Regional Versus General Anaesthesia for Caesarean Section : Changing Perspectives
Keywords:
Caesarean section, Spinal anaesthesia, General anaesthesia, ObstetricsAbstract
Worldwide the number of caesarean section has increased over the years. Hence it has become a greater challenge to provide care for the parturient and the anaesthesiologist has got a greater opportunity to contribute to obstetric services. Regional anaesthesia is increasingly used for elective & emergency caesarean sections & considered to be safer than general anaesthesia. We present some factors that are important to consider when choosing the anaesthetic method for caesarean section. Both regional and general anaesthesia may be employed for caesarean section. Each is relatively safe and they have their own advantages and disadvantages. Actual decision to adopt one technique over another depends on maternal and foetal status and skill and ability of the anaesthesiologist to tackle the situation with the aim of patient and baby safety.
Downloads
References
American college of obstetrics and gynaecologists. Issues in Women’s Health media kit. Washington, DC, 1998. cesarean delivery.
Deep R. In: GabbeS, NiebyIJR, editors. Obstetrics: normal and problem pregnancies. 3rd edition. New York, Churchill livingstone, 2002: 538-606.
Lucas N, Nel MR, Robinson PN. The Anaesthetic classification of cesarean sections. Anaesthesia 1996, 51: 791-2.
Shroff R, Thompson ACD, McCrum A, Rees SGO Prospective Multidisciplinary audit of obstetric general anaesthesia in a district general hospital. J Obstet Gynaecol 2004;6: 641-6.
Kennedy BW,Thorp JM, Fitch W, Millar K. The theatre environment and the awake patient. J Obstet Gynaecol 1992; 12: 407-411.
Ying LC, Levy V, Shan CO, Hung TW, Wah WK. A qualitative study of the perceptions of Hong Kong Chinese women during caesarean section under regional anaesthesia. Midwifery 2001;17: 115-22.
Shibli KU, Russell IF. A survey of anaesthetic techniques used for caesarean section in the UK in 1997. Int J Obstet Anesth 2000;9: 160-7.
Riley ET, Cohen SE, Macario A, Desai JB, Ratner EF Spinal versus epidural anesthesia for cesarean section: a comparison of time efficiency, costs, charges and complications. Anesth Analg 1995;80: 709-12.
Davies SJ, Paech MJ, Welch H, Evans SF, Pavy T JG, Marernal experience during epidural or combined spinal epidural anesthesia for cesarean section: a prospective randomized trial. Anesth Analg 1997;85: 607-13.
Morgan PJ, Halpern S, Lam-McCulloch J. Comparison of maternal satisfaction between epidural and spinal anesthesia for elective Cesarean section. Can J Anaesth2000;47: 956-61.
Warren, D.T. & Liu, S. S. (2008). Neuraxial anesthesia . in D.E. Longnecker et al (eds) Anesthesiology. New York: McGraw-Hill Medical.
Morrison J D, McGrady E M. Postoperative pain relief. Chapter in: Reynolds F (ed). Regional analgesia in obstetrics: a millennium update. London: Springer-Verlag, 2000.
Graham D, Russell IF, A double-blind assessment of the analgesic sparing effect of intrathecal diamorphine (0.3mg) with spinal anaesthesia for elective caesarean section. Int J Obstet Anesth 1997;6: 224-30.
Husaini SW, Russell IF. Intrathecal diamorphine compared with morphine for postoperative analgesia after Caesarean section under spinal anaesthesia. Br J Anaesth 1998;81: 135-9.
Van de Velde M. What is the best way to provide postoperative pain therapy after caesarean section? Curr Opinion Anaesthesiology 2000;13: 267-70.
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
