Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2022 Jun 19;14(6):e26090.
doi: 10.7759/cureus.26090. eCollection 2022 Jun.

Effects of Epidural Analgesia on Labor Pain and Course of Labor in Primigravid Parturients: A Prospective Non-randomized Comparative Study

Dipika Deepak  1 , Archana Kumari  1 , Rajat Mohanty  2 , Jay Prakash  3 , Tushar Kumar  4 , Shio Priye  4
Affiliations

Effects of Epidural Analgesia on Labor Pain and Course of Labor in Primigravid Parturients: A Prospective Non-randomized Comparative Study

Dipika Deepak et al. Cureus. .

Abstract

Background and aim: The aim of this study was to compare the effects of epidural analgesia on relief of labor pain, progress, and outcome of labor in primigravid parturients to those who did not receive any analgesia.

Methods: This was a hospital-based, quasi-experimental study conducted on 70 primigravid parturients at term with a single fetus in a cephalic presentation in active labor. Parturients who were willing to receive epidural analgesia formed group S (n=35) and parturients who refused epidural analgesia formed group C (n=35). The primary objective was to compare alleviation of pain measured by the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) score. Secondary objectives were to compare the duration of labor, mode of delivery, and neonatal outcome.

Results: Pain intensity was significantly lower in group S compared to group C at all measured points of time (p<0.001). There was a quick fall in mean VAS score in group S from 7.94 to 3.86 within 20 min with the bolus dose, it further dropped to 1.03 after 3 h. Further, 88.6% of parturients in groups rated their pain relief as excellent and good satisfaction score. Prolongation of active phase of the first stage of labor (>6 h) was not significant (17.1 % in epidural group versus 5.7% in control group; p=0.259). However, prolongation of the second stage of labor (> 2h) was significant (18.2% in study group versus 0% in control group; p=0.024). The rate of cesarean section, instrumental vaginal delivery, and neonatal outcome was similar in both groups. No adverse effects were observed on maternal vitals, fetal heart rate and Apgar score at 5 min.

Conclusion: Epidural analgesia alleviated labor pain in all primigravid parturients who opted for it, without an increase in cesarean section and instrumental vaginal birth. Improved parturients' satisfaction with associated neonatal safety provides a positive birth experience. There was no effect on duration of active phase of the first stage of labor, but the duration of the second stage of labor was slightly prolonged.

Keywords: comparision; cousre of labor; epidural analgesia; labor pain; primigravid parturients.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1. Parturient satisfaction score in study (epidural analgesia) group
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Epidural analgesia for labor: current techniques. Silva M, Halpern SH. Local Reg Anesth. 2010;3:143–153. - PMC - PubMed
    1. The effects of epidural analgesia on labor, maternal, and neonatal outcomes: a systematic review. Leighton BL, Halpern SH. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12011873/ Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2002;186:69–77. - PubMed
    1. Epidural versus non-epidural or no analgesia in labour. Anim-Somuah M, Smyth R, Howell C. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2005;331 - PubMed
    1. Update on best available options in obstetrics anaesthesia: perinatal outcomes, side effects and maternal satisfaction. Fifteen years systematic literature review. Gizzo S, Noventa M, Fagherazzi S, et al. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2014;290:21–34. - PubMed
    1. Obstetric anesthesia workforce survey: a 30-year update. Traynor AJ, Aragon M, Ghosh D, Choi RS, Dingmann C, Vu Tran Z, Bucklin BA. AnesthAnalg. 2016;122:1939–1946. - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources