Anaesthetic technique for elective caesarean section and neurobehavioural status of newborns. Anesthetic quality during cesarean section following subarachnoid or epidural administration of bupivacaine with or without fentanyl. [Pharmacokinetics of epidural or intrathecal bupivacaine in elective cesarean section]. Comparison of general and regional anesthesia for cesarean section: success rate, blood loss and satisfaction from a randomized trial. Spinal or epidural anaesthesia for elective caesarean section? A Swedish experience. Visceral pain during caesarean section under spinal and epidural anaesthesia with bupivacaine. Thermoregulatory effects of spinal and epidural anesthesia during cesarean delivery. Subarachnoid versus epidural bupivacaine 0.5% for caesarean section.
Ninety healthy parturients undergoing elective caesarean section were randomly allocated to receive either general (n = 30), epidural (n = 30) or spinal (n = 30) anaesthesia. Acid-base status, Apgar score and neurobehavioural status, using the neurologic and adaptive capacity scoring (NACS) system, were studied in the newborn. Apgar scores and acid-base parameters were similar in all the three groups. NACS testing revealed significantly more vigorous babies in the spinal anaesthesia group than in the other two groups at 15 min and 2 h interval after delivery, despite a higher incidence of maternal hypotension. We conclude that newborns tend to have a better neurobehavioural status in the early post-delivery period if their mothers receive spinal anaesthesia rather than general or epidural anaesthesia for caesarean section. It is often assumed that subarachnoid administration of local anesthetics produces a more profound blockade than epidural anesthesia. Furthermore, the addition of fentanyl has been reported to increase preferentially intraoperative analgesia. In the present study we set out to study these two issues in a randomized and controlled study with respect to perceived pain and discomfort during surgery and postoperative pain.
                In the present study, 100 parturients subjected to elective cesarean section, 34 nullipara and 66 multipara, received one out of four combinations of the local anesthetic bupivacaine and the opioid fentanyl; group A--bupivacaine 12.5 mg + 10 micrograms fentanyl subarachnoidally, group B--bupivacaine 12.5 mg + saline subarachnoidally, group C--bupivacaine 100 mg + 100 micrograms fentanyl epidurally, group D--bupivacaine 100 mg + saline epidurally; N = 25 in each group. Pain intensity and discomfort during surgery was assessed with a visual analogue scale (VAS). Postoperative pain intensity and need for analgesics postoperatively, ketobemidone, was registered for 24 h following surgery.
                Intraoperative pain intensity and discomfort did not differ significantly between parturients in any of the four groups Postoperative pain was significantly more intense in parturients receiving local anesthetics subarachnoidally as compared to the epidural groups during the first 6-h period. This difference was also reflected in a significantly increased consumption of analgesics during this period. No significant differences between the groups were observed with regard to hemodynamics (blood pressure), respiration (oxygen saturation) or other effects such as nausea or itching. All neonates had normal Apgar and neonatal adaptive capacity scores (NACS).
                We conclude that subarachnoidal (12.5 mg) and epidural (100 mg) injections with bupivacaine both produced adequate anesthetic quality in women undergoing elective cesarean section. The addition of fentanyl (10 micrograms subarachnoidally or 100 micrograms epidurally) did not significantly improve the quality of these already profound blockades. Twenty ASA 1 pregnant women at term, undergoing elective Caesarean section were included in this study. They were randomly assigned to one of two groups, receiving either a spinal or an epidural anaesthesia. Before induction, in order to prevent hypotension, all patients were given an i.v. infusion of 1000 ml of Ringer-lactate and a subcutaneous injection of ephedrine 30 mg. They were positioned on the operating table with a 15 degrees left lateral tilt. Spinal anaesthesia was performed with hyperbaric bupivacaine 0.5 p. cent (0.08 mg.cm-1 of height). Epidural anaesthesia was obtained with a bolus dose of 0.5 p. cent plain bupivacaine, followed by a continuous infusion through the epidural catheter until the level of surgical block reached T6 bilaterally. Bupivacaine was assayed in plasma by high performance liquid chromatography (HPLC). Following pharmacokinetic parameters of bupivacaine were determined: Cmax (maximal concentration), Tmax (time to reach maximum), AUC (area under curve), Cl (total plasma clearance), Vz (volume of distribution during the elimination phase), T1/2 (elimination half-life). Bupivacaine concentration was also measured in samples obtained at birth from umbilical vein and umbilical artery. The mean dose of bupivacaine used was 12.8 +/- 0.6 mg in the spinal group and 118.6 +/- 17.8 mg in the epidural group. The time of onset of surgical anaesthesia was significantly shorter with spinal anaesthesia (7.6 +/- 4.4 vs 31 +/- 11.1 min; p < 0.01). The sensory block had a longer duration in epidural group (223.2 +/- 15 vs 291 +/- 13.8; p < 0.001).(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS) A prospective randomized trial was organized to compare the effectiveness of general and regional anesthesia for cesarean section (C/S).
                Three hundred and forty-one patients were randomized into the general anesthesia group (GA), epidural anesthesia group (EA) and spinal anesthesia group (SA). The effectiveness of interest was success rate, blood loss and patient satisfaction.
                We found that the success rates of EA and SA were lower than GA. Success in EA should be improved by using an epidural catheter to add more local anesthetic drug instead of a single shot; and the surgeon should allow more time for the block to work adequately. Success in SA should be improved by using bupivacaine instead of lidocaine. GA resulted in significantly more blood loss, lower postoperative hematocrit, and higher proportion of patients who had postoperative hematocrit < 30 per cent than EA and SA. The patients' satisfaction scores were not different among the 3 techniques. This meant that, given adequate explanation and perioperative care, Thai women were satisfied with regional anesthesia.
                Regional anesthesia is a better choice of anesthesia for C/S than general anesthesia. However, the availability of different techniques and ability to change the technique when needed were very useful and important. If GA is chosen, all safety procedures must be followed. Oxygen supplement and endotracheal intubation facilities must be available in all techniques. Guidelines of anesthesia for C/S at a national level should be agreed upon, including the type of personnel, monitoring equipment and postoperative care. Ninety seven women undergoing elective lower segment caesarean section were randomly divided into two groups, group 1 received spinal anaesthesia with hyperbaric bupivacaine and group 2 received mepivacaine 20 mg/ml with adrenaline 5 microg/ml via an epidural catheter. All patients were given a preload of Ringer acetate and Macrodex prior to onset of anaesthesia. Ephedrine 5 mg was given if the systolic blood pressure fell below 100 mmHg. There was a small (<30%) but significant (P<0.01) fall in blood pressure in both groups of women. Six women in the epidural group required supplemental analgesics during the operation compared to only 1 patient in the spinal group (P<0.01). Muscle relaxation was judged to be inadequate in 3 patients in the spinal group and in 5 patients in the epidural group. One patient in the spinal group had a characteristic post-spinal headache lasting 3 days. The injection-delivery time was shorter (P<0.01) in the spinal group compared to the epidural group. The Apgar scores at 1 and 5 min were similar in both groups. The results from our study suggest that spinal anaesthesia is a good alternative to epidural anaesthesia for elective caesarean section. A fall in blood pressure, which is equally possible in both groups of patients, should be prevented by adequate fluid preload and treated immediately by intravenous ephedrine. In a randomized study, the incidence of visceral pain was evaluated in 46 patients undergoing elective caesarean section under spinal or epidural anaesthesia with 0.5% bupivacaine. If the patient experienced pain during the operation, a standard visual analogue scale ranging from 0 to 10 was used to assess the degree of pain. Visceral pain occurred in 12/23 patients in the spinal group and in 13/23 patients in the epidural group. In neither group was a correlation found between the cephalad level of analgesia or the intensity of cutaneous analgesia in the sacral region, and the presence of visceral pain. Hypothermia is likely to develop faster during spinal anesthesia than epidural anesthesia. A natural consequence of the rapid temperature decrease during spinal anesthesia is that the shivering threshold will be reached sooner and that more shivering will be required to prevent further hypothermia. We tested the hypotheses that the onset of hypothermia is more rapid and the onset and intensity of shivering earlier during spinal than epidural anesthesia.
                Patients undergoing cesarean delivery were randomly assigned to spinal anesthesia or epidural anesthesia. Spinal anesthesia was induced by injecting 2 mL 0.5% dibucaine into the L4-L5 interspace. Epidural anesthesia was induced with 20 mL 2% mepivacaine injected into the L2-L3 interspace. Thermal comfort and shivering were scored by a blinded observer.
                Fifteen patients given each type of anesthesia had upper sensory levels > or =T4 dermatome. Sensation was entirely absent from the leg during spinal anesthesia, but lower block levels were near S5 during epidural anesthesia. Tympanic membrane temperatures initially decreased faster during spinal anesthesia, but subsequently decreased at a rate of 0.5 degrees C/h in both groups. The onset and incidence of shivering (detected qualitatively) did not differ significantly between the two groups, but shivering intensity was significantly reduced during spinal anesthesia. Furthermore, the shivering thresholds were 36.4+/-0.3 degrees C (mean+/-SD) during spinal anesthesia versus 37.1+/-0.4 degrees C in those given epidural anesthesia (P=.006). There were no clinically important differences in thermal comfort with the two kinds of neuraxial anesthesia.
                We failed to confirm our hypothesis, but for an unexpected reason: Thermoregulation was impaired more by spinal anesthesia than epidural anesthesia. It seems likely that in our patients spinal anesthesia inhibited thermoregulatory control more than epidural anesthesia because it better blocked sensory input from the legs. In order to compare subarachnoid (spinal) and epidural block for caesarean section, 40 women were randomly allocated to spinal or epidural analgesia with bupivacaine. The median dose of bupivacaine was 13 mg in the spinal group versus 155 mg in the epidural group. The mean time from induction to delivery was 32 min shorter in the spinal group (P less than 0.001). In the spinal group one woman was excluded because of spontaneous labour. Three patients in the spinal and one in the epidural group failed to develop adequate analgesia to initiate surgery. For the remaining patients both techniques provided good analgesia during operation. Postoperatively, epidural block provided better pain relief. The patients in the epidural group had a lower pain score during the first 4 h after the operation (P less than 0.01). In spite of similar haemodynamic changes in the two groups, the mean base deficit in umbilical cord blood at delivery was higher in the spinal group (P less than 0.05).
Both spinal and epidural techniques are shown to provide effective anaesthesia for caesarean section. Both techniques are associated with moderate degrees of maternal satisfaction. Spinal anaesthesia has a shorter onset time, but treatment for hypotension is more likely if spinal anaesthesia is used. No conclusions can be drawn about intraoperative side-effects and postoperative complications because they were of low incidence and/or not reported.