the most sensitive diagnostic tool. Blood culture may identify the microorganism.
Lumbar puncture is contraindicated.
The treatment relies on antibiotic therapy and surgical treatment. Outcome varies
according to early diagnosis and treatment and neurologic symptoms at the time of
diagnosis. Here again, a delay of a few hours worsens the neurologic outcome
[34–36].
Adequate aseptic technique is paramount to prevent infectious complications.
Chlorhexidine in alcohol is preferred for skin disinfection. It is recommended
that anaesthesia providers wear cap, mask, gown and sterile gloves [37, 38]. The use
of sterile drape is also recommended. Handwashing, removal of watch and jewelry
and appropriate catheter dressing are also important components of sterile
technique.
10.2.5.4 Ischemic Injury to the Spinal Cord

The blood supply of the spinal cord depends on a single anterior spinal artery and
bilateral posterior spinal arteries. Posterior spinal arteries receive reinforcement by
radicular arteries but the single anterior artery, which supplies the anterior two third
of the spinal cord, receives only sporadic reinforcement mainly from the
Adamkiewicz artery. Anterior spinal artery syndrome is characterized by a predomi-
nant motor deficit with or without pain and temperature-sensitive loss but with spar-
ing of proprioception.
Ischemic injury of the spinal cord following neuraxial anaesthesia is extremely
rare in the obstetric population. Hypotension and epinephrine-containing solutions
are associated risk factors [29].
10.2.5.5 Transient Neurologic Syndrome

Transient neurologic syndrome (TNS) is characterized by pain in the lower back,
buttocks and thighs without any detectable neurologic deficit. It occurs approxi-
mately 12 h after an uncomplicated spinal anaesthesia and resolves typically in a
few days. No permanent sequelae have been reported. The aetiology of this syn-
drome is unclear; however, the distribution of pain mirrors the distribution of
nerve damage in cauda equina syndrome, supporting the theory of neurotoxicity
or nerve irritation by the intrathecal injection. TNS is much more frequent with
spinal lidocaine than with bupivacaine and is also more common with lidocaine
in surgical (10–30%) than in obstetric patients (0–10%) [39–41].
10.2.5.6 Chemical Injury

Chemical injury of the neuraxis may lead to cauda equina syndrome or
arachnoiditis.
The epidural space is remarkably tolerant of potentially neurotoxic substances
because of two protective factors. Vascular uptake removes a large proportion of
solutions injected in the epidural space and nerve roots in the epidural space are
protected by a cuff of dura, arachnoid and pia mater. There are many case reports of
accidental injections of substances in the epidural space, including antibiotics, thio-
pental and potassium chloride without permanent sequelae.
In the subarachnoid space, nerve roots are only covered by the pia mater and the
sacral roots are poorly myelinated. Therefore, there is a high risk for adverse out-
come after accidental injection of toxic substances. Many substances are neuro-
toxic, including drug preservatives and high doses of local anaesthetics [28, 29].
10.2.6 Postdural Puncture Headache
Postdural puncture headache (PDPH) is the most common serious complication

resulting from epidural or spinal anaesthesia. The overall incidence of PDPH
following spinal, epidural or CSE is approximately 1%. The estimated inci-
dence of headache after planned spinal anaesthesia with small pencil-point nee-
dles is 0.5–2%. In the recent SCORE project of the SOAP, the percentage of
patients who developed PDPH after receiving a neuraxial anaesthesia was 0.7%,
of which 55.7% required one epidural blood patch (EBP) and 10.7% required a
second EBP [11]. With 16–18G epidural needles, wet tap occurs 0.5–4% of the
time with a resulting incidence of PDPH of 45–80% [42]. The rate of PDPH
following dural puncture is extremely variable (ranging from 1 to 75%) due to
the large number of factors influencing its incidence. Young adults are at high
risk and pregnant women constitute the highest risk group [43]. Large defects in
the meninges cause a higher incidence of PDPH. Size and type of spinal needle
are therefore two of the most important factors for decreasing the risk for PDPH
[44, 45]. Concerning the technique used to identify the epidural space during
epidural placement, the continuous loss of resistance to saline technique,
whether midline or paramedian, theoretically offers the practitioner a decreased
risk of accidental dural puncture [46]. However, no robust data support a differ-
ence in outcome with different techniques. Similarly, there are no definitive
conclusions regarding a reduction of risk when using standard epidural as com-
pared to combined spinal epidural (CSE). According to the ASA closed claims
project, headache is the third most common cause of lawsuits against anaesthe-
siologists in obstetrics [6].
Even if the exact pathophysiology of PDPH remains controversial, it certainly
involves the leakage of CSF out of the intrathecal space. The decreased CSF volume
and pressure result in a caudad excursion of the brain and cerebral vasodilation.
Headaches probably result from traction on pain-sensitive structures of the menin-
ges and from a mechanism similar to vascular headaches [47].
PDPH occurs within 72 h after meningeal puncture in 90% of patients and is
evident by a headache typically worsening within 20 s of standing and resolving
within 20 s of recumbency [47], although the international headache society (IHS)
defines it as occurring within 15 min of standing and resolving within 30 min of
recumbency [48]. Headache occurs probably earlier and is more severe after punc-
ture with larger needles. If the postural component is not present, the diagnosis
should be questioned. The IHS defines PDPH as self-limited and resolving within
14 days (usually within 1 week) even if prolonged symptomatology is reported in
patients who may require treatment years later, probably more frequently following
larger punctures but reported with all sizes of needles [49].
Headache is usually frontal but may be occipital with or without neck irradiation.
Associated symptoms are present in 50% of the patients, including nausea, tinnitus,
vertigo and photophobia. CSF hypotension may cause caudad brain displacement
with cranial nerve traction, resulting in auditory, ocular or vestibular symptoms.
These headaches can be severe and debilitating. They limit the interaction
between mother and baby, prolong hospitalization and increase health care cost.
Long-term consequences and permanent disability have been reported, including
cranial nerve palsy, chronic headache, subdural hematoma, intracerebral bleeding,
cerebral venous thrombosis and aneurysm rupture [50, 51].
The diagnosis of PDPH is clinical, but radiologic imaging can be useful to rule
out another pathology or to confirm the diagnosis of PDPH in case of unclear
presentation.
In case of CSF hypotension, MRI findings consist of enhancement of the pachy-
meninges, decreased size of subarachnoidal cisterns and cerebral ventricles, down-
ward displacement of the brain and subdural collection [52].
There is no accepted algorithms for the treatment of PDPH. Even if supine posi-
tion alleviates symptoms, there is no evidence supporting bed rest or fluid adminis-
tration to prevent PDPH or to hasten recovery [53]. Medical therapies are overall
disappointing.
Caffeine neither provides sustained improvement nor reduction of the rate of
EBP and may be associated with side effects [48]. Sumatriptans and other “triptans”
are ineffective [53, 54]. Gabapentin and pregabalin might confer some benefits [55,
56] but are contraindicated in nursing mothers. Finally, ACTH 1.5 units/kg IV and
cosyntropin have been associated with conflicting results [57–59].
First described in 1960, epidural blood patch (EBP) is the most effective treat-
ment to date. The injection of 20–30 mL of autologous blood in the epidural space
provides up to 95% immediate short-term relief with up to 70% headache-free sev-
eral days later. Up to 30% of patients will require a second EBP due to return of
symptoms. Some practitioners recommend waiting at least 48–72 h after known
meningeal puncture prior to EBP considerations. This recommendation relies on
results of non-randomized studies demonstrating a higher success rate when EBP is
delayed as compared to an earlier EBP performed within the first 24–48 h. This
practice is controversial, and other authors recommend performing the EBP earlier,
particularly in cases of dural puncture with a large bore needle and in patients with
severe headache or cranial nerve symptoms.
Prophylactic epidural blood patch performed through the epidural catheter after
delivery and intrathecal catheter left in situ for at least 24 h are two controversial
strategies to reduce the incidence of PDPH and the need for a therapeutic epidural
blood patch [42, 60].
10.3 Complications of General Anaesthesia
10.3.1 Aspiration
Aspiration pneumonitis (Mendelson’s syndrome) is an alveolar chemical injury

caused by the inhalation of gastric acid content. Clinical signs consist of dyspnoea,
tachypnoea, bronchospasm and hypoxemia. Radiographic signs of alveolar infil-
trates are seen in up to 90% of patients with aspiration. In severe cases, aspiration
pneumonitis may progress to ARDS [61].
Maternal mortality from pulmonary aspiration of gastric contents has dramati-
cally decreased over the last decades. According to the data from six reports cover-
ing the period from 1994 to 2012, only three cases of maternal death from aspiration
had occurred in the UK. The exact total number of procedures performed under
GA during this period is unknown, but aspiration was the cause of maternal death
in less than 1 in 4.5 million deliveries [4]. In the United States, prior to 1990, aspi-
ration was the most common cause of anaesthesia-related maternal death, and the
relative risk (RR) of maternal mortality following GA compared to RA was 17.
This ratio decreased to 1.7/1 in 2002 [7]. In the recent SCORE project of the SOAP,
no case of pulmonary aspiration was identified in 257,000 procedures, including
5000 GA on the 5-year period 2004–2009 [11]. This finding is consistent with
other recent reports and suggests that the frequency of this complication has
decreased [62].
Several factors have contributed to the decline of this complication. They include
the increased use of neuraxial anaesthesia for CS, the routine use of antacids and
anti-H2 or proton-pump inhibitors before administering GA for CS, the use of
rapid-sequence induction of GA and a better training of anaesthesia providers.
10.3.2 Difficult Airway and Failed Intubation
Difficult airway is defined as difficult facemask ventilation, difficult tracheal intu-

bation or a combination of both. In the obstetric population, the incidence of failed
intubation has long been estimated to be 1 in 250–300. This is 8–10 times higher
than in the general population. This increased difficulty is mainly related to physi-
ologic and anatomic changes during pregnancy. This higher incidence of difficult
airway in obstetric patients has been the main reason for the long-lasting high
incidence of general anaesthesia-related maternal death. In case of failed intuba-
tion, maternal death results from hypoxemia, aspiration or oesophageal intubation
[63–65]. The recent Score project of the SOAP has reported an incidence of failed
intubation of 1 in 533 [11]. A recently published literature review calculated an

incidence of failed intubation of 1 in 390 for obstetric general anaesthesia and of
1 in 443 for caesarean section under general anaesthesia [66]. The last
MBBRACE-UK survey reported no maternal death related to failed intubation [4].
Risk factors for failed intubation in obstetrics are maternal age, BMI and Mallampati
score.
Approved guidelines for the management of difficult or failed intubation must be
followed to further decrease the incidence of morbidity and mortality associated
with this condition. Patient awakening, use of supraglottic airway devices, use of
video-laryngoscopes, cricothyrotomy and tracheotomy must be considered [67].
Decreasing further maternal morbidity and mortality related to failed intubation
might be difficult as maternal obesity and age are increasing whereas the anaesthe-
siologists’ experience with general anaesthesia for Caesarean section decreases. In
addition, many emergent deliveries under general anaesthesia are performed during
off hours.
10.3.3 Awareness and Recall
Caesarean delivery is considered as a high-risk procedure for accidental aware-

ness during general anaesthesia (AAGA). Risk factors for AAGA include female
sex, younger adults, obesity, use of neuromuscular blocking agents and
emergency procedure [68]. All these risk factors are frequently present during
GA for CS.
Historically, when GA for CS relied on thiopental and nitrous oxide until deliv-
ery of the baby, AAGA has been reported with an incidence up to 26% [69].
The introduction of 0.5% halothane with 50% nitrous oxide reduced this inci-
dence to 1% [70]. The use of higher concentrations of volatile halogenated agents
further decreased the incidence of AAGA to 0.26% [71]. In the UK, the last national
audit project (NAP5) on accidental awareness during GA reported an incidence of
AAGA of 0.15% during caesarean delivery. This incidence is 28 times higher than
in the general surgery population [68]. AAGA is also the first cause of litigations in
obstetrics general anaesthesia [72].
Concerns about neonatal depression and uterine atony have been the main rea-
sons for the use of low concentrations of volatile halogenated agents. However,
although pregnancy reduces the MAC (Minimum Alveolar Concentration) of vola-
tile halogenated agents by 25–45% [73, 74], administration of 0.5 MAC of a vola-
tile halogenated agent does not consistently prevent AAGA. The MAC is defined
by the absence of motor response to a noxious stimulus and is related to a spinal
mechanism. Unconsciousness and absence of recallare related to a cerebral mecha-
nism. A recent BIS (bispectral index) study has demonstrated that pregnancy does
not enhance the hypnotic effect of volatile anaesthetics [75]. This is consistent with
the results of another study demonstrating that 0.75 MAC of a volatile halogenated
agent with 50% nitrous oxide is required to maintain a BIS value <60 and to pre-
vent AAGA during caesarean section [76].
References
1. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: impatients surgery 2010. http://www.cdc.go/nchs/
fastats/inpatient-surgery.htm.
2. Cheesman K, Brady JE, Flood P, et al. Epidemiology of anesthesia-related complications in
labor and delivery, New York State, 2002–2005. Anesth Analg. 2009;109:1174–81.
3. Cantwell R, Clutton-Brock T, Cooper G, et al. Saving mother’s lives: reviewing maternal
deaths to make motherhood safer: 2006–2008. The eighth report of the confidential enquieries
into maternal deaths in the United Kingdom. BJOG. 2011;118(suppl. 1):1–203.
4. Freedman RL, Lucas DN. MBRRACE-UK: saving lives, improving mother’s care: implica-
tions for anaesthetists. Int J Obstet Anesth. 2015;24:161–73.
5. Saucedo M, Deneux-Tharaux C, Bouvier-Colle MH. French National Experts Committee on
Maternal Mortality: ten years of confidential inquieries into maternal deaths in France: 1998–
2007. Obstet Gynecol. 2013;122:752–60.
6. Davies JM, Posner KL, Lee LA, et al. Liability associated with obstetric anesthesia: a closed
claims analysis. Anesthesiology. 2009;110:131–9.
7. Hawkins JL, Chang J, Palmer SK, et al. Anesthesia-related maternal mortality in the United
States: 1979–2002. Obstet Gynecol. 2011;117:69–74.
8. American Society of Anesthesiologists Task Force on Obstetric Anesthesia. Parctice guide-
lines for obstetric anesthesia: An updated report by the American Society of Anesthesiologists
Task Force on Obstetric Anesthesia. Anesthesiology. 2007;106:843–63.
9. Van de velde M, Vercauteren M, Stockman W, et al. On behalf of the Obstetric Anesthesia
Working Group. Recommendations and Guidelines for Obstetric Anesthesia in Belgium. Acta
Anaesth Belg. 2013;64:97–104.
10. Bucklin BA, Hawlins JL, Anderson JR, et al. Obstetric anesthesia workforce Survey: twenty-
year update. Anesthesiology. 2005;103:645–53.
11. D’Angelo R, Smiley R, Riley ET, Segal S. Serious complications related to obstetric anesthe-
sia. The serious complications repository project of the Society for Obstetric Anesthesia and
Perinatology. Anesthesiology. 2014;120:1505–12.
12. Guglielminotti J, Wong CA, Landau R, et al. Temporal trends in anesthesia-related adverse
évents in cesarean deliveries: New York State, 2003–2012. Anesthesiology. 2015;123:1013–23.
13. Tsen LC. Anesthesia for cesarean delivery. In: Chestnut DH, Wong CA, Tsen LC, Ngan Kee
W, Beilin Y, Mhyre JM, editors. Obstetric anesthesia principles and practice. 5th ed.
Philadelphia: Elsevier Saunders; 2014. p. 545–603.
14. Langesaeter E, Rosseland LA, Stubhaug A. Continuous invasive blood pressure and cardiac
output monitoring during cesarean delivery. A randomized, double blind comparison of low
dose versus high dose spinal anesthesia with intravenous phenylephrine or placebo infusion.
Anesthesiology. 2008;109:856–63.
15. Ng K, Parsons J, Cyna AM, et al. Spinal versus epidural anaesthesia for caesarean section.
16. Mercier FJ, Auge M, Hoffmann C, et al. Maternal hypotension during spinal anesthesia for
cesarean delivery. Minerva Anesthesiol. 2013;79:62–73.
17. Veeser M, Hofmann T, Roth R, et al. Vasopressors for the management of hypotension after
spianl anesthesia for elective caesarean section. Systematic review and cumulative Mata-
analysis. Acta Anesthesiol Scand. 2012;56:810–6.
18. Pan PH, Bogard TD, Owen MD. Incidence and characteristics of failures in obstetrics neur-
axial analgesia and anesthesia: a rétrospective analysis of 19259 deliveries. Int J Obstet Anesth.
2004;13:227–33.
19. Bauer ME, Koutanis JA, Tsen LC, et al. Risk factors for failed conversion of labor epidural
analgésia to caesarean delivery anesthesia: a systematic review and méta-analysis of observa-
tional trials. Int J Obstet Anesth. 2012;21:294–309.
20. Szypula K, Ashpole KJ, Bogod D, et al. Litigation related to régional anaesthesia: an analysis
of claims against the NHS in England 1995–2007. Anaesthesia. 2010;65:443–52.
21. Norris MC, Fogel ST, Dalman H, et al. Labor epidural analgesia without an intravenous “test
dose”. Anesthesiology. 1998;88:1495–501.
22. Toledo P. What’s new on onstetric anesthesia: the 2011 Gerad W Ostheimer Lecture. Int
23. Toledo P, Nixon HC, Mhyre JM, et al. Availability of lipid emulsion in United States obstetric
Units. Anesth Analg. 2013;116:406–8.
24. Mulroy MF. Systemic toxicity and cardiotoxicity from local anesthetics: incidence and préven-
tive measures. Reg Anesth Pain Med. 2002;27:556–61.
25. Neal JM, Bernards CM, Butterworth JFT, et al. ASRA practice advisory on local anesthetic
sytemic toxicity. Reg Anesth Pain Med. 2010;35:152–61.
26. The association of Anaesthetist of Great Britain and Ireland. AAGBI safety guidelines:
Management of severe local anaesthetic toxicity 2010.
27. Wong CA, Scavone BM, Dugan S, et al. Incidence of postpartum lumbosacral spine and lower
extremity nerve injuries. Obstet Gynecol. 2003;101:279–88.
28. Wong CA. Nerve injuries after neuraxial anaesthesia and their medicolegal implications. Best
Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2010;24:367–81.
29. Reynolds F. Neurologic complication of pregnancy and neuraxial anesthesia. In: Chestnut DH,
Wong CA, Tsen LC, Ngan Kee W, Beilin Y, Mhyre JM, editors. Obstetric anesthesia principles
and practice. 5th ed. Philadelphia: Elsevier Saunders; 2014. p. 739–63.
30. Tryba M. Epidural régional anesthesia and low molecular weight heparin: pro (German).
Anästh Intensimed Notfallmed Schmerzther. 1993;28:179–81.
31. Vandermeulen EP, Van Aken H, Vermylen J. Anticoagulants and spinal-epidural anesthesia.
Anesth Analg. 1994;79:1165–77.
32. Moen V, Dahlgren N, Irestedt L. Severe neurological complications after central neuraxial
blockades in Sweden 1990–1999. Anesthesiology. 2004;101:950–9.
33. Pitkänen MT, Aromaa U, Cozanitis DA, et al. Serious complications associated with spinal and
epidural anaesthesia in Finland from 2000 to 2009. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 2013;57:553–64.
34. Reynolds F. Neurological infections after neuraxial anaesthesia. Anesthesiol Clin.

2008;26:23–52.
35. Hebl JR. The importance and implication of aseptic techniques during régional anesthesia.
Reg Anesth Pain Med. 2006;31:311–23.
36. Infection control in anaesthesia. Anaesthesia 2008;63:1027–36.
37. Horlocker T, Wedel D. Infectious complications of regional anesthesia. Best Pract Res Clin
Anesthesiol. 2008;22(3):451–75.
38. Hebl JR, Niesen AD. Infectious complications of régional anesthesia. Cur Opin Anesthiol.
2011;24:273–80.
39. Pollock JE. Transient neurologic syndrome: etiology, risk factors and management. Reg
Anaesth Pain Med. 2002;27:581–6.
40. Aouad MT, Siddik SS, Jalbout MI, et al. Does pregnancy protect against intrathecal lidocaine-
induced transient neurologic symptoms? Anesth Analg. 2001;92:401–4.
41. Philip J, Sharma SK, Gottumukkala VN, et al. Transient neurologic symptoms after spinal
lidocaine in obstetric patients. Anesth Analg. 2001;92:405–9.
42. Van de Velde M, Schepers R, Berends N, et al. Ten years of expérience with accidental dural
puncture and post-dural puncture headache in a tertiary obstetric anesthesia department. Int
43. De Almeida SM, Shumaker SD, Leblanc SK, et al. Incidence of post-dural puncture headache
in research volunteers. Headache. 2011;51:1503–10.
44. Halpern S, Preston R. Postdural puncture headache and spinal needle design. Metaanalyses
45. Vallejo MC, Mandell GL, Sabo DP, et al. Postdural puncture headache: a randomized compari-
son of five spinal needles in obstetric patients. Anesth Analg. 2000;91:916–20.
46. Shenouda PE, Cunningham BJ. Assessing the superioruty of saline versus air for use in the
epidural loss of resistance technique: a littérature review. Reg Anesth Pain Med.
2003;28:48–53.
47. Sachs A, Smiley R. Post-dural puncture headache: the worst common complication in obstet-
ric anesthesia. Semin Perinat. 2014;38:386–94.
48. Headache Classification Subcommittee of the International Headache Society. The interna-
tional classification of headache disorders: 2nd édition. Cephalalgia. 2004;24(suppl.
1):9–160.
49. Ahmed SV, Jayawarna C, Jude E. Post lumbar puncture headache, diagnosis and management.
Postgrad Med J. 2006;82:713–6.
50. Paech MJ, Doherty DA, Christmas T, et al. Epidural blood patch trial group. The volume of
blood for epidural blood patch in obstetrics: a randomized, blinded clinical trial. Anesth Analg.
2011;113:126–33.
51. Paech MJ, Whybrow T. The prévention and treatment of post dural puncture headache.
ASEAN J Anesthesiol. 2007;8:86–96.
52. Algin O, Taskapiliogliu O, Zan E, et al. Detection of CSF leaks with magnetic résonance imag-
ing in intracranial hypotension syndrome. J Neuroradiol. 2011;38:175–7.
53. Arevalo-Rodriguez I, Ciapponi A, Munoz L, et al. Posture and fluids for preventing post-dural
puncture headache. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013;7:CD009199.
54. Bussone G, Tullo V, d’Onoffrio F, et al. Frovatriptan for the prévention of postdural puncture
headache. Cephalalgia. 2007;22:809–13.
55. Erol DD. The analgesic and antiemetic efficacy of gabapentin or egotamine/caffeine for the
treatment of post-dural puncture headache. Adv Med Sci. 2011;56:25–9.
56. Zencirci B. Postdural puncture headache and pregabalin. J Pain Res. 2010;3:11–4.
57. Basurto Ona X, Uriona Tuma SM, Martinez Garcia L, et al. Drug therapy to prevent post-dural
puncture headache. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013;2:CD001792.
58. Gupta S, Agrawal A. Postdural puncture headache and ACTH. J Clin Anesth. 1997;9:258.
59. Hakim SM. Cosyntropin for prophylaxis against postdural puncture headache aftyer accidental
dural puncture. Anesthesiology. 2010;113:413–20.
60. Scavone BM, Wong CA, Sullivan JT, et al. Efficacy of prophylactic epidural blood patch in
preventing postdural puncture headache in parturients after inadvertent dural puncture.
61. O’Sullivan G. Aspiration: risk, prophylaxis and treatment. In: Chestnut DH, Wong CA, Tsen
LC, Ngan Kee W, Beilin Y, Mhyre JM, editors. Obstetric anesthesia principles and practice. 5th
ed. Philadelphia: Elsevier Saunders; 2014. p. 665–83.
62. Mhyre JM, Riesner MN, Poley LS, et al. A series of anesthesia-related maternal death in
Michigan, 1985–2003. Anesthesiology. 2007;106:1096–104.
63. Quinn AC, Milne D, Columb M, et al. Failed trachéal intubation in obstetric anaesthesia: 2
year national case-control study in the UK. Br J Anaesth. 2013;110:74–80.
64. Mc Donnel NJ, PAech MJ, Clavisi OM, Scott KL, ANZCA Trials Group. Difficult and failed
intubation in obstetric anaesthesia: an observational study of airway management and
complications associated with general anaesthesiafor caesarean section. Int J Obstet Anesth.
2008;7:292–7.
65. Tsen LC, Pitner R, Camann WR. General anesthesia for cesarean section at a tertiary care
hospital 1990–1995: indications and implications. Int J Obstet Gynecol. 1998;7:147–52.
66. Kinsella SM, Winton AL, Mushambi MC, et al. Failed tracheal intubation during obstetric
general anaesthesia: a literature review. Int J Obstet Anaesth. 2015;24:356–74.
67. Mushambi MC, Kinsella SM, Popat M, et al. Obstetric Anaesthetists Association and Difficult
Airway Society guidelines for the management of difficult and failed tracheal intubation in
obstetrics. Anaesthesia. 2015;70:1286–306.
68. Pandit JJ, Andrade J, Bogod DG, et al. 5th National Audit Project (NAP5) on accidental
awareness during general anaesthesia: summary of main findings and risk factors. Br J Anaesth.
2014;113:549–59.
69. Crawford JS. Awareness during opérative obstetrics under general anaesthesia. Br J Anaesth.
1971;43:179–82.
70. Moir DD. Anaesthesia for caesarean section: an evaluation of a method using low concentra-
tions of halothane and 50% of oxygen. Br J Anaesth. 1970;42:136–42.
71. Robins K, Lyons G. Intraoperative awareness during general anesthesia for cesarean delivery.
Anesth Analg. 2009;109:886–90.
72. Ashpole KJ, Cook TM. Litigation in obstetric general anaesthesia: an analysis of claims
against the NHS in England 1995–2007. Anaesthesia. 2010;65:529–30.
73. Palahniuk RJ, Schnider SM, Eger 2nd EI. Pregnancy decreases the requirement for inhaled
anesthetic agents. Anesthesiology 1974;41:82–3.
74. Gin T, Chan MT. Decreased minimum alveolar concentration of isoflurane in pregnat humans.
75. Ueyama H, Hagihira S, Takashina M, et al. Anesthesiology 2010;113:577–84.
76. Chin KJ, Yeo SW. A BIS-guided study on sevoflurane requirements for adequate depth of
anaesthesia in caesarean section. Anaesthesia. 2004;59:1064–8.
Postoperative Analgesia
11
Michela Camorcia
11.1 Introduction
Cesarean section (CS) is a unique surgery, accompanied by significant hormonal

and emotional pregnancy modifications, the arrival of the newborn with conse-
quent care responsibilities, the expectation to recover rapidly, and sleep depriva-
tion resulting from maternal neonatal interactions. Indeed the period after
cesarean surgery is not only a postoperative but also a postpartum period
(puerperium).
Cesarean section can be classified as a major surgery and commonly causes
moderate to severe pain for the first 48 h after surgery [1].
An adequate control of postoperative pain after cesarean section is actually of
paramount importance for many reasons: a pain-free mother is able to care for her
newborn baby in the immediate postpartum period helping an early interaction
between mother and infant to be created and breastfeeding carried out effectively,
thereby significantly increasing maternal satisfaction.
However, despite recent improvements in postoperative pain management, many
parturients still suffer from moderate to severe postoperative pain after CS. This
results in distress for the parturients with an increase in maternal morbidity such as
an increased risk of thromboembolic disease and therefore prolonged hospitaliza-
tion and delayed return to normal activities [2–4].
In addition, the failure to provide good acute pain control after cesarean birth
may cause important and detrimental psychological consequences such as a signifi-
cant increase in the incidence of postpartum depression [5] and failure of breast-
feeding [6].
M. Camorcia
Department of Anesthesiology, Città di Roma Hospital,
Via Maidalchini 20, Rome 00152, Italy
e-mail: michelaca.mc@gmail.com

DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-42053-0_11
154 M. Camorcia
Furthermore, inadequately controlled pain in the postoperative period is primary

as, if not adequately treated, it can lead to the development of chronic pain. In fact,
it has been observed that the severity of acute pain after delivery is associated with
the risk of experiencing persistent postpartum pain and that, in turn, the develop-
ment of chronic pain is associated with the risk of maternal postpartum depression
with significant negative effects on daily activities [7–9].
11.2 Pain Pathways
Pain after cesarean section is due to the skin, the anterior abdominal wall and the
uterine incisions. Surgical techniques, such as type of incision (Joel-Cohen compared
to the Pfannenstiel) [10], skin closure method [11], and exteriorization of the uterus
for repair of the uterine incision [12], may affect the intensity of postoperative pain.
This intensity can also be affected by the way pain is assessed [13].
Pain after cesarean section is characterized by both somatic and visceral
components.
Somatic pain is due to the incision of the skin and the anterior abdominal wall and
is conducted by the ileoinguinal and ileohypogastric nerves that are located in the
lateral portion of the abdominal wall, between the transversus abdominis and the
internal oblique muscle layers, and enter the spinal cord via the T10-L1 dermatomes.
Visceral pain that is due to peritoneal trauma and uterine breech is transmitted via the
inferior hypogastric nerve and then enters the spinal cord via the T10-L1 dermatomes.
The analgesic management of postoperative pain therefore has to focus on both
the visceral pain and the somatic pain.
11.3 Postoperative Analgesia Practice
An ideal method of pain relief after cesarean section should be cost-effective, safe
for the mother, require minimal monitoring, and use drugs that are not secreted into
breast milk.
Moreover, the mother should not be sedated or impeded by equipment that
prevents her from moving freely and caring for the newborn. Minor side effects,
acceptable in the general population, like nausea and vomiting, pruritus, and shiv-
ering may restrict the care of the new born, leading to less maternal satisfaction.
There are several analgesic agents that can be used to treat post-cesarean pain.
These can be used alone or as part of a therapy (multimodal approach) and the route
of administration can be systemic, neuraxial, oral, or local.
To date, there is not a “gold standard” for the management of post-cesarean pain.
There are many options and the choice of the analgesic management depends on the
type of anesthesia performed, drug availability, anesthesiologist preference, institu-
tional protocols, and also costs.
11 Postoperative Analgesia 155
11.4 Opioids
Opioids represent the most commonly administered analgesic agents for the treat-
ment of postoperative pain in both surgical and obstetric populations. These can be
administered systemically or neuraxially, alone or in combination with other drugs,
such as the NSAIDs as part of a multimodal approach.
Analgesia from neuraxial opioid administration is primarily mediated by bind-
ing pre- and postsynaptic mu-opioid receptors sited in the dorsal horn of the spi-
nal cord.
The onset of action, duration, and efficacy depends primarily on their lipid solu-
bility and also on the route of administration.
With regard to the occurrence of side effects, at clinical doses, no respiratory
depression is usually observed with any of the routes of administration while the
administration of intrathecal morphine was associated with a significant incidence
of pruritus plus nausea and vomiting [14]. The presence of these side effects must
not be underestimated as it is associated with a negative impact on maternal satis-
faction [15].
11.4.1 Morphine: Neuraxial Administration
Neuraxial administration of morphine includes the epidural or the intrathecal route

depending mainly on the type of anesthesia performed (spinal or epidural). There
seems to be a better clinical profile for epidural morphine as opposed to its intrathe-
cal administration but there is no clear evidence to recommend one technique over
the other. However, the dose under investigation chosen by all studies that have
compared the two different routes of administration was based on the doses com-
monly used in clinical practice rather than the exact potency ratio of intrathecal
versus epidural morphine as this remains undetermined. The results therefore, might
not be completely reliable.
After epidural administration, variable quantities (depending on which opi-
oid is used) will diffuse across the dura and arachnoid mater into the subarach-
noid space to bind opioid receptors in the dorsal horn of the spinal cord. Lipid
solubility is the most important factor affecting the rate of diffusion and the
subsequent onset and duration of analgesia. Lipophilic opioids such as fentanyl
and sufentanil diffuse rapidly across the dura into the CSF compared to hydro-
philic opioids such as morphine. Lipophilic opioids produce rapid onset of anal-
gesia which is of short overall duration. After epidural delivery, CSF opioid
levels peak at 6 min for sufentanil, 20 min for fentanyl, and 1–4 h for morphine.
The epidural space is extremely vascular and there is extensive absorption of
opioids via the epidural venous plexus into the systemic circulation. Systemic
opioids reach the CNS and bind receptors in areas of the brain that modulate
pain perception and response.
156 M. Camorcia
11.4.2 Epidural Morphine
Morphine is currently the “gold-standard” neuraxial opioid for post-cesarean anal-

gesia primarily due to its long-acting effect that can last for many hours after a sin-
gle administration [16].
Morphine is a hydrophilic agent that is not easily absorbed by the blood vessels
and fat and therefore it has high central nervous system availability and a very long
duration of action.
Epidural morphine is generally administered as a single bolus rather than with a
continuous infusion technique.
The administration of epidural morphine follows a precise dose–response rela-
tionship: as the dose of epidural morphine is increased, the quality and duration of
analgesia increases accordingly until a sailing effect is reached, at 3.75 mg, where
the quality of analgesia does not increase [17].
Many studies have been performed in order to find the best balance between drug
efficacy and reduced side effects for epidural morphine. The administration of
2–4 mg of epidural morphine is suggested as it can provide optimal analgesia for the
first postoperative day, minimizing at the same time the risk of side effects such as
nausea, vomiting, and respiratory depression [17–20].
Side effects after epidural morphine administered as a single 2–4 mg bolus
are characterized by mild pruritus that can occur in approximately 50% of
patients, nausea and vomiting in approximately 30–40% of patients, and
dizziness in 10%.
Respiratory depression after epidural morphine may occur early after its admin-
istration, approximately in the first hour thanks to its vascular absorption or it can
be observed later, after approximately 6–18 h due to its slow cephalad spread in the
cerebrospinal fluid and consequent penetration into the brainstem [21, 22]. The inci-
dence of respiratory depression after clinical doses of epidural morphine is unlikely
to occur. However, if the doses are increased above 5 mg, even young and healthy
parturients can develop clinically detectable respiratory depression. In such cases,
clinical respiratory monitoring might be indicated.
11.4.3 Epidural Fentanyl and Sufentanil
Both fentanyl and sufentanil are highly lipophilic opioids that act with different
affinity for the mu receptor [23]. They are both characterized by a fast onset of anal-
gesia and shorter duration when compared to morphine due to their high lipid solu-
bility. Epidural fentanyl 50–100 μg or sufentanil 10–20 μg represent the dose
currently used in clinical practice and usually provide effective analgesia that lasts
for approximately 4–5 h. The increase in the dose of these opioids is not associated
with an increase in the efficacy or the duration of action.
When used epidurally, sufentanil is 5.9 times more potent than fentanyl [24]
although no differences were observed in both the onset and the duration of analge-
sia between the two opioids [25].
Neuraxially administered fentanyl and sufentanil can be effectively used to

improve intraoperative analgesia and provide early postoperative analgesia [26]
while their short duration make them unsuitable agents for the treatment of post-
cesarean analgesia.
The side effects associated with these two short-acting opioids are comparable to
that observed with the administration of morphine but with an earlier onset.
Both these two opioids can cause early onset respiratory depression in less than
1 h after their administration due to vascular absorption and rostral spread in cere-
brospinal fluid [27].
11.4.4 Intrathecal Opioids
Spinal anesthesia is the most commonly used technique for cesarean delivery; there-
fore, the addition of opioids to the spinal solution in order to enhance and prolong
intraoperative and postoperative analgesia has become the standard practice
worldwide.
Intrathecal opioids exert their action primarily by directly binding pre- and post-
synaptic mu-opioid receptors in the substantia gelatinosa of the dorsal horn of the
spinal cord and they are also transported supra-spinally by CSF flow where they
modulate descending inhibitory pain pathways.
A large variety of opioids have been investigated as suitable options for postop-
erative analgesia such as morphine [28–30], fentanyl [30, 31], and sufentanil [32].
11.4.5 Intrathecal Morphine
Morphine is the most commonly used intrathecal opioid as it can provide excel-
lent analgesia with a long duration of action. Analgesia provided by morphine is
generally characterized by a slow onset and a long duration of action, generally up
to 24 h [33].
Unlike epidural morphine, its intrathecal administration does not follow a pre-
cise dose–response relationship for analgesia. Dose–response studies have in fact
found that the analgesic efficacy of intrathecal morphine increases until the dose of
50–150 μg [28]. The incidence of side effects such as nausea and vomiting did not
appear to follow a dose-related effect while the incidence of pruritus increases in a
dose-dependent fashion and can be observed in up to 90% of the cases [28, 33].
The optimal intrathecal dose for morphine was investigated by several studies
and meta-analyses which examined doses ranging from 0.1 to 0.5 mg and found that
doses from 0.1 to 0.2 mg are associated with optimal analgesia lasting up to 27 h
(from 11 to 29 h) and reduced side effects while doses above 0.2 mg do not provide
an improvement in the quality of analgesia [20]. However, the use of 0.2 mg intra-
thecal morphine instead of 0.1 mg is associated with only a little improvement in the
analgesic efficacy, but with a twofold increase of side effects such as nausea, vomit-
ing, use of antiemetics, and pruritus. The use of 0.1 mg, therefore, might represent
158 M. Camorcia
the preferable choice for nursing parturients although in most cases it is still associ-
ated with nausea and pruritus [34].
One other potential complication that can be observed with intrathecal morphine
is the rostral spread in the cerebrospinal fluid and consequent penetration in the
brainstem due to its extremely low lipid solubility that can possibly lead to late
respiratory depression. This however, is much more frequent when administered
intravenously, and with the intrathecal doses commonly used in clinical practice it
is very unlikely to observe this harmful complication.
Nevertheless, it is important to take into account that the sole administration of
morphine either intrathecally or epidurally is often accompanied by the request for
additional pain medications (multimodal approach).
A randomized controlled trial examined the dose–response relationship of intra-
thecal morphine comparing 0.05, 0.1, or 0.15 mg combined with 30 mg intravenous
ketorolac in patients undergoing elective cesarean section with 12 mg of hyperbaric
bupivacaine and fentanyl 15 μg. The results of the study indicate that 0.05 mg of
intrathecal morphine produces similar analgesia as 0.1 or 0.15 mg when used as part
of a multimodal therapy. The only difference observed was the incidence of pruri-
tus, greater in the 0.1 and 0.15 mg, while the incidence of nausea and vomiting was
comparable in the three groups [35].
11.4.6 Intrathecal Fentanyl and Sufentanil
Intrathecal fentanyl and sufentanil can be used to provide optimal intraoperative

analgesia as they are highly lipid soluble so characterized by a fast onset of action.
In fact, when added to intrathecal bupivacaine they allow for a reduction in anti-
emetic medications and provide early postoperative analgesia. However, they also
have a brief duration of action and are therefore not suitable as postoperative
agents [32].
The use of intrathecal fentanyl and sufentanyl were found to provide some early
postoperative analgesia [30] and contributed to an increase in the quality of intraop-
erative analgesia in a small percentage of parturients [20, 32].
11.4.7 Diamorphine
Diamorphine is a lipophilic opioid that rapidly diffuses in the cerebrospinal fluid

after its administration [36] and can be used either epidurally or intrathecally. It is
available only in the UK.
In comparison to morphine, diamorphine is more lipid soluble so its onset of
action is shorter while its duration is comparable to that obtained with morphine
into which it is rapidly metabolized once it reaches the CSF. In terms of safety, dia-
morphine is unlikely to produce late respiratory depression as there is little drug that
gains access to the spinal cord and brainstem from the cerebrospinal fluid due to its
rapid clearance.
Its efficacy after being administered epidurally and intrathecally has been inves-
tigated in several trials.
Dose–response studies have found that increasing the dose of intrathecal diamor-
phine is associated with an increase in analgesia efficacy without a ceiling effect and
with a concurrent increase in the incidence of side effects [37, 38].
One study which investigated the ED95 of intrathecal diamorphine suggested the
use of 0.4 mg in clinical practice that was able to provide effective analgesia with a
mean duration of action of approximately 10 h [39]. However, this was obtained at
the expense of a significant increase in the incidence of side effects such as nausea
and vomiting and pruritus observed in more than 50% of parturients. For this rea-
son, many authors have suggested reducing the dose of this analgesia medication to
0.3 mg [39, 40].
Epidural diamorphine has a fast onset and a long duration of action and it is clini-
cally used in doses ranging from 2.5 to 5 mg with good analgesic efficacy and a
duration of approximately 14 h [41, 42]. The increase in the dose of the drug is
associated with an increase in the duration of analgesia at the expense of an increase
in the incidence and severity of side effects. For this reason, the suggested dose for
epidural diamorphine is about 3 mg [43].
The epidural administration of diamorphine was found to be as equally effective
as its intrathecal administration with regard to both prolonged duration and good
quality of analgesia [42], although the epidural administration is associated with an
increased incidence of side effects such as nausea and vomiting. The authors of the
study in fact suggest the use of intrathecal diamorphine due to its favorable side
effect profile as part of a spinal or a combined spinal epidural technique.
11.4.8 Extended-Release Epidural Morphine (Depodur)
Recently extended-release epidural morphine (EREM) formulations have been

investigated in comparison to the conventional neuraxial morphine that can provide
good post-cesarean analgesia but for only 1 day after surgery.
Extended-release epidural morphine was found to significantly improve pain
scores after cesarean section and prolong post-cesarean analgesia when compared
with conventional epidural morphine, with no significant increase in the incidence
and severity of side effects [43, 44].
11.4.9 Opioid: Systemic Administration
The administration of systemic morphine is commonly used for postoperative anal-

gesia when cesarean section is performed under general anesthesia and consists of
the intravenous, intramuscular, and subcutaneous routes.
The intramuscular and subcutaneous routes are less commonly used when com-
pared with the intravenous route as the use of repeated injections is uncomfortable
for the parturients, and because there is a large interindividual variability in opioid
160 M. Camorcia
requirement, onset of action, duration, and pharmacokinetics [14], although they are
associated with fewer side effects. These latter factors can contribute to intermittent
and suboptimal levels of analgesia obtained with intramuscular or subcutaneous
administrations.
Morphine is often administered intravenously as part of a patient-controlled
intravenous anesthesia technique (PCIA). Its advantages are represented by more
stable levels of analgesia due to the low fluctuations in plasma opioid levels and
great analgesic efficacy when compared with the intramuscular administration that
leads to higher maternal satisfaction [45]. In addition, the feeling of control that
women can have with using PCIA administration contributes to providing good
overall parturient satisfaction.
On the other hand, major disadvantages of the PCIA technique are that women
must be correctly instructed on the proper use of the device and also that new moth-
ers are often concerned about the potential entry of the drug into their milk leading
to a reduction in the demand doses.
Some authors suggest the use of the PCIA technique associated with a back-
ground infusion of the solution. However, the efficacy of this technique is contro-
versial [46], more side effects can be seen, and also there is concern on its safety.
11.5 Multimodal Approach
The multimodal analgesia technique consists of the use of different pharmacologi-

cal agents that act via different mechanisms of action providing synergistic or addi-
tive analgesia, thereby enhancing the quality of analgesia but minimizing the
incidence and severity of side effects. This approach was extensively studied and
clinically used in obstetric as well as in nonobstetric patients [47].
The multimodal approach involves the use of coanalgesic or adjuvant drugs or
the use of nerve block or wound infiltration.
11.6 NSAIDs
The anti-inflammatory and antipyretic properties of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory

drugs (NSAIDs) may reduce visceral pain originating from the uterus, complement-
ing the somatic wound pain relief from the opioid. The addition of NSAIDs has
been shown to potentiate opioid effect, decrease opioid consumption, and reduce
side effects when systemic or neuraxial opioids are administered for post-cesarean
delivery analgesia [48, 49].
However, even if they are effective in blunting the inflammatory component of
the surgical site, their use alone is associated with poor postoperative analgesia [49].
On the other hand, NSAIDs can be used to effectively treat post-cesarean pain as
part of a multimodal approach.
The use of NSAIDs, in fact, can enhance the analgesic effect provided by opioids
allowing the reduction in the consumption of opioids and, in turn, minimizing their
side effects.
NSAIDs drugs exert a significant opioid-sparing effect.

The use of an NSAID such as intramuscular diclofenac 75 mg significantly
enhances the efficacy of analgesia of IT morphine allowing doses as low as 0.025 mg
morphine to produce effective postoperative pain relief for up to 24 h [50, 51].
However, these agents have potential gastrointestinal side effects and platelet
dysfunction that can limit their use. The use of COX 2 inhibitors that do not inter-
fere with gastrointestinal or platelet function is not recommended as they are
secreted into the breast milk, and there is no evidence regarding their safe used in
breastfeeding mothers.
The use of NSAIDs can be performed as an on-demand or a fixed schedule.
11.7 Epidural vs. Systemic Administration
The administration of opioids neuraxially rather than systemically is far more effec-
tive, as has been shown in a number of studies performed in obstetrics [14, 52], the
latter usually being chosen when general anesthesia is performed.
The administration of neuraxial opioids is in fact associated with lower pain
scores when compared with intravenous patient-controlled analgesia (PCIA) in the
first 24 h.
When an epidural technique is used for cesarean section, the epidural catheter
can be effectively used for postoperative analgesia.
In the nonobstetric setting, it has been demonstrated that the use of epidural post-
operative analgesia can decrease perioperative complications, thereby improving
postoperative outcomes [53, 54].
Several studies have concluded that the use of postoperative epidural analgesia is
associated with greater analgesic efficacy when compared with systemic analgesia
[55, 56] in the surgical population.
This better postoperative analgesia was consistent at all the tested intervals and
for up to 4 days after surgery. The quality of analgesia was higher at rest and on
movement with every combination of local anesthetics with or without an opioid
when compared with systemic analgesia [57].
Postoperative epidural analgesia is generally administered using a patient-controlled
epidural analgesia (PCEA) technique or a continuous infusion (CEI) technique.
A meta-analysis performed on obstetric patients reported the significant superi-
ority of the patient-controlled epidural analgesia (PCEA) and the continuous epi-
dural infusion (CEI) over the PCIA technique. In fact, the visual analogue pain scale
(VAPS) values, at rest and on movement, obtained with the PCEA or the CEI tech-
nique were significantly lower than the PCIA in all the intervals tested and for
3 days after cesarean section [58].
The use of PCEA with fentanyl and bupivacaine was found to provide greater
analgesia than CEI [59, 60].
In addition, the PCEA technique is associated with a decreased dose of local
anesthetic solution with less need for physician-administered additional rescue
boluses and therefore with a greater sense of control by parturients and thus an
increase in maternal satisfaction [61].
162 M. Camorcia
However, some evidence has shown that this technique might be poorly tolerated
by mothers as their mobility may be reduced by the use of infusion systems which
in turn reduces their ability to nurse their babies [62, 63].
Preliminary observations reported that the programmed epidural intermittent
bolus (PIEB) technique has the potential to decrease motor block maintaining ade-
quate analgesia when compared to CEI for post-cesarean analgesia even for a pro-
longed period of time [64].
In my institution, almost all cesarean sections have been performed under com-
bined spinal epidural anesthesia. For this reason, we use the epidural catheter to
provide postoperative analgesia. By using a very diluted local anesthetic solution
(such a levobupivacaine 0.0625%) plus an opioid (such as sufentanil) given by PIEB
(programmed intermittent epidural bolus) pumps, we have usually been able to pro-
vide satisfactory analgesia avoiding the concurrent administration of NSAIDs and
allowing for early maternal ambulation and breastfeeding. An additional PCEA
(patient-controlled epidural analgesia) rescue bolus is also part of our post-cesarean
section analgesia program.
In all cases, it must be remembered that when using the epidural catheter for
postoperative analgesia, given the widespread use of postpartum low molecular
weight heparin (LMWH), there is concern about the correct timing of catheter
removal and the risks due to its inadvertent dislocation and therefore proper training
of personnel and adequate guidelines are needed.
11.8 Transversus Abdominis Plane Block (TAP Block)
The TAP block is a regional technique that consists of blocking of the neural affer-
ents deriving from the abdominal wall. This is obtained by administering local anes-
thetics in the neurofascial plane that is located between the internal oblique and the
transversus abdominis muscles [65]. This technique, therefore, is able to partially
reduce the severity of cesarean section as it acts only on its somatic component.
TAP block was found to provide effective post-cesarean analgesia in particular
when the technique is performed under ultrasound imaging [66].
A Cochrane systematic review examining three trials suggested that local anes-
thetic wound infiltration and TAP block might improve the quality of postoperative
analgesia after cesarean section as demonstrated by a reduction in the dose of opioid
consumption when compared to a placebo [67]. However, the studies examined suf-
fered from some methodological flaws and the sample examined was in all cases
small.
More recent studies that investigated TAP block as a part of multimodal analge-
sia gave conflicting results with regard to its efficacy when compared with intrathe-
cal morphine [68, 69].
A recent meta-analysis on the efficacy of TAP block found that this technique
provides more effective post-cesarean analgesia, reduces the need for postoperative
opioid medications and the time for first request for further analgesia, and reduces
the incidence of opioid-related side effects [70].
TAP block technique may be used as a part of a multimodal analgesic regimen

and can be recommended when it is not possible to provide other types of analgesia
such as in the case of general anesthesia.
11.9 Analgesic Drugs and Breastfeeding
It is well recognized that breastfeeding is essential to improve neonatal and mater-

nal well-being [71, 72].
However, one of the major concerns with post-cesarean analgesia is the potential
passage of the analgesic medication into the milk that might expose the newborn to
the analgesic drugs administered to the mother. For this reason, mothers sometimes
choose to abandon breastfeeding in order to be able to get the medications or choose
to avoid the use of analgesic drugs to continue breastfeeding.
It is, therefore, essential to identify the drugs that can be safely used in early
postpartum to allow for a pain-free postpartum period but with no negative interfer-
ence on breastfeeding.
Multiple factors should be considered, such as the potential effects of the drug on
milk production, the amount of the drug excreted into human milk, the extent of oral
absorption by the breastfeeding infant, and the potential adverse effects on the
breastfeeding infant.
Generally, nonopioid medications such as NSAIDs or acetaminophen are con-
sidered to be safer than the opioid medications as they do not cause sedation either
to the neonate or to the mother. Acetaminophen and paracetamol can be safely used
in nursing mothers although being used alone is associated with poor analgesic
efficacy.
NSAIDs are generally considered to be compatible with breastfeeding for short-
term therapies with the exception of aspirin.
The use of ketorolac and ibuprofen are, in fact, clinically well accepted and con-
sidered to be safe for the infant due to their extremely low transfer into the milk [73,
74]. However, ketorolac received a “black box” warning on its use in both laboring
and nursing mothers [75].
Although some studies found that the passage of COX 2 inhibitors in the milk is
very low, their use is still not recommended as there is insufficient evidence to sug-
gest their safe use during lactation.
However, when considering the use of drugs during breastfeeding, it should be
taken into account that the effective concentration of the drug detected on the neo-
nates’ blood is extremely low and is unlikely to have any clinical effect.
The concern arising from the use of opioids derives from the potential negative
effect on neonatal and maternal alertness with the consequent negative effect on the
neonatal suckling reflex that is likely to delay the initiation of breastfeeding or is
associated with its failure.
The administration of morphine is considered the gold standard during lactation
as its passage into the milk is very low and its bioavailability in the newborn is poor
[76, 77].
164 M. Camorcia
The use of meperidine (pethidine) is contraindicated in breastfeeding mothers as

its metabolite causes significant and long-lasting neonatal sedation and inhibition of
the suckling reflex [76].
Given these data, it is reasonable to encourage mothers to effectively treat their
pain after cesarean section with morphine or/and NSAIDs considering that these
drugs are practically not excreted into the milk, the bioavailability is very low, and
when used in clinical doses they do not appear to affect neonatal behavior and the
quality of breastfeeding. Drug delivery via patient-controlled anesthesia or admin-
istration by the epidural route may also minimize infant exposure. In addition, it is
very important to note that maternal pain itself is associated with the failure of
breastfeeding and is associated with postpartum depression and negatively affects
the bonding between the mother and her child.
References
1. Bonnet MP, Mignon A, Mazoit JX, Ozier Y, Marret E. Analgesic effect and adverse effects of
epidural morphine compared to parenteral opioids after elective caesarean section: a system-
atic review. Eur J Pain. 2010;14:894–9.
2. Wu CL, Naqibuddin M, Rowlingson AJ, Lietman SA, Jermyn RM, Fleisher LA. The effect of
pain on health-related quality of life in the immediate postoperative period. Anesth Analg.
2003;97:1078–85.
3. Ismail S, Shahzad K, Shafiq F. Observational study to assess the effectiveness of postoperative
pain of patients undergoing elective cesarean section. J Anaesthesiol Clin Pharmacol.
2012;28:36–40.
4. Leung A. Postoperative pain management in obstetric—new challenges and solutions. J Clin
Anesth. 2004;16:57–65.
5. Cooper PJ, Murray L. Post natal depression. BMJ. 1988;316:1884–6.
6. Annika Karlström A, Engström-Olofsson R, Norbergh KG, Sjöling M, Hildingsson
I. Postoperative pain after cesarean birth affects breastfeeding and infant care. J Obstet Gynecol
Neonatal Nurs. 2007;36:430–40.
7. Eisenach JC, Pan PH, Smiley R, et al. Severity of acute pain after childbirth, but not type of
delivery, predicts pain and post partum depression. Pain. 2008;15:87–94.
8. Kehlet H, Jensen TS, Woolf CJ. Persistent postsurgical pain: risk factors and prevention.
Lancet. 2006;367:1618–25.
9. Perkins FM, Kehlet H. Chronic pain as an outcome of surgery—a review of predictive factors.
10. Mathai M, Hofmeyr GJ, Mathai NE. Abdominal surgical incisions for caesarean section.
11. Rousseau JA, Girard K, Turcot-Lemay L, Thomas N. A randomized study comparing skin
closure in cesarean sections: staples vs. subcuticular sutures. Am J Obstet Gynecol.
2009;200:265.e1–4.
12. Nafisi S. Influence of uterine exteriorization versus in situ repair on post-cesarean maternal
pain: a randomized trial. Int J Obstet Anesth. 2007;16:135–8.
13. Chooi CLS, White AM, Tan SGM, Dowling K, Cyna AM. Pain vs. comfort scores after cae-
sarean section: a randomized trial. Br J Anaesth. 2013;110:780–7.
14. Lim Y, Jha S, Sia AT, et al. Morphine for post cesarean section analgesia: intrathecal, epidural
or intravenous? Singapore Med J. 2005;46:392–6.
15. Cade L, Ashley J. Towards optimal analgesia after caesarean section: comparison of epidural
and intravenous patient-controlled opioid analgesia. Anaesth Intensive Care. 1993;21:696–9.
16. Vercauteren M, Vereecken K, La Malfa M, et al. Cost-effectiveness of analgesia after caesar-

ean section. A comparison of intrathecal morphine and epidural PCA. Acta Anaesthesiol
Scand. 2002;46:85–9.
17. Palmer CM, Nogami WM, Van Maren G, et al. Post cesarean epidural morphine: a dose-
response study. Anesth Analg. 1990;90:887–91.
18. Ready LB. Acute postoperative pain. In: Miller RD, editor. Anaesthesia, vol. 2. New York:
Churchill Livingstone; 1994. p. 2327–44.
19. Fuller JG, McMorland GH, et al. Epidural morphine for analgesia after caesarean section: a
report of 4880 patients. Can J Anaesth. 1990;37:636–40.
20. Dahl JB, Jeppesen IS, Jorgesen H, et al. Intraoperative and postoperative analgesic efficacy
and adverse effects of intrathecal opioids in patients undergoing cesarean section with spinal
anesthesia: a qualitative and quantitative systematic review of randomized controlled trials.
21. Cousins MJ, Mather LE. Intrathecal and epidural administration of opioids. Anesthesiology.
1984;61:276–310.
22. Bromage PR, Camporesi EM, Durant PA, Nielsen CH. Rostral spread of epidural morphine.
23. Leysen JE, Commereu W, Niemegeers CJE. Sufentanil, a superior ligand for μ-opiate recep-
tors: binding properties and regional distribution in rat brain and spinal cord. Eur J Pharmacol.
1983;87:209–25.
24. Camorcia M, Capogna G, Columb MO. Minimum analgesic doses of fentanyl and sufentanil
for epidural analgesia in the first stage of labor. Anesth Analg. 2003;96:1178–82.
25. Grass JA, Sakima NT, Schmidt R, Michtisch R, Zuckerman RL, Harris AP. A randomized,
double-blind, dose-response comparison of epidural fentanyl versus sufentanil analgesia after
cesarean section. Anesth Analg. 1997;85:365–71.
26. Palmer CM, Voulgaropoulos D, Alves D. Subarachnoid fentanyl augments lidocaine spinal
anesthesia for cesarean delivery. Reg Anesth. 1995;20:389–94.
27. Bernards CM. Recent insights into the pharmacokinetics of spinal opioids and the relevance to
opioid selection. Curr Opin Anaesthesiol. 2004;17:441–7.
28. Palmer CM, Emerson S, Volgoropolous D, et al. Dose response relationship of intrathecal
morphine for post cesarean analgesia. Anesthesiology. 1999;90:437–44.
29. Sarvela J, Halonen P, Soikkeli A, et al. A double blinded randomized comparison of intrathecal
and epidural morphine for elective cesarean delivery. Anesth Analg. 2002;95:436–40.
30. Sibilla C, Albertazzi P, Zatelli R, et al. Perioperative analgesia for caesarean section: comparison
of intrathecal morphine and fentanyl alone or in combination. Int J Obstet Anaesth. 1997;6:43–8.
31. SM S-S, Aouad MT, Jalbout MI, et al. Intrathecal versus intravenous fentanyl for supplementa-
tion of subarachnoid block during cesarean delivery. Anesth Analg. 2002;95:209–13.
32. Dahlgren G, Hulstrand C, Jakobsson J, et al. Intrathecal sufentanil, fentanyl, or placebo added
to bupivacaine for cesarean section. Anesth Analg. 1997;85:1288–93.
33. Milner AR, Bogod DG, Harwood RJ. Intrathecal administration of morphine for elective cae-
sarean section. Anaesthesia. 1996;51:871–3.
34. Wong JY, Carvalho B, Riley ET. Intrathecal morphine 100 and 200 μg for post-cesarean deliv-
ery analgesia: a trade-off between analgesic efficacy and side effects. Int J Obstet Anaesth.
2013;22:36–41.
35. Berger JS, Gonzalez A, Hopkins A, et al. Dose-response of intrathecal morphine when admin-
istered with intravenous ketorolac for post-cesarean analgesia: a two-center, prospective, ran-
domized, blinded trial. Int J Obstet Anesth. 2016;28:3–11.
36. Moore A, Bullingham R, McQuay H, et al. Spinal fluid kinetics of morphine and heroin. Clin
Pharmacol Ther. 1984;35:40–5.
37. Skilton RW, Kinsella SM, Smith A, et al. Dose response study of subarachnoid diamorphine
for analgesia after elective caesarean section. Int J Obstet Anaesth. 1999;8:231–5.
38. Kelly MC, Carabine UA, Mirakhur RK. Intrathecal diamorphine for analgesia after caesarean
section. A dose finding study and assessment of side-effects. Anaesthesia. 1998;53:231–7.
166 M. Camorcia
39. Saravan S, Robinson APC, Qayoum D, et al. Minimum dose if intrathecal diamorphine
required to prevent intraoperative supplementation of spinal anaesthesia for caesarean section.
Br J Anaesth. 2003;91:368–72.
40. Lyons G. Dose of intrathecal diamorphine for caesarean section and position for spinal inser-
tion. Br J Anaesth. 2004;92:448–9.
41. Roulson CJ, Bennett J, Shaw M, et al. Effect of extradural diamorphine on analgesia after
cesarean section under subarachnoid block. Br J Anaesth. 1993;71:810–3.
42. Hallworth SP, Fernando R, Bell R, et al. Comparison of intrathecal and epidural diamorphine
for elective caesarean section using a combined spinal epidural technique. Br J Anaesth.
1999;82:228–32.
43. Bloor GK, Thompson M, Chung N. A randomized, double blind comparison of subarachnoid
and epidural diamorphine for elective caesarean section using a combined spinal epidural tech-
nique. Int J Obstet Anesth. 2000;9:233–7.
44. Carvalho B, Roland LM, Chu LF, et al. Single-dose, extended-release epidural morphine
(DepoDur) compared to conventional epidural morphine for post-cesarean pain. Anesth Analg.
2007;105:176–83.
45. Eisenach JC, Grice SC, Dewan DM. Patient controlled analgesia following cesarean section: a
comparison with epidural and intramuscular narcotics. Anesthesiology. 1988;68:444–8.
46. Parker RK, Holtman B, White PF. Patient controlled analgesia: does a concurrent opioid infu-
sion improve pain management after surgery? JAMA. 1991;266:1947–52.
47. Jenkins JG, Khan MM. Anaesthesia for caesarean section: a survey in the UK region from
1992 to 2001. Anaesthsia. 2003;58:1114–8.
48. Wilder-Smith CH, Hill L, Dyer RA, Torr G, Coetzee E. Postoperative sensitization and pain
after cesarean delivery and the effects of single IM doses of tramadol and diclofenac alone and
in combination. Anesth Analg. 2003;97:526–33.
49. Lowder JL, Shackelford DP, Holbert D, Beste TM. A randomized, controlled trial to compare
ketorolac tromethamine versus placebo after cesarean section to reduce pain and narcotic
usage. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2003;189:1559–62.
50. Cardoso M, Carvalho J, Amaro A, et al. Small doses of intrathecal morphine combined with
systemic diclofenac for postoperative pain control after cesarean delivery. Anesth Analg.
1998;86:82–6.
51. Hodsman NBA, Burns J, Blyth A. The morphine sparing effects of diclofenac sodium follow-
ing abdominal surgery. Anaesthesia. 1987;42:1005–8.
52. Cohen SE, Subak LL, Brose WG, Halpern J. Analgesia after cesarean delivery: patient evalu-
ations and costs of five opioid technique. Reg Anesth. 1991;16:141–9.
53. Guay J. The benefits of adding epidural analgesia to general anesthesia: a metaanalysis.
J Anesth. 2006;20:335–40.
54. Richman JM, Wu CL. Epidural analgesia for postoperative pain. Anesthesiol Clin North Am.
2005;23:125–40.
55. Cooper DW, Ryall DM, Desira WR. Extradural fentanyl for postoperative analgesia: predomi-
nant spinal or systemic action? Br J Anaesth. 1995;74:184–7.
56. Correll DJ, Viscusi ER, Grunwald Z, et al. Epidural analgesia compared with intravenous
morphine patient controlled analgesia: postoperative outcome measures after mastectomy with
immediate TRAM flap breast reconstruction. Reg Anesth Pain Med. 2001;26:444–9.
57. Block BM, Liu SS, Rowlingson AJ. Efficacy of postoperative epidural analgesia. A meta anal-
ysis. JAMA. 2003;290:2455–63.
58. Wu CL, Cohen SR, Richman JM, et al. Efficacy of postoperative patient controlled and con-
tinuous infusion epidural analgesia versus intravenous patient controlled analgesia with opi-
oids. Anesthesiology. 2005;103:1079–88.
59. Lubenow TR, Tanck EN, Hopkins EM, et al. Comparison of patient—assisted epidural analge-
sia with continuous-infusion epidural analgesia for postoperative patients. Reg Anesth.
1994;19:206–11.
60. Nightingale JJ, Knight MV, Higgins B, et al. Randomized, double-blind comparison of patient-
controlled epidural infusion vs. nurse administered epidural infusion for postoperative analge-
sia in patients undergoing colonic resection. Br J Anaesth. 2007;98:380–4.
61. Liu SS, Allen HW, Olsson GL. Patient-controlled epidural analgesia with bupivacaine and
fentanyl on hospital wards: prospective experience with 1,030 surgical patients. Anesthesiology.
1998;88:688–95.
62. Ellis DJ, Millar WL, Reisner LS. A randomized double blind comparison of epidural versus
intravenous fentanyl infusion for analgesia after cesarean section. Anesthesiology.
1990;72:981–6.
63. Cohen S, Pantuck CB, Amar D, et al. The primary action of epidural fentanyl after cesarean
delivery is via a spinal mechanism. Anesth Analg. 2002;94:674–9.
64. Stirparo S, Laudani A, Haiberger E, et al. Postoperative analgesia after cesarean section: a
comparison between programmed intermittent epidural bolus (PIEB) versus continuous epi-
dural infusion (CEI). Reg Anesth Pain Med. 2011;36:E1–E27.
65. Mc Donnell JG, Curley G, Carney J, et al. The analgesic efficacy of transversus abdominis
plane block after cesarean section. Anesth Analg. 2008;106:186–91.
66. Barrington MJ, Ivanusic JJ, Rozen WM, Hebbard P. Spread of injectate after ultrasound-
guided subcostal transversus abdominis plane block: a cadaveric study. Anaesthesia.
2009;64:745–50.
67. Bamigboye AA, Hofmeyr GJ. Local anesthetic wound infiltration and abdominal nerves block
during cesarean section for postoperative pain relief. Cochrane Database Syst Rev.
2009;3:CD006954.
68. McMorriw RC, Mhuircheartaigh RJ, Ahmed KA, et al. Comparison of transversus abdominis
plane blocks vs. spinal morphine for pain relief after caesarean section. Br J Anaesth.
2011;106:706–12.
69. Belavy D, Cowlishaw PJ, Howes M, et al. Ultrasound guided transverse abdominis plane block
for analgesia after caesarean delivery. Br J Anaesth. 2009;103:726–30.
70. Siddiqui MR, Sajid MS, Uncles DR, Baig MK. A meta-analysis on the clinical effectiveness
of transverse abdominis plane block. J Clin Anesth. 2011;23:7–14.
71. Kramer MS. “Breast is best”: the evidence. Early Hum Dev. 2010;86:729–32.
72. Section B, et al. Breastfeeding and the use of human milk. Pediatrics. 2012;129:e827–41.
73. Bennett PN. Drugs and human lactation. 2nd ed. Amsterdam: Elsevier; 1996.
74. Bar-Oz B, Bulkowstein M, et al. Use of antibiotic and analgesic drugs during lactation. Drug
Saf. 2003;26:925–35.
75. Drugs and lactation database (LactMed). U.S. National Library of Medicine, TOXNET

Toxicology Data Network.
76. Wittels C, Scott DT, Sinatra RS. Exogenous opioids in human breast milk and acute neonatal
neurobehaviour: a preliminary study. Anesthesiology. 1990;73:864–9.
77. Feilberg VL, Rosemborg D, Broen CC, et al. Excretion of morphine in human breast milk.
Long-Term Problems and Chronic Pain
After Caesarean Section 12
Patricia Lavand’homme
12.1 Introduction
Caesarean section is one of, if not, the most common surgical procedure per-
formed over the world as estimated number was 22.9 million in 2012 [1]. In
developing countries, surgical volume is growing with caesarean deliveries
accounting for nearly a third (29.6%) of all the procedures. In high-resource
developed countries, the rate of caesarean sections has strongly rised reflecting
changes in obstetric practice toward increasing medical interventions in relation
with older age of the mothers, obstetrician’s fear of litigation, repeated caesarean
deliveries, and also maternal preference [1]. Regarding women’s health after cae-
sarean delivery, most of the reports have focused on maternal mortality and
short-term morbidity, e.g., infections, adhesions, need for resection, increased
risk for abnormal placentation [2]. In contrast, longer term consequences on the
mother’s quality of life have received little interest probably because after deliv-
ery, the attention of both the caregivers and the mothers themselves has shifted to
the neonate.
This chapter will focus on the long-term potential consequences of a previous
caesarean delivery for the upcoming life of a woman (Fig. 12.1). Further, as a
consequence to the rise in caesarean section rate, two questions stand as important
issues. Do the long-term problems directly related to childbirth differ between cae-
sarean delivery and vaginal delivery? Did the incidence of the long-term problems
related to caesarean section change over the last decade?
P. Lavand’homme
Department of Anaesthesiology, St Luc Hospital University Catholic of Louvain,
Av Hippocrate 10-UCL 1821, 1200 Brussels, Belgium
e-mail: patricia.lavandhomme@uclouvain.be

DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-42053-0_12
170 P. Lavand’homme
Caesarean
Section
Chronic
Persistent health History of CS as
Post-Surgical
problems a risk factor
Pain (CPSP)
(except local pain)
- Scar pain of CPSP
- Fatigue after later
- Low back pain (neuropathic pain) abdominal surgery
- Chronic pelvic e.g. hysterectomy
- Depression…
pain (CPP)
Fig. 12.1 Long-term potential consequences of a caesarean section for the upcoming life of a
woman
12.2 L
ong-Term Health Problems: Except Local
Pain—After Caesarean Section
Childbirth is a major event in life, associated with both physical and psychological
changes which may affect the woman’s quality of life. The awareness on long-term
maternal, physical, and emotional health problems after childbirth is increasing,
with some recent study including a 5-year follow-up [3]. The global perception of
her health status as well as the overall perceived health-related quality of life by the
women herself is interesting. Childbirth is generally an expression of good health
and thereby, self-rated health in women after childbirth is higher than in a popula-
tion sample of women of same age [4]. Nevertheless, the mode of delivery seems to
affect the health-related quality of life up to 5 years after birth of the first child
because women who have undergone an emergency caesarean section or a caesar-
ean section due to medical indication are more likely to report health concerns than
women who had vaginal delivery, instrumental vaginal delivery, or caesarean sec-
tion on request [3].
The most common problems at 8 weeks and later after childbirth are reported in
Table 12.1. Two large prospective cohort studies published in 2002 [5] and 2012
[6] confirm the high prevalence of health problems which persist or recur after
childbirth by either vaginal route or caesarean section. Tiredness is by far the most
common physical symptom after childbirth [4]. However, women who had a
12 Long-Term Problems and Chronic Pain After Caesarean Section 171
Table 12.1. Prevalence of the most common health problems (except local pain) reported as
significant problems after childbirth
2 months (%) 6 months (%) 12–24 months (%)
Physical exhaustion 50–66 45–50 58–60
Low back pain 51–53 43–47 42–44
Urinary incontinence 21–27 11–12 20–23
Bowel problems 35–37 17–21 9–11
Painful intercourse 36–56 – 8–9
Breast problems 14–18 6–9 4–6
Headaches, migraine 18–22 16–19 23–25
Depressive symptoms 10–13 7–10 10–12
Others: colds, illnesses… 19–23 16–19 36–39
From Thompson et al. [5], Woolhouse et al. [6], Hannah et al. [10], and Declercq et al. [23]
caesarean section are more likely to report major fatigue (adjusted OR: 1.4; 95%
CI: 1.06–1.83) and to suffer back pain at 6 and 12 months postpartum than women
who had a vaginal delivery. Fatigue is often associated with sleeping problems
which are very frequent in the early postpartum period but may persist [4, 5].
Furthermore, the presence of pain also interferes with sleep as sleep disturbances
are frequently reported in questionnaires assessing the quality of life in patients
with chronic pain. Between 10 and 25% of women with chronic pain at 6 months
and later after childbirth mention associated sleeping problems [4, 5, 7–9], unre-
lated to the mode of delivery.
Besides, whether caesarean section causes less urinary incontinence, it seems to
induce more bowel problems, i.e., constipation [5, 10]. The risk of intra-abdominal
adhesions and hence intestinal obstruction is higher in women with a history of cae-
sarean section (OR 2.1; 95% CI: 1.8–2.4) by comparison with women who had vagi-
nal birth [11]. Having a caesarean section is often thought to avoid trauma to the
genital tract and to protect postpartum sexual function. However, over 6 weeks after
childbirth, sexual function does not seem to be affected by the mode of delivery [12].
Postpartum depression is a specific mental disorder, with 13–15% of women
experiencing a major depressive episode during the first postpartum year [13].
Accordingly, the prevalence of self-reported postpartum depressive symptoms
range from 12 to 20% and mood lability is common after childbirth. Suicide in
mothers with postpartum depression accounts for 17% of late-pregnancy-related
death [14]. Beyond the distress of the mother, postpartum depression and maternal
mental health in general affect the child’s health outcomes in terms of cognitive,
behavioral problems and risk of subsequent depression at adolescence [15].
Regarding depressive symptoms, assessed by a questionnaire used in the general
population, a prospective Chinese study found a higher prevalence at 3 months
(46% vs. 38%) but not later after caesarean delivery [12]. In contrast, a few prospec-
tive studies using the same specific questionnaire and scoring, i.e., the Edinburgh
Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS) [7, 10], report an incidence of 10.5% postpar-
tum depression at either 2 months and 2 years after delivery, whatever the mode of
delivery [7, 10, 16]. Both studies confirm the previous results of a large prospective
population cohort study (N = 14,663) which already found no different risk among
elective caesarean section, emergency caesarean section, and spontaneous vaginal
delivery [13]. Finally, several studies on the quality of life after delivery also men-
tion mood alterations caused by the presence of persistent pain (prevalence of
10–25% in women who underwent a caesarean section) [7, 9, 17].
At 2 years postpartum, maternal outcomes (i.e., fatigue, back pain, incontinence,
sexual problem, menstrual problem, depression) after planned caesarean section are
similar to planned vaginal birth as found in a prospective study on breech presenta-
tion at term [10]. For other physical health problems, the pattern of morbidity does
not differ between caesarean section and spontaneous vaginal birth. Breast problems
are very common, such as sore nipples and mastitis, but resolve with time.
Interestingly, breast problems are also experienced by women who did not breastfeed
at all [6]. In contrast to breast problems which decrease with time, the frequency of
colds and coughs increases with time and they are more frequent in multiparas [4, 6].
12.3 Chronic Postsurgical Pain After Caesarean Section
Chronic pain is recognized as pain that persists past normal healing time and hence
lacks the acute warning function of physiological nociception. Moderate to severe
pain that persists at least 3 months (by definition, Chronic Post-Surgical Pain,
CPSP) is frequent after surgery and may concern up to 6–10% of the patients [18,
19]. Depending the type of surgery, CPSP often involves a neuropathic component
(average 30% of the cases, range 6–54%). In this case, pain is usually more severe
and affects the quality of life more adversely. CPSP has become a health priority
and will be included in the new version of the International Classification of
Diseases (ICD-11) [18] because adequate pain treatment is a human right and also
because CPSP represents a complex biopsychosocial problem. Further, the preven-
tion of CPSP is currently a challenge for the clinicians as an indicator of the quality
of healthcare [20]. Chronic pain related to caesarean section has received little
attention until the first study was published in 2004 [21]. According to the definition
of CPSP, chronic pain after caesarean section should persist at least 3 months after
delivery and should not be present before or during pregnancy (Table 12.2).
The first studies on the topic were retrospective ones with inherent bias and have
reported on global CPSP without distinction between parietal scar pain and deeper
abdominal or pelvic pain. According to these studies (N = 220–1573), the prevalence
of CPSP at 6 months and later was 12–18%. The prevalence of disabling pain with a
negative impact on the mother’s quality of life and on the mother-child relationship
was consistently 4–7% [8, 21–24]. Reported incidence of CPSP after caesarean sec-
tion did not really change over time from 2004 [21] until 2016 [22]. In contrast, the
relative risk of developing chronic pain after caesarean delivery compared with spon-
taneous vaginal delivery differed from one study to another [8, 22], probably because
most of the retrospective studies did not characterize chronic pain, i.e., parietal
abdominal pain versus deep intra-abdominal pain versus pelvic pain.
Table 12.2. Type and incidence (*) of chronic postsurgical pain after caesarean section compared
with hysterectomy for a benign condition
Caesarean section
Scar pain
With predominant neuropathic pain 4–5% (2% severe pain)
50–60% at 6 months; 26% at 12 months
Visceral pain
Deep intra-abdominal pain 5.4–7.6%
Chronic pelvic pain 2.9% at 6 months; 1.3% at 18 months
Hysterectomy
Scar pain
With predominant neuropathic pain 16–25% at 4 months; 8–10% at 1 year and later
33% at 6 months and later
Visceral pain
Deep intra-abdominal pain 15.3%
Chronic pelvic pain 16.7%
(*) from prospective studies
Because of the increasing interest on the topic, prospective studies emerged,

focusing on new pain related to the procedure and excluding preexisting pain. In
these studies, the incidence of CPSP at 6 months and later ranges from less than 1%
[7, 17] to 4–9% [25, 26] (mainly pain of moderate intensity with only 2.1% of
women complaining of severe pain [26]). Two studies have reported a very low
incidence of CPSP after caesarean section, 1.8–3% at 6 months and 0.3–0.6% at
1 year [7, 17] but possible bias may exist. One study [7] only followed up at 6 months
and later patients who reported pain at 2 months while it is now evident that CPSP
may develop later after surgery [19]. The other study mostly included Brazilian
women who underwent planned caesarean section at their own request [17]. By
comparison, the incidence of CPSP after gynecologic surgery (i.e., hysterectomy
for benign causes) decreases from 16–25% at 4 months post-surgery [27] to 8–10%
at 1 year [26, 28] and to 7% at 2 years post-surgery [29]. The majority of theses
studies report 4–6% moderate pain and only 1–2% severe pain [26, 28, 29].
12.3.1 Scar Pain and Neuropathic Pain Component

in Chronic Pain After Caesarean Section
As scar pain predominates, being the major complaint in more than 83% of the
women with CPSP after caesarean section [7, 17], some studies have focused on
scar pain and/or have distinguisched scar pain from deep intra-abdominal and pelvic
pain. The prevalence of scar pain remains constant over years and ranges from 4 to
5% with less than 2% severe pain [6, 10, 25]. Recent arguments are in favor of a
predominant neuropathic origin as the presence of CPSP and the presence of sen-
sory abnormalities in the area of surgery are commonly associated despite wide
ranges for normal variability in sensory function [30]. A Pfannenstiel incision is

commonly used for caesarean delivery; its advantages include a low incidence of
incisional hernia and an aesthetic scar. However, the risk of ilio-inguinal and ilio-
hypogastric nerve entrapment related to the technique is real. Among the 32% of
women who had undergone obstetric or gynecologic procedures with a Pfannenstiel
incision and suffered CPSP at incision site at 2 years after surgery (including 7%
with severe pain), neuropathic descriptors were used by 50% of them, and pain was
located at lateral ends of the incisional scar in 70% of the patients [29]. Few studies
have used adequate screening tools to characterize scar pain after caesarean section.
In one study, when pain quality was assessed using the Short-Form McGill Pain
Questionnaire Revised (SF-MPQ2), chronic pain was qualified as predominantly
neuropathic, respectively, in 56%, 50%, and 26% of the patients at 3, 6, and
12 months after surgery [17, 31]. In another study, the prospective epidemiologic
French study “EDONIS” aimed to assess the prevalence and possible neuropathic
character of postsurgical pain using the Douleur Neuropathic 4 (DN4) question-
naire, the 6-months cumulative incidence of CPSP after caesarean section was
approximately 20% with an established neuropathic origin in 61% of the cases [32].
It is interesting to note that the reported pain intensity was generally low (pain
score > 3/10 in only 2% of the patients). The low intensity of neuropathic pain diag-
nosed after caesarean delivery is intriguing. According to the EDONIS results [32]
and findings from other studies [26], neuropathic characteristics are generally asso-
ciated with severe CPSP (average pain score of 5–6 on a scale from 0 to 10) and
functional impairement. By comparison, the prevalence of neuropathic characteris-
tics in chronic pain after abdominal hysterectomy is less, around 33% [33, 34]. The
variability in the incidence of the neuropathic origin of CPSP relates not only on the
different modalities of assessment but also on the fact that chronic pain intensity and
characteristics fluctuate considerably over time [30, 32].
12.3.2 Visceral Pain Component in Chronic Pain

After Caesarean Section
Studies on sex-gender differences demonstrate that females have a higher incidence

of severe pain, which is more anatomically diffuse and longer lasting pain than
males [35] with the prevalence of visceral pain being more frequent. The abdomen
(47%) and the perineal region (38%) are often mentioned as locations for CPSP by
patients attending pain clinics [36]. In the classification of chronic pain for ICD-11,
chronic visceral pain represents persistent or recurrent pain that originates from the
internal organs including abdominal and pelvic cavities [18]. Pain is perceived in
the somatic tissues of the body wall (skin, muscles), in the areas that receive the
same sensory innervation as the internal organ at the origin of the symptom (referred
to as visceral pain). By consequence, visceral pain related to caesarean section
should be perceived as diffuse abdominal wall pain, not localized at the surgical
scar, and in some cases felt as a deep intra-abdominal pain. Few studies about CPSP
after delivery have assessed deep abdominal pain. Three prospective studies
however report a very low incidence at 6 months and later because the incidence of
CPSP itself was already very low [7, 10, 17]. Also, because of the low incidence of
CPSP and thereby abdominal pain, it is difficult to determine if caesarean section
carries a higher risk than vaginal delivery but it does not seem to be the case [10].
At 2 years after a planned caesarean section for breech delivery, intra-abdominal
pain was mentioned by 5.4% of the women versus 4.3% of the women who had
planned vaginal birth. By comparison, 15.3% of the women undergoing gyneco-
logical surgery for a non-painful condition will develop chronic intra-abdominal
pain (prevalence around 3.6% in general female population) [37].
Among the various “chronic visceral pain conditions,” chronic pelvic pain
(CPP) is a common problem in women of reproductive age with a prevalence rate
of 15–25% [38]. The definition proposed by the American College of Obstetricians
and Gynecologists includes noncyclic pelvic pain of at least 6 months duration
that localizes to anatomical pelvis, anterior abdominal wall at or below umbili-
cus, lumbosacral back, or buttocks, sufficient to cause functional disability or to
lead to medical care [39]. CPP is a multifactorial disease, difficult to treat. A
retrospective case-control study including patients (mean age of 34 years; range
19–52 years) who underwent a laparoscopy for CPP found a significantly higher
incidence of caesarean section history (67% of the cases) [40]. The risk factor
associated with previous caesarean section was almost 4 times greater (OR 3.7;
95% CI: 1.7–7.7). Possible causes for CPP after caesarean section include adhe-
sions, inflammation, and abnormal healing of bladder, round ligaments, and adja-
cent structures. Myofascial pain and neuroma may also be involved. While a
relationship between caesarean section and CPP is easy to understand, CPP prev-
alence has been rarely assessed in most of the studies about CPSP after delivery.
Furthermore, most of these studies did not exclude women with preexisting pel-
vic pain; hence, the true incidence of CPP, i.e., new onset of pelvic pain second-
ary to caesarean section was not evaluated. Two retrospective studies mention an
incidence of 9% new onset CPP at 1 year after delivery [41, 42]. Both studies
report an important impact on the daily quality of life, upon a wide range of
sexual and nonsexual activities. The median duration of CPP was 24 months
(IQR 6–51 months). A few prospective studies looking into physical health prob-
lems and pain after delivery mention an incidence of 5–7.6% CPP between
6 months and 2 years after delivery, with no difference regarding the mode of
delivery [6, 10]. A recent longitudinal population study dedicated to assess the
new onset of pelvic pain after delivery (N = 20,248) found a global incidence of
4.5% at 6 months and 1.7% at 18 months [43]. Both planned and emergency
caesarean section was associated with a reduced risk of CPP (2.9% at 6 months
and 1.3% at 18 months) by comparison with vaginal delivery. In patients with
CPP, mean pelvic pain score was low, did not change over time and did not differ
according to the mode of delivery. No information about the duration of pain was
available. These results may support those of a recent retrospective study
(N = 495) which also found a protective effect of caesarean section over sponta-
neous vaginal delivery regarding chronic pain at 2 years (odd ratio 0.13; 95% CI:
0.01–0.63) [22].
12.4 C
aesarean Section as a Risk for Chronic Pain
After Later Obstetric or Gynecologic Surgery
Although a history of caesarean delivery does not preclude further vaginal delivery,
it is often a cause of resection. The initial publication related to CPSP after caesar-
ean section [21] did not report previous caesarean section or previous abdominal
surgery as a cause of CPSP, a finding supported by later publications, either retro-
spective ones [8] and prospective ones [25]. Nevertheless, the report from Loos [29]
about the Pfannenstiel incision as a source of chronic pain (N = 866, including
>90% caesarean sections) mentioned repeated surgeries as an independent risk fac-
tor (OR 2.92; 95% CI: 1.44–5.93) whereas the length of the scar was not. In this
study, around 50% of the patients presented with characteristics of neuropathic pain
in their chronic pain description and the presence of numbness also significantly
predicted CPSP (OR 3.01; 95% CI: 2.05–4.4). Modifications of skin sensitivity sur-
rounding the scar of a previous caesarean section was also reported by others [44]
who found the presence of scar hyperalgesia in 41% of women scheduled for a
repeat procedure at 55 ± 33 months after their first caesarean section. The presence
of scar hyperalgesia was correlated with higher acute postoperative pain and with
the presence of increased central sensitization processing assessed by mechanical
temporal summation [44]. Thereby, it is not excluded that nerve lesion during repeat
section might lead to CPSP in some patients with a predisposed background as
demonstrated by Martinez and colleagues in a different surgical model [45].
Finally, as aforementioned, a history of caesarean section was common is women
who underwent a laparoscopy for chronic pelvic pain (CPP) [40]. Both preoperative
pelvic pain and previous caesarean section actually represent significant risk factors
(respective odds ratio of 3.25 [2.40–4.41] and 1.54 [1.06–2.26]) for the develop-
ment of CPSP after hysterectomy for a benign indication [46].
12.5 Risk Factors of Chronic Pain After Caesarean Section
As any other chronic conditions, CPSP is a complex phenomenon involving periph-

eral and central processes as well as psychological components. Predictive factors for
CPSP may be surgery specific, i.e., in relation to the tissue trauma, or patient specific
[47]. The later factors seem to be prominent because all the patients are not equally at
risk of severe acute pain and/or persistent pain after either surgery or trauma [48]. The
knowledge of the risk factors associated with the development of persistent pain after
a specific surgical procedure is mandatory to implement preventive strategies.
12.5.1 Surgery and Tissue Damage-Specific Risk Factors
Elective versus unplanned caesarean delivery. As the risk of abdominal wall nerve
injury may be higher during emergency procedures, emergency caesarean section
may carry a higher risk of chronic neuropathic pain by comparison with an elective
procedure [29]. Interestingly, labor and trial of vaginal birth have not been associ-
ated with an increased risk of developing persistent pain after caesarean delivery [8,
10, 23].
Extent of tissue damage during caesarean delivery. The type of abdominal wall
incision, i.e., vertical or transverse incision only has an impact on acute pain and
does not affect persistent pain [7]. Today, most of the procedures are performed via
a transverse incision, i.e., the Pfannenstiel incision or the modified Joel-Cohen
(Misgav-Ladach) incision. As previously mentioned, the Pfannenstiel incision car-
ries a risk of injury of the lower abdominal wall nerves leading to a risk of develop-
ing chronic neuropathic pain [29]. In comparison, the Misgav-Ladach technique
seems associated with better outcomes up to 5 years post-surgery in term of
improved quality of life, reduced incidence of chronic pain, neuropathic pain, and
decreased pain intensity [49, 50]. Besides the type of abdominal incision, some
variations of operative techniques have also been investigated. Closure versus non-
closure of the visceral and/or parietal peritoneum to reduce pelvic adhesions is still
debated. A systematic review on the topic however reported reduced chronic
abdominal pain and pelvic discomfort after nonclosure of the peritoneum [51].
12.5.2 Patient-Specific Risk Factors
Some individuals may be predisposed to the development of persistent pain. To sup-

port this, the recent literature on CPSP, specifically the research on the transition
from acute to chronic postsurgical pain, has moved from general risk factors, such
as gender, age, and obesity, to more individualized risk factors reported in a risk
index for the prediction of CPSP [52]. Among the predictors, pain itself is the stron-
gest one what indicates that individual changes in the processing of pain are involved
in the development of CPSP [20]. Both preoperative pain in the body part to be
operated on, preoperative pain distant from the operative site and severe acute post-
operative pain are part of the risk index and have been mentioned in different studies
concerning caesarean section. Preoperative pain is found in more than 50% of
patients undergoing surgery [26]. Both the presence of a chronic pain condition and
the potential regular intake of analgesics may sensitize the central nervous system
and so may favor pain chronicity after tissue injury [20]. All the retrospective stud-
ies on chronic pain after childbirth mention the presence of pain elsewhere as major
risk factor for the development of persistent pain after delivery [8, 21] with an odds
ratio even superior to that related to the recall of intense acute post-delivery pain
(2.5 vs. 1.3) [9]. Further, clinical observations show that patients reporting pelvic
pain often suffer from more than one pain what raises the question of potential
alterations of endogenous pain modulatory mechanisms rather than only local
organ-based mechanisms [48]. Similarly, a previous history of a peripheral neuro-
pathic event predicted the occurrence of chronic neuropathic pain after caesarean
section, supporting the role of an endogenous nerve fragility [53].
In the retrospective studies, patients with CPSP often recall severe acute postpar-
tum pain [9, 21] although that point should be taken with caution because the
memory of pain may be influenced by the meaning and the affective value of the
pain experience. In example, patients who have given birth by caesarean section are
more accurate at recalling acute postoperative pain than patients who have had vagi-
nal delivery or patients who have undergone gynecological surgery [54].
The clinical reality shows severe acute postpartum pain in 17% of women within
the first 36 h of caesarean section, caesarean delivery being associated with a 32.5%
increase in acute pain scores by comparison with vaginal delivery [16]. Acute pain
severity, independent of the type of delivery, may predict an 2.5-fold increase in the
risk of persistent pain at 2 months but not later after childbirth [7, 16], a fact that
argues for the major role played by individual factors in CPSP beyond the initial
degree of tissue injury which is more involved in acute pain severity. Similar find-
ings have been found for hysterectomy [27, 33].
Psychosocial vulnerability represents an important individual risk factor. Mental
health has an impact on the patient’s willingness to recover. Psychological mechanisms
of pain processing (emotion and when pain is perceived as a threat) already known to
play a role in chronic pain conditions have recently attracted interest in perioperative
conditions [20]. Obviously, there is a vulnerable population who presents with a
reduced ability to cope with pain, to anticipate pain, and to control pain when con-
fronted with it. In the context of childbirth, the influence of preoperative psychological
factors on the development of CPSP seems quite mild [53] in contrast with the weight
of the same factors in the context of other surgical procedures including hysterectomy
[55] what supports the hypothesis of a context effect in the development of CPSP [53].
12.5.3 Genetic Predisposition as an Individual Risk Factor
Over the last few years, major developments in genomic research have shown how
genetic variability may affect not only the response to medications including anal-
gesics but also may account for the side effects of the medication. An actual chal-
lenge would be to find “pain genes” allowing to identify individuals with an
increased vulnerability to pain and genes which confer an increased risk of develop-
ing intense acute pain and chronic pain after tissue injury [56]. To date, the value of
clinical factors remains superior to that of genetic factors for predicting CPSP. In
example, clinical factors (surgery, age, physical and mental health, preoperative
pain) predicted 73% of CPSP that developed after various procedures including
hysterectomy while no specific genetic marker did it [28].
12.6 M
anagement of Long-Term Health Problems
After Caesarean Delivery
The majority of women may expect a certain amount of physical symptoms as a

consequence of pregnancy and childbirth. They consider those problems as natural
and of temporary nature. However, for some of them, the problems may persist what
can seriously impact the quality of life and interfere with the mother–child bonding.
Several studies pointed out that a majority of women do not consult a health pro-
fessional even if they feel that they need advice [4, 41, 42]. Pain complaints localized
to areas that are related to sexual function and urination are still often considered
taboo and are complicated by psychological issues [39]. However, among the women
reporting chronic pain localized to abdominal scar after caesarean delivery, only
4–8% mentioned to have visited a physician [21, 29] and less than 25% were taking
pain medications. There is still a lack of education regarding pain relief in the postpar-
tum period. A previous report from 2002 [5] already underlined mothers’needs for
help and advice. When questioned at 2 and 6 months after delivery, 40% of them
reported they had missed emotional support and medical advices. Other authors have
pointed out that postnatal checkup at 6 weeks is likely to provide only a limited pro-
tection for some health problems that may persist after delivery [3]. Physicians should
continue to ask mothers about any pain related to delivery, beyond the first year post-
partum, to make appropriate referrals for pain management [41]. It is important to
note that the use of systemic analgesics is restricted in breastfeeding women due to the
concerns about the excretion of drugs in the breast milk and hence the potential toxic-
ity for the infant. Therefore, if indicated, local analgesic treatments will be preferable,
e.g., scar infiltration of the abdominal wall [57], intravaginal injection [58], or puden-
dal block [59], using a combination of corticosteroids and local anaesthetics. Beyond
their diagnostic value, these nerve blocks may provide long-term pain relief in some
patients. In case of intractable persistent pain caused by a nerve entrapment, the surgi-
cal neurectomy may represent an effective solution [57, 60].
Conclusion
Giving birth is a major event in the life of a woman. The majority of women may
expect a certain amount of physical symptoms as a consequence of pregnancy and
childbirth. They consider those problems as natural and of temporary nature.
However, for some of them, the problems may persist what can seriously impact
the quality of life and interfere with the mother–child relationship. The mode of
delivery, thereby the degree of tissue trauma has only a short-term impact, long-
lasting problems and specifically chronic pain are more related to individual fac-
tors. No change in the incidence of health problems related to delivery occurred
during the last decade despite an increased recognition of their reality. Women’s
health after childbirth whatever the mode of delivery should be a shared responsi-
bility between the caregivers and the mothers. Finally, it is important to notice that
long-lasting health problems after childbirth certainly occur in low-income coun-
tries which have a high rate of CS but very few data are available and the problems
remain hidden with a limited access to healthcare for a majority of these patients.
References
1. Molina G, Weiser TG, Lipsitz SR, Esquivel MM, Uribe-Leitz T, Azad T, Shah N, Semrau K,
Berry WR, Gawande AA. Relationship between cesarean delivery rate and maternal and neo-
natal mortality. JAMA. 2015;314(21):2263–70.
2. Clark EA, Silver RM. Long-term maternal morbidity associated with repeat cesarean delivery.
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2011;205(6 Suppl):S2–10.
3. Carlander AK, Andolf E, Edman G, Wiklund I. Health-related quality of life five years after
birth of the first child. Sex Reprod Healthc. 2015;6(2):101–7.
4. Schytt E, Lindmark G, Waldenstrom U. Physical symptoms after childbirth: prevalence and
associations with self-rated health. BJOG. 2005;112(2):210–7.
5. Thompson JF, Roberts CL, Currie M, Ellwood DA. Prevalence and persistence of health prob-
lems after childbirth: associations with parity and method of birth. Birth. 2002;29(2):83–94.
6. Woolhouse H, Perlen S, Gartland D, Brown SJ. Physical health and recovery in the first 18
months postpartum: does cesarean section reduce long-term morbidity? Birth.
2012;39(3):221–9.
7. Eisenach JC, Pan P, Smiley RM, Lavand’homme P, Landau R, Houle TT. Resolution of pain
after childbirth. Anesthesiology. 2013;118(1):143–51.
8. Kainu JP, Sarvela J, Tiippana E, Halmesmaki E, Korttila KT. Persistent pain after caesarean
section and vaginal birth: a cohort study. Int J Obstet Anesth. 2010;19(1):4–9.
9. Sng BL, Sia AT, Quek K, Woo D, Lim Y. Incidence and risk factors for chronic pain after
caesarean section under spinal anaesthesia. Anaesth Intensive Care. 2009;37(5):748–52.
10. Hannah ME, Whyte H, Hannah WJ, Hewson S, Amankwah K, Cheng M, Gafni A, Guselle P,
Helewa M, Hodnett ED, et al. Maternal outcomes at 2 years after planned cesarean section
versus planned vaginal birth for breech presentation at term: the international randomized term
breech trial. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2004;191(3):917–27.
11. Andolf E, Thorsell M, Kallen K. Cesarean delivery and risk for postoperative adhesions and
intestinal obstruction: a nested case-control study of the Swedish Medical Birth Registry. Am
J Obstet Gynecol. 2010;203(4):406 e401–6.
12. Chang SR, Chen KH, Ho HN, Lai YH, Lin MI, Lee CN, Lin WA. Depressive symptoms, pain,
and sexual dysfunction over the first year following vaginal or cesarean delivery: a prospective
longitudinal study. Int J Nurs Stud. 2015;52(9):1433–44.
13. Patel RR, Murphy DJ, Peters TJ. Operative delivery and postnatal depression: a cohort study.
BMJ. 2005;330(7496):879.
14. Gissler M, Deneux-Tharaux C, Alexander S, Berg CJ, Bouvier-Colle MH, Harper M, Nannini
A, Breart G, Buekens P. Pregnancy-related deaths in four regions of Europe and the United
States in 1999–2000: characterisation of unreported deaths. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol.
2007;133(2):179–85.
15. Pearson RM, Evans J, Kounali D, Lewis G, Heron J, Ramchandani PG, O’Connor TG, Stein
A. Maternal depression during pregnancy and the postnatal period: risks and possible mecha-
nisms for offspring depression at age 18 years. JAMA Psychiat. 2013;70(12):1312–9.
16. Eisenach JC, Pan PH, Smiley R, Lavand’homme P, Landau R, Houle TT. Severity of acute pain
after childbirth, but not type of delivery, predicts persistent pain and postpartum depression.
Pain. 2008;140(1):87–94.
17. Ortner CM, Turk DC, Theodore BR, Siaulys MM, Bollag LA, Landau R. The short-form
McGill pain questionnaire-revised to evaluate persistent pain and surgery-related symptoms in
healthy women undergoing a planned cesarean delivery. Reg Anesth Pain Med.
2014;39(6):478–86.
18. Treede RD, Rief W, Barke A, Aziz Q, Bennett MI, Benoliel R, Cohen M, Evers S, Finnerup
NB, First MB, et al. A classification of chronic pain for ICD-11. Pain. 2015;156(6):1003–7.
19. Werner MU, Kongsgaard UE. I. Defining persistent post-surgical pain: is an update required?
Br J Anaesth. 2014;113(1):1–4.
20. Lavand’homme P. The progression from acute to chronic pain. Curr Opin Anaesthesiol.
2011;24(5):545–50.
21. Nikolajsen L, Sorensen HC, Jensen TS, Kehlet H. Chronic pain following caesarean section.
Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 2004;48(1):111–6.
22. Bijl RC, Freeman LM, Weijenborg PT, Middeldorp JM, Dahan A, van Dorp EL. A retrospec-
tive study on persistent pain after childbirth in the Netherlands. J Pain Res. 2016;9:1–8.
23. Declercq E, Cunningham DK, Johnson C, Sakala C. Mothers’ reports of postpartum pain asso-
ciated with vaginal and cesarean deliveries: results of a national survey. Birth.
2008;35(1):16–24.
24. Nardi N, Campillo-Gimenez B, Pong S, Branchu P, Ecoffey C, Wodey E. Chronic pain after
cesarean: impact and risk factors associated. Ann Fr Anesth Reanim. 2013;32(11):772–8.
25. Liu TT, Raju A, Boesel T, Cyna AM, Tan SG. Chronic pain after caesarean delivery: an
Australian cohort. Anaesth Intensive Care. 2013;41(4):496–500.
26. Fletcher D, Stamer UM, Pogatzki-Zahn E, Zaslansky R, Tanase NV, Perruchoud C, Kranke P,
Komann M, Lehman T, Meissner W, et al. Chronic postsurgical pain in Europe: an observa-
tional study. Eur J Anaesthesiol. 2015;32(10):725–34.
27. Brandsborg B, Dueholm M, Nikolajsen L, Kehlet H, Jensen TS. A prospective study of risk
factors for pain persisting 4 months after hysterectomy. Clin J Pain. 2009;25(4):263–8.
28. Montes A, Roca G, Sabate S, Lao JI, Navarro A, Cantillo J, Canet J, Group GS. Genetic and
clinical factors associated with chronic postsurgical pain after hernia repair, hysterectomy, and
thoracotomy: a two-year multicenter cohort study. Anesthesiology. 2015;122(5):1123–41.
29. Loos MJ, Scheltinga MR, Mulders LG, Roumen RM. The Pfannenstiel incision as a source of
chronic pain. Obstet Gynecol. 2008;111(4):839–46.
30. Johansen A, Schirmer H, Nielsen CS, Stubhaug A. Persistent post-surgical pain and signs of
nerve injury: the Tromso Study. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 2016;60(3):380–92.
31. Bollag L, Richebe P, Siaulys M, Ortner CM, Gofeld M, Landau R. Effect of transversus
abdominis plane block with and without clonidine on post-cesarean delivery wound hyperal-
gesia and pain. Reg Anesth Pain Med. 2012;37(5):508–14.
32. Duale C, Ouchchane L, Schoeffler P, Group EI, Dubray C. Neuropathic aspects of persistent
postsurgical pain: a French multicenter survey with a 6-month prospective follow-up. J Pain.
2014;15(1):24 e21–0.
33. Brandsborg B, Dueholm M, Kehlet H, Jensen TS, Nikolajsen L. Mechanosensitivity before
and after hysterectomy: a prospective study on the prediction of acute and chronic postopera-
tive pain. Br J Anaesth. 2011;107(6):940–7.
34. Haroutiunian S, Nikolajsen L, Finnerup NB, Jensen TS. The neuropathic component in persis-
tent postsurgical pain: a systematic literature review. Pain. 2013;154(1):95–102.
35. Hurley RW, Adams MC. Sex, gender, and pain: an overview of a complex field. Anesth Analg.
2008;107(1):309–17.
36. Crombie IK, Davies HT, Macrae WA. Cut and thrust: antecedent surgery and trauma among
patients attending a chronic pain clinic. Pain. 1998;76(1–2):167–71.
37. Sperber AD, Morris CB, Greemberg L, Bangdiwala SI, Goldstein D, Sheiner E, Rusabrov Y,
Hu Y, Katz M, Freud T, et al. Development of abdominal pain and IBS following gynecological
surgery: a prospective, controlled study. Gastroenterology. 2008;134(1):75–84.
38. Weijenborg PT, Greeven A, Dekker FW, Peters AA, Ter Kuile MM. Clinical course of chronic
pelvic pain in women. Pain. 2007;132(Suppl 1):S117–23.
39. Wesselmann U. Chronic pelvic and urogenital pain syndromes. Pain Clinical Updates (IASP).
2008;XVI(6):1–4.
40. Almeida EC, Nogueira AA, Candido dos Reis FJ, Rosa e Silva JC. Cesarean section as a cause
of chronic pelvic pain. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2002;79(2):101–4.
41. Paterson LQ, Davis SN, Khalife S, Amsel R, Binik YM. Persistent genital and pelvic pain after
childbirth. J Sex Med. 2009;6(1):215–21.
42. Li WY, Liabsuetrakul T, Stray-Pedersen B, Li YJ, Guo LJ, Qin WZ. The effects of mode of
delivery and time since birth on chronic pelvic pain and health-related quality of life. Int
J Gynaecol Obstet. 2014;124(2):139–42.
43. Bjelland EK, Owe KM, Pingel R, Kristiansson P, Vangen S, Eberhard-Gran M. Pelvic pain
after childbirth: a longitudinal population study. Pain. 2016;157(3):710–6.
44. Ortner CM, Granot M, Richebe P, Cardoso M, Bollag L, Landau R. Preoperative scar hyperal-
gesia is associated with post-operative pain in women undergoing a repeat caesarean delivery.
Eur J Pain. 2013;17(1):111–23.
45. Martinez V, Ben Ammar S, Judet T, Bouhassira D, Chauvin M, Fletcher D. Risk factors predic-
tive of chronic postsurgical neuropathic pain: the value of the iliac crest bone harvest model.
Pain. 2012;153(7):1478–83.
46. Brandsborg B, Nikolajsen L, Hansen CT, Kehlet H, Jensen TS. Risk factors for chronic pain
after hysterectomy: a nationwide questionnaire and database study. Anesthesiology.
2007;106(5):1003–12.
47. Lavand’homme P. Chronic pain after childbirth. Curr Opin Anaesthesiol. 2013;26(3):273–7.
48. Edwards RR. Individual differences in endogenous pain modulation as a risk factor for chronic
pain. Neurology. 2005;65(3):437–43.
49. Belci D, Di Renzo GC, Stark M, Duric J, Zoricic D, Belci M, Peteh LL. Morbidity and chronic
pain following different techniques of caesarean section: a comparative study. J Obstet
Gynaecol. 2015;35(5):442–6.
50. Gizzo S, Andrisani A, Noventa M, Di Gangi S, Quaranta M, Cosmi E, D’Antona D, Nardelli
GB, Ambrosini G. Caesarean section: could different transverse abdominal incision techniques
influence postpartum pain and subsequent quality of life? A systematic review. PLoS One.
2015;10(2):e0114190.
51. Bamigboye AA, Hofmeyr GJ. Closure versus non-closure of the peritoneum at caesarean sec-
tion: short- and long-term outcomes. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014;8:CD000163.
52. Althaus A, Hinrichs-Rocker A, Chapman R, Arranz Becker O, Lefering R, Simanski C, Weber
F, Moser KH, Joppich R, Trojan S, et al. Development of a risk index for the prediction of
chronic post-surgical pain. Eur J Pain. 2012;16(6):901–10.
53. Richez B, Ouchchane L, Guttmann A, Mirault F, Bonnin M, Noudem Y, Cognet V, Dalmas AF,
Brisebrat L, Andant N, et al. The role of psychological factors in persistent pain after cesarean
delivery. J Pain. 2015;16(11):1136–46.
54. Babel P, Pieniazek L, Zarotynski D. The effect of the type of pain on the accuracy of memory
of pain and affect. Eur J Pain. 2015;19(3):358–68.
55. Pinto PR, McIntyre T, Almeida A, Araujo-Soares V. The mediating role of pain catastrophiz-
ing in the relationship between presurgical anxiety and acute postsurgical pain after hysterec-
tomy. Pain. 2012;153(1):218–26.
56. Clarke H, Katz J, Flor H, Rietschel M, Diehl SR, Seltzer Z. Genetics of chronic post-surgical
pain: a crucial step toward personal pain medicine. Can J Anaesth. 2015;62(3):294–303.
57. Loos MJ, Scheltinga MR, Roumen RM. Surgical management of inguinal neuralgia after a low
transverse Pfannenstiel incision. Ann Surg. 2008;248(5):880–5.
58. Doumouchtsis SK, Boama V, Gorti M, Tosson S, Fynes MM. Prospective evaluation of com-
bined local bupivacaine and steroid injections for the management of chronic vaginal and peri-
neal pain. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2011;284(3):681–5.
59. Vancaillie T, Eggermont J, Armstrong G, Jarvis S, Liu J, Beg N. Response to pudendal nerve
block in women with pudendal neuralgia. Pain Med. 2012;13(4):596–603.
60. Ducic I, Moxley M, Al-Attar A. Algorithm for treatment of postoperative incisional groin pain
after cesarean delivery or hysterectomy. Obstet Gynecol. 2006;108(1):27–31.
Humanization of Cesarean Section
13
Giorgio Capogna and Hans de Boer
13.1 Historical Perspectives
In the early 1980s, Professor Romano Forleo, the Head of the Department of
Obstetrics at Fatebenefratelli Hospital in Rome, was one of the first in Europe to
introduce in a Department of Obstetrics the so-called humanized childbirth (human-
izing birth means considering women’s values, beliefs, and feelings and respecting
their dignity and autonomy during the birthing process). The idea was to introduce
the “home in the hospital” rather than reproducing the home-like environment pro-
posed by the birthing centers which sprung up in the USA in the 1970s, as alterna-
tives to the heavily institutionalized maternity hospital [1].
A women-centered labor and delivery performed within a hospital depart-
ment was thought to be more complete, adding the chance of a pain-free labor
and delivery upon the woman’s request. Therefore, in parallel, the anesthesia
department was called on to contribute to this project, starting an epidural ser-
vice and increasing the use of epidural anesthesia for cesarean section and creat-
ing one of the first full-time obstetric anesthesia departments in Italy, led by
Prof. Giorgio Capogna. One of the major changes for all of us was the different
way of considering the women as mothers rather than as patients, but also the
involvement of the father and his presence in the labor and delivery room and in
the cesarean section theater contributed to change and adjust our anesthetic pro-
cedures [2].
G. Capogna (*)
e-mail: Dipartimento.anestesia@gruppogarofalo.com
H. de Boer, M.D., Ph.D.
Department of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, Martini General Hospital Groningen,
Groningen, The Netherlands
e-mail: hd.de.boer@mzh.nl

DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-42053-0_13
184 G. Capogna and H. de Boer
At that time, the UNICEF maternal best practice standards had not yet been pub-
lished, but we already used to let the mother hug her baby immediately after birth
after cesarean delivery, even if for only a short period of time and after the neona-
tologist’s assessment, and the rooming-in was one of the most frequent maternal
choices after delivery.
13.2 The Cesarean Section, A Normal Surgical Procedure?
Nowadays, cesarean section is one of the most frequent surgical procedures in

many European countries and North America and it is perceived as a “normal
surgical procedure,” a routine practice that is not performed exclusively to save
the life of the mother and of the baby, as it was originally designed for, or as a
necessary or advisable procedure due to obstetrical reasons, but also for various
nonmedical reasons, like the wish of the parents. The anesthesia approach is in
favor of spinal anesthesia except for emergency cesarean section. One of the
advantages is that both parents can experience the birth of their child. However, in
many hospitals the cesarean section is still approached as a strict surgical proce-
dure and therefore only the mother is allowed in the theater. Nowadays, in more
and more hospitals the father is allowed to be present in the operating theater, but
more can be done in order to satisfy both parents. Despite the general awareness
of encouraging parent participation, rigid protocols define the appropriate behav-
ior in the operating theater, and therefore the couple’s participation is usually
limited by the medical staff’s needs as well as by the material and hygienic con-
straints of the surgical setting, according to the different hospitals’ habits and
procedures.
In addition, most frequently cesarean sections are performed as an emergency
procedure or as an elective, programmed surgery due to pathological reasons, and
therefore an immediate contact with the parents is often not possible or advisable,
due to the neonatal or maternal conditions.
Even if the mother and the baby are doing well and are at term, an immediate
maternal–neonatal contact might be denied for many not well-defined reasons.
For example, although the mother is generally awake during the surgery, she usu-
ally does not see her baby coming out, because a drape separates her head from
her abdomen. Unfortunately, in some institutions, the mother may be routinely
under the effect of tranquilizers to help her face the atmosphere of the operating
theater and the sensation of her body being operated on. In addition, it is not
unusual for the baby to need assistance because he/she cannot breathe autono-
mously. Moreover, after the delivery, the baby is quickly shown to the mother
and transferred to another room next to the theater together with the father.
Subject to the health of mother and baby, the time of separation between the
woman and her child after surgery can last one or more hours according to the
hospital routines.
As a consequence, cesarean section does not allow the immediate skin-to-skin
contact deemed beneficial in promoting bonding between mother and baby [3].
13 Humanization of Cesarean Section 185
13.3 A More Human Approach
To increase the satisfactory birth experience, another approach is needed. In many

years of research in cesarean section, the focus has been on improving the surgical
technique and to reduce or to prevent complications. This has led to a reduced peri-
operative risk, but there was no focus on a very important point which is generally
accepted in vaginal delivery, namely, the immediate skin-to-skin contact between
the mother and her child. Also generally accepted is that due to this interaction sev-
eral important factors are positively influenced like breastfeeding, bonding, glucose
levels, and cardiovascular and respiratory stability [4–6].
Therefore, another approach in cesarean section is needed to improve not only
the mother’s satisfaction but also the maternal and neonatal outcome.
There are now a great number of studies [4–6] that demonstrate that mothers and
babies should be together, skin to skin immediately after birth. The neonate’s tem-
perature, heart and breathing rates, and glycemia are more normal and stable. In
addition, skin-to-skin contact immediately after birth allows the baby to be colo-
nized by the same bacteria as the mother and this, plus breastfeeding, is believed to
be very important factors in preventing allergic diseases. From the point of view of
breastfeeding, babies who are kept skin to skin with the mother immediately after
birth for at least 1 h are more likely to breastfeed without any help, which is seen in
vaginal delivery. Prolonged skin-to-skin contact during the first few months after
birth may also decrease total neonate crying, improve sleeping and decrease the
incidence of maternal postpartum depression [7].
The first hour after birth after vaginal delivery, which is also to be expected in
cesarean section, has been defined as the “sacred hour,” a period of time during
which skin-to-skin contact provides physiological stability and maternal attachment
behaviors, favors optimal brain development, decreases the negative effects of sepa-
ration, and increases breastfeeding rates and duration [8].
In 2008, the first steps were made to promote uninterrupted skin-to-skin contact
immediately after birth after cesarean section by Professor Nicholas Fisk and
coworkers at Queen Charlotte’s Hospital in London, which signified a turning point
in the humanization of the cesarean section [9]. Their approach described a number
of measures mimicking as much as possible a vaginal delivery and called it “natural
cesarean.” These measures included among others the following: (a) parents can
watch their baby immediately born since the surgical drape that separates the upper
part of the mother’s body from the birthing scene is dropped at the extraction time;
(b) the baby is extracted slowly so that he/she is better able to start breathing unaided
[10]; (c) the newborn is immediately handed to the mother for the skin-to-skin first
contact, favoring maternal–infant bonding; (d) if requested, the father can perform
a second cutting of the umbilical cord. The aim of this procedure is to encourage
mother and father to be active participants in the birth of their child instead of under-
going the surgical event passively. This was a big step forward, as even little changes
can make a big difference: for example, at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in
Boston, USA, the version of the “natural cesarean” or family-centered cesarean is
called the “gentle cesarean,” and mothers who choose this way of treatment can
view the birth through a clear plastic drape, and immediate skin-to-skin contact
follows.
The modification of the ordinary surgical technique to a more natural or better,
woman-centered model is certainly a challenge and seems to indicate the current
trend towards medical and social acceptance of cesarean section in many countries,
where women as well as physicians regard surgery and more generally interventions
during the birthing process as part of the necessary routine [11, 12].
The definition of “natural cesarean” may, however, be questionable since the
definition of natural childbirth itself is very difficult, and there is no clear consensus
about what “natural” or “normal” childbirth is but there is a general agreement
about the fact that childbirth should be “woman centered,” giving priority to her
wishes and her needs, highlighting the importance of informed choice, continuity of
care and the woman’s involvement. For this reason, we feel it more appropriate to
define all the attempts to perform a woman-centered cesarean section as a “human-
ized cesarean delivery” to emphasize that even if it is a surgical procedure it is still
a “delivery” and not only a “section,” and more like a birth than an operation.
13.4 T
he Challenge and Implementation of “Humanized
Cesarean Delivery”
The clinical processes that support a mother- and baby-centered approach to cesar-
ean section may vary between hospitals and countries and are a challenge to achieve.
Although birth is a major life event for parents, a full parental involvement during
cesarean section is still not common practice. Furthermore, we have to realize that
apart from the cesarean section per se, the whole journey of the parents is a multi-
disciplinary team effort. Gynecologists, anesthesiologists, pediatricians, nurse anes-
thetists, obstetric nurses, and surgical nurses should be involved in the
multidisciplinary approach of the humanized cesarean delivery [13, 14]. Each disci-
pline contributes to the general protocol which describes in detail every step of the
humanized cesarean delivery. The most important steps in the protocol are the
parental participation, information for the parents (e.g., with video), a perfect neur-
axial anesthesia (without any form of sedation), the 24-h staff availability for this
procedure, and well-defined criteria of contraindications for this approach, in order
to offer a humanized cesarean delivery also in the case of unplanned cesarean sec-
tion due to nonprogressive labor without fetal distress. Usually this procedure is not
recommended, or even contraindicated, with preterm births in emergency cesarean
deliveries in cases where the baby is at risk of a low Apgar score.
There are some commonly used procedures and practices utilized among the
hospitals to promote the humanization of cesarean delivery to transform a major
surgical procedure such as a cesarean section into a mother–baby–family-centered
experience. This includes the way it is performed. In addition to some procedures
described in literature, some more specific aspects have to be highlighted, including
(1) the placement of the ECG leads on the maternal back to favor skin-to-skin con-
tact, (2) the temperature in the theater is kept optimal at 24 °C, (3) the gynecologists
commence surgery with double sterile gloves and arm sleeves. The pediatrician is
available in the neonatal resuscitation room and will treat the baby if neonatal dis-
tress occurs. Prior to the baby being born, the surgical drape is lowered for the par-
ents to be able to observe the birth, which includes being born slowly, facing towards
the parents and handed over to the mother’s chest with the help of the obstetric
nurse. If possible leave the baby’s body in the uterus for a few moments in order to
allow the contraction of the uterus around the body of the fetus [15]. This will favor
the initiation of breathing and crying and the clearing of the fetal respiratory system
of fluid. Delay cord clamping to permit auto transfusion and improve neonatal iron
stores [16].
Before continuing the surgical procedure, the surgeon removes one pair of gloves
and sleeves. The sterile barrier is restored by raising the surgical drape. The first
neonatal assessment and monitoring on the chest of the mother can be performed by
the neonatologist, the obstetric nurse, the midwife or the anesthesiologist, according
to local clinical practice. If the baby shows no sign of distress, it stays on the moth-
er’s chest as long as possible [13, 14]. Encourage intraoperative breastfeeding.
Routine care for the infant can be delayed until after the first feeding is completed
and keep the mother and baby together. Rather than separating the mother and new-
born for the trip to the recovery area, have the mother cradle the newborn on her
chest during the transport process. Within an hour after birth the baby may be
checked by the pediatrician in the recovery room. In this procedure there are a few
very important questions to answer regarding the safety of the surgical site infec-
tions, more blood loss and maternal and fetal outcome. In the next section, the out-
come of the humanized cesarean delivery will be described.
13.5 Neonatal and Maternal Outcome
The plan to promote early skin-to-skin contact and keep the newborn with the
mother may need to be altered if the newborn needs more intensive support at the
resuscitation table for symptoms of transient tachypnea, which will affect both the
neonatal and the maternal outcome. Careful attention to ensuring that the baby is
not left exposed to the cold operating room temperature is helpful to reduce the risk
of hypothermia. Early skin-to-skin contact at cesarean section has been reported to
improve maintenance of neonatal thermoregulation [17]. Forced air warmers may
prevent thermal dispersion and are as effective as an incubator in preventing neona-
tal hypothermia while the newborn baby is on the mother’s chest as she is undergo-
ing surgery in the operating room, thus favoring very early skin-to-skin contact in a
cold environment [18]. Nowadays, more data are published on the outcome of the
humanized cesarean delivery [13–15]. Birth experiences of a more humanized
cesarean delivery approach were rated higher when compared with the classical
cesarean section. Moreover, with regard to humanized cesarean delivery neonatal
outcome showed no differences in APGAR scores compared with the classical
cesarean section performed; there were less admissions to the neonatal ward, and
suspected neonatal infection was less frequent. The procedural surgical time may be
a little increased but that is due to the lowering of the surgical drapes and to remov-
ing the gloves and arm sleeves. The maternal outcome was not affected by applying
a humanized cesarean delivery. Maternal surgical site infections and blood loss are
comparable between the humanized cesarean delivery and the classical cesarean
section. However, the need for maternal blood transfusion is less in the humanized
cesarean delivery compared to the conventional cesarean section. This may possibly
be explained by the fact that the humanized cesarean delivery includes spontaneous
delivery of the placenta which is associated with less maternal blood loss when
compared to manual removal [19], and, in addition, neonates start to breastfeed
earlier, most of the time already during surgery, and this may also increase uterine
contractions [13–15].
Conclusion
As cesarean section rates are increasing worldwide, we have to realize that birth
is a major life event for parents. It is our responsibility to increase the satisfactory
birth experience for the parents and as such another approach is needed. The
clinical processes that support a mother- and baby-centered approach to cesarean
section may vary between hospitals and countries and is a challenge to achieve.
The humanization of cesarean delivery to transform a major surgical procedure
such as a cesarean section into a mother-baby-family-centered experience is a
multidisciplinary challenge. Once the humanized cesarean delivery is well orga-
nized and more common practice the rating of the birth experience is increased.
Moreover, the maternal and neonatal outcome is also improved and the satisfac-
tion of the healthcare worker involved is increased.
References
1. Forleo R, Forleo P. Fondamenti di Storia della Ostetricia e Ginecologia. Verduci Editore.
2009;77–80.
2. Forleo R, Zanetti H. Il papà in attesa. Edizioni Paoline. 1987.
3. Odent M. New reasons and new ways to study birth physiology. Inter J Gynecol Obstet.
2001;75(Suppl 1):S39–45.
4. Moore E, Anderson G, Bergman N, Dowswell T. Early skin-to-skin contact for mothers and
their healthy newborn infants. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012:5. doi:10.1002/14651858.
CD003519.pub3.
5. Stevens J, Schmied V, Burns E, Dahlen H. Immediate or early skin-to-skin contact after a
caesarean section: a review of the literature. Mater Child Nutr. 2014;10:456–73.
6. Thukral A, Sankar MJ, Agarwal R, Gupta N, Deorari AK, Paul VK. Early skin-to-skin contact
and breast-feeding behavior in term neonates: a randomized controlled trial. Neonatology.
2012;102:114–9.
7. Bigelow A, Power M, Maclellan Peters J, Marion A, McDonald C. Effect of mother/infant
skin-to-skin contact on postpartum depressive symptoms and maternal physiological stress.
J Obstet Gynec Neon Nursing. 2012;41:369–82.
8. Phillips R. The sacred hour: uninterrupted skin to skin contact immediately after birth.
Newborn & Infant Nursing Research. 2013;13:67–72.
9. Smith J, Plaat F, Fisk NM. The natural caesarean: a woman-centred technique. Br J Obstet
Gynaecol. 2008;115:1037–42.
1 0. Edwardes C. The new natural caesarean, The Times. 4 April 2009.

11. Green JM, Baston HA. Have women become more willing to accept obstetric interventions
and does this relate to mode of birth? Data from a prospective study. Birth. 2007;34:6–13.
12. Habiba M, Kaminski M, Da Frè M, Marsal K, Bleker O, Librero J, Grandjean H, Gratia P,
Guaschino S, Heyl W, Taylor D, Cuttini M. Caesarean section on request: a comparison of
obstetricians' attitudes in eight European countries. BJOG. 2006;113:647–56.
13. Posthuma S, Korteweg FJ, van der Ploeg JM, et al. Risks and benefits of the skin-to-skin cesar-
ean section - a retrospective cohort study. J Mater Fetal Neonatal Med. 2016;29:1–5.
14. Boer HD, Korteweg FJ, van der Ploeg JM, Wiersma Zweens M, Kremer P, van der Ham.
Natural cesarean section: family centered multidisciplinary standard procedure for all term
cesarean sections. Eur J Anaesth. 2015;32 (suppl 53): 121.
15. Armbrust R et al. The charite cesarean birth: a family oriented approach of cesarean section.
J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 2015;1–6
16. Andersson O, Helmström-Westas L, Andersson D, Domellof M. Effect of delayed versus early
umbilical cord clamping on neonatal outcomes and iron status at 4 months of age: a ran-
domised controlled trial. BMJ. 2011;343:d7157.
17. Gouchon S, Gregori D, Picotto A, Patrucco G, Nangeroni M, Di Giulio P. Skin-to-skin contact
after cesarean delivery: an experimental study. Nurs Res. 2010;59:78–84.
18. Stirparo S, Farcomeni A, Laudani A, Capogna G. Maintaining neonatal normothermia during
WHO necommended skin-to-skin contact in the setting of cesarean section under regional
anesthesia. Open Journal of Anesthesiology. 2013;3:186–8.
19. Morales M, Ceysens G, Jastrow N, et al. Spontaneous delivery or manual removal of the pla-
centa during caesarean section: a randomised controlled trial. BJOG. 2004;111:908–12.
Caesarean Section on Maternal Request
and the Anaesthetist 14
Marwan Habiba
Caesarean section (or delivery) on maternal request (CSMR), patient choice caesar-
ean or caesarean on demand all refer to elective caesarean section (ELCS) for sin-
gleton term pregnancy carried out at the request of the pregnant woman in the
absence of medical maternal or fetal indications [1]. This may have parallels to
‘prophylactic caesarean’ which was proposed in 1985 as an alternative to what was
termed ‘passive anticipation of vaginal delivery’ [2]. Renewed interest in the topic
followed the report by Al-Mufti et al. that 31% of female obstetricians in London
would choose a caesarean section for themselves in case of uncomplicated preg-
nancy [3]. The relevance of these expressed preferences is unclear as there is no
evidence that they have translated into real actions at the relevant time. CSMR has
been extensively discussed in medical literature and also in public discourse, where
it is often referred to using somewhat derogatory phrases such as ‘too posh to push’
[4–8]. In the UK, recent guidelines to obstetricians issued by the National Institute
of Clinical Excellence (NICE) state that: ‘for women requesting a caesarean section
(CS), if after discussion and offer of support (including perinatal mental health sup-
port for women with anxiety about childbirth), a vaginal birth is still not an accept-
able option, offer a planned caesarean section’. The guidelines go on to advise that
any obstetrician unwilling to perform a caesarean section under such circumstances
should refer the woman to an obstetrician who will carry out the CSMR [9].
Consideration of ethical principles or of the place of respect for autonomy is not
within the remit of NICE. Thus acceptance of CSMR in national guidance may or
may not be indicative of a significant shift of attitude towards maternal choice. The
conclusion reached by NICE was apparently based on the guidelines authors’ inter-
pretation of clinical evidence that is summarised as follows: ELCS may (1) reduce
M. Habiba
Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University Hospitals of Leicester and
Department of Health Sciences, University of Leicester, Leicester, UK
e-mail: mah6@leicester.ac.uk

DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-42053-0_14
192 M. Habiba
the risk of perineal and abdominal pain during birth and three days post-partum; (2)
reduce injury to the vagina; (3) reduce early post-partum haemorrhage; and (4)
reduce obstetric shock. But ELCS may (1) increase the risk of neonatal admission
to intensive care; (2) result in longer hospital stay; (3) increase the risk of hysterec-
tomy caused by post-partum haemorrhage; and (4) increase the risk of cardiac
arrest. I will return to the discussion of the evidence base later in the chapter. It is
interesting to note that NICE advises obstetricians who are not willing to perform a
CSMR to refer the patient to another doctor. This demonstrates that NICE recog-
nises the ethical dimension inherent in the guidelines but the view taken by NICE
averts rather than resolves the dilemma. In effect, it leaves the ethical question unan-
swered whilst allowing CSMR to take place.
14.1 What Is the Incidence of CSMR?
Despite much effort to reverse the trend, caesarean section rates continue to rise. In
the UK, the mean caesarean section rate in primiparous women was 22.1% and for
multiparous women was 21.3% in 2013–2014 [10]. In the United States, there were
more than 1.3 million caesarean deliveries (32.9% of all births) in 2009 [11]. As the
proportion of caesarean section births continues to rise, debate continues on the
status of CSMR. Estimates of CSMR vary widely. One quoted range puts that at
4–18% of all caesarean deliveries. CSMR was reported to account for 2.6% of all
caesarean sections in Flanders [12] and 26.8% in Western Australia [13] and some
have argued that the rate might be increasing. Both sides of the debate use selected
estimates of prevalence to emphasise that this issue is either important from the
public perspective or is a small-scale issue that should not be of public concern and
should, therefore, be left to the individual woman concerned.
One study from the United States reported that there has been an increase of
primary caesarean where there was ‘no indicated risk’ from 3.3% in 1991 to 5.5%
in 2001. This study also suggested higher rates in older primiparous women, per-
haps fitting with a stereotypical representation of this group of women [14]. But the
study itself used national US birth certificate data that does not specifically docu-
ment ‘maternal request’. It is also reported that caesarean delivery without labour or
some medical indication had increased in the United States from 1.9% of all deliver-
ies in 2001 to 2.6% in 2003, but this estimate was based on statistical algorithms
rather than actual reported cases [15].
Some of the difficulty in providing an estimate is related to problems inherent in
the definition of CSMR. CSMR is a term that could be applicable to a range of sce-
narios where there has been a significant maternal preference or influence on the
choices made. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG)
proposed that CSMR be defined as a primary pre-labour caesarean delivery on
maternal request in the absence of any maternal or fetal indications [11]. But even
this remains open to interpretation. A common scenario where caesarean section
delivery can be seen to fall within the ACOG definition is the group of woman who
had a previous caesarean section. Allowing labour with the aim of achieving vaginal
14 Caesarean Section on Maternal Request and the Anaesthetist 193
delivery in women with a previous CS (VBAC) has a recognised failure rate of

between 20 and 40%. In case of failure, women will require emergency surgical
delivery with added risk and disruption. Cumulatively, this may counter the poten-
tial benefits of VBAC. VBAC is also associated with a numerically small (about
1%) but serious risk of uterine rupture during labour. Whether a woman who indi-
cates her preference for a repeat caesarean section rather than VBAC is classed
within the category of CSMR will, to a large extent, be dependent on the attitude of
the obstetrician. Indeed, the same may be applicable to most cases of ELCS because
most indications of caesarean section are relative not absolute.
14.2 Medical Indication
Literature creates the impression that there is wide recognition of a sizable propor-
tion of caesarean sections done purely on maternal request. It is debatable, however,
whether these are a distinct subset or whether the categorisation only indicate a dif-
ference in emphasis. Caesarean sections done purely at the request of the obstetri-
cian are probably very rare and, in Western societies, are likely to require court
authorisation. The vast majority of caesarean sections are undertaken through
agreement between obstetricians and patients. As might be expected, obstetricians
are often the party who propose the intervention once the clinical scenario has
reached the threshold of professional acceptance and thus comes to be recognised
as ‘medically indicated’. The list of medical indications has itself dramatically
increased over time. It is perhaps helpful to refer to the early roots in order to appre-
ciate the magnitude of this change. In 1849 Charles Meigs wrote that ‘caesarean
operation, in its spirit and intention, should be devoted absolutely to the conserva-
tion of the mother alone’ and that ‘no man has a right to subject a living, breathing,
human creature to so great a hazard as that attending the caesarean section, from
views relating to any other interests than those of his patient’ [16]. By 1939 the
indications for caesarean section had expanded to include a number of maternal
conditions resulting in obstructed labour such as contracted pelvis, fibroids obstruct-
ing the birth canal, contraction ring, as well as severe preeclampsia or eclampsia
where delivery is not imminent, and cases of severe maternal haemorrhage. Debate
had then started around the acceptability of caesarean section in a limited number of
fetal indications such as selected cases of cord prolapse or impacted shoulder where
fetal decapitation might have been an alternative [17]. In 1980 Pritchard and
MacDonald wrote: ‘once delivery has been affected by caesarean section, delivery
in subsequent pregnancy is usually performed the same way, although some obste-
tricians contest this policy’ [18]. Thus acceptance of VBAC in obstetric practice is
relatively recent. What is evident is that the appreciation of what is medically indi-
cated has radically shifted. In many developed regions or countries between a fifth
and a third of all babies are now being delivered by caesarean section. Arguably,
wider acceptance of caesarean delivery reflects a strong emphasis on the safety of
the baby and the appreciation of the huge increase in surgical safety. This is perhaps
also affected by the risk of litigation. It is also the case that the increased acceptance
194 M. Habiba
of medical interventions is not limited to caesarean sections. This point here is that
the determination of what is medically indicated is an evolving matter and that
increased acceptability of caesarean section reflects a range of influences. The
change in medical opinion could not have occurred in isolation and was accompa-
nied by acceptance or perhaps was a response to a wider shift in public attitude
away from fatalism and resignation and towards self-direction and control. This
shift in attitude is not only expressed in the relation between society and medicine
but in other aspects far beyond. This leads us to consider two aspects of the discus-
sion about CSMR: those aspects that focus on facts as the important components of
consent and those aspects that focus on value.
14.3 Against CSMR
Attempt to persuade the audience that CSMR is not justified focus on four argu-
ments. One centres on the need to avoid the financial cost of an intervention that is
seen as not essential as demonstrable by the lack of a medical indication. This is
often linked to a perhaps exaggerated assessment of the magnitude of demand.
Criticism for this argument stems from the real difficulties in distinguishing actual
costs from provider charges. The question could also be asked whether an ethical
question remains if the costs could be reduced—and some have argued that this is
indeed achievable—or if the woman herself could self-finance any difference. Cost-
based arguments could have different conclusions based on the source of funding be
that public funding, insurance based or self-financed. This is not to deny the impor-
tance of the question of resource but to challenge whether there can exist separate
ethical environments depending on the ability to pay. Arguments that focus on the
question of resource need to develop a narrative that does not solely rely on whether
an intervention is demanded by the patient or advised by the doctor as an arbiter of
whether a procedure ought to be made available.
Those who argue in favour of natural birth because of it being natural advance
the second argument. This is sometimes linked to fears raised against known, pre-
sumed or yet unknown risks linked to departure from nature. The argument typi-
cally starts by emphasising that pregnancy and childbirth are natural physiological
processes that ought therefore to be viewed as such by the medical profession. In
this context, vaginal birth is seen as the default option in that its occurrence cannot
be stopped in the absence of intervention and it is thus argued that the burden of
proof lies with advocates of intervention. The irrelevance of the argument that ‘what
is natural is good’ must be apparent from the simple observation of the tragic out-
comes of pregnancy and labour that still occur today in areas that have inadequate
health care. In any case, such argument can hardly hold sway given the high preva-
lence of caesarean sections in modern obstetric practice. It would be hard to con-
vince anaesthetists that pain in labour is good or desirable simply because of it
being natural. In fact, this is not unlike arguments from the 1800s against pain relief
in labour. Interventions to relief pain were, at the time, regarded by the Clergy as a
sin against the will of God. Religious inference aside, pain in labour was regarded
as a natural feature that ought to be suffered. It was assumed that such pain existed
for a good, though undefined, reason and that it ought to be suffered by the well
adjusted. Attitudes have changed and advocates of this viewpoint are more likely to
be seen as marginal. Yet views against pain relief in labour continue to be expressed
into modern times [19]. This is not to dispute that pain as a physiological process
has an important function in relevant situations. For example, it alerts to danger and
triggers avoidance of harm, but this is not a point that needs to be explored further
in this chapter.
The third approach that is perhaps linked to arguments favouring the state of
nature or that is perhaps linked to a particular perspective of feminism is that women
ought to accept or celebrate their physiological bodily function including childbirth.
This becomes inexplicably linked to a view that presents women who request
CSMR as having a weak appreciation of self-worth or as associating their self-
esteem or identity with vaginal anatomy. Bewley and Cockburn wrote: ‘if a doctor
performs a caesarean section purportedly to keep the vagina the same, not only may
it fail to preserve a fragile relationship, it may reinforce problems of adaptation after
birth’ [20]. Arguably, there is a link rather than a contradiction between maintaining
high self-esteem and seeking to preserve the body or to protect it from injury.
Related to this are arguments that suggest that women who indicate a preference for
caesarean section may be petrified of labour because of a type of phobia (tokopho-
bia) or post-traumatic stress disorder [20]. This view is developed to advance that
women requesting CSMR qualify to be brought to the attention of a psychiatrist
with the aim to resolve their metal health, weakness or deficiency. Yet, there is no
evidence of a high prevalence of psychiatric morbidity amongst this group.
The fourth approach to countering CSMR is by providing statistics and estimates
of the various risks entailed in caesarean section compared to vaginal birth as a basis
for rejecting CSMR. There are many examples of this in literature and is echoed in
the approach adopted by NICE [9]. I will discuss some of these ‘facts’ below, but it
is important to consider two general points. The first is that because CSMR is an
infrequent occurrence in most institutions, assessing outcomes had relied on extrap-
olations from studies of caesarean section where there has been a clinical indication
and the contribution of the underlying condition to the quoted risk profile is difficult
to assess. The second and more important point is that whether CSMR is ethically
justifiable is not a question that could be settled through an exposition of known or
a search for unknown facts. The question of what is preferred is a valuation that
does vary depending amongst other factors on peoples’ perception, character, out-
look and circumstances. Hume’s assertion that moral conclusions cannot be derived
from non-moral premises, or the ‘no ought from an is’ [21], rule is relevant here.
But whilst arguments about the ‘facts’ relevant to caesarean section are not able to
provide proof as commonly understood, they generate an ‘impression’ aimed at
motivating action.
In 2002, Bewley and Cockburn wrote: ‘new, unexpected long term risks of cae-
sarean section continue to be reported such as ectopic pregnancy, haemorrhage and
hysterectomy following uterine evacuation, latex allergy, cutaneous endometriosis,
adenomyosis, increased hospital readmission and even an increase in gall bladder
196 M. Habiba
disease and appendicitis’ [20]. The authors seem to justify their narrative by stating
that: ‘while the medical profession debates the risks and benefits for different modes
of management, the press and the public hear that the debate is about rights and
wrongs and so popular beliefs, myths and dogma are generated’. If anything, this
type of argument demonstrates that medical profession is not itself immune from
dogma and myths or from lack of critical analysis of fragments of information that
is uncritically quoted in support of the adopted standpoint. It is also important to
note that the medical profession is not the sole determinant or guardian for what is
right or wrong.
14.4 FACTS and Their Relevance
The expression by about a third of female obstetricians in London and the United
States that they would choose a caesarean section in an uncomplicated pregnancy is
presented in support of CSMR [3, 22]. This acquired particular resonance because
of it being the view attributed to doctors with close knowledge of the intervention
and of its risks and benefits. There is some evidence that in ethical matters physi-
cians’ practices (i.e. ‘what physicians do’) reflect fairly closely what physicians
‘say they would do’ [23, 24]. But it is not clear if this applies when doctors come to
make personal choices, which they have to negotiate with their own care provider.
Also, there is no evidence of increased CSMR amongst obstetricians. A counter-
argument is that obstetricians’ views may be biased because of their higher expo-
sure to complicated pregnancies. Obstetricians’ expressed preference may in fact be
indicative—not of personal choice—but of a more permissive attitude towards per-
forming caesarean section generally or towards CSMR specifically as suggested by
the study of the views of obstetricians in Europe [25]. Still, opinion remains divided,
for while 69% of consultant obstetricians in England and Wales indicated that they
would agree to perform an elective caesarean section on a woman with an uncom-
plicated pregnancy based on her request, and approximately 50% of obstetricians in
Israel were willing to perform a CSMR in support for patient’s autonomy, this con-
tinues to raise passionate protestation [26].
Bewley and Cockburn and the approach by NICE suggest that a key to resolving
the dilemma resides in determining which is globally ‘safer’, a caesarean sections
or a vaginal delivery, and that once the safety question is resolved, ethical stipula-
tions will compel clinicians to offer the safer option to all [20, 21]. Curiously, one
extrapolation of this is that if caesarean section were to be proven safer, obstetri-
cians ought to offer it to all women. It is argued that the crux of the matter is that
either: ‘first of all, do no harm’ or ‘respect autonomy’ must prevail [26]. But there
is no mechanism for hierarchal ordering of competing obligations within the princi-
plist approach to ethics and as previously argued, principlism does not help resolve
the specific quandary posed by CSMR [27]. Hierarchal ordering can only be under-
stood in relation to the prevailing determination, not from examining innate charac-
teristics or from reference to morality. Interestingly, offering routine caesarean
section has come to be the current accepted practice in relation to breech
presentation [28] despite recognised techniques for vaginal breech birth and cogent
arguments against the evidence on which caesarean section is offered [29–31]. It is
interesting that various authors have reached divergent conclusions from their
examination of the evidence base in relation to CSMR.
NICE presented a tabulated list of evidence in the form of various risks linked to
each mode of delivery (Table 14.1). It is important to note that the guideline devel-
opment group rated the quality of all the studies that were examined as either low or
very low. Amongst this there was evidence in favour or against both modes of deliv-
ery, and the magnitude of benefit or harm was very small. Yet, the writers of the
guideline had to reach a conclusion. Appreciating how the aggregated averages of
likely benefit or harm may be applicable to any individual woman is not a matter
that could be derived from studying policy or practice guidance. The surgical risk,
Table 14.1 List of factors Effects around the time of birth

identified in studies
Studies suggest may be reduced after a planned CS
comparing low-risk CS and
vaginal birth Perineal and abdominal pain during birth
Perineal and abdominal pain three days post-partum
Injury to vagina
Early post-partum haemorrhage
Obstetric shock
Studies suggest may be reduced after planned vaginal birth
Length of hospital stay
Hysterectomy due to post-partum haemorrhage
Cardiac arrest
No difference found in studies
Perineal and abdominal pain four months post-partum
Injury to bladder/ureter
Injury to cervix
Iatrogenic surgical injury
Pulmonary embolism
Wound infection
Intraoperative trauma
Uterine rupture
Assisted ventilation or intubation
Acute renal failure
Maternal death
Deep vein thrombosis
Blood transfusion
Infection—wound and post-partum
Hysterectomy
Anaesthetic complications
NICE noted that the quality of evidence was low or very low in
all these studies. Most outcomes were rare or very rare
198 M. Habiba
which is a main concern for CSMR, is also highly dependent on the skill of the
obstetrician and the surgical team and on how they can operate to optimise safety.
There are only limited certainties linked to caesarean section (i.e. the presence of
an abdominal and uterine scar, the need for an anaesthetic during delivery and for a
recovery period that also varies widely). It has been advanced that as caesarean sec-
tion carries more risk compared to vaginal delivery it constitutes a ‘harm’ which
should not be performed in response to maternal request. Clearly, any suggestion
that doctors are inducing harm must cause considerable moral disquiet. But equat-
ing doctors’ concordance with patients’ request for a caesarean section with induc-
ing harm must necessarily be rooted in a narrow viewpoint of the sort of risk–benefit
calculations both patients and doctors contemplate in decision-making. Patients
who request caesarean section do not view this as a demand to be harmed but rather
as a legitimate request for a widely practised mode of delivery and although it is true
that some women may be misinformed, their preference for a caesarean section is
not, in itself, indicative of that. Furthermore, it is argued that women are entitled to
expect that their expressed preference be respected and considered irrespective of
their ability or willingness to provide a reasoned argument. There ought to be a
wider recognition that individuals with different backgrounds and experiences can
arrive at divergent conclusions with regard to evaluative judgements. That this
should occur is not per se symptomatic of a misconception or of a need for psychi-
atric or psychological support.
14.5 For CSMR
Given the limitations inherent in medical knowledge and also the concerns about
litigation [25] it is not surprising that doctors have, to some measure, come to
endorse patients’ preferences and valuation. This is perhaps more commonly inte-
grated within the taxonomy of ‘medically indicated’ interventions than is acknowl-
edged. In fact, patient preference plays—as it ought to do—a distinctly decisive role
in a large number of procedures. In gynaecological practice, this includes proce-
dures performed for abortion, sterilisation, fertility treatment, hysterectomy for
non-malignant indications or operations for prolapse: in short, in most elective sur-
gery. I say to some measure because patients undergoing these procedures are still
required to fit within a medically defined framework such as the requirement to try
other forms of therapy or to reach a certain threshold of eligibility. So why should a
request for caesarean section cause so much disquiet? The European multi-centre
study (EUROBS) compared the attitudes of obstetricians from eight European
countries, France, Germany, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Spain, Sweden
and the UK, to CSMR [25]. The clinical case description was of a 25-year-old
woman who started labour at 39 completed weeks. The foetus was normal and in
cephalic presentation. She insisted on a caesarean section despite being informed
that a vaginal delivery was indicated, and of the higher morbidity and mortality
associated with caesarean delivery. Compliance with this woman’s request for cae-
sarean section simply because this ‘was her choice’ was lowest amongst responders
from Spain (15%), France (19%) and the Netherlands (22%), and was highest in the
UK (79%) and Germany (75%). Respect for patient’s autonomy was the most fre-
quently reported justification for accepting CSMR. Fear of litigation and working in
a university-affiliated hospital were associated with physicians’ likelihood to agree
to patient’s request whilst female doctors who themselves had children were less
likely to agree. Whilst this indicates a high level of acceptance of CSMR, it also
indicated that opinion remains divided. The country differences may indicate differ-
ences in prevailing attitudes or cultures.
The perception of an intervention as being ‘indicated’ or ‘not indicated’ is nec-
essarily agent relevant. At the core of CSMR is not that there is no maternal of fetal
indication in absolute terms, but rather that (some) doctors do not share the same
valuation of risk–benefit as viewed by the patient or that they do not regard the
risk–benefit ratio favourable for the performance of caesarean section. As men-
tioned above, at the time when caesarean section was associated with high mater-
nal mortality, Meigs articulated an opinion against caesarean section for any fetal
indication. But the fact that the safety profile of caesarean section has changed is
apparent to all, resulting in a shift of focus to quality of life considerations.
Common reasons for women to request CSMR include the desire to avoid labour
pain and stress, the wish to avoid uncertainty, fear of emergency interventions and
the need to maintain a level of control, fear of forceps, concerns about fetal well
being including the wish to avoid trauma or fetal distress in labour, as well as fac-
tors related to vaginal prolapse and urinary incontinence. Whilst literature may be
able to provide a numerical estimate of these occurrences, it remains impossible to
understand the value each individual woman places on them without directly seek-
ing her view.
Amongst the considerations commonly debated are those relevant to vaginal
function and continence. It is clear, including to ordinary people, that vaginal birth
affects vaginal and perineal anatomy and that it results in ‘physiological’ perineal
tears. Routine perineal incision or episiotomy has been abandoned in most obstetric
practice, but the notion of a ‘cut’ or a ‘tear’ is recognised in lay language. Yet, fear
of perineal trauma is cited as a good example of issues that ‘scare and undermine’
women’s ability to successfully undergo a normal process [20]. Various extrapola-
tions and interpretations of statistics are often produced in this area [32–34]. Rortveit
et al. studied the prevalence of urinary incontinence in women younger than 65
years [35, 36]. They reported that the adjusted odds ratio for any incontinence asso-
ciated with vaginal deliveries as compared with caesarean sections was 1.7 (95%
confidence interval, 1.3–2.1), and the adjusted odds ratio for moderate or severe
incontinence was 2.2 (95% confidence interval, 1.5–3.1). Only stress incontinence
(adjusted odds ratio, 2.4; 95% confidence interval, 1.7–3.2) was associated with the
mode of delivery. Still, they concluded by emphasising their viewpoint that: ‘these
findings should not be used to justify an increase in the use of caesarean sections’.
It is interesting to note that those who oppose CSMR refer to patients’ ‘fear’ rather
than their wish to avoid ‘risk’ of a particular complication. This helps foster the
impression of a contrast with a more detached or rational medical view that is
expressed using the language of ‘fact’ and ‘risk’.
200 M. Habiba
Media interest in this topic remains high. On 12th April 2012, Reuters carried a
news article reporting that: ‘Women who have given birth vaginally are more likely
to develop incontinence decades later than moms who delivered their babies via
cesarean section, according to a new study from Sweden’. This was accompanied
by a comment from a practicing urogynaecology specialist stating that: ‘Anybody
who has ever witnessed a vaginal delivery realizes the baby’s head is quite large and
the muscles that it passes through are not that large. And any time you stretch a
muscle there’s the potential for damage’ [37]. The study subject to this press interest
([38]) reported that two decades after one birth, vaginal delivery was associated
with a 67% increased risk of urinary incontinence, and that urinary incontinence for
more than 10 years increased by 275% for vaginal delivery compared with caesar-
ean section [38]. The authors calculated that based on their data, it is necessary to
perform eight or nine caesarean sections to avoid one case of urinary incontinence.
They also found no difference in the incidence of incontinence between those who
had an elective or an emergency caesarean section. This suggested that incontinence
arises following the passage of the fetal head through the birth canal. Other studies
have also linked caesarean sections to a reduced risk of pelvic floor disorders [39].
Perhaps not surprisingly, the issue remains hotly debated. But whilst debates are
likely to continue, it is important to consider that even if an exact risk figure, or the
estimate of the number needed to treat or to harm were to be agreed, this cannot
determine what ought to be done at the level of the individual. Space does not allow
an extensive discussion about each of the factors that are considered in literature or
the media, but it is important to point out how often weak or inconclusive scientific
content provides the context for sensational media reporting.
14.6 Values: Listening to Patients
As discussed above, medical practice has shifted from the very restrictive early start
to the stage where between one fifth and one third of all deliveries are conducted by
caesarean section. The question must be asked as to why the insistence against
accommodating maternal expressed wishes. A proposed answer may be that the
professional view is a reflection of progress brought about through advancements in
safety and that ‘medical indication’ is a reflection of where ‘evidence’ indicates a
right balance which allows doctors to exercise their duty of beneficence and non-
maleficence. This may seem plausible, except that assessments of benefit or harm
are value judgements and, as such, are agency relevant. It has long been argued that
doctors’ training does not qualify them to become arbiters of best interest. Indeed,
as Veatch points out, it is difficult to argue that a physician who is expert in only one
component of well-being is able to determine what constitutes the good for another
person or to propose a plan to which individual patients would offer mere consent
[40, 41]. A patient’s best interest is not an objective reality that could be elicited by
a doctor based on the outcomes of clinical experiments performed on people with
similar conditions, or based on the doctor’s own evaluation of whether a particular
outcome, complication or risk is preferable to another. Irrespective of the theory of
good adopted, it appears that the only way of knowing what is good for a patient is
to ask her individually. The idea that a clinician can determine what is a ‘medically
indicated’ intervention or what is in the patient’s ‘best interest’ must reside either in
paternalism or reflect a misunderstanding of what a clinician can do [40]. The other
critical factor in the debate concerns the place and valuation placed on autonomous
choice and patient expressed preferences.
14.7 Autonomy and Paternalism
Paternalism is perhaps one of the more common criticisms levelled at the medical
profession [42] and is one that is difficult to defend. The imposition of benefit is
necessarily paternalistic, and this remains true irrespective of the nature or magni-
tude of benefit. It is argued that paternalism is wrong because it violates autonomy,
it is a violation of one’s perception of oneself, it is a hindrance to achieving self-
determined objectives, or because it reflects lack of recognition of others as capable
of independent choice. Berlin puts it as follows:
‘Paternalism is despotic, not because it is more oppressive than naked, brutal, unenlight-
ened tyranny, nor merely because it ignores the transcendental reason embodied in me, but
because it is an insult to my conception of myself as a human being, determined to make
my own life in accordance with my own (not necessarily rational or benevolent) pur-
poses…’ [43]
Autonomy is inextricably linked to the Western tradition of liberalism, and is

given central status in Kantian moral philosophy and in Mill’s utilitarian liberalism
[25, 50]. The principle of respect for autonomy requires that the views of those who
are capable of deliberation about their personal goals be sought and respected.
The ascent of autonomy in medical ethics is relatively recent. Schneewind traced
this to the end of the eighteenth century when there was a shift from the conception
of morality as obedience to a conception where individuals were seen as equally
able to live together in a morality of self-governance [44]. The emerging view was
that all individuals are, in principle, equally able to recognise for themselves what
morality calls for and to act accordingly. This conception, which was not confined
to the clinical interface, came to challenge the earlier view that most people are not
able to see what morality requires or to understand the reason for moral dictates.
The older conceptions that gave rise to the need for higher authorities from which
ordinary (or most) people obtain guidance or instruction linked to threats of punish-
ment or promises of reward have thus been superseded.
Beauchamp and Childress noted that although respect for the autonomous
choices of a person runs as deep in today’s common morality as any principle,
there is little agreement about its nature, scope or strength [45]. They argued that
autonomy should not be excessively individualistic, excessively focused on reason
or unduly legalistic. They proposed that autonomy should allow for the social
nature of individuals including their emotions, the impact of their choices on oth-
ers, and that it should not be a mere front for the exercise of legal rights. Beauchamp
202 M. Habiba
and Childress also argued that at a minimum, respect for autonomy acknowledges
the person’s right to hold views, to make choices, and to take actions based on
personal values and beliefs, and that it also involves or requires from others respect-
ful actions that go beyond non-interference in others’ personal affairs [45]. They
argue that respect for autonomy entails acknowledging decision-making rights and
enabling persons to act autonomously. The emphasis on autonomy within norma-
tive ethics generates a number of challenges to practising clinicians. A conflict
may arise between the doctor’s view of their role, their desire to respect autono-
mous choice and their other ethical duties such as beneficence and non-malefi-
cence. It ought also to be recognised that autonomy is necessarily restricted by the
practical confines within which it could be exercised. It may be possible to resolve
the potential difficulty posed by non-availability of willing care providers, but cost
differentials and other practical relevant factors are grounded in the real world.
Questions of distributive justice can feature prominently in debates about provision
in public or other insurance-based health care systems because individual demand
is not usually seen as sufficient grounds for care provision, primarily because of
the likely burden on others. Whether an intervention is seen as medically justified,
a matter of choice or as a resource-based determination will have a bearing on
provision in privately funded services. Doctors have traditionally endeavoured to
maximise patient benefit as entailed within the Hippocratic tradition and have thus
been hesitant to positioning themselves as arbiters in decisions that are primarily
concerned with resource. This does not imply that resource implications do not
factor into doctors’ decision-making, arguably these ought to, but if cost or other
practical considerations were the reason to limit or deny autonomous choice, this
ought to be made explicit.
Current emphasis on autonomy may underpin those practices where patients are
simply given information or a range of options and then left to choose. Arguably,
this does not provide a convincing paradigm for the delivery of an obligation to
benefit or to avoid harm and it would strain credibility to label a choice for caesar-
ean section within such a construct as CSMR. Examples of this practice may have
prompted criticism such as that by Hall and Schneider who argued that ethicists
have moved towards what could be called mandatory autonomy or that patients
should make their own decisions whether they want it or not or that the emphasis
has shifted from what patients do want to what patents should want [46]. Empirical
evidence is also advanced to support the idea that at least some patients do not want
such ‘unwanted’ autonomy. But presenting examples where doctors are unwilling
or unable to exercise their duties as a ‘triumph of autonomy’ can potentially mask
the realisation that current practice readily accommodates patient choice only if that
falls within the range of options predefined or delimited by the doctor. In today’s
practice, patients are seen to be free to accept or to refuse any of the options offered
but barriers emerge against expressed preferences if these fall outside the
orthodoxy.
It is though critically important that the medical encounter is not reduced to an
interaction through which doctors simply provide learnt technical skill in response
to determination by patients. Such would constitute a fundamental departure from
the duties entailed within the Hippocratic Oath and subsequent medical codes of
practice. There is a substantial risk that it would be detrimental to patients if their
care were to be dictated by them, not because they are not the best arbiters of their
needs, but because they usually lack the depth of knowledge or expertise that
enables them to fully appreciate the implications of the various modalities of treat-
ment. It is the need for such experience that drives patients to seek medical care. It
would also be important to ensure that patients are not under undue influence or
misconceptions when expressing their choices. Relevant to this are difficulties and
challenges linked to providing non-directive counselling. It could be seen how pref-
erences or biases held by clinicians or others can operate, covertly or overtly, to
affect patients’ choice or expressed requests. This is an area where safeguards are
needed.
14.8 Consent
The traditional model of consent is for doctors to propose an intervention and for
the patient to (mostly) agree and only rarely to decline. Consent within bioethical
discourses is positioned as an ethical panacea that counteracts the danger of pater-
nalistic and autocratic practices. Such valorisation is also evident in professional
codes of practice and law, which regard obtaining consent as the means to the reali-
sation of ethical ideals of respecting individual rights and autonomy. But women’s
accounts of consenting to surgery suggest that they rarely do anything when faced
with consent forms other than obey professionals’ requests for a signature. Indeed
far from bolstering or safeguarding autonomy the consent process may reinforce
rather than disrupt passivity [47]. The account of women of their experience of
given consent in obstetrics indicates that they interpret the process as ritualistic.
There is an overwhelming tendency to view consent as not primarily serving
patients’ needs [48]. Indeed the utility of consent as an antidote for medical pater-
nalism or as an expression of patients’ right to self-determination has been called
into question. It is arguable that consent mostly fits within a dominant-subordinate
relationship that is at odds with liberty or autonomy [48]. Unless this is recognised,
consent risks becoming a restricting concept within which patients are expected to
concord and acquiesce. It can thus be seen how a maternal request for a caesarean
section came to represent a role reversal with the woman taking the initiative and
seeking the concordance of the obstetrician.
Those who consistently refuse patients’ choice as expressed through their own
initiative as exemplified through CSMR probably base such opposition on a particu-
lar interpretation of the notion of ‘best interest’. This interpretation is embedded in
professional notion of clinical indication and is expressed though what is deemed
acceptable by the profession. This may also provide doctors with a level of assur-
ance or protection. The emphasis may be interpreted to be on what doctors—not
patients—view as best and on what doctors are ‘meant’ to deliver (given consent).
In this context it is illuminating to consider that the views of doctors and patients
can diverge. Ordinary women are highly unlikely to be interested in those
204 M. Habiba
considerations or risk–benefit calculations advanced in medical literature that are

most relevant at the population or policy level. How many caesarean sections are
necessary to save one fetal life? How much maternal mortality, morbidity and future
risk justifies saving the life of one baby? Whether the baby is of no or of infinite
worth? And how does this compare to the mother’s worth? Such questions can gen-
erate interesting debate but are unlikely to be helpful for a woman making her own
life choices.
14.9 The Role of the Anaesthetist
Many of the most challenging problems in medical ethics arise within the clinical
discipline of anaesthesia. These include life and death choices that face anaesthe-
tists caring for the critically ill surgical patients and patients in intensive care.
Particular difficulties arise when patients are unable to be party to decision-making
or when there is need to take into consideration issues such as advance directives or
the—perhaps conflicting—wishes of family and carers. Also, in modern medicine,
anaesthetists are often at the centre of decision-making in a wide range of scenarios
including the use of critical and dual effect drugs, resuscitation and determinations
of death in relation to organ donation. There is a large body of literature that specifi-
cally addresses these issues. These are not within the scope of this chapter, but the
distinction I need to draw here is between the role of the anaesthetist within such
scenarios where they adopt the ‘lead clinical role’ at the interface with patients and
family and their perhaps more common ‘essential role’ in the day-to-day practice of
anaesthesia. Within routine clinical practice, anaesthetists rarely scrutinise the indi-
cation for operations to any great depth. They may enquire with the surgeon or the
obstetrician who have the lead clinical role about the indication, but more often this
is to clarify the degree of urgency or to confirm rather than challenge the indication.
The underlying assumption is that the need for surgery is a matter for the exchange
and agreement between the patient and the doctor with a lead role who is the expert
in the relevant field. Within this scenario, some anaesthetists may view their ethical
duty as being confined to the optimal discharge of their clinical skill and towards the
safe administration of anaesthesia or pain relief. Surgeons typically reciprocate and
leave matters related to anaesthesia to anaesthetists. Such division of responsibility
or symbiosis may be due to a degree of trust acquired through close working rela-
tionships, but may also be a reflection of scripted social roles that emanate from the
need or advantage of maintaining harmony and presentation.
Literature and guidance in medical ethics focus on the immediate interface or the
relation between the doctor and the patient. Representations of decision-making and
efforts directed at addressing uncertainties or dilemmas are often presented from the
perspective of the lead role who—possibly in consultation with the patient, carer or
others—agrees the action plan towards obtaining consent. There is relatively little
consideration in literature of the role of other essential clinicians. There are perhaps
few exceptions such as in relation to abortion which can invoke ‘conscientious objec-
tion’ arguments. This is a significant omission considering that ethical dimensions
are entailed in all clinical decisions which means that concordance between lead role
and other essential or supportive roles ought not to be taken for granted.
Guidance such as those from the UK General Medical Council [49] rarely, if
ever, draw distinctions based on whether doctors have a lead or an essential role
within any given scenario. Yet the manner by which each practitioner is able to
exercise their duty and, arguably, the exact duties must be affected based on the doc-
tor’s particular relation to the patient. A distinction could be made between three
roles: (1) the lead clinician role: is the person who agrees the management plan, (2)
the essential clinician role: includes anaesthetists and others who have direct com-
munication with the patient and a direct role in delivering the intervention; (3) the
supporting clinician role: includes those who have less prominent roles whether or
not they come into direct contact with the patient. The different perspectives that
each party will have can and do create risk of conflict. Situations could be envisaged
where an essential clinician harbors doubts or uncertainties about the utility of the
planned intervention or about whether it satisfies ethical stipulates. CSMR could be
one of those testing scenarios. The anaesthetists’ role is essential for the fulfillment
of CSMR, yet they are not commonly present at the point of decision-making. The
distinction I draw here is between agreement to undertake CSMR and input into
practical factors such as optimisation of preoperative work-up or decisions about
the timing of interventions.
When agreeing to CSMR, the obstetrician may assume, perhaps based on prior
knowledge, that the anaesthetist would also agree. Alternatively, the obstetrician
may assume that an anaesthetist could be found who is willing to take part. The lat-
ter has parallels in the suggestion by NICE that an obstetrician who does not agree
to CSMR should refer the patient to someone who will undertake the delivery [21].
But the question remains about how anaesthetists can discharge their ethical obliga-
tions within these scenarios. One important feature of ethical decisions is that they
are—in a similar way to clinical decisions—individual and situation relevant. Thus
it is conceivable that a doctor may be willing to become involved in delivery of care
in one particular clinical scenario but not in another. This is, arguably, the reason
why decisions about abortion are taken individually rather than via group directives.
Clinical scenarios where there are generally accepted indications for the interven-
tion can be less contentious as these provide doctors with a framework for judge-
ment. An anaesthetist is unlikely to raise protestation about administering an
anaesthetic when there is a clearly declared clinical indication, for example, cases
of placenta previa, or where the decision rests with the clinical skill or expertise of
the obstetrician as the specialist in the field, for example, fetal distress. Thus a prima
facie acceptance of the need for the intervention provides a sound starting point for
the anaesthetist to proceed to discharge his or her learnt skill. But the absence of
medical indication removes this foundation and creates a higher level of uncertainty.
Furthermore, obstetricians become lead clinicians in cases of CSMR solely because
of their technical skill and their regard is somewhat weakened because the reason
for intervention is outside their area of specialised knowledge.
Caesarean section on maternal request (CSMR) must therefore pose a distinct
challenge to the symbiotic relationship. The risk–benefit assessment may be
206 M. Habiba
different from the anaesthetist’s viewpoint. Whilst the obstetrician would normally
have had the opportunity for a conversation with the patient leading to agreement to
perform the operation, the question remains whether the anaesthetist can or ought to
consider acceptance by the obstetrician as a sufficient safeguard. If not considered
sufficient, this calls for a separate conversation which patients may view as over-
bearing, repetitive or unnecessary.
14.10 How Best to Proceed?
There are familiar arguments, which invoke the notion of conscientious objection in
relation to refusal to provide anaesthesia for termination of pregnancy. But the clini-
cal scenarios are sufficiently different that drawing analogies or extrapolations will
be problematic. It is thus arguable that decisions about CSMR are best made with
reference to doctors’ duties as articulated in codes of ethics including reference to
the duty of beneficence and non-maleficence. Conscientious objection is recognised
as grounded in freedom of thought, conscience, disability and/or religion. It is,
therefore, unlikely that a convincing articulation could be made against CSMR with
reference to conscientious objection. After all, the issues under consideration pri-
marily concern evaluations of risk and benefit or of hierarchical ordering of compet-
ing values or demands.
Landau and Yentis explored the question of CSMR and concluded that they would
be agreeable to care for a lawyer in her mid-40s who requested CSMR following the
success of her fourth attempt at IVF [50]. Arguably, some obstetricians would view
caesarean section in this particular scenario as clinically appropriate and perhaps
would themselves advocate caesarean section if not requested by the woman. Thus
examining the dilemma at the core of CSMR requires consideration of cases where
there are no confounding factors. Here, the decision becomes more challenging and
requires a more in-depth exploration of patient’s motivation and rationale. It is argu-
able that ethical decision-making could not be delegated. This calls for a workable
solution that would enable anaesthetists to satisfy themselves of the merit of the
procedure to which they input. But any adopted solution should spare the patient the
need for repeat conversations, insurmountable obstacles or challenges.
In 2006, the US NIH (National Institute of Health) produced a consensus statement
on CSMR (Table 14.2) [15]. Like most consensus statements this was more successful
in describing what is widely established than in resolving what was not generally
agreed prior to the publication.1 The consensus statement is open to considerable chal-
lenge because if, as it is by definition, CSMR is not supported based on the current
state of knowledge, future discovery or research as called for by the NIH is unlikely
1
Consensus: ‘The process of abandoning all beliefs, principles, values, and policies in search of
something in which no one believes, but to which no one objects; the process of avoiding the very
issues that have to be solved, merely because you cannot get agreement on the way ahead. What
great cause would have been fought and won under the banner: ‘I stand for consensus?’(Margaret
Thatcher, Speech at Monash University October 1981)
Table 14.2 Summary points of the NIH consensus statement on CSMR

Statement 1: There is insufficient evidence to evaluate fully the benefits and risks of caesarean
delivery on maternal request as compared to planned vaginal delivery, and more research is
needed
Statement 2: Until quality evidence becomes available, any decision to perform a caesarean
delivery on maternal request should be carefully individualised and consistent with ethical
principles
Statement 3: Given that the risks of placenta previa and accreta rise with each caesarean
delivery, caesarean delivery on maternal request is not recommended for women desiring
several children
Statement 4: Caesarean delivery on maternal request should not be performed prior to 39
weeks of gestation or without verification of lung maturity because of the significant danger of
neonatal respiratory complications
Statement 5: Maternal request for cesarean delivery should not be motivated by unavailability
of effective pain management. Efforts must be made to assure availability of pain management
services for all women
Statement 6: NIH or another appropriate Federal agency should establish and maintain a Web
site to provide up-to-date information on the benefits and risks of all modes of delivery
to eliminate all subsets to which this definition is applicable. Neither can further
research bridge the core conflict between doctors’ and patients’ valuation of risk–ben-
efit. Contrary to the assertion in the consensus statement, the question is not whether
CSMR should be consistent with ethical principles, but rather how could that be deter-
mined. Optimising the provision of pain relief (Statement 5) and emphasis on explain-
ing the risks for women (Statement 3 and 6) who desire larger families are issues of
resource or of information provision. Addressing these would not address the underly-
ing ethical issues, nor would it provide a way forward for the individual woman who,
despite such effort, maintains her preference for caesarean section. A reading of the
NIH consensus statement indicates that CSMR whilst not fully integrated within the
list of accepted medical indications is not totally rejected. Finally, it remains a possi-
bility that the increasing acceptance of CSMR can translate into it being recognised
amongst the list of medical indications for caesarean section. Should this happen the
need will arise for safeguards to ensure that a woman’s request is not a response to
remediable adverse circumstance or third-party interests.
Conclusion
The traditional patient–doctor relationship commences when autonomous
patients approach doctors seeking advice or a solution to given problems: a
request. Yet, current medical practice places consent at the centre of the exchange.
Although what one wants and what one agrees to often concur, the underlying
concepts are different and this generates the tension at the core of professional
response to CSMR. There is evidence of a shift in attitude towards CSMR and
this is not totally based on respect for patient’s autonomy. There is a need to bal-
ance acceptance of autonomous choice with other professional duties such as
beneficence and non-maleficence. It is important to develop mechanisms that
enable anaesthetists to exercise their ethical duties in a situation where they have
208 M. Habiba
an essential rather than a lead role in clinical care. CSMR, because of the absence
of medical indication, is outside the sphere of obstetricians’ specialist knowledge
and, as such, provides an interesting and arguably unique clinical scenario to
assess how clinicians who have an essential role ought to exercise their duties.
References
1. Viswanathan M., Visco AG HK, Wechter ME, Gartlehner G, Wu JM, Palmieri R, Funk MJ,
Lux LJ, Swinson T, Lohr KN. Cesarean delivery on maternal request. Evidence Report/
Technology Assessment No. 133 (Prepared by the RTI International-University of North
Carolina Evidence-Based Practice Center under Contract No. 290-02-0016). AHRQ
Publication No. 06-E009. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. March
2006.
2. Feldman GB, Freiman JA. Prophylactic cesarean section at term? N Engl J Med.
1985;312:1264–7.
3. Al-Mufti R, McCarthy A, Fisk NM. Survey of obstetricians’ personal preference and discre-
tionary practice. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 1997;73:1–4.
4. Brink S. Too posh to push? Cesarean sections have spiked dramatically. Progress or conve-
nience? US News World Rep. 2002;133:42–3.
5. Hopkins S, Chivers L, Bassett C, Lehane M. Too posh to push. Nurs Stand. 2004;18:22–3.
6. Leeb K, Baibergenova A, Wen E, Webster G, Zelmer J. Are there socio-economic differences
in caesarean section rates in Canada? Healthc Policy. 2005;1:48–54.
7. Tully KP, Ball HL. Misrecognition of need: women’s experiences of and explanations for
undergoing cesarean delivery. Soc Sci Med. 2013;85:103–11.
8. Weaver J, Magill-Cuerden J. "Too posh to push": the rise and rise of a catchphrase. Birth.
2013;40:264–71.
9. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Caesarean Section, Clinical guide-
line CG132.Manchester, UK, NICE, 2011. https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/cg132.
10. Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists and London School of Hygiene and
Tropical Medicine. Patterns of Maternity Care in English NHS Hospitals 2011/12. London,
RCOG, 2013.
11. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. ACOG committee opinion no. 559:
Cesarean delivery on maternal request. Obstet Gynecol 2013; 121(4): 904-7.
12. Jacquemyn Y, Ahankour F, Martens G. Flemish obstetricians’ personal preference regarding
mode of delivery and attitude towards caesarean section on demand. Eur J Obstet Gynecol
Reprod Biol. 2003;111:164–6.
13. Quinlivan JA, Petersen RW, Nichols CN. Patient preference the leading indication for elective
caesarean section in public patients—results of a 2-year prospective audit in a teaching hospi-
tal. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 1999;39:207–14.
14. Declercq E, Menacker F, MacDorman M. Rise in "no indicated risk" primary caesareans in the
United States, 1991-2001: cross sectional analysis. BMJ. 2005;330:71–2.
15. NIH State-of-the-Science Conference Statement on Cesarean Delivery on Maternal Request.
NIH Consens Sci Statements. 2006. Mar 27-29; 23(1) 1–29.
16. Meigs CD. Obstetrics: the science and the art. Philadelphia: Lea and Blanchard; 1849.
17. Munro Kerr JM, Johnstone RW, Young J, Hendry J, McIntyre D, Baird D, Fahmy,

E.C. Combined textbook of obstetrics and gynaecology for students and medical practitioners.
Third edition. Edinburgh, E&S Livingstone,1939; p 705-708.
18. Pritchard JA, and MacDonald PC. Williams Obstetrics. 16th edition. New York: Appleton-
Century-Crofts; 1980, page 866-868.
19. Campbell D. It’s good for women to suffer the pain of a natural birth, says medical chief. In:
The Guardian. Vol. 2016. London: The Observer; 12 July 2009. https://www.theguardian.com/
lifeandstyle/2009/jul/12/pregnancy-pain-natural-birth-yoga
20.
Bewley S, Cockburn J. The unfacts of ‘request’ caesarean section. BJOG.
2002;109:597–605.
21. Hume, D. A Treatise of Human Nature: Being and Attempt to introduce the experimental
method of reasoning into moral subjects. Volume 3: Of morals. Part 1: Of virtue and vice in
general. London: Thomas Longman, 1739; p 233-246.
22. Gabbe SG, Holzman GB. Obstetricians’ choice of delivery. Lancet. 2001;357:722.
23. Sprung CL, Cohen SL, Sjokvist P, Baras M, Bulow HH, Hovilehto S, et al. End-of-life prac-
tices in European intensive care units: the Ethicus study. JAMA. 2003;290:790–7.
24. Vincent JL. Forgoing life support in western European intensive care units: the results of an
ethical questionnaire. Crit Care Med. 1999;27:1626–33.
25. Habiba M, Kaminski M, Da Fre M, Marsal K, Bleker O, Librero J, et al. Caesarean section on
request: a comparison of obstetricians’ attitudes in eight European countries. BJOG.
2006;113:647–56.
26. Bewley S, Cockburn J. The unethics of ‘request’ caesarean section. BJOG. 2002;109:593–6.
27. Nilstun T, Habiba M, Lingman G, Saracci R, Da Fre M, Cuttini M. Cesarean delivery on
maternal request: can the ethical problem be solved by the principlist approach? BMC Med
Ethics. 2008;9:11.
28. Hannah ME, Hannah WJ, Hewson SA, Hodnett ED, Saigal S, Willan AR. Planned caesarean
section versus planned vaginal birth for breech presentation at term: a randomised multicentre
trial. Term Breech Trial Collaborative Group. Lancet. 2000;356:1375–83.
29. Alarab M, Regan C, O'Connell MP, Keane DP, O'Herlihy C, Foley ME. Singleton vaginal
breech delivery at term: still a safe option. Obstet Gynecol. 2004;103:407–12.
30. Kotaska A. Inappropriate use of randomised trials to evaluate complex phenomena: case study
of vaginal breech delivery. BMJ. 2004;329:1039–42.
31. Glezerman M. Five years to the term breech trial: the rise and fall of a randomized controlled
trial. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2006;194:20–5.
32. Volloyhaug I, Morkved S, Salvesen O, Salvesen K. Pelvic organ prolapse and incontinence
15-23 years after first delivery: a cross-sectional study. BJOG. 2015;122:964–71.
33. Leijonhufvud A, Lundholm C, Cnattingius S, Granath F, Andolf E, Altman D. Risks of stress
urinary incontinence and pelvic organ prolapse surgery in relation to mode of childbirth. Am
J Obstet Gynecol 2011;204:70 e1-7.
34. Dolan LM, Hilton P. Obstetric risk factors and pelvic floor dysfunction 20 years after first
delivery. Int Urogynecol J. 2010;21:535–44.
35. Rortveit G, Daltveit AK, Hannestad YS, Hunskaar S. Vaginal delivery parameters and urinary
incontinence: the Norwegian EPINCONT study. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2003;189:1268–74.
36. Rortveit G, Daltveit AK, Hannestad YS, Hunskaar S. Urinary incontinence after vaginal deliv-
ery or cesarean section. N Engl J Med. 2003;348:900–7.
37. Grens K. C-section tied to lower incontinence risk. Reuters: Reuters, 12 April 2012. http://
www.reuters.com/article/us-c-sections-incontinence-risk-idUSBRE83B1C420120412
38. Gyhagen M, Bullarbo M, Nielsen TF, Milsom I. The prevalence of urinary incontinence 20
years after childbirth: a national cohort study in singleton primiparae after vaginal or caesarean
delivery. BJOG. 2012;120:144–51.
39. Lukacz ES, Lawrence JM, Contreras R, Nager CW, Luber KM. Parity, mode of delivery, and
pelvic floor disorders. Obstet Gynecol. 2006;107:1253–60.
40. Veatch RM. The concept of ‘Medical Indications’. In: The patient-physician relation: the
patient as partner, Part 2. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. 1991; p. 54–62.
41. Veatch, RM. Abandoning Informed Consent. Hastings Center Report, 1995;25(1): 5–12.
42. Redfern, M. The Royal Liverpool Children’s Inquiry. London, The Stationery Office, 2001.
43. Berlin I. Four essays on liberty. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1969.
44. Schneewind JB. The invention of autonomy. Cambridge: Cambridge university Press; 2008.
210 M. Habiba
45. Beauchamp TL, Childress JF. Principles of medical ethics. 5th ed. Oxford: Oxford University
Press; 2001.
46. Hall MA, Schneider CE. How should physicians involve patients in medical decisions? JAMA.
2000;283:2390–1. author reply 1-2
47. Dixon-Woods M, Williams SJ, Jackson CJ, Akkad A, Kenyon S, Habiba M. Why do women
consent to surgery, even when they do not want to? An interactionist and Bourdieusian analy-
sis. Soc Sci Med. 2006;62:2742–53.
48. Habiba MA. Examining consent within the patient-doctor relationship. J Med Ethics.

2000;26:183–7.
49. General Medical Council. Good Medical Practice. London, GMC, 2013.
50. Landau R, Yentis S. Maternal-fetal conflicts: cesarean delivery on maternal request. In: Van
Norman GA, Jackson S, Rosenbaum SH, Palmer SK, editors. Clinical ethics in anesthesiology:
a case-based textbook. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2011. p. 49–54.
Maternal Expectations and Satisfaction
with Caesarean Section 15
Amanda Hutcherson and Susan Ayers
15.1 Introduction
Human reproduction is a critical and life-changing process which depends on

complex biological, psychological, social, and environmental factors. Pregnancy
and birth are surrounded by many cultural beliefs and rituals which influence
women’s expectations and experiences [1, 2]. Maternal mortality and morbidity
are low in high-income countries and reducing in low-income countries. Surgical
intervention in the form of caesarean section has certainly increased the safety of
birth with the World Health Organisation estimating caesareans are necessary in
10–15% of births to reduce mortality and morbidity for women and their babies
[3]. However, the overall rate of caesarean has risen well above this in high-
income countries: the USA and the UK seeing rises to 25–32% over a 20-year
period to 2015. Rapidly developing countries such as Brazil and China have seen
even greater increases with no significant improvement in perinatal outcomes.
There are many possible reasons for the consistent increase in caesareans, includ-
ing an increase in risk factors such as maternal obesity, maternal anxiety over the
risks of vaginal birth [4, 5], convenience for medical staff or women of scheduled
births [6, 7], and the popular phenomenon cited in the media of women being ‘too
posh to push’ for which there is very little evidence [8]. None of these factors
A. Hutcherson
Centre for Maternal and Child Health Research, City University London,
London EC1R 0HB, UK
S. Ayers (*)
Centre for Maternal and Child Health Research, City University London,
London EC1R 0HB, UK
School of Psychology, University of Sussex, Brighton, East Sussex, UK
e-mail: Susan.Ayers.1@city.ac.uk

DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-42053-0_15
212 A. Hutcherson and S. Ayers
consider the risk of the anaesthetic and surgical procedure. Although the numbers
of maternal deaths from anaesthetic complications are small and falling [9, 10],
surgical procedures of any type carry a risk, which can be exacerbated by pre-
existing comorbidities and also by pregnancy itself [11]. With these factors in
mind, this chapter looks at what women expect in relation to birth and caesarean
section, how they experience birth by caesarean section, and how caesareans can
be managed to improve the experience for women.
15.2 Expectations of Birth and Caesarean Section
Birth is a significant life event for women and their partners, and women have detailed
expectations of events of pregnancy, labour, and birth. Expectations are important
because they influence a woman’s choices about where to give birth, how to give
birth, and use of pain relief. The widespread provision of antenatal classes during
pregnancy is partly driven by the assumption of a causal relationship between a wom-
an’s expectations and her experience of birth. The first proponent of antenatal classes,
Read [13], believed that expectations of pain caused fear and that this fear resulted in
increased tension and therefore pain during labour. Read argued that if women are
educated so they change their expectations and learn relaxation techniques to combat
tension, then pain will be reduced. Although research does not provide unequivocal
support for the attendance at antenatal classes leading to a reduction of pain in labour
[13], the incorporation of antenatal classes is now an accepted part of antenatal care.
Women’s expectations of birth are complex and dynamic. Research shows most
women have well-formed expectations of many aspects of childbirth, the baby, their
own role as a parent, and their partner’s role as a parent. Women hold both positive
and negative expectations of different aspects of birth, such as emotions, control,
pain, and obstetric events, as well as detailed expectations regarding assistance with
baby care, household tasks, emotional support, financial help, and their relationship
with the baby [14]. These expectations are continually refined and developed with
new information and experience [15].
The expectations a woman has will influence her birth experience and satis-
faction with birth [16]. Positive expectations of birth are associated with greater
control in birth, greater satisfaction, and emotional well-being [16–18].
Conversely, negative expectations are associated with finding birth less fulfill-
ing, being less satisfied with birth, and reporting less emotional well-being after
birth [17, 18]. There is also evidence that if a woman’s expectations are not met
they are more likely to report negative experiences and poor satisfaction. For
example, a study of 1700 women in Norway found that women who wanted an
elective caesarean but had a vaginal delivery had significantly more post-
traumatic stress symptoms following birth, compared to women who wanted and
had a vaginal delivery. Interestingly, women who wanted a caesarean and had
one, or who wanted a vaginal delivery but had a caesarean, did not have greater
15 Maternal Expectations and Satisfaction with Caesarean Section 213
symptoms of traumatic stress [19]. The authors suggest these results may be due
to women who are frightened of childbirth requesting elective caesareans and
being more likely to have negative experiences and symptoms of traumatic stress
if they are denied a caesarean. It is therefore important to listen to maternal
requests for caesarean and identify if there are psychological reasons underlying
these.
The way in which the baby is delivered is one of the most significant factors
in the healthy completion of pregnancy [20] and important in terms of women’s
choices and expectations. It is important to emphasise that most women expect
their baby to be born vaginally [1, 21]. The majority of women also expect labour
and birth to be painful. For example, a study in Jordan found that the majority of
primiparous women expected childbirth to be a frightening, long, and painful
process. However, most of these women still expected to have a normal vaginal
birth [22]. A review of the literature on women’s expectations and experiences of
pain found many women underestimate the pain they will experience and hope to
cope without pharmaceutical pain relief [23]. Women differ in their choices and
expectations of pain relief with some preferring pharmaceutical methods and
others preferring non-pharmaceutical methods. However, evidence suggests the
majority of women who say in pregnancy that they want to try to cope without
pain relief end up having some form of analgesia [24]. The review of expecta-
tions and experience of pain therefore concluded that ‘women may have ideal
hopes of what they would like to happen with respect to pain relief, control and
engagement in decision-making, but experience is often very different from
expectations’ [23].
An important influence on women’s expectations and experiences is anxiety
and fear of childbirth. Fear of childbirth occurs in between 7 and 26% of preg-
nant women [25, 26], with a smaller proportion developing extreme fear or toko-
phobia [27]. The BIDENS study of 7200 women in six European countries found
significant differences between countries with prevalence of severe fear of child-
birth ranging from 1.9 to 14.2% [28]. Symptoms include high levels of anxiety
about pregnancy and birth, fear of harm or death during birth, poor sleep, and
somatic complaints. As with most psychological problems, the cause of fear of
childbirth is multifactorial. It has been associated with factors such as nulliparity
[29], increased gestation [29], poor mental health [26, 30], a history of abuse
[31], younger age [26], lower education [26], and low self-efficacy [32]. Although
fear of childbirth is more common in nulliparous women, women who have a
negative or traumatic experience of birth are almost five times more likely to
report fear of childbirth in a subsequent pregnancy [33]. The importance of trau-
matic birth experiences and fear of childbirth is apparent from the impact it has
on women’s preferences for intervention during birth. There is good evidence
from large epidemiological studies that women with fear of childbirth are more
likely to want interventions such as epidural analgesia and caesarean sections
[27, 29].
15.3 Experience of Birth and Caesarean Section
How women experience caesareans and the impact of caesarean on their satisfaction
and mental health is not straightforward. Al Nuaim [34] observes from clinical
experience in Saudi Arabia that women who deliver by caesarean are often less
satisfied with their experience, and with themselves. Al Nuaim argues they might
experience feelings of resentment towards the physician, profound disappointment
at the treatment expectation, and loss of the happy moment of natural birth which
may lead to post-partum depression. Caesarean delivery also carries considerable
disadvantages in terms of pain and trauma of an abdominal operation and complica-
tions associated with it. This is an interesting comparison to the conclusions drawn
by Hobson [35] in which when exploring the psychology of successful caesarean
birth, she proposes that well-supported women with a successful outcome rational-
ise this after the event to assimilate the caesarean birth as a personal, positive event
that was right for her in these circumstances.
Whether a woman’s birth matches her expectations might also be important.
Retrospective studies that ask women whether their birth was as expected consis-
tently find that poorer psychological outcomes are associated with birth being worse
than expected. Findings from prospective studies where expectations are measured
in pregnancy so a more ‘objective’ measure of the difference between expectations
and experience can be calculated are more rigorous. Findings from these studies are
mixed but increasingly provide support for the importance of the match between a
woman’s expectations and experience. For example, a prospective study of over 700
women in Israel found lowest satisfaction in women whose deliveries were different
to how they planned. Poor satisfaction was reported by women who planned a natu-
ral birth but experienced emergency caesareans or unplanned epidural use, and/or
women who felt they had low control over what staff were doing or over the birthing
environment [36].
An emergency caesarean is likely to be frightening for most women and their
partners. There is now substantial evidence that women who have assisted deliveries
or emergency caesareans are at greater risk of experiencing birth as traumatic and
suffering from post-traumatic stress symptoms after birth [37], as well as develop-
ing severe fear of future childbirth. This is supported by Jolly et al.’s [38] work on
the sequelae of caesarean section and its effect on future pregnancies, birth, and
neonatal outcomes for the women concerned. Fear of further pregnancy stands out
in this study with 13% more women who had a primiparous caesarean section not
having a second child after 5 years when compared to those who had a normal vagi-
nal birth. Similarly, as we have seen, severe fear of childbirth is associated with
preference for an elective caesarean. The literature on evidence for medical and
psychosocial reasons for requesting an elective caesarean currently makes opposing
recommendations. On the one hand, a Cochrane review concluded there is no robust
medical evidence to support the recommendation of caesarean for non-medical rea-
sons [39]. On the other hand, a review of women’s reasons for requesting elective
caesareans found most women do so because of a previous traumatic birth experi-
ence [40]. The latter review also found that most women chose caesarean surgery in
the belief that it would enhance safety for themselves and their infant [40] indicat-
ing a need to listen to women and discuss their preferred option, along with infor-
mation on risk and safety for this and other options.
However, it is clear that not all women who have emergency caesareans develop
post-traumatic stress symptoms or fear of birth. Research also shows that women
who have elective caesareans do not have the same low satisfaction [41] or trau-
matic stress response [19] as women who have emergency caesareans. This led
Spaich et al. [42] to conclude that the actual mode of delivery may not have a direct
influence on women’s satisfaction with childbirth but is mediated by maternal
involvement in decision-making, support during labour from a person of trust, and
effective analgesia, all of which play a major role in providing a positive birth expe-
rience for women. Hobson [35] and Hobson et al. [43] add to this list the importance
of providing information to women. The way we care for women before, during,
and after caesarean is therefore critical.
15.4 Improving Satisfaction with Caesarean Birth
Patient satisfaction has become an important factor for all areas of health care in
industrialised societies [44, 45]. Problems conceptualising and measuring satisfac-
tion have been widely discussed and need to be borne in mind when interpreting
the evidence [46]. However, despite these problems there is substantial evidence
that a satisfied patient will be significantly more likely to engage with healthcare
services, be amenable to treatments and recommendations and achieve more suc-
cessful health outcomes. In the UK, the Department of Health (DH) has empha-
sised the importance of choice in maternity services. Reports on Maternity Matters,
Choice, Access and Continuity of Care in a Safe Service [47] and Making It Better
for Mothers and Babies [48] both emphasise that all women should be able to
choose their place of birth in terms of home birth, midwifery-led birth units, or
obstetric units. A recent extensive review of maternity services in England which
consulted with women and stakeholders over a year concluded that consistent sup-
port for women, coupled with an individually tailored maternity service, is impor-
tant and likely to increase safety and positive birth outcomes as well as satisfaction
with care [49].
As we have seen, it is important not to conflate caesareans with poor satisfaction
or negative psychological outcomes. Although poor psychological outcomes are
more likely following a caesarean, the evidence shows this is not necessarily a
causal relationship. Emergency caesareans can be stressful due to the context in
which they are needed, but a woman’s experience can still be positive if staff provide
support, information, and involve women in decision-making. This is illustrated by
the case study in Box 1 of a mother who had two babies by caesarean, one of which
was a traumatic experience and the other a very positive experience. This case study
also illustrates the potential long-term impact a traumatic experience can have on
the mother and the baby. Guidelines from the Birth Trauma Association on how to
reduce the likelihood a woman will find birth traumatic are shown in Box 2.
Box 1. Case Study a Woman’s Experience of Two Caesarean Births

Caesarean 1
Louisea had two children by caesarean section. The first baby was born
after a long labour (36 h latent phase and 20 h in established labour). The
baby was in an occipito posterior (OP) position with an asynclitic head.
Although she had an epidural, it wasn’t effective and was not re-sited because
the anaesthetists had time constraints. After 2.5 h of pushing, she went to
theatre for assisted delivery. In theatre it took 90 min to site the spinal block.
Louise says ‘this was the most traumatic experience of my life. I had planned
for a homebirth and nothing could have prepared me for the outcome. I felt
completely out of control and scared. The worst part was the fact that the
spinal took 1.5 hours to be sited. I was fully dilated with an ineffective epi-
dural and pushing with each contraction, and there were 6 people holding me
in left lateral and telling me to be completely still for the whole time because
they were trying to get the spinal sited. My glasses were dirty through all the
tears I was crying and I couldn’t see. I was petrified, tired and I just wanted it
to be over. No one communicated with me while this was going on, apart from
telling me to stay completely still, which was awful. I remember one person
who took my glasses off and cleaned them for me so I could see, this meant a
lot to me’.
Eventually, the spinal anaesthesia was sited with Louise in a seated posi-
tion. A vaginal forceps delivery was unsuccessful so Louise had a caesarean
with Barton’s forceps to the fetal head, followed by a post-partum haemor-
rhage of 1.6 L. After the birth, Louise and the baby were both traumatised.
Breastfeeding did not go well. Louise did not bond with her baby and said
‘The whole experience was extremely traumatic for me and it took me nearly
2 years of counselling and help to bond with my son’.
Caesarean 2
For the birth of her next child, Louise planned a vaginal birth at home.
However, her membranes ruptured before labour and after 72 h she had to go
to hospital to be induced. In hospital, the forewaters were artificially ruptured,
and there was thin meconium staining. Louise had contractions for 6 h, but
there was no progress in terms of dilation. She was given the option of having
Syntocinon or a caesarean. She opted for a caesarean and agreed a plan for a
‘gentle caesarean’b with the consultant beforehand so everyone was aware.
Louise was in a seated position for the insertion of the spinal anaesthetic, and
it was sited in 4 min. The lights were low in theatre (with only the theatre
overhead lights on), music was playing, and the theatre team were friendly
and chatty. Before the baby was born, the screen was lowered so Louise could
see her baby being born, and he was passed straight to her. Cord clamping was
delayed for 2+ min, and the baby remained skin to skin until the surgery was
completed. Louise did not have exceptional blood loss (EBL 500 mL) and
breastfeeding went really well. She was discharged after 24 h. Louise says
‘this was such a healing birth for me. Even though it didn’t go to plan, I felt
completely in control and listened to. I was still in labour and contracting as
they did the spinal—but they listened to what I wanted and made sure it hap-
pened. Everyone took care to talk me through what was happening, and take
care of me. Seeing my baby being born and having him passed straight to me
felt like I had birthed him naturally. It was the most amazing feeling in the
world and I immediately bonded with him. He was calm as a result and we
both had a brilliant, healing experience because of it. The care from the team
made such a difference, and the gentle nature of the c section made me feel
empowered and stronger than I ever had. Even though I had c sections with
both my babies, they were worlds apart in terms of the impact on me and my
babies’.
a
Pseudonyms have been used to protect the identity of people involved
b
Also referred to in the literature as ‘natural caesarean’ [50] or ‘skin-to-
skin caesarean’ [52]
Box 2. Preventing Births Being Traumatic for Women

(Birth Trauma Association)
http://www.birthtraumaassociation.org.uk/policy.htm
1. Women must be fully informed of their options, of details of obstetric pro-

cedures, and their associated physical and psychological risks.
2. The woman must be central to the decision-making process.
3. Women need to be presented with their choices in plain words and be
allowed to make their own decisions.
4. Women need to be given as much time as possible to talk through their
decision with appropriately qualified staff.a
5. The woman and her partner should be treated sensitively. Their decisions
should be supported appropriately.
Care should be individualized; this includes pain relief provision and
complete information about the well-being of their baby because fear and
lack of trust are commonly associated with the birth becoming traumatic.
a
In emergency situation when it is not possible to give women time to talk
through decisions about their birth they should be given time after birth to talk
through why the decisions were made and the consequences
In the rest of this section, we look at how to improve satisfaction with caesarean
through providing information, including women in decision-making, and provid-
ing support and compassionate care.
15.4.1 Providing Information
Providing clear information is associated with parents having more positive experi-
ences and greater satisfaction in a wide range of settings and high-risk groups. The
Birth Trauma Association guidelines (Box 2) have information as their first priority,
stating that women should be fully informed of their options, details of obstetric
procedures, and their associated physical and psychological risks. Similarly the UK
National Institute for Health and Care Excellence [51] recommends that the risks
and benefits of caesarean section and vaginal birth are discussed with women, includ-
ing risks of placental problems with multiple episodes of caesarean surgery. The
American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists also provides information
on their website about Safe Prevention of the Primary Cesarean Delivery [53].
15.4.2 Decision-Making
It is clear that the circumstances surrounding a caesarean will affect the decision-
making process and how easy it is to involve women and their partners in these
decisions. Caesarean section decisions may also vary between primiparous and
multiparous women, the latter possibly involving a decision about vaginal birth
after caesarean section (VBAC) [54, 55]. Decision-making for VBAC has been
studied in some detail over the past 10–15 years. A Cochrane review of interven-
tions for supporting women’s decisions about mode of birth after caesarean found a
variety approaches to help women’s decision-making about whether to have a
VBAC. These include Web-based decision-making tools and one-to-one coaching
for maternity care providers. Women who used decision-making tools had greater
knowledge and less decisional conflict about their choice of birth. However, no dif-
ferences were found in the uptake of VBAC following interventions [56].
When the decision about type of birth has been made and if a woman wants an
elective caesarean, the type of anaesthesia will need to be decided upon, ideally in a
partnership between the woman and the anaesthetist [35]. This is not a new concept
to anaesthetists working in general surgery, with several pieces of research investi-
gating how to increase recipient satisfaction with anaesthesia and also how to mea-
sure it. Flierler et al. [58] consider this in some detail, thinking about the use of
recognised satisfaction tools and also measuring the anaesthetist experience of the
shared decision-making process in planned orthopaedic surgery. As with obstetric
surgery, the decisions to be made here were largely those of general versus regional
anaesthesia and post-operative pain relief. Whilst questioning factors that may
impact on the research process such as expert leading and professional view, they
arrived at the conclusion that the majority of the 197 patients surveyed were happy
with their involvement in the decision-making process.
15.4.3 Support and Compassionate Care
The care a woman receives during birth can impact on her physically and psycho-
logically for the rest of her life [57]. This is illustrated by the case study in Box 1
and throughout the world with the cultural expectation that birth will be a supported
process in some form or another.
There is substantial evidence from many countries that women who have con-
tinuous support during pregnancy and throughout labour are more satisfied with the
healthcare service and have increased confidence in their own ability to give birth
and to parent a child [59–61]. For example, a Cochrane review of evidence from 22
randomised controlled trials of continuous support for women during labour involv-
ing 15,280 women found that women who receive continuous support are less likely
to have intrapartum analgesia or report dissatisfaction with birth [62]. Varied types
of continuous support were considered for this review, including hospital staff (such
as nurses or midwives), women who were not hospital employees and had no per-
sonal relationship with the labouring woman (doulas or women who were provided
with a modest amount of guidance), or companions of the woman’s choice from her
social network (her husband, partner, mother, or friend). The main criteria were that
a continuous presence was maintained and aspects such as emotional support, com-
fort measures, information, and advocacy were provided.
Support from the parenting partner is also likely to play a major role in satisfac-
tion with care. The UK Royal College of Midwives draws on the evidence base to
recognise that a well-prepared father has a positive effect on his partner promoting
a satisfying birth experience and reduced the need for pain relief [63]. It is highly
likely that this would apply to other parenting and birthing partners in their provi-
sion of support. Pregnancy and birth are the first major opportunities to engage
partners in appropriate care and upbringing of children [64]. This early and continu-
ing involvement of the parenting partner in the child’s life has a massive impact on
developmental outcomes, as well as providing informed support for the birthing
woman.
Women highly value support as illustrated in Box 1. This is illustrated effectively
by Spiby et al who obtained the views of a range of stakeholders on the provision of
support for women during labour this from a range of stakeholders including volun-
teer doulas who provided support to women. Some of the most important factors
were those of being listened to and having their fears allayed by someone who was
non-judgemental. Many of the women who were included in the study highlighted
that support during birth had given them a feeling of wellbeing and a building of
their self-esteem as well as increasing satisfaction with their birth process.
Conversely, women who are not supported during birth were more likely to report
post-traumatic stress symptoms [37]. Chapman [65] considers the role of the obstet-
ric anaesthetist for women who have had previous traumatic births and whether use
of self-hypnosis and relaxation during pregnancy might help women cope. However,
at present there is very little evidence on effective interventions for women with
severe fear of birth.
Considering the importance of support during birth in a woman’s experience, it
is fair to say that the attitude and actions of healthcare staff are critical. As
caesareans take place in operating theatres with the anaesthetist and operating
department technician as the woman’s main carers, they can be key in terms of sup-
porting women and consequently women’s experiences. A friendly anaesthetist and
technician will make a huge difference both to the mother and her partner. The role
of the anaesthetic team is to support physiological homeostasis, ensuring patient
comfort and safety throughout the process. They are therefore well placed to notice
women’s emotional and psychological state and provide the support women need.
15.5 Summary and Conclusions
This chapter shows how women have detailed expectations about pregnancy and
birth that shape both their decisions about birth and their subsequent experiences of
birth. Most women do not expect to have a caesarean although they do expect birth
to be painful. However, in industrialised countries rates of caesareans are increasing
and are higher than the WHO recommendations for reducing maternal and infant
mortality and morbidity.
For most women, caesarean is unexpected and women who have caesareans are
more likely to have a negative birth experience, poor satisfaction, and symptoms of
post-traumatic stress. However, this is mediated by the way in which women are
cared for during and after the caesarean. Supportive, compassionate care with good
communication is critical [66]. For women planning a caesarean section, this is
closely followed by involvement in decision-making, with clear information about
what to expect and the pros and cons of specific anaesthetic techniques. In common
with other hospital episodes and surgical procedures, women demonstrate higher
levels of satisfaction with their caesarean section when they are provided with suf-
ficient information to enable their involvement in a decision-making process. They
benefit from having the ability to guide decisions about their birth, timing of that
birth, and type of analgesia or anaesthesia that is used. Effective anaesthesia and
postnatal pain relief delivered with caring support can help women have a positive
birth experience even when caesarean might not have been what she planned or
expected. Their satisfaction in the process and the likelihood of positive birth out-
comes for mother and baby are further enhanced when they are supported in a kind
and caring manner by healthcare professionals, their chosen birth partners being
supported to help them. Healthcare provision is a provider business, depending on
user satisfaction, positive publicity, and public confidence all of which are success-
fully supported by patient involvement and responsive carers.
Ultimately, it is important to try to conduct all caesareans in a way that mini-
mises negative experiences for women. Anaesthetists are well placed to provide
information and compassionate care during caesareans. Other promising initiatives
which have the potential to promote more positive experiences include ‘gentle cae-
sareans’ (also referred to as ‘natural caesareans’ [50] or ‘skin-to-skin caesareans’
[52]). This is a relatively new approach to caesareans, and there is currently limited
evidence on the impact on women’s experiences. However, research suggests there
are no adverse effects on maternal or infant outcomes, and it might be beneficial in
terms of reducing rates of infant infection and admission to NICU [52]. Other initia-
tives include providing neonatal life support close to the mother [67, 68] and kanga-
roo/couplet care for preterm babies. Compassionate, friendly support is a major
factor in patient satisfaction, particularly when coping with the difficult and fright-
ening process of surgical birth. This support needs to be provided by the staff and,
where possible, those who have significant meaning for the woman to have maxi-
mum effect.
References
1. Iravani M, Zarean E, Janghorbani M, Bahrami M. Women’s needs and expectations during
normal labor and delivery. J Educ Health Promot. 2015;4(6). Published online. http://www.
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4355842/. Accessed 20 Feb 2016.
2. Jordan B. Birth in four cultures, a crosscultural investigation of childbirth in Yucatan, Holland,
Sweden and the United States. Long Grove, IL: Waveland Press; 1993.
3. World Health Organisation. Caesarean sections should be performed only when necessary,
News release. 2015. http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2015/caesarean-sections/
en/. Accessed 19 Feb 2016.
4. Faisal I. Matinnia N. Hejar AR.Why do primigravidae request caesarean section in a normal
pregnancy? A qualitative study in Iran. Midwifery: February 2014, 30, 2, 227–233.
5. Spiby, H.; Green, J.M.; Darwin, Z,; Willmot, H.; Knox, D.; McLeish, J. Multisite implementa-
tion of trained volunteer doula support for disadvantaged childbearing women: a mixed-
methods evaluation. Source Health Services and Delivery Research: 2015, 3, 8,.
6. O’Driscoll K, Meagher D, Robson M. Active Management of Labour. Elsevier Mosby. 2003.
7. Palmer WL, Bottle A, Aylin P. Association between day of delivery and obstetric outcomes:
observational study. Br Med J. 2015;351(8035):20.
8. Weaver J, Magill-Cuerden J. “Too posh to push”: the rise and rise of a catchphrase. Birth.
2013;40(4):264–71.
9. Knight, M., Kenyon, S., Brocklehurst, P., Neilson, J., Shakespeare, J., & Kurinczuk, J.J. (Eds.)
(2014). MBRRACE-UK. Saving Lives, Improving Mothers’ Care—Lessons learned to inform
future maternity care from the UK and Ireland Confidential Enquiries into Maternal Deaths
and Morbidity 2009–12. Oxford: National Perinatal Epidemiology Unit, University of Oxford.
10. Rollins M, Lucero J. Overview of anesthetic considerations for Cesarean delivery. 2012. http://
bmb.oxfordjournals.org/.
11. Arbous MS, Grobbee DE, van Kleef JW, de Lange JJ, Spoormans HH, Touw P, Werner FM,
Meursing AEE. Mortality associated with anaesthesia: a qualitative analysis to identify risk
factors. American Society of Anesthesiologists. 2016. https://www.asahq.org/. Accessed 16
Mar 2015.
12. Read GD, Childbirth without Fear: The Principles and Practice of Natural Childbirth. London:
Pinter & Martin; 1933.
13. Gagnon AJ, Sandall J. Individual or group antenatal education for childbirth or parenthood, or
both. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2007; doi:10.1002/14651858.CD002869.pub2.
14. Levitt M, Coffman S, Guacci-Franco N, Loveless S. Social support and relationship change
after childbirth: an expectancy model. Health Care Women Int. 1993;14:503–12.
15. Gupton A, Beaton J, Sloan J, Bramadat I. The development of a scale to measure childbirth
expectations. Can J Nurs Res. 1991;23(2):35–47.
16. Ayers S, Pickering AD. Women’s expectations and experience of birth. Psychol Health.
2005;(1):79–92.
17. Green J, Coupland V, Kitzinger J. Expectations, experiences, and psychological outcomes of
childbirth: a prospective study of 825 women. Birth. 1990;17(1):35–47.
18. Green JM, Coupland VA, Kitzinger JV. Great expectations: a prospective study of women’s
expectations and experiences of childbirth. Cheshire: Books for Midwives; 1998.
19. Garthus-Niegel S, von Soest T, Knoph C, Simonsen TB, Torgersen L, Eberhard-Gran M. The
influence of women’s preferences and actual mode of delivery on post-traumatic stress symp-
toms following childbirth: a population-based, longitudinal study. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth.
2014;14:191. doi:10.1186/1471-2393-14-191.
20. Akarsu RH, Muckuk S. Turkish women’s opinions about caesarean delivery. Pak J Med Sci.
2014;30(6):1308–13.
21. Brodrick A. Exploring women’s pre-birth expectations of labour and the role of the midwife.
Evidence Based Midwifery. 2008. https://www.rcm.org.uk/learning-and-career/learning-and-
research/ebm-articles/exploring-women%E2%80%99s-pre-birth-expectations-of. Accessed
20 Feb 2016.
22. Oweis A, Abushaikha L. Jordanian pregnant women’s expectations of their first childbirth
experience. Int J Nurs Pract. 2004;10(6):264–71.
23. Lally JE, Murtagh MJ, Macphail S, Thomson R. More in hope than expectation: a systematic
review of women’s expectations and experience of pain relief in labour. BMC Med. 2008;6:7.
doi:10.1186/1741-7015-6-7.
24. Soliday E, Sayyam J, Tremblay K. Pathways to violated expectations of epidural uptake.
J Reprod Infant Psychol. 2013;31(4):413–25. doi:10.1080/02646838.2013.830175.
25. Fenwick J, Gamble J, Nathan E, Bayes S, Hauck Y. Pre- and postpartum levels of childbirth
fear and the relationship to birth outcomes in a cohort of Australian women. J Clin Nurs.
2009;18:667–77. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2702.2008.02568.x.
26. Laursen M, Johansen C, Hedegaard M. Fear of childbirth and risk for birth complications in
nulliparous women in the Danish National Birth Cohort. BJOG. 2009;116:1350–5.
doi:10.1111/j.1471-0528.2009.02250.x.
27. Nieminen K, Stephansson O, Ryding EL. Women’s fear of childbirth and preference for cesar-
ean section—a cross-sectional study at various stages of pregnancy in Sweden. Acta Obstet
Gynecol Scand. 2009;88:807–13. doi:10.1080/00016340902998436.
28. Van Parys A, Ryding EL, Schei B, Lukasse M, Temmerman, M. Fear of childbirth and mode
of delivery in six European countries: the BIDENS study. In: 22nd European Congress of
Obstetrics and Gynaecology (EBCOG), Book of Abstracts (S14.4); 2012.
29. Rouhe H, Salmela-Aro K, Halmesmaki E, Saisto T. Fear of childbirth according to parity, gesta-
tional age, and obstetric history. BJOG. 2009;116:67–73. doi:10.1111/j.1471-0528.2008.02002.x.
30. Storksen HT, Eberhard-Gran M, Garthus-Niegel S, Eskild A. Fear of childbirth; the

relation to anxiety and depression. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2012;91:237–42.
doi:10.1111/j.1600-0412.2011.01323.x.
31. Lukasse M, Vangen S, Oian P, Schei B. Fear of childbirth, women’s preference for cesarean
section and childhood abuse: a longitudinal study. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2011;90:33–
40. doi:10.1111/j.1600-0412.2010.01024.x.
32. Salomonsson B, Gullberg MT, Alehagen S, Wijma K. Self-efficacy beliefs and fear of child-
birth in nulliparous women. J Psychosom Obstet Gynaecol. 2013;34:116–21. doi:10.3109/016
7482X.2013.824418.
33. Storksen HT, Garthus-Niegel S, Vangen S, Eberhard-Gran M. The impact of previous birth
experiences on maternal fear of childbirth. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2013;92:318–24.
doi:10.1111/aogs.12072.
34. Al Nuaim LA. Views of women towards cesarean section. Saudi Med J. 2004;25(6):707–10.
35. Hobson JA. Satisfaction with caesarean section: a literature review and an exploration of the
relationship between preoperative anxiety and postoperative satisfaction and recovery in elec-
tive caesarean section. 2002. Doctoral thesis, University of Sheffield.
36. Benyamini Y, Gozlan M, Preis H. Fulfilment of birth expectations and the subjective birth
experience. In: 18th Conference of the International Society for Psychosomatic Obstetrics &
Gynecology; May 2016, Malaga, Spain; 2016.
37. Ayers S, Bond R, Bertullies S, Wijma K. The aetiology of post-traumatic stress following
childbirth: a meta-analysis and theoretical framework. Psychol Med. 2016;46(6):1121–34.
38. Jolly J, Walker J, Bhabra K. Subsequent obstetric performance related to primary mode of
delivery. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1999;106(3):227–32.
39. Lavender T, Hofmeyr HG, Neilson JP, Kingdon C, Gyte MLG. Caesarean section for non-
medical reasons at term. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012;3:CD004660.
40. Gamble JA, Creedy DK. Women’s request for caesarean section: a critique of the literature.
Birth. 2000;27(4):256–26.
41. Handelzalts JE. The association of worries, mode of birth and reasons for possible intervention
with subjective birth experience. In: 18th Conference of the International Society for
Psychosomatic Obstetrics & Gynecology; May 2016, Malaga, Spain; 2016.
42. Spaich S, Welzel G, Berlit S, Temerinac D, Tuschy B, Sutterlin M, Kehl S. Mode of delivery
and its influence on women’s satisfaction with childbirth. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol.
2013;170:401–6.
43. Hobson JA, Slade P, Wrench IJ, Power L. Preoperative anxiety and postoperative satisfaction
in women undergoing elective caesarean section. Int J Obstet Anesth. 2006;15:18–23.
44. Aitken AH, et al. Patient safety, satisfaction, and quality of hospital care: cross sectional sur-
veys of nurses and patients in 12 countries in Europe and the United States. BMJ.
2012;344:e1717.
45. Bleich SN, Özaltin E, Murray CJL. How does satisfaction with the health-care system relate to
patient experience? Bulletin of the World Health Organization. 2009. http://www.who.int/bul-
letin/volumes/87/4/07-050401/en/ Accessed 20 Feb 2017.
46. Bell DM, Halliburton JR, Preston JC. An evaluation of anesthesia patient satisfaction instru-
ments. AANA J. 2004;72(3):211–7.
47. Department of Health. Maternity matters, choice, access and continuity of care in a safe ser-
vice. Department of Health. 2007. www.dh.gov.uk/pulications.
48. Department of Health. Making It Better for Mother and Baby. Department of Health. 2008.
www.dh.gov.uk/pulications.
49. NHS England. The National Maternity Review. 2016. https://www.england.nhs.uk/wp-

content/uploads/2016/02/national-maternity-review-report.pdf. Accessed 24 Feb 2016.
50. Smith J, Plaat F, Fisk NM. The natural caesarean: a woman-centred technique. BJOG.

2008;115(8):1037–42.
51. NICE, (2013) National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Caesarean Section Quality
standard [QS32]
52. Posthuma S, Korteweg FJ, Marinus van der Ploeg J, de Boer HD, Buiter HD, van der Ham
DP. Risks and benefits of the skin-to-skin cesarean section—a retrospective cohort study.
J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2016;30(2):159–63. doi:10.3109/14767058.2016.1163683.
53. American Congress of Obstetricians & Gynecologists. Safe Prevention of the Primary

Cesarean Delivery. American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. 2014. http://www.
acog.org/Resources-And-Publications/Obstetric-Care-Consensus-Series/
Safe-Prevention-of-the-Primary-Cesarean-Delivery.
54. American Congress of Obstetricians & Gynecologists. Vaginal Birth After Previous Cesarean
Delivery. American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. 2015. http://www.acog.org/
Resources-And-Publications/Practice-Bulletins/Committee-on-Practice-Bulletins-Obstetrics/
Vaginal-Birth-After-Previous-Cesarean-Delivery. Accessed 9 Mar 2016.
55. Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. Birth after previous caesarean birth. 2015.
Green-top Guideline No. 45.
56. Horey D, Kealy M, Davey MA. Interventions for supporting pregnant women’s decision-
making about mode of birth after a caesarean. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013;(7):
CD010041.
57. NICE, National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Intrapartum Care for Healthy Women
and Babies: 2014.
58. Flierler WJ, Nubling M, Kasper J, Heidegger T. Implementation of shared decision making in
anaesthesia and its influence on patient satisfaction. Anaesthesia. 2013;68:713–22.
59. Koumouitzesdouvia J, Carr CA. Women’s perceptions of their doula support. J Perinat Educ.
2006;15(4):34–40.
60. Lungren I. Swedish women’s experiences of doula support during childbirth. Midwifery.
2011;26(2):173–80.
61. McGrath SK, Kennell JH. A randomized controlled trial of continuous labor support for
middle-class couples: effect on cesarean delivery rates. Birth. 2008;35(2):92–7.
62. Hodnett ED, Gates S, Hofmeyr JG, Sakala C. Continuous support for women during child-
birth. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013;7:CD003766.
63. Royal College of Midwives. Reaching out: involving fathers in maternity care. 2010.
https://www.rcm.org.uk/sites/default/.../Father's%20Guides%20A4_3_0.p. Accessed Mar
2016.
64. Department of Health. National service framework for children, young people and maternity
services. London: Department of Health & Department for Education, Skills and Families,
HMSO; 2004.
65. Chapman KSA. Post-traumatic stress disorder and the obstetric anaesthetist. Int J Obstet
Anesth. 2015;24:207–9.
66. NHS England. Compassion in Practice: the 6C’s for Compassionate care. 2012. https://www.
england.nhs.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/6c-a5-leaflet.pdf. Accessed 2 June 2016.
67. Sawyer A, Ayers S, Bertullies S, Thomas M, Weeks AD, Yoxall CW, Duley L. Providing
immediate neonatal care and resuscitation at birth beside the woman: parents’ views, a qualita-
tive study. BMJ Open. 2015;5(9):e008495. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2015-008495.
68. Yoxall CW, Ayers S, Sawyer A, Bertullies S, Thomas M, Weeks AD, Duley L. Bedside neona-
tal care at birth: clinicians views, a qualitative study. BMJ Open. 2015;5:e008494. doi:10.1136/
bmjopen-2015-008494.
69. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Caesarean section NICE guidelines CG132.
2011.
70. National Patient Safety Agency. Placenta Praevia after Caesarean Section Care Bundle. 2010.
http://www.nrls.npsa.nhs.uk/resources/?EntryId45=66359. Accessed 21 Feb 2016.

Libro Cesarea Humanizada

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Libro Cesarea Humanizada

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Libro Cesarea Humanizada

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Anesthesia for

Anesthesia for Cesarean

ISBN 978-3-319-42051-6 ISBN 978-3-319-42053-0 (eBook)

Library of Congress Control Number: 2017939126

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2017

Printed on acid-free paper

This Springer imprint is published by Springer Nature

Rome, Italy Giorgio Capogna

13 Humanization of Cesarean Section. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 183

1.1 Twin Tragedies

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2017 1

exhausted and discouraged, welcomed as a sort of liberation the dramatic proposal.

1.2 The Revolutionary Intervention of Edoardo Porro

1.3 The Conservative Cesarean Section

The labour room is a multiprofessional environment; it is complex by definition.

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2017 9

An historical study on graphic analysis of labour in 1954 included 100 women

Fig. 2.1 Childbirth option

2.2.3 Planned Cesarean Section

2.2.3.1 Breech Presentation

Poor fetal growth

Fig. 2.2 Planned cesarean section

2.2.3.2 Multiple Pregnancy

2.2.3.3 Preterm Birth

2.2.3.4 Poor Fetal Growth

2.2.3.5 Placenta Previa

Evidence-based medicine [9]

2.2.3.6 Morbidly Adherent Placenta

Evidence-based medicine [9]

2.2.4.1 Mother to Child Transmission of Maternal Infections

2.2.4.2 Maternal Request for Cesarean Section

2.2.5 Unplanned Cesarean Section

2.2.5.1 Factors that Reduce the Likelihood of Cesarean Section

2.2.5.2 Failure to Progress in Labour

Table 2.1 Failure to Disorder Dilatation Descent

Fig. 2.3 The disorders of

2.2.5.3 Fetal Distress

2.2.5.4 Classification of Urgency

Table 2.2 Urgency of cesarean section

2.3.2 WHO Surgical Safety Checklist

2.3.2.1 Sign In (for Cesarean Section)

2.3.2.2 Time Out (for Cesarean Section)

2.3.2.3 Sign Out (for Cesarean Section)

2.3.3 Skin Incision

2.3.3.1 Vertical Incision

2.3.3.2 Pfannestiel’s Incision

2.3.3.3 Joel Cohen’s Incision

2.3.3.4 Maylard Incision

2.3.4 Uterine Incision

2.3.4.1 Low Transverse Incision

2.3.4.2 Low Vertical Incision

2.3.4.3 Classical Incision

2.3.5 Delivery of the Fetus

2.3.5.1 Cephalic Presentation

2.3.5.2 Face or Brow Cephalic Presentation

2.3.5.3 Frank Breech

Table 2.3 Breech Breech Legs and hip

2.3.5.4 Footling and Complete Breech

2.3.5.5 Transverse Lie

2.3.5.6 Back Down Transverse Lie

Rome, Italy Giorgio Capogna

1.1 Twin Tragedies

1.2 The Revolutionary Intervention of Edoardo Porro

1.3 The Conservative Cesarean Section

2.2.3 Planned Cesarean Section

2.2.3.1 Breech Presentation

2.2.3.2 Multiple Pregnancy

2.2.3.3 Preterm Birth

2.2.3.4 Poor Fetal Growth

2.2.3.5 Placenta Previa

2.2.3.6 Morbidly Adherent Placenta

2.2.4.1 Mother to Child Transmission of Maternal Infections

2.2.4.2 Maternal Request for Cesarean Section

2.2.5 Unplanned Cesarean Section

2.2.5.1 Factors that Reduce the Likelihood of Cesarean Section

2.2.5.2 Failure to Progress in Labour

2.2.5.3 Fetal Distress

2.2.5.4 Classification of Urgency

2.3.2 WHO Surgical Safety Checklist

2.3.2.1 Sign In (for Cesarean Section)

2.3.2.2 Time Out (for Cesarean Section)

2.3.2.3 Sign Out (for Cesarean Section)

2.3.3 Skin Incision

2.3.3.1 Vertical Incision

2.3.3.2 Pfannestiel’s Incision

2.3.3.3 Joel Cohen’s Incision

2.3.3.4 Maylard Incision

2.3.4 Uterine Incision

2.3.4.1 Low Transverse Incision

2.3.4.2 Low Vertical Incision

2.3.4.3 Classical Incision

2.3.5 Delivery of the Fetus

2.3.5.1 Cephalic Presentation

2.3.5.2 Face or Brow Cephalic Presentation

2.3.5.3 Frank Breech

2.3.5.4 Footling and Complete Breech

2.3.5.5 Transverse Lie

2.3.5.6 Back Down Transverse Lie

2.3.5.7 Back-up Transverse Lie

2.3.6 Delivery of the Placenta

2.3.7 Exteriorization of the Uterus

2.3.8 Suturing of the Uterus

2.3.9 Peritoneal Closure

2.3.10 Closure of the Skin

2.3.11 Misgav Ladach Technique

3.2 Neuraxial Anesthetic Techniques

3.2.1 Spinal Anesthesia

3.2.2 Epidural Anesthesia

3.2.3 Combined Spinal-Epidural Anesthesia (CSEA)

3.3 General Anesthesia

3.4 aternal Medical Diseases Affecting

3.4.1 Rheumatic Disease

3.4.5 Renal Diseases

3.4.6 Hematological Disorders

3.5 aternal Obstetric Diseases Affecting

3.5.2 HELLP (Hemolysis, Elevated Liver Enzymes, Low Platelets)

3.5.3 Placenta Accreta

4.2 Advantages of Neuraxial Anesthesia

4.3.3 Aseptic Technique

4.3.4 Needle Selection

4.3.5 Positioning of the Patient

4.4 Spinal Technique

4.5 Intravenous Fluids

4.6 Local Anesthetics

4.7.1 Intrathecal Fentanyl

4.7.2 Intrathecal Sufentanil

4.7.3 Intrathecal Morphine

4.7.4 Intrathecal Diamorphine

4.7.5 Intrathecal Opioid Tolerance

4.9 Continuous Spinal Analgesia

5.1 Epidural Technique

5.1.1 Preparation and Position of the Patient