Intervention Review

Spinal versus epidural anaesthesia for caesarean section

  1. Kar W Ng1,
  2. Jacqueline Parsons2,
  3. Allan M Cyna3,*,
  4. Philippa Middleton4

Editorial Group: Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group

Published Online: 21 JAN 2009

Assessed as up-to-date: 31 JUL 2003

DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003765.pub2

How to Cite

Ng KW, Parsons J, Cyna AM, Middleton P. Spinal versus epidural anaesthesia for caesarean section. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2004, Issue 2. Art. No.: CD003765. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003765.pub2.

Author Information

  1. 1

    Women's and Children's Hospital, Department of Women's Anaesthesia, North Adelaide, SA, Australia

  2. 2

    The University of Adelaide, Department of Public Health, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia

  3. 3

    Women's and Children's Hospital, Department of Women's Anaesthesia, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia

  4. 4

    The University of Adelaide, ARCH: Australian Research Centre for Health of Women and Babies, Discipline of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia

*Allan M Cyna, Department of Women's Anaesthesia, Women's and Children's Hospital, 72 King William Road, Adelaide, South Australia, 5006, Australia. allan.cyna@health.sa.gov.au.

Publication History

  1. Publication Status: Edited (no change to conclusions)
  2. Published Online: 21 JAN 2009

SEARCH

  1. Current Version

    Spinal versus epidural anaesthesia for caesarean section

    Kar W Ng, Jacqueline Parsons, Allan M Cyna and Philippa Middleton

    Article first published online: 21 JAN 2009 | DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003765.pub2

Previous versions of this article and their online publication dates

  1. Version 1

    Spinal versus epidural anaesthesia for caesarean section

    K Ng and AM Cyna

    Article first published online: 20 MAY 2002 | DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003765