Literature DB >> 21925869

Neuraxial blockade for external cephalic version: a systematic review.

P Sultan1, B Carvalho.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The desire to decrease the number of cesarean deliveries has renewed interest in external cephalic version. The rationale for using neuraxial blockade to facilitate external cephalic version is to provide abdominal muscular relaxation and reduce patient discomfort during the procedure, so permitting successful repositioning of the fetus to a cephalic presentation. This review systematically examined the current evidence to determine the safety and efficacy of neuraxial anesthesia or analgesia when used for external cephalic version.
METHODS: A systematic literature review of studies that examined success rates of external cephalic version with neuraxial anesthesia was performed. Published articles written in English between 1945 and 2010 were identified using the Medline, Cochrane, EMBASE and Web of Sciences databases.
RESULTS: Six, randomized controlled studies were identified. Neuraxial blockade significantly improved the success rate in four of these six studies. A further six non-randomized studies were identified, of which four studies with control groups found that neuraxial blockade increased the success rate of external cephalic version. Despite over 850 patients being included in the 12 studies reviewed, placental abruption was reported in only one patient with a neuraxial block, compared with two in the control groups. The incidence of non-reassuring fetal heart rate requiring cesarean delivery in the anesthesia groups was 0.44% (95% CI 0.15-1.32).
CONCLUSIONS: Neuraxial blockade improved the likelihood of success during external cephalic version, although the dosing regimen that provides optimal conditions for successful version is unclear. Anesthetic rather than analgesic doses of local anesthetics may improve success. The findings suggest that neuraxial blockade does not compromise maternal or fetal safety during external cephalic version. Crown
Copyright © 2011. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21925869     DOI: 10.1016/j.ijoa.2011.07.001

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int J Obstet Anesth        ISSN: 0959-289X            Impact factor:   2.603


  6 in total

Review 1.  A Review of the Impact of Obstetric Anesthesia on Maternal and Neonatal Outcomes.

Authors:  Grace Lim; Francesca L Facco; Naveen Nathan; Jonathan H Waters; Cynthia A Wong; Holger K Eltzschig
Journal:  Anesthesiology       Date:  2018-07       Impact factor: 7.892

2.  Neuraxial blockade for external cephalic version: Cost analysis.

Authors:  Kelly Yamasato; Bliss Kaneshiro; Jennifer Salcedo
Journal:  J Obstet Gynaecol Res       Date:  2015-03-15       Impact factor: 1.730

3.  Reducing the cesarean delivery rates for breech presentations: administration of spinal anesthesia facilitates manipulation to cephalic presentation, but is it cost saving?

Authors:  Carolyn F Weiniger; Paul S Spencer; Yuval Weiss; Gary Ginsberg; Yossef Ezra
Journal:  Isr J Health Policy Res       Date:  2014-02-24

4.  Maternal outcomes of term breech presentation delivery: impact of successful external cephalic version in a nationwide sample of delivery admissions in the United States.

Authors:  Carolyn F Weiniger; Deirdre J Lyell; Lawrence C Tsen; Alexander J Butwick; BatZion Shachar; William M Callaghan; Andreea A Creanga; Brian T Bateman
Journal:  BMC Pregnancy Childbirth       Date:  2016-07-08       Impact factor: 3.007

5.  Remifentanil analgesia during external cephalic version for breech presentation in nulliparous women at term: A randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  Zhi-Hong Wang; Yi Yang; Gui-Ping Xu
Journal:  Medicine (Baltimore)       Date:  2017-03       Impact factor: 1.889

6.  A randomized trial of remifentanil for analgesia in external cephalic version for breech presentation.

Authors:  Xiaohua Liu; Aiqin Xue
Journal:  Medicine (Baltimore)       Date:  2016-12       Impact factor: 1.817

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.