Literature DB >> 11032269

Comparison of maternal satisfaction between epidural and spinal anesthesia for elective Cesarean section.

P J Morgan1, S Halpern, J Lam-McCulloch.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: Epidural anesthesia was a commonly used technique for elective Cesarean section. Recently, because of the availability of non-cutting spinal needles, many institutions have changed from epidural to spinal anesthesia. The purpose of this study was to compare maternal satisfaction between epidural and spinal anesthesia for elective Cesarean section with a new satisfaction tool.
METHODS: We studied healthy parturients in a randomized, double-blinded pilot study in which patients were assigned to receive either epidural (n = 13) or spinal (n = 14) anesthesia for elective Cesarean section. Two and 24 hr postoperatively, patients completed a validated 22-point maternal satisfaction questionnaire and a 10-cm visual analog score (VAS) for satisfaction. Maternal satisfaction scores were compared between groups.
RESULTS: There was no difference in demographics, complications or technical failures between groups. Mean satisfaction scores on the questionnaire (0-154) at two and 24 hr were 130.23 +/- 11.36 and 129.54 +/- 16.70 for the epidural group and 116.92 +/- 18.47 and 115.92 +/- 15.71 for the spinal group (P = 0.04 and P = 0.03 respectively). No difference in VAS scores was noted. The presence of minor side effects including pruritus contributed to the lower satisfaction in the spinal group at 24 hr.
CONCLUSION: This pilot study demonstrated higher maternal satisfaction with epidural than with spinal anesthesia for elective Cesarean section. This may be related to the increased side effects caused by neuraxial morphine. The satisfaction questionnaire was able to elucidate differences not detected with a global VAS for satisfaction. Further study with a larger patient population is required to confirm these data.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2000        PMID: 11032269     DOI: 10.1007/BF03024865

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Can J Anaesth        ISSN: 0832-610X            Impact factor:   5.063


  9 in total

Review 1.  [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

2.  Toward the validation of visual analogue scale for anxiety.

Authors:  E Facco; G Zanette; L Favero; C Bacci; S Sivolella; F Cavallin; G Manani
Journal:  Anesth Prog       Date:  2011

3.  Perception of anesthesia safety and postoperative symptoms of surgery patients in Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam: a pioneering trial of postoperative care assessment in a developing nation.

Authors:  Kumiko Soejima; Aya Goto; Phan Ton Ngoc Vu; Le Huu Thien Bien; Nguyen Quang Vinh; Pham Nghiem Minh; Gautam A Deshpande; Seiji Yasumura; Akira Fukao
Journal:  Environ Health Prev Med       Date:  2010-05-08       Impact factor: 3.674

4.  [Unusual complication after combined spinal/epidural anaesthesia].

Authors:  W Leidinger; J N Meierhofer; V Ullrich
Journal:  Anaesthesist       Date:  2003-08       Impact factor: 1.041

Review 5.  Measures of satisfaction with care during labour and birth: a comparative review.

Authors:  Alexandra Sawyer; Susan Ayers; Jane Abbott; Gillian Gyte; Heike Rabe; Lelia Duley
Journal:  BMC Pregnancy Childbirth       Date:  2013-05-08       Impact factor: 3.007

6.  Premedication with midazolam prior to cesarean delivery in preeclamptic parturients: A randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  Ali M Mokhtar; Ahmed I Elsakka; Hassan M Ali
Journal:  Anesth Essays Res       Date:  2016 Sep-Dec

7.  Factors associated with anesthetic satisfaction after cesarean delivery under neuraxial anesthesia.

Authors:  Mitsuru Ida; Junko Enomoto; Yumiko Yamamoto; Hiroki Onodera; Masahiko Kawaguchi
Journal:  JA Clin Rep       Date:  2018-09-10

8.  Metoclopramide and Propofol to Prevent Nausea and Vomiting during Cesarean Section under Spinal Anesthesia: A Randomized, Placebo-Controlled, Double-Blind Trial.

Authors:  Zhirajr Mokini; Valentina Genocchio; Patrice Forget; Flavia Petrini
Journal:  J Clin Med       Date:  2021-12-26       Impact factor: 4.241

Review 9.  Spinal versus epidural anaesthesia for caesarean section.

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

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.