Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics

, Volume 271, Issue 4, pp 281–285 | Cite as

The changing motives of cesarean section: from the ancient world to the twenty-first century

  • Samuel LurieEmail author



Cesarean delivery has been practiced for ages, although originally as a universally postmortem procedure. It is referred to in the myths and folklore of many ancient societies, for some of the infants delivered in this way survived, even though their mothers did not. Since the Renaissance, the objective of the procedure has gradually shifted towards saving the lives of both the mother and the child, and this has become ever more possible, as maternal and perinatal mortality and morbidity decreased dramatically during the twentieth century.

Current issues

Today (at the beginning of twenty-first century), we are not only concerned with the safety and health of the mother and the child, but also with mother’s desires and preferences and the child’s rights.


Cesarean Section Cesarean Delivery Medical Objective Previous Cesarean Section Medieval Period 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. 1.
    Dictionary of Obstetrics and Gynecology (1988) de Gruyter, Berlin, p 45Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Greenhill JP (1995) Obstetrics, 11th edn. Saunders, Philadelphia, pp 986–1033Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Boley JP (1991) The history of caesarean section. Can Med Assoc J 145:319–322Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Lurie S, Mamet Y (2001) “Yotzeh dofen”: cesarean section in the days of the Mishna and the Talmud. Isr J Obstet Gynecol 12:111–113Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Blumenfeld-Kosinski R (1990) Not of woman born. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, pp 7–47Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Lopez-Zeno JA, Carlo WA, O’Grady JP, Fanaroff AA (1990) Infant survival following delayed postmortem cesarean delivery. Obstet Gynecol 76:91–92Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Pinsent J (1969) Greek mythology. Hamlyn, London, p 82Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Gaius Plinius Secundus. Natural History. 77 CE (VII, ix,47)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Galbert HA, Bey M (1988) History and development of cesarean operation. Obstet Gynecol Clin North Am 15:591–605Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Trolle D (1982) The history of cesarean section. Reitzel CA, Copenhagen, pp 15–25Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Sahname-I Firdevsi (2002) 1549. Reproduced in Nil Sari. Turkish medical history through miniature pictures exhibition. Istanbul, Turkey, pp 104–111Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ehrhard FK, Friedrichs K, Diener MS, Fischer-Schreiber I, Schuhmacher S (1994) Encyclopedia of Eastern Philosophy and Religion. Shambhala, BostonGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Oppenheim AL (1960) A cesarean section in the second millennium B.C. J Hist Med 15:292–294Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Luire S (2004) The forceps of Albucasis. Bull Isr Soc Obstet Gynecol 2:41–42Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Pundel J (1969) L’histoire de l’opération césarienne. Presses Académiques Européennes, Brussels, p 57Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    The laws of the kings. Rome, 8th/7th cent. B.C. (FIRA 2, vol. 1, p 3. Tr. ARS, rev. L)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Justinian. Corpus Iuris Civilis. Digest 11,8,2. 533 CEGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Soranus of Ephesos (1956) Soranus’ gynecology. In: Trans. Owsei Temkin. Johns Hopkins University Press, BaltimoreGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Schaffer J (1996) “Born from the flank”—discussion concerning “cesarean section” in animals in the Talmud. Sud Arch Z Wissen 80:198–204Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Gmarah, Erchin, chapter 1, page 7, folio 1Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Mishnah, Bechoroth, chapter 2, p 47Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Lurie S, Glezerman M (2003) The history of cesarean technique. Am J Obstet Gynecol 189:1803–1806Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Speert H (1986) Historical highlights. In: Danforth DN, Scott JR (eds) Obstetrics and gynecology, 5th edn. Lippincott, Philadelphia, pp 2–22Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Patrologiae cursus completes: series latina. In: Migne JP (ed) Paris, 1844–1864. 212, col 63, no 6Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Bernard of Gordon. Practica sive lilium medicinae. Lyons, p 1498Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Radd-Ul-Muchtar (1844) Cairo, EgyptGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Abu Raihan Muhamad Al-Biruni (973–1048 C.E.) Al-asrar al-baqiyah al-qurum al-khaliydh. Manuscript 161. Edinburgh University Library, ScotlandGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Albucasis (1973) On surgery and instruments: a definitive edition of the Arabic text with English translation and commentary by Spink MS and Lewis GL. The Welcome Institute of the History of Medicine, LondonGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Rousset F (1581) Traitte nouveau de l’hysterotomotokie, ou enfantment Caesarien. Denys du Val, ParisGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Mauriceau F (1683) The diseases of women with child, and in child-bed (English translation, 2nd edn). Darby, LondonGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Harris RP (1881) Special statistics of the cesarean operation in the United States, showing the success and failures in each state. Am J Obstet 144:341–361Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Miller JL (1938) Cesarean section in Virginia in the pre-aseptic era. 1794–1879. Ann Med Hist 20:23–35Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Lungren SS (1881) A case of cesarean section twice successfully performed on the same patient, with remarks on the time, indications, and details of the operation. Am J Obstet 14:78–94Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Weems ML (1836) Am J Med Sci 8:257Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Sanger M (1882) Der Kaiserschnitt. Arch Gynakol 19:370Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Kehrer FA (1882) Über ein modifiziertes Verfahren beim Kaiserschnitt. Arch Gynakol Bd 19:117Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Porro E (1876) Della amputazione utero-ovarica come complemento di taglio cesareo. Annu Univ Med Chir (Milan) 237:289–350Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Cunningham FG, MacDonald PC, Gant NF, Levono KJ, Gilstrap LC III, Hankins GDV, Clark SL (1997) Williams obstetrics, 20th edn. Appleton and Lange, Stamford, pp 509–532Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Craigin EB (1916) Conservatism in obstetrics. N Y Med J 104:1–3Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Kerr JMM (1926) The technique of cesarean section, with special reference to the lower uterine segment incision. Am J Obstet Gynecol 12:729–734Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Bretelle F, Cravello L, Shojai R, Roger V, D’ercole C, Blanc B (2001) Vaginal birth following two previous cesarean sections. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 94:23–26Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Hannah ME, Hannah WJ, Hewson SA, Hodnett ED, Saigal S, Willan AR (2000) Planned caesarean section versus planned vaginal birth for breech presentation at term: a randomized multicentre trial: term Breech Trial Collaborative Group. Lancet 356:375–383Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Lurie S, Mamet Y (2003) Cesarean delivery during maternal cardiopulmonary resuscitation for status asthmaticus. Emerg Med J 20:296–297Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Wagner M (2000) Choosing cesarean section. Lancet 356:677–680Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Ikemoto LC (1998) Forced cesareans. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol 10:465–468Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Fitzpatrick M, O’Herlihy C (2000) Vaginal birth and perineal trauma. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol 12:487–490Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Fitzpatrick M, O’Herlihy C (2001) The effects of labour and delivery on the pelvic floor. Baillieres Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol 15:63–79Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Farrell SA, Allen VM, Baskett TF (2001) Parturition and urinary incontinence in primiparas. Obstet Gynecol 97:350–356CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Ryding EL, Wijma K, Wijma B (1998) Psychological impact of emergency cesarean section in comparison with elective cesarean section, instrumental and normal vaginal delivery. J Psychosom Obstet Gynaecol 19:135–144Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Paterson-Brown S, Fisk N (1997) Cesarean section: every woman’s right to choose? Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol 9:351–358Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Husslein P (2001) Elective caesarean section versus vaginal delivery: whither the end of traditional obstetrics? Arch Gynecol Obstet 265:169–174Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Edith Wolfson Medical Center, Holon, Sackler School of MedicineTel Aviv UniversityTel AvivIsrael

Personalised recommendations