D H Choi1, J A Kim, I S Chung. 1. Department of Anesthesiology, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.
Abstract
BACKGROUND:Epidural anesthesia (EA) is popular for cesarean section, but has some drawbacks such as incomplete block, inadequate muscle relaxation and delayed onset. Combined spinal epidural anesthesia (CSEA) has gained increasing interest as it combines the reliability of a spinal block and the flexibility of an epidural block. We investigated the efficacy of CSEA that combines the main spinal and the supporting epidural anesthesia, comparing with pH-adjusted EA, for cesarean section. METHODS:Sixty-four pregnant women at full term were divided into two groups. Patients in the CSEA group (n=32) were given 1.5-1.6 ml of 0.5% hyperbaric bupivacaine intrathecally, followed by 10 ml of 0.25% plain bupivacaine through the epidural catheter 10 min later. Patients in the EA group (n=32) received 20-25 ml of 2% lidocaine which was already mixed with 0.1 ml of 0.1% epinephrine, 100 g of fentanyl and 1.5 ml of 8.4% sodium bicarbonate. The quality and side effects of surgical anesthesia, neonatal state, and postoperative course were compared between the two groups. RESULTS: In the EA group, 22% (7 cases) complained of intraoperative pain but none in the CSEA group (P=0.011). Muscle relaxation and motor block were much better in the CSEA group (P<0.001 and P=0.011 each). Significantly more women in the EA group had shivering (P=0.001). They also had more nausea and vomiting but the differences were not significant. Not only the time to T4 block (9.7 vs. 18.3 min, mean, P<0.001) but also the stay in the postanesthesia care unit, recovery of sensory and motor block and start of postoperative pain were all significantly shorter in the CSEA group. No one in either group had postdural puncture headache (PDPH). CONCLUSION: We can conclude that, when combining the main spinal and the supporting epidural anesthesia, CSEA has greater efficacy and fewer side effects than the pH-adjusted EA in cesarean sections.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Epidural anesthesia (EA) is popular for cesarean section, but has some drawbacks such as incomplete block, inadequate muscle relaxation and delayed onset. Combined spinal epidural anesthesia (CSEA) has gained increasing interest as it combines the reliability of a spinal block and the flexibility of an epidural block. We investigated the efficacy of CSEA that combines the main spinal and the supporting epidural anesthesia, comparing with pH-adjusted EA, for cesarean section. METHODS: Sixty-four pregnant women at full term were divided into two groups. Patients in the CSEA group (n=32) were given 1.5-1.6 ml of 0.5% hyperbaric bupivacaine intrathecally, followed by 10 ml of 0.25% plain bupivacaine through the epidural catheter 10 min later. Patients in the EA group (n=32) received 20-25 ml of 2% lidocaine which was already mixed with 0.1 ml of 0.1% epinephrine, 100 g of fentanyl and 1.5 ml of 8.4% sodium bicarbonate. The quality and side effects of surgical anesthesia, neonatal state, and postoperative course were compared between the two groups. RESULTS: In the EA group, 22% (7 cases) complained of intraoperative pain but none in the CSEA group (P=0.011). Muscle relaxation and motor block were much better in the CSEA group (P<0.001 and P=0.011 each). Significantly more women in the EA group had shivering (P=0.001). They also had more nausea and vomiting but the differences were not significant. Not only the time to T4 block (9.7 vs. 18.3 min, mean, P<0.001) but also the stay in the postanesthesia care unit, recovery of sensory and motor block and start of postoperative pain were all significantly shorter in the CSEA group. No one in either group had postdural puncture headache (PDPH). CONCLUSION: We can conclude that, when combining the main spinal and the supporting epidural anesthesia, CSEA has greater efficacy and fewer side effects than the pH-adjusted EA in cesarean sections.
Authors: Chandrakala P Gunda; Jennifer Malinowski; Aruna Tegginmath; Venkatesh G Suryanarayana; Sathees B C Chandra Journal: Arch Med Sci Date: 2010-04-30 Impact factor: 3.318