Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-18T06:40:11.017Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Section 1 - Basic Sciences in Gynaecology

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 November 2021

Edited by
Tahir Mahmood ,
Charles Savona-Ventura ,
Ioannis Messinis  and
Sambit Mukhopadhyay
Tahir Mahmood
Affiliation:
Victoria Hospital, Kirkcaldy
Charles Savona-Ventura
Affiliation:
University of Malta, Malta
Ioannis Messinis
Affiliation:
University of Thessaly, Greece
Sambit Mukhopadhyay
Affiliation:
Norfolk & Norwich University Hospital, UK
Get access

Summary

A summary is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Chapter
Information
The EBCOG Postgraduate Textbook of Obstetrics & Gynaecology
Gynaecology
 , pp. 1 - 46
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2021

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

References

Croissant, K, Shafi, M. Preoperative and postoperative care in gynaecology. Obstet Gynaecol Reprod Med 2009;19:68–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. Obtaining valid consent clinical governance. Advice No. 6. January 2015.Google Scholar
Muluk, V, Cohn, SL, Whinney, C. Perioperative medication management. Up to Date, August 2018. Available at: www.uptodate.com/contents/perioperative-medication-management.Google Scholar
Douketis, JD, Lip, GYH. Perioperative management of patients receiving anticoagulants. Up to Date, September 2018.Google Scholar
ACOG. Practice Bulletin No. 104: Antibiotic prophylaxis for gynecologic procedures. Obstet Gynecol 2009;113:1180–1189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scottish Intercollegiate Guideline Network. Antibiotic prophylaxis in surgery. Guideline 104. 2008.Google Scholar
Royal College of Physicians. National Early Warning Score (NEWS) 2: Standardising the Assessment of Acute-Illness Severity in the NHS. London: RCP, 2017.Google Scholar
World Health Organization. Traitement de la douleur cancéreuse. Geneva: World Health Organization, 1987.Google Scholar
Toscani, L, Aya, HD, Antonakaki, D, et al. What is the impact of the fluid challenge technique on diagnosis of fluid responsiveness? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Crit Care 2017;21:207.Google Scholar
Dörflinger, A, Monga, A. Voiding dysfunction. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol 2001;13:507–512.Google Scholar

References

Bouyer, J, Coste, J, Fernandez, H, Pouly, J, Job-Spira, L. Sites of ectopic pregnancy: a 10 year population-based study of 1800 cases. Hum Reprod 2002;17:3224–3230.Google Scholar
Van Den Eeden, SK, Shan, J, Bruce, C, Glasser, M. Ectopic pregnancy rate and treatment utilization in a large managed care organization. Obstet Gynecol 2005;105:1052–1057.Google Scholar
Hoover, KW, Tao, G, Kent, CK. Trends in the diagnosis and treatment of ectopic pregnancy in the United States. Obstet Gynecol 2010;115:495–502.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Committee on Practice Bulletins – Gynecology. ACOG practice bulletin no. 191: tubal ectopic pregnancy. Obstet Gynecol 2018;131:e65–e77.Google Scholar
Bouyer, J, Coste, J, Shojaei, T, et al. Risk factors for ectopic pregnancy: a comprehensive analysis based on a large case-control, population-based study in France. Am J Epidemiol 2003;157:185–194.Google Scholar
Murray, H, Baakdah, H, Bardell, T, Tulandi, A. Diagnosis and treatment of ectopic pregnancy. CMAJ 2005;173:905–912.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Li, C, Zhao, W-H, Zhu, Q, et al. Risk factors for ectopic pregnancy: a multi-center case-control study. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 2015;15:187.Google Scholar
Alkatout, I, Honemeyer, U, Strauss, A, et al. Clinical diagnosis and treatment of ectopic pregnancy. Obstet Gynecol Surv 2013;68:571–581.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Condous, G, Kirk, E, Lu, C, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of varying discriminatory zones for the prediction of ectopic pregnancy in women with a pregnancy of unknown location. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2005;26:770–775.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Farquhar, CM. Ectopic pregnancy. Lancet 2005;366:583–591.Google Scholar
Lipscomb, GH. Medical therapy for ectopic pregnancy. Semin Reprod Med 2007;25:93–98.Google Scholar
Regan, L, Rai, R. Epidemiology and the medical causes of miscarriage. Baillieres Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol 2000;14:839–854.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dugas, C, Whitten, R. Miscarriage. Treasure Island, FL: StatPearls, 2018.Google Scholar
ACOG practice bulletin no. 200: Early pregnancy loss. Obstet Gynecol 2018;132:e197–e207.Google Scholar
Regan, L, Braude, PR, Trembath, PL. Influence of past reproductive performance on risk of spontaneous abortion. BMJ 1989;299:541–545.Google Scholar
Nybo Andersen, AM, Wohlfahrt, J, Christens, P, Olsen, J, Melbye, M. Maternal age and fetal loss: population based register linkage study. BMJ 2000;320:1708–1712.Google Scholar
Warden, M, Schreiber, CA, Steinauer, J. Diagnostic criteria for nonviable pregnancy early in the first trimester. Ultrasound Q 2014;30:3–9.Google Scholar
Abam, DS, Overview of gynaecological emergencies. In: Contemporary Gynecologic Practice. London: IntechOpen; 2015.Google Scholar
CDC. Sexually transmitted diseases treatment guidelines, 2015. Available from: www.cdc.gov/std/tg2015/pid.htm.Google Scholar
Practice bulletin no. 114: management of endometriosis. Obstet Gynecol 2010;116:223–236.Google Scholar
Moore, C, Meyers, AB, Capotasto, J, Bokhari, J. Prevalence of abnormal CT findings in patients with proven ovarian torsion and a proposed triage schema. Emerg Radiol 2009;16:115–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists’ Committee on Practice Bulletins – Gynecology. Practice bulletin no. 174: evaluation and management of adnexal masses. Obstet Gynecol 2016;128:e210–e226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bras, R, Braga, J, Tomé, A, Ferreira, H. Adnexal torsion in the first trimester of pregnancy: diagnosis, laparoscopic management, and review of the literature. Surg Technol Int 2017;30:210–214.Google ScholarPubMed
Vilos, GA, Allaire, C, Laberge, P-Y, Leyland, N. The management of uterine leiomyomas. J Obstet Gynaecol Can 2015;37:157–178.Google Scholar
Practice Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Prevention and treatment of moderate and severe ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome: a guideline. Fertil Steril 2016;106:1634–1647.Google Scholar
Committee on Practice Bulletins – Gynecology. Practice bulletin no. 128: diagnosis of abnormal uterine bleeding in reproductive-aged women. Obstet Gynecol 2012;120:197–206.Google Scholar
Committee on Practice Bulletins – Gynecology. Practice bulletin no. 136: management of abnormal uterine bleeding associated with ovulatory dysfunction. Obstet Gynecol 2013;122:176–185.Google Scholar
Aghajanian, A, Bernstein, L, Grimes, DA. Bartholin’s duct abscess and cyst: a case-control study. South Med J 1994;87:26–29.Google Scholar
Rajendran, PM, Young, D, Maurer, T, et al. Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of cephalexin for treatment of uncomplicated skin abscesses in a population at risk for community-acquired methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus infection. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2007;51:4044–4048.Google Scholar
Todd, J, Fishaut, M, Kapral, F, Welch, T. Toxic-shock syndrome associated with phage-group-I staphylococci. Lancet 1978;2:1116–1118.Google Scholar
Reingold, AL, Hargrett, NT, Shands, KN, et al. Toxic shock syndrome surveillance in the United States, 1980 to 1981. Ann Intern Med 1982;96:875–880.Google Scholar
Abrahams, N, Devries, K, Watts, C, et al. Worldwide prevalence of non-partner sexual violence: a systematic review. Lancet 2014;383:1648–1654.Google Scholar

References

Campbell, S. A short history of sonography in obstetrics and gynaecology. Facts Views Vis Obgyn 2013;5:213–229.Google Scholar
Amso, NN. Transvaginal ultrasound: the basics. In: Ultrasound in Assisted Reproduction and Early Pregnancy. Boca Raton (FL): CRC Press; 2020.Google Scholar
Dodson, MG, Deter, RL. Definition of anatomical planes for use in transvaginal sonography. J Clin Ultrasound 1990;18:239–242.Google Scholar
American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Menstruation in girls and adolescents: using the menstrual cycle as a vital sign. Committee opinion No. 651. Obstet Gynecol 2015;126:e143–e146. Reaffirmed 2019.Google Scholar
Leone, FPG, Timmerman, D, Bourne, T, et al. Terms, definitions and measurements to describe the sonographic features of the endometrium and intrauterine lesions: a consensus opinion from the International Endometrial Tumor Analysis (IETA) group. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2010;35:103–112.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Van Den Bosch, T, Dueholm, M, Leone, FPG, et al. Terms, definitions and measurements to describe sonographic features of myometrium and uterine masses: a consensus opinion from the Morphological Uterus Sonographic Assessment (MUSA) group. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2015;46:284–298.Google Scholar
Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. Management of endometrial hyperplasia. Green-top Guideline No. 67. 2016.Google Scholar
Munro, MG, Critchley, HO, Fraser, IS, FIGO Menstrual Disorders Working Group.The FIGO classification of causes of abnormal uterine bleeding in the reproductive years. Fertil Steril 2011;95:2204–2208.Google Scholar
American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Committee Opinion no. 557: Management of acute abnormal uterine bleeding in nonpregnant reproductive-aged women. Obstet Gynecol 2013;121:891–896.Google Scholar
Zucchini, S, Marra, E. Diagnosis of emergencies/urgencies in gynaecology and during the first trimester of pregnancy. J Ultrasound 2014;17:41–46.Google Scholar
Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. The initial management of chronic pelvic pain. RCOG Green-top Guideline No. 41. 2012. Minor updates 2017.Google Scholar
American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Chronic Pelvic Pain. Washington, DC: ACOG, 2011.Google Scholar
Ghaly, AFF, Chien, PFW. Chronic pelvic pain: clinical dilemma or clinician’s nightmare. Sex Transm Infect 2000;76:419–425.Google Scholar
Longstreth, GF. Irritable bowel syndrome and chronic pelvic pain. Obstet Gynecol Surv 1994;49:505–507.Google Scholar
Rapkin, AJ, Mayer, EA. Gastroenterologic causes for chronic pelvic pain. Obstet Gynecol Clin North Am 1993;20:663–682.Google Scholar
Rapkin, AJ, Kames, LD, Darke, LL, Stampler, FM, Naliboff, BD. History of physical and sexual abuse in women with chronic pelvic pain. Obstet Gynecol 1990;76:92–96.Google Scholar
Munro, MG, Critchley, HOD, Broder, MS, Fraser, IS. FIGO classification system (PALM-COEIN) for causes of abnormal uterine bleeding in nongravid women of reproductive age. Int J Gynecol Obstet 2011;113:3–13.Google Scholar
Alcázar, J, Guerriero, S, Pascual, M, et al. Sonographic features of uterine sarcomas: a multicentre retrospective study. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2016;48(S1). doi: 10.1002/uog.16074.Google Scholar
Naftalin, J, Hoo, W, Pateman, K, et al. How common is adenomyosis? A prospective study of prevalence using transvaginal ultrasound in a gynaecology clinic. Hum Reprod 2012;27:3432–3439.Google Scholar
Kepkep, K, Tuncay, YA, Goynumer, G, Tutal, E. Transvaginal sonography in the diagnosis of adenomyosis: which findings are most accurate? Ultrasound Gynecol Obstet 2007;30:341–345.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dueholm, M, Lundorf, E. Transvaginal ultrasound or MRI for the diagnosis of adenomyosis. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol 2007;19:505–512.Google Scholar
Grimbizis, GF, Gordts, S, Di Spiezio Sardo, A, et al. The ESHRE/ESGE consensus on the classification of female genital tract congenital anomalies. Hum Reprod 2013;28:2032–2044.Google Scholar
Grimbizis, GF, Di Spiezio Sardo, A, Saravelos, SH, et al. The Thessaloniki ESHRE/ESGE consensus on diagnosis of female genital anomalies. Hum Reprod 2016;31:2–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. Management of suspected ovarian masses in premenopausal women. RCOG Green-top Guideline No. 62. November 2011.Google Scholar
Timmerman, D, Testa, AC, Bourne, T, et al. Simple ultrasound-based rules for the diagnosis of ovarian cancer. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2008;31:681–690.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Timmerman, D, Ameye, L, Fischerova, D, et al. Simple ultrasound rules to distinguish between benign and malignant adnexal masses before surgery: prospective validation by IOTA group. BMJ 2010;341:c6839.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. The management of ovarian cysts in postmenopausal women. RCOG Green-top Guideline No. 34. July 2016.Google Scholar
Van Calster, B, Van Hoorde, K, Valentin, L, et al. Evaluating the risk of ovarian cancer before surgery using the ADNEX model to differentiate between benign, borderline, early and advanced stage invasive, and secondary metastatic tumours: prospective multicentre diagnostic study. BMJ 2014;349:g5920.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jacobs, IJ, Menon, U, Ryan, A, et al. Ovarian cancer screening and mortality in the UK Collaborative Trial of Ovarian Cancer Screening (UKCTOCS): a randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2016;387:945–956.Google Scholar
Moyle, PL, Kataoka, MY, Nakai, A, Takahata, A. Nonovarian cystic lesions of the pelvis. Radiographics 2010;30:921–938.Google Scholar
Armstrong, SC, Showell, M, Stewart, EA, et al. Baseline anatomical assessment of the uterus and ovaries in infertile women: a systematic review of the evidence on which assessment methods are the safest and most effective in terms of improving fertility outcomes. Hum Reprod Update 2017;23:533–547.Google Scholar
Nannini, R, Chelo, E, Branconi, F, Tantini, C, Scarselli, GF. Dynamic echohysteroscopy: a new diagnostic technique in the study of female infertility. Acta Eur Fertil 1981;12:165–171.Google Scholar
Richman, TS, Viscomi, GN, deCherney, A, Polan, ML, Alcebo, LO. Fallopian tubal patency assessed by ultrasound following fluid injection: work in progress. Radiology 1984;152:507–510.Google Scholar
Ovarian Stimulation for IVF/ICSI. Guideline of the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology. October 2019.Google Scholar
ESHRE Working Group on Ultrasound in ART. Ultrasound: oocyte pick-up: recommendations of the European Society for Human Reproduction and Endocrinology. June 2019.Google Scholar
Raine-Fenning, N, Jayaprakasan, K, Clewes, J, et al. SonoAVC: a novel method of automatic volume calculation. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2008;31:691–696.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Deutch, TD, Joergner, I, Matson, DO, et al. Automated assessment of ovarian follicles using a novel three-dimensional ultrasound software. Fertil Steril 2009;92:1562–1568.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bogusiewicz, M. Ultrasound imaging in urogynecology: state of the art 2016. Menopause Rev 2016;15:123–132.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chamié, LP, Ribeiro, DMFR, Caiado, AHM, Warmbrand, G, Serafini, PC. Translabial US and dynamic MR imaging of the pelvic floor: normal anatomy and dysfunction. Radiographics 2018;38:287–308.Google Scholar
Haider, Z. Ultrasound imaging in relation to intrauterine contraception. In: Ultrasound in Reproductive Healthcare Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2018, pp. 163–182.Google Scholar
Clinical Effectiveness Unit. Intrauterine contraception. Faculty of Sexual & Reproductive Healthcare Clinical Guidance. April 2015, amended September 2019.Google Scholar
O’Brien, P. Ultrasound imaging of progestogen-only subdermal contraceptive implants. In: Ultrasound in Reproductive Healthcare Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2018, pp. 151–162.Google Scholar
Brahmi, D, Steenland, MW, Renner, RM, et al. Pregnancy outcomes with an IUD in situ: a systematic review. Contraception 2012;85:131–139.Google Scholar
Pillai, M. Pregnancy ultrasound for sexual and reproductive health work. In: Ultrasound in Reproductive Healthcare Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2018, pp. 115–134.Google Scholar
Tolsgaard, MG, Ringsted, C, Dreisler, E, et al. Sustained effect of simulation-based ultrasound training on clinical performance: a randomized trial. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2015;46:312–318.Google Scholar
Tolsgaard, MG, Ringsted, C, Rosthøj, S, et al. The effects of simulation-based transvaginal ultrasound training on quality and efficiency of care: a multicenter single-blind randomized trial. Ann Surg 2017;265:630–637.Google Scholar
Tolsgaard, MG. A multiple-perspective approach for the assessment and learning of ultrasound skills. Perspect Med Educ 2018;7:211–213.Google Scholar
Tolsgaard, MG, Chalouhi, GE. Use of ultrasound simulators for assessment of trainee competence: trendy toys or valuable instruments? Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2018;52:424–426.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Amso, NN, D’Angelo, A, Panayotidis, C. Training and certification. In: Ultrasound in Assisted Reproduction and Early Pregnancy. Boca Raton (FL): CRC Press; 2020.Google Scholar
General Medical Council. Supporting the COVID-19 response: guidance regarding medical education and training. 2020. Available at: www.gmc-uk.org/news/news-archive/guidance-regarding-medical-education-and-training-supporting-the-covid-19-response (accessed 8 June 2020).Google Scholar
Pulijala, Y, Ma, M, Pears, M, Peebles, D, Ayoub, A. Effectiveness of immersive virtual reality in surgical training: a randomized control trial. J Oral Maxillofacial Surg 2017;76:1065–1072.Google Scholar
Bracq, M-S, Michinov, E, Jannin, P. Virtual reality simulation in nontechnical skills training for healthcare professionals. a systematic review. Sim Healthcare 2019;14:188–194.Google Scholar

References

Royal College of Surgeons of England. Skills and qualities of a surgeon. Available at: www.rcseng.ac.uk/careers-in-surgery/careers-support/skills-and-qualities-of-a-surgeon.Google Scholar
ElBardissi, AW, Sundt, TM. Human factors and operating room safety. Surg Clin North Am 2012;92:21–35.Google Scholar
Hinshaw, K. Human factors in obstetrics and gynaecology. Obstet Gynaecol Reprod Med 2016;26:368–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
D’Addessi, A, Bongiovanni, L, Volpe, A, Pinto, F, Bassi, P. Human factors in surgery: from Three Mile Island to the operating room. Urol Int 2009;83:249–257.Google Scholar
Clinical Human Factors Group website. Available at: https://chfg.org.Google Scholar
Andersen, DK. How can educators use simulation applications to teach and assess surgical judgement? Acad Med 2012;87:934–941.Google Scholar
World Alliance for Patient Safety. WHO surgical safety checklist and implementation manual. 2008. Available at: www.who.int/patientsafety/safesurgery/ss_checklist/en.Google Scholar
Krosse, J, van der Velde, M, Morssink, LP, et al. Word catheter and marsupialisation in women with a cyst or abscess of the Bartholin gland (WoMan-trial): a randomised clinical trial. BJOG 2017;124:243–249.Google Scholar
Ahmad, G, Baker, J, Finnerty, J, Phillips, K, Watson, A. Laparoscopic entry techniques. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2019;1:CD006583.Google Scholar
RCOG. The distal fallopian tube as the origin of non-uterine pelvic high-grade serous carcinomas. Scientific Impact Paper Number No. 44. November 2014.Google Scholar

References

Tardie, SC, Appelbaum, H. Microperforate hymen and pyocolpos: a case report and review of the literature. J Pediatr Adolesc Gynecol 2018;31:140–142.Google Scholar
Grimbizis, GF, Gordts, S, Di Spiezio Sardo, A, et al. The ESHRE/ESGE consensus on the classification of female genital tract congenital anomalies. Hum Reprod 2013;28:2032–2044.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Acién, P, Acién, M. The presentation and management of complex female genital malformations. Hum Reprod Update 2016;22:48–69.Google Scholar
Oppelt, P, Renner, SP, Brucker, S, et al. The VCUAM (vagina cervix uterus adnexa-associated malformation) classification: a new classification for genital malformations. Fertil Steril 2005;84:1493–1497.Google Scholar
Morcel, SR, Camborieux, L, Guerrier, D. Mayer–Rokitansky–Kuster–Hauser (MRKH) syndrome. Orphanet J Rare Dis 2007;2:13.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

References

Botsis, D, Deligeoroglou, E, Christopoulos, P, et al. Ultrasound imaging to evaluate Creatsas vaginoplasty. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2005;89:31–34.Google Scholar
Capraro, VJ, Gallego, MB. Vaginal agenesis. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1976;124:98–107.Google Scholar
Creatsas, G, Deligeoroglou, E, Makrakis, E, Kontoravdis, A, Papadimitriou, L. Creation of a neovagina following Williams vaginoplasty and the Creatsas modification in 111 patients with Mayer–Rokitansky–Küster–Hauser syndrome. Fertil Steril 2001;76:1036–1040.Google Scholar
Creatsas, G, Deligeorolgou, E, Christopoulos, P. Creation of a neovagina after Creatsas modification of Williams vaginoplasty for the treatment of 200 patients with Mayer–Rokitansky–Kuster–Hauser syndrome. Fertil Steril 2010;94:1848–1852.Google Scholar
Deligeoroglou, E, Christopoulos, P, Creatsas, G. A unique case of descending salpingitis and functioning endometrium in a Mullerian remnant in a woman with Mayer–Rokitansky–Kuster–Hauser syndrome. Fertil Steril 2005;83:1547–1548.Google Scholar
Deligeoroglou, A, Kontoravdis, E, Makrakis, P, et al. Development of leiomyomas on the uterine remnant of two women with Mayer–Rokitansky–Kuster–Hauser syndrome. Fertil Steril 2004;81:1385–1387.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×