General versus spinal anaesthesia for elective caesarean sections: effects on neonatal short-term outcome. A prospective randomised study
- PMID: 20088721
- DOI: 10.3109/14767050903572158
General versus spinal anaesthesia for elective caesarean sections: effects on neonatal short-term outcome. A prospective randomised study
Abstract
Objective: To compare neonatal short-term outcome in patients who underwent spinal, general anaesthesia and conversion from spinal to general anaesthesia.
Methods: One hundred seventy-nine pregnant women undergoing elective caesarean section were allocated randomly to general (n=89) or spinal anaesthesia (n=90) and compared with 63 patients who required conversion to general anaesthesia. Umbilical cord artery pH, Apgar score as well as its individual parameter and need for assisted ventilation were evaluated.
Results: No differences were found in pH values (p=0.35), while the need for assisted ventilation differed significantly (p=0.001). The rate of depressed newborns was 1.1% in the spinal group, 25.9% in the general group and 12.7% in the conversion group with a significant difference for all comparisons. At 5-min, all newborns were vigorous. At 1 min, a higher score for each parameter was found in spinal group with respect to general group, while 'activity', 'grimace' and 'respiration' showed a higher score in conversion group than in general group. At 5 min, a difference was found only for 'activity'.
Conclusions: All kinds of anaesthesia seem to be safe, but loco-regional blockade shows more advantages on the neonatal outcome also when a conversion is necessary.
Similar articles
-
Neonatal wellbeing after elective caesarean delivery with general, spinal, and epidural anaesthesia.Eur J Anaesthesiol. 1993 May;10(3):175-81. Eur J Anaesthesiol. 1993. PMID: 8495679
-
Spinal and epidural versus general anesthesia for elective cesarean section at term: effect on the acid-base status of the mother and newborn.J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2003 Apr;13(4):260-6. doi: 10.1080/jmf.13.4.260.266. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2003. PMID: 12854928 Clinical Trial.
-
[Combined spinal-epidural anesthesia for cesarean section].Ugeskr Laeger. 1993 Sep 6;155(36):2811-4. Ugeskr Laeger. 1993. PMID: 8236552 Danish.
-
[Anaesthesia for Caesarean section].Tidsskr Nor Laegeforen. 2010 Apr 8;130(7):748-51. doi: 10.4045/tidsskr.08.0282. Tidsskr Nor Laegeforen. 2010. PMID: 20379338 Review. Norwegian.
-
[The risks of anesthesia in obstetric interventions].Anaesthesiol Reanim. 1994;19(4):88-94. Anaesthesiol Reanim. 1994. PMID: 7945707 Review. German.
Cited by
-
Spinal versus general anesthesia for Cesarean section in patients with sickle cell anemia.Korean J Anesthesiol. 2015 Oct;68(5):469-75. doi: 10.4097/kjae.2015.68.5.469. Epub 2015 Sep 30. Korean J Anesthesiol. 2015. PMID: 26495057 Free PMC article.
-
Maternal and fetal outcomes following unplanned conversion to general anesthetic at elective cesarean section.J Perinatol. 2015 Sep;35(9):695-9. doi: 10.1038/jp.2015.62. Epub 2015 Jun 11. J Perinatol. 2015. PMID: 26067473 Free PMC article.
-
[Recent standards in management of obstetric anesthesia].Wien Med Wochenschr. 2017 Nov;167(15-16):374-389. doi: 10.1007/s10354-017-0584-0. Epub 2017 Jul 25. Wien Med Wochenschr. 2017. PMID: 28744777 Review. German.
-
Regional versus general anaesthesia for caesarean section.Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012 Oct 17;10(10):CD004350. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD004350.pub3. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012. PMID: 23076903 Free PMC article.
-
Evaluation of basal rate infusion in intravenous patient-controlled analgesia for post-cesarean section pain management: A randomized pilot study.Medicine (Baltimore). 2024 Feb 23;103(8):e37122. doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000037122. Medicine (Baltimore). 2024. PMID: 38394544 Free PMC article. Clinical Trial.
Publication types
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Medical