[Skip to Content]
Access to paid content on this site is currently suspended due to excessive activity being detected from your IP address 18.206.168.65. Please contact the publisher to request reinstatement.
[Skip to Content Landing]
Article
December 4, 1897

COMPARATIVE INDICATIONS FOR CLASSIC AND PORRO-CÆSAREAN SECTION.

JAMA. 1897;XXIX(23):1135-1137. doi:10.1001/jama.1897.02440490001001

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

Abstract

The terrible mortality following Cæsarean section for all these centuries induced the Italian obstetrician, Porro, to advocate, in cases requiring Cæsarean section, the removal of the uterus at the same time; and the two main objects he had in view were; 1. That by removing the uterus and appendages the danger from puerperal septicemia would be removed; 2. If the woman did recover, she would not be again subject to such a serious operation.

Many coincided with these views, but there were also many who opposed them, saying that the danger of the operation itself was greater than the danger from puerperal fever, and that the woman who had a deformed pelvis and required such an operation, had no business to become pregnant. This latter argument seems to me very shallow, indeed. It might hold good in cases of illegitimate pregnancy, as is so often the case in Europe, but

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