紧急剖宫产术的麻醉:脊柱麻醉与全身麻醉对产妇和新生儿结局的比较

V. Obi, O. J. Umeora
{"title":"紧急剖宫产术的麻醉:脊柱麻醉与全身麻醉对产妇和新生儿结局的比较","authors":"V. Obi, O. J. Umeora","doi":"10.4103/ajmhs.ajmhs_33_18","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Despite the relative safety of cesarean section (CS), increasing CS rate is a cause for concern to obstetricians and anesthetists because of the attendant increased health risk one of which is the risk of anesthesia. The choice of anesthesia for cesarean section depends on the indication for the surgery, the urgency of intervention required, the maternal and/or fetal status, and the patient's desires. Despite the paradigm shift toward spinal anesthesia, general anesthesia is still commonly administered in our facility for some specific indications. Objective: This study was aimed to evaluate the maternal and neonatal outcomes in patients who had emergency CS under spinal anesthesia compared with those who had general anesthesia. Materials and Methods: This was a retrospective study comparing the obstetric outcome of patients who had emergency CS under spinal anesthesia compared with those who had the surgery under general anesthesia. Data analysis was done using statistical Epi Info version 7.2.1. Results: The most common indication for surgery in the spinal group was cephalopelvic disproportion while that for the general anesthesia group was antepartum hemorrhage/placenta previa. Patients who had spinal anesthesia had less intraoperative blood loss compared with those who had general anesthesia (814 ± 124 vs. 842 ± 324; P = 0.0007). There was a significant difference in the intraoperative blood loss >1000 ml among women who had spinal anesthesia relative to women who had general anesthesia (odds ratio [OR]: 0.6832, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.3390–0.9779; P = 0.0005). Spinal anesthesia was associated with a reduced risk of having a 1st-min Apgar score <7 (OR: 0.6096, 95% CI: 0.4066–0.9140; P = 0.016). There was no significant difference in the 5th-min Apgar score in both groups. There was also no significant difference in the number of neonates admitted into the Intensive Care Units. The maternal and perinatal mortality was not different in both groups. Conclusion: Spinal anesthesia was associated with reduced risk of blood loss and reduced risk of low Apgar score in the 1st min. There was no difference in the 5th-min Apgar score and maternal and neonatal mortality.","PeriodicalId":93249,"journal":{"name":"African journal of medical and health sciences","volume":"1 1","pages":"31 - 34"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"5","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Anesthesia for emergency cesarean section: A comparison of spinal versus general anesthesia on maternal and neonatal outcomes\",\"authors\":\"V. Obi, O. J. Umeora\",\"doi\":\"10.4103/ajmhs.ajmhs_33_18\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Background: Despite the relative safety of cesarean section (CS), increasing CS rate is a cause for concern to obstetricians and anesthetists because of the attendant increased health risk one of which is the risk of anesthesia. The choice of anesthesia for cesarean section depends on the indication for the surgery, the urgency of intervention required, the maternal and/or fetal status, and the patient's desires. Despite the paradigm shift toward spinal anesthesia, general anesthesia is still commonly administered in our facility for some specific indications. Objective: This study was aimed to evaluate the maternal and neonatal outcomes in patients who had emergency CS under spinal anesthesia compared with those who had general anesthesia. Materials and Methods: This was a retrospective study comparing the obstetric outcome of patients who had emergency CS under spinal anesthesia compared with those who had the surgery under general anesthesia. Data analysis was done using statistical Epi Info version 7.2.1. Results: The most common indication for surgery in the spinal group was cephalopelvic disproportion while that for the general anesthesia group was antepartum hemorrhage/placenta previa. Patients who had spinal anesthesia had less intraoperative blood loss compared with those who had general anesthesia (814 ± 124 vs. 842 ± 324; P = 0.0007). There was a significant difference in the intraoperative blood loss >1000 ml among women who had spinal anesthesia relative to women who had general anesthesia (odds ratio [OR]: 0.6832, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.3390–0.9779; P = 0.0005). Spinal anesthesia was associated with a reduced risk of having a 1st-min Apgar score <7 (OR: 0.6096, 95% CI: 0.4066–0.9140; P = 0.016). There was no significant difference in the 5th-min Apgar score in both groups. There was also no significant difference in the number of neonates admitted into the Intensive Care Units. The maternal and perinatal mortality was not different in both groups. Conclusion: Spinal anesthesia was associated with reduced risk of blood loss and reduced risk of low Apgar score in the 1st min. There was no difference in the 5th-min Apgar score and maternal and neonatal mortality.\",\"PeriodicalId\":93249,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"African journal of medical and health sciences\",\"volume\":\"1 1\",\"pages\":\"31 - 34\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2018-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"5\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"African journal of medical and health sciences\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.4103/ajmhs.ajmhs_33_18\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"African journal of medical and health sciences","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4103/ajmhs.ajmhs_33_18","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 5

摘要

背景:尽管剖宫产术相对安全,但剖宫产率的上升引起了产科医生和麻醉师的关注,因为剖宫产术会增加健康风险,其中之一就是麻醉风险。剖宫产手术麻醉的选择取决于手术指征、需要干预的紧急程度、产妇和/或胎儿状况以及患者的意愿。尽管向脊髓麻醉的模式转变,在我们的设施中,对于一些特定的适应症,全身麻醉仍然是常见的。目的:本研究旨在评价脊髓麻醉下急诊CS患者与全麻患者的母婴结局。材料和方法:这是一项回顾性研究,比较了脊髓麻醉下急诊CS患者与全身麻醉下手术患者的产科结局。数据分析使用统计Epi Info版本7.2.1完成。结果:脊柱组最常见的手术指征是头盆腔畸形,全麻组最常见的手术指征是产前出血/前置胎盘。腰麻组术中出血量比全麻组少(814±124∶842±324;P = 0.0007)。腰麻组与全麻组术中出血量bbb1000 ml差异有统计学意义(优势比[OR]: 0.6832, 95%可信区间[CI]: 0.3390-0.9779;P = 0.0005)。脊髓麻醉与首分钟Apgar评分<7的风险降低相关(OR: 0.6096, 95% CI: 0.4066-0.9140;P = 0.016)。两组患者第5分钟Apgar评分差异无统计学意义。新生儿入住重症监护病房的数量也没有显著差异。两组产妇死亡率和围产儿死亡率无显著差异。结论:脊髓麻醉可降低第1分钟出血量和低Apgar评分的风险,第5分钟Apgar评分和孕产妇及新生儿死亡率无差异。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Anesthesia for emergency cesarean section: A comparison of spinal versus general anesthesia on maternal and neonatal outcomes
Background: Despite the relative safety of cesarean section (CS), increasing CS rate is a cause for concern to obstetricians and anesthetists because of the attendant increased health risk one of which is the risk of anesthesia. The choice of anesthesia for cesarean section depends on the indication for the surgery, the urgency of intervention required, the maternal and/or fetal status, and the patient's desires. Despite the paradigm shift toward spinal anesthesia, general anesthesia is still commonly administered in our facility for some specific indications. Objective: This study was aimed to evaluate the maternal and neonatal outcomes in patients who had emergency CS under spinal anesthesia compared with those who had general anesthesia. Materials and Methods: This was a retrospective study comparing the obstetric outcome of patients who had emergency CS under spinal anesthesia compared with those who had the surgery under general anesthesia. Data analysis was done using statistical Epi Info version 7.2.1. Results: The most common indication for surgery in the spinal group was cephalopelvic disproportion while that for the general anesthesia group was antepartum hemorrhage/placenta previa. Patients who had spinal anesthesia had less intraoperative blood loss compared with those who had general anesthesia (814 ± 124 vs. 842 ± 324; P = 0.0007). There was a significant difference in the intraoperative blood loss >1000 ml among women who had spinal anesthesia relative to women who had general anesthesia (odds ratio [OR]: 0.6832, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.3390–0.9779; P = 0.0005). Spinal anesthesia was associated with a reduced risk of having a 1st-min Apgar score <7 (OR: 0.6096, 95% CI: 0.4066–0.9140; P = 0.016). There was no significant difference in the 5th-min Apgar score in both groups. There was also no significant difference in the number of neonates admitted into the Intensive Care Units. The maternal and perinatal mortality was not different in both groups. Conclusion: Spinal anesthesia was associated with reduced risk of blood loss and reduced risk of low Apgar score in the 1st min. There was no difference in the 5th-min Apgar score and maternal and neonatal mortality.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Management of ruptured pseudoaneurysm of the right common carotid artery in a resource-limited setting (Case report) Correlation of body mass index (BMI) with hematological indices and procoagulants among people with obesity in Sapele, Southern Nigeria Pattern of refractive errors in persons with albinism in two states of North-Western Nigeria Evaluation of patients with palliative care needs presenting at the Emergency Department, University College Hospital, Ibadan, Nigeria Relationship between renal ultrasonographic, CD4 cell count and proteinuria findings in HIV infected adult patients in Jos, Nigeria
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1