Regional block versus general anaesthesia for caesarean section and neonatal outcomes: a population-based study
Open Access
- 29 April 2009
- journal article
- research article
- Published by Springer Science and Business Media LLC in BMC Medicine
- Vol. 7 (1), 20
- https://doi.org/10.1186/1741-7015-7-20
Abstract
Anaesthesia guidelines recommend regional anaesthesia for most caesarean sections due to the risk of failed intubation and aspiration with general anaesthesia. However, general anaesthesia is considered to be safe for the foetus, based on limited evidence, and is still used for caesarean sections.This publication has 21 references indexed in Scilit:
- The Accuracy of Reporting of the Hypertensive Disorders of Pregnancy in Population Health DataHypertension in Pregnancy, 2008
- Clinical update: obstetric anaesthesiaThe Lancet, 2007
- Practice Guidelines for Obstetric AnesthesiaAnesthesiology, 2007
- Maternal and neonatal outcome after cesarean section: The impact of anesthesiaThe Journal of Maternal-Fetal & Neonatal Medicine, 2007
- Is regional anaesthesia better than general anaesthesia for caesarean section?Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, 2006
- Obstetric Anesthesia Workforce SurveyAnesthesiology, 2005
- Complications of Anesthesia for Cesarean DeliveryObstetrics & Gynecology, 2005
- Measuring inconsistency in meta-analysesBMJ, 2003
- Low 5-minute Apgar score: a population-based register study of 1 million term birthsObstetrics & Gynecology, 2001
- Randomized Comparison of General and Regional Anesthesia for Cesarean Delivery in Pregnancies Complicated by Severe PreeclampsiaObstetrics & Gynecology, 1995