Kaouther Dimassi1,2, Ahmed Halouani1,2, Amine Kammoun1, Olivier Ami3, Benedicte Simon4, Luka Velemir5, Denis Fauck6, Amel Triki1,2. 1. Obstetrics and Gynecology Department, Mongi Slim University Hospital, La Marsa, Tunisia. 2. Faculty of Medicine, University Tunis El Manar, Tunis, Tunisia. 3. Ramsay Healthcare France, La Muette, Paris, France. 4. Ramsay Healthcare France, Les Franciscaines, Versailles, France. 5. Lenval Foundation Polyclinique Santa Maria, Nice, France. 6. Ramsay Healthcare France, Saint Lambert, La Garenne-Colombes, France.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine whether the French AmbUlatory Cesarean Section (FAUCS) technique reduces postoperative pain and promotes maternal autonomy compared with the Misgav Ladach cesarean section (MLCS) technique in elective conditions. STUDY DESIGN:One hundred pregnant women were randomly, but in a non-blinded manner, assigned to undergo FAUCS or MLCS. The primary outcome was a postoperative mean pain score (PMPS), and secondary outcomes were a combined pain/medication score, time to regain autonomy, surgical duration, calculated blood loss, surgical complications, and neonatal outcome. RESULTS: Women in the FAUCS group experienced less pain than those in the MLCS group (PMPS = 1.87 [1.04-2.41] vs. 2.93 [2.46-3.75], respectively; p < 0.001). Six hours after surgery, the combined pain/medication score for FAUCS patients was 33% lower than that for MLCS patients (p < 0.001). FAUCS patients more rapidly regained autonomy, with 94% reaching autonomy within 12 h vs. 4% of MLCS patients (p < 0.001). There were no differences in maternal surgical or neonatal complications between groups. CONCLUSIONS: Our results indicate that FAUCS can reduce postoperative pain and accelerate recovery, suggesting that this technique might be superior to MLCS and should be more widely used. One potentially key difference between FAUCS and MLCS is that MLCS includes 100 mcg spinal morphine anesthesia in addition to the same anesthesia used by FAUCS. Any interpretation of apparent differences must take the presence/absence of morphine into account.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: To determine whether the French AmbUlatory Cesarean Section (FAUCS) technique reduces postoperative pain and promotes maternal autonomy compared with the Misgav Ladach cesarean section (MLCS) technique in elective conditions. STUDY DESIGN: One hundred pregnant women were randomly, but in a non-blinded manner, assigned to undergo FAUCS or MLCS. The primary outcome was a postoperative mean pain score (PMPS), and secondary outcomes were a combined pain/medication score, time to regain autonomy, surgical duration, calculated blood loss, surgical complications, and neonatal outcome. RESULTS:Women in the FAUCS group experienced less pain than those in the MLCS group (PMPS = 1.87 [1.04-2.41] vs. 2.93 [2.46-3.75], respectively; p < 0.001). Six hours after surgery, the combined pain/medication score for FAUCS patients was 33% lower than that for MLCS patients (p < 0.001). FAUCS patients more rapidly regained autonomy, with 94% reaching autonomy within 12 h vs. 4% of MLCS patients (p < 0.001). There were no differences in maternal surgical or neonatal complications between groups. CONCLUSIONS: Our results indicate that FAUCS can reduce postoperative pain and accelerate recovery, suggesting that this technique might be superior to MLCS and should be more widely used. One potentially key difference between FAUCS and MLCS is that MLCS includes 100 mcg spinal morphine anesthesia in addition to the same anesthesia used by FAUCS. Any interpretation of apparent differences must take the presence/absence of morphine into account.
Authors: A Katsulov; K Nedialkov; Zh Koleva; M Iankov; B Tashkov; T Iotov; K Kirov; M Genov; P Rusinov; Zh Doncheva; I Grŭncharov Journal: Akush Ginekol (Sofiia) Date: 2000
Authors: Carmen Tappauf; Eva Schest; Philipp Reif; Uwe Lang; Karl Tamussino; Wolfgang Schoell Journal: Am J Obstet Gynecol Date: 2013-05-30 Impact factor: 8.661
Authors: Olivier Ami; Jean Christophe Maran; Petra Gabor; Eric B Whitacre; Dominique Musset; Claude Dubray; Gérard Mage; Louis Boyer Journal: PLoS One Date: 2019-05-15 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: David R A Reyes; Angelica M P Barbosa; Marilza V C Rudge; Iracema I M P Calderon; Floriano F Juliana; Quiroz B C V Sofia; Sarah M B Costa; Raghavendra L S Hallur; Eusebio M A Enriquez; Rafael G Oliveira; Patricia de Souza Rossignolli; Cristiane Rodrigues Pedroni; Fernanda C B Alves; Gabriela A Garcia; Joelcio F Abbade; Carolina N F Carvalho; Luis Sobrevia Journal: Biomed Eng Online Date: 2022-10-14 Impact factor: 3.903