Maternal experience during epidural or combined spinal-epidural anesthesia for cesarean section: a prospective, randomized trial

[Recent standards in management of obstetric anesthesia]

The following article contains information not only for the clinical working anaesthesiologist, but also for other specialists involved in obstetric affairs. Besides a synopsis of a German translation of the current "Practice Guidelines for Obstetric Anaesthesia 2016" [1], written by the American Society of Anesthesiologists, the authors provide personal information regarding major topics of obstetric anaesthesia including pre-anaesthesia patient evaluation, equipment and staff at the delivery room, use of general anaesthesia, peridural analgesia, spinal anaesthesia, combined spinal-epidural anaesthesia, single shot spinal anaesthesia, and programmed intermittent epidural bolus.

Comparison of saddle, lumbar epidural and caudal blocks on anal sphincter tone: A prospective, randomized study

Objective

To compare the effects of saddle, lumbar epidural and caudal blocks on anal sphincter tone using anorectal manometry.

Methods

Patients undergoing elective anorectal surgery with regional anaesthesia were divided randomly into three groups and received a saddle (SD), lumbar epidural (LE), or caudal (CD) block. Anorectal manometry was performed before and 30 min after each regional block. The degree of motor blockade of the anal sphincter was compared using the maximal resting pressure (MRP) and the maximal squeezing pressure (MSP).

Results

The study analysis population consisted of 49 patients (SD group, n = 18; LE group, n = 16; CD group, n = 15). No significant differences were observed in the percentage inhibition of the MRP among the three regional anaesthetic groups. However, percentage inhibition of the MSP was significantly greater in the SD group (83.6 ± 13.7%) compared with the LE group (58.4 ± 19.8%) and the CD group (47.8 ± 16.9%). In all groups, MSP was reduced significantly more than MRP after each regional block.

Conclusions

Saddle block was more effective than lumbar epidural or caudal block for depressing anal sphincter tone. No differences were detected between lumbar epidural and caudal blocks.

Sufentanil and Bupivacaine Combination versus Bupivacaine Alone for Spinal Anesthesia during Cesarean Delivery: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Trials

Objective

The addition of lipophilic opioids to local anesthetics for spinal anesthesia has become a widely used strategy for cesarean anesthesia. A meta-analysis to quantify the benefits and risks of combining sufentanil with bupivacaine for patients undergoing cesarean delivery was conducted.

Methods

A comprehensive literature search without language or date limitation was performed to identify clinical trials that compared the addition of sufentanil to bupivacaine with bupivacaine alone for spinal anesthesia in healthy parturients choosing cesarean delivery. The Q and I² tests were used to assess heterogeneity of the data. Data from each trial were combined using relative ratios (RRs) for dichotomous data or weighted mean differences (WMDs) for continuous data and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) for each trial. Sensitivity analysis was conducted by removing one study a time to assess the quality and consistency of the results. Begg’s funnel plots and Egger’s linear regression test were used to detect any publication bias.

Results

This study included 9 trials containing 578 patients in the final meta-analysis. Sufentanil addition provided a better analgesia quality with less breakthrough pain during surgery than bupivacaine alone (RR = 0.10, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.18, P < 0.001). Sensory block onset time was shorter and first analgesic request time was longer in sufentanil added group compared with the bupivacaine-alone group (WMD = −1.0 min, 95% CI −1.5 to −0.58, P < 0.001 and WMD = 133 min, 95% CI 75 to 213, P < 192, respectively). There was no significant difference in the risk of hypotension and vomiting between these two groups. But pruritus was more frequentely reported in the group with sufentanil added (RR = 7.63, 95% CI 3.85 to 15.12, P < 0.001).

Conclusion

Bupivacaine and sufentanil combination is superior to that of bupivacaine alone for spinal anesthesia for cesarean delivery in analgesia quality. Women receiving the combined two drugs had less breakthrough pain, shorter sensory block onset time, and longer first analgesic request time. However, the addition of sufentanil to bupivacaine increased the incidence of pruritus.

Cardiac arrest in a case of undiagnosed dilated cardiomyopathy patient presenting for emergency cesarean section

Cardiac diseases in the pregnancy pose a multitude of challenges to the obstetricians as well as anesthesiologists. Cardiac pregnant patients presenting for emergency cesarean section do not give time for cardiac optimization and stabilization if they come to the hospital for the first time without any antenatal check-up. The situation can get worse if there is no history related to the decompensated cardiac tissue with asymptomatic gestation and also if the relatives hide all the facts from the doctor about any past cardiac history. We report a case of term pregnancy for emergency cesarean section with asymptomatic dilated cardiomyopathy, which developed severe ventricular arrhythmias and cardiac arrest during the surgical procedure. She was resuscitated successfully on the operation table and was shifted to Intensive Care Unit for further management. The diagnosis of dilated cardiomyopathy was made only after carrying out echocardiography in the postoperative period. The history of previous cardiac complaints was not revealed purposefully by the relatives to avoid the expenses which they would have incurred on investigations and treatment of cardiac ailment.

A comparison of the lateral, Oxford and sitting positions for performing combined spinal-epidural anaesthesia for elective Caesarean section

One hundred women were randomly allocated to the left lateral, Oxford or sitting position for induction of combined spinal-epidural anaesthesia for Caesarean section using 2.5 ml hyperbaric bupivacaine 0.5% and 10 mug fentanyl. Women in the left lateral were then turned to the right lateral position; women in the Oxford position were turned to the same position on their opposite side; and women in the sitting group were turned to the supine left tilt position. Women remained in these positions until ready for surgery, which was conducted in the supine position with a wedge placed under the right hip. Ephedrine requirements before re-positioning for surgery were less in the sitting position than in the other two positions: median (IQR [range]) doses for the lateral, Oxford and sitting groups were 21 (12-30 [6-48]), 18 (7.5-24 [6-48]) and 12 (6-21 [6-42]) mg, respectively; p = 0.04. Sensory block to touch sensation at the T5 dermatomal level was most quickly achieved in the lateral position with median (IQR [range]) block onset times for the lateral, Oxford and sitting groups of 9 (6-13 [4-30]), 15.5 (9-22 [4-34]) and 14 (9-18[6-36]) min, respectively; p = 0.004. In the Oxford position, more epidural catheters required dosing to achieve a sensory block of T5 before surgery: the number of patients (proportion) bolused in the lateral, Oxford and sitting groups was 1 (3%), 7 (22%) and 1 (3%), respectively; p = 0.01. We did not demonstrate any advantage in using the Oxford position for combined spinal-epidural anaesthesia for elective Caesarean section.

Difficult airway in obstetric anesthesia: a review

Failed intubation and ventilation are important causes of anesthetic-related maternal mortality. The purpose of this article is to review the complex issues in managing the difficult airway in obstetric patients. The importance of prompt and competent decision making in managing difficult airways, as well as a need for appropriate equipment is emphasized. Four case reports reinforce the importance of a systematic approach to management. The overall preference for regional rather than general anesthesia is strongly encouraged. The review also emphasizes the need for professional and experienced team cooperation between the obstetrician and the anesthesiologist for the successful management of these challenging cases.

LEARNING OBJECTIVES

After completion of this article, the reader will be able to break down the complex issues in managing the difficult airway in the obstetric patient, outline the reasons for difficult intubations in pregnancy, and describe the evaluation used to predict a difficult intubation.

Comparison of combined spinal epidural anesthesia and epidural anesthesia for cesarean section

BACKGROUND

Epidural anesthesia (EA) is popular for cesarean section, but has some drawbacks such as incomplete block, inadequate muscle relaxation and delayed onset. Combined spinal epidural anesthesia (CSEA) has gained increasing interest as it combines the reliability of a spinal block and the flexibility of an epidural block. We investigated the efficacy of CSEA that combines the main spinal and the supporting epidural anesthesia, comparing with pH-adjusted EA, for cesarean section.

METHODS

Sixty-four pregnant women at full term were divided into two groups. Patients in the CSEA group (n=32) were given 1.5-1.6 ml of 0.5% hyperbaric bupivacaine intrathecally, followed by 10 ml of 0.25% plain bupivacaine through the epidural catheter 10 min later. Patients in the EA group (n=32) received 20-25 ml of 2% lidocaine which was already mixed with 0.1 ml of 0.1% epinephrine, 100 g of fentanyl and 1.5 ml of 8.4% sodium bicarbonate. The quality and side effects of surgical anesthesia, neonatal state, and postoperative course were compared between the two groups.

RESULTS

In the EA group, 22% (7 cases) complained of intraoperative pain but none in the CSEA group (P=0.011). Muscle relaxation and motor block were much better in the CSEA group (P<0.001 and P=0.011 each). Significantly more women in the EA group had shivering (P=0.001). They also had more nausea and vomiting but the differences were not significant. Not only the time to T4 block (9.7 vs. 18.3 min, mean, P<0.001) but also the stay in the postanesthesia care unit, recovery of sensory and motor block and start of postoperative pain were all significantly shorter in the CSEA group. No one in either group had postdural puncture headache (PDPH).

CONCLUSION

We can conclude that, when combining the main spinal and the supporting epidural anesthesia, CSEA has greater efficacy and fewer side effects than the pH-adjusted EA in cesarean sections.