[Skip to Content]
Access to paid content on this site is currently suspended due to excessive activity being detected from your IP address Please contact the publisher to request reinstatement.
[Skip to Content Landing]
July 9, 1932


Author Affiliations

Los Angeles

JAMA. 1932;99(2):151-152. doi:10.1001/jama.1932.02740540059032

This article is only available in the PDF format. Download the PDF to view the article, as well as its associated figures and tables.


To the Editor:  —1. Wound edges were not traumatized by hemostats or other crushing instruments. The upper and lower ends of the intended incision were delimited and the uterus was steadied by means of two catgut traction sutures, as advised by DeLee and Beck. Thumb forceps were applied gently.2. Your correspondent makes no indictment of the continuous suture but is now willing to agree with outstanding obstetricians (DeLee, Vaux, Beck) who feel that interrupted sutures are preferable.3. As to future pregnancy: Elective section for this patient will prevent any danger during labor, and so labor is not discussed.Lack of space prevents lengthy consideration of the prognosis during the prenatal period. This is summarized by the following, quoted from "Cesarean Scars," by Greenhill and Bloom (The Journal, Jan. 5, 1929, p. 21): "In the entire world literature... no uterus ruptured during pregnancy" (following low cervical cesarean section).

First Page Preview View Large
First page PDF preview
First page PDF preview