Literature DB >> 10087737

Effects of general and regional anesthesia on the neonate (a prospective, randomized trial).

T Kolatat1, A Somboonnanonda, J Lertakyamanee, T Chinachot, T Tritrakarn, J Muangkasem.   

Abstract

UNLABELLED: Anesthetic methods used during cesarean section have advantages and disadvantages to both mothers and infants and may result in short and long term neonatal effects.
OBJECTIVE: To determine the effects of general and regional anesthesia on the infants, a prospective, randomized trial was performed in Siriraj Hospital, Mahidol University. MATERIAL AND
METHOD: 341 uncomplicated pregnant women who were to be delivered at term by Cesarean section were recruited and randomized to receive general anesthesia, GA (103); epidural anesthesia, EA (120) and spinal anesthesia, SA (118). The immediate fetal and neonatal effects were assessed by cord blood gas analysis and the infant's Apgar scores. The Neurologic and Adaptive Capacity Scores (NACS) was performed within 4 hours after birth by two pediatricians who were blind to the anesthetic method. RESULT: Maternal age, weight, height, duration of the operation and infants' birth weight were not different among the study groups. In the EA and SA group, maternal systolic blood pressure decreased more than 20 per cent from the baseline in more than half. The infants' Apgar scores at 1 and 5 minutes were 8.3 +/- 1.9; 8.2 +/- 1.6; 6.7 +/- 2.8, and 9.7 +/- 0.9; 9.8 +/- 0.7; 9.2 +/- 1.6 in EA, SA and GA group respectively. The adaptive capacity, active tone, passive tone, general assessment and primary reflexes of the NACS were not statistically different.
CONCLUSION: Apgar scores of the infants whose mothers received general anesthesia were lower than infants whose mothers received regional anesthesia but the NACS were not statistically different among the three study groups.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1999        PMID: 10087737

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Med Assoc Thai        ISSN: 0125-2208


  8 in total

1.  National cross sectional survey to determine whether the decision to delivery interval is critical in emergency caesarean section.

Authors:  Jane Thomas; Shantini Paranjothy; David James
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2004-03-15

Review 2.  Determinants of neonatal blood pressure.

Authors:  Alison L Kent; Tejasvi Chaudhari
Journal:  Curr Hypertens Rep       Date:  2013-10       Impact factor: 5.369

Review 3.  [Recent standards in management of obstetric anesthesia].

Authors:  Maximiliaan van Erp; Clemens Ortner; Stefan Jochberger; Klaus Ulrich Klein
Journal:  Wien Med Wochenschr       Date:  2017-07-25

Review 4.  Neuraxial blockade for the prevention of postoperative mortality and major morbidity: an overview of Cochrane systematic reviews.

Authors:  Joanne Guay; Peter Choi; Santhanam Suresh; Natalie Albert; Sandra Kopp; Nathan Leon Pace
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2014-01-25

Review 5.  Regional anaesthesia in pre-eclampsia: advantages and disadvantages.

Authors:  Nanda Gopal Mandal; Sridhar Surapaneni
Journal:  Drugs       Date:  2004       Impact factor: 9.546

Review 6.  Spinal versus epidural anaesthesia for caesarean section.

Authors:  K Ng; J Parsons; A M Cyna; P Middleton
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2004

7.  Efficacy of ondansetron for spinal anesthesia during cesarean section: a meta-analysis of randomized trials.

Authors:  Chengmao Zhou; Yu Zhu; Zeqing Bao; Xianxue Wang; Qili Liu
Journal:  J Int Med Res       Date:  2017-08-31       Impact factor: 1.671

8.  Anesthesia for Cesarean Section in Parturients with Abnormal Placentation: A Retrospective Study.

Authors:  Orhan Binici; Evren Büyükfırat
Journal:  Cureus       Date:  2019-06-29
  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.