Phantom limb syndrome induced by combined spinal and epidural anesthesia in patients undergoing elective open gynecological surgery

Effects of different anesthesia methods on labor process and postpartum serum estrogen and progesterone levels in primiparas with painless labor

OBJECTIVE

To look into the effects of different anesthesia methods on the labor process and the expression of serum estrogen and progesterone in primiparas with painless labor.

METHODS

60 primiparas receiving painless labor were selected as the research objects, and they were divided into either a Spinal & Continuous epidural anesthesia group (n = 30) or a continuous epidural anesthesia group (n = 30), anesthesia is administered using the corresponding anesthesia method. The authors compared serum estrogen and progesterone, inflammatory index expression, pain degree and neonatal health status in different periods.

RESULTS

At T2 and T3, serum P, LH, FSH and E2 levels in the Spinal & Continuous epidural anesthesia group were signally lower than those in the Spinal & Continuous epidural anesthesia group (p < 0.05). Spinal & Continuous epidural anesthesia group harbored faster onset and longer duration of sensory block and motor block than the Continuous epidural anesthesia group (p < 0.05). SAS and SDS scores of the Spinal & Continuous epidural anesthesia group were clearly lower than those of the Continuous epidural anesthesia group (p < 0.05). VAS score and serum TNF-α, IL-6 levels of pregnant women in the Spinal & Continuous epidural anesthesia group were memorably lower than those in the Continuous epidural anesthesia group at T2 and T3 (p < 0.05). The total incidence of postoperative complications in the Spinal & Continuous epidural anesthesia group was distinctively lower than that in the Continuous epidural anesthesia group (p < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Spinal anesthesia combined with continuous epidural anesthesia has a better anesthesia effect in the painless labor of primiparas, which can effectually ameliorate the labor process and the expression of serum estrogen and progesterone.

Comparison of Ultrasound-Guided Caudal Epidural Blocks and Spinal Anesthesia for Anorectal Surgery: A Randomized Controlled Trial

INTRODUCTION

The aim of this study is to observe the effect of spinal anesthesia (SA) and ultrasound-guided caudal epidural blocks (CEB) on perioperative satisfaction in patients undergoing anorectal surgery.

METHODS

A group of 106 patients were randomly allocated to receive either SA (the SA group) or CEB (the CEB group), and 11 patients were excluded. Finally, 95 patients were left, with 48 in the SA group and 47 in the CEB group for data analysis. The primary endpoint was patient satisfaction with the quality of their anesthetic technique. The secondary outcome measures included postoperative pain at 2, 4, 8, 16, 24, and 48 h after surgery at rest, time to first analgesic request, analgesia requirements, incidence of phantom limb syndrome (PLS), time until return of bowel function, time to ambulation, incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV), intraoperative mean arterial pressure (MAP) reduction > 20% from baseline, and surgeon satisfaction.

RESULTS

A significantly lower proportion of patients in the SA group was highly satisfied with the quality of their anesthetic technique compared with the CEB group (20.8% versus 68.1%). NRS scores at rest were significantly lower at 4, 8, 16, and 24 h after surgery in the CEB group compared with the SA group. The time to first analgesic request was significantly earlier for patients in the SA group compared with patients in the CEB group. Analgesia requirements, the incidence of PLS, the incidence of PONV, and intraoperative MAP reduction > 20% from baseline were significantly decreased in the CEB group. There were no significant differences between the groups in time until return of bowel function, surgeon satisfaction, or time to ambulation.

CONCLUSIONS

Ultrasound-guided caudal epidural blocks have higher patient satisfaction compared with spinal anesthesia.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This study was registered in the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (ChiCTR 2000041026) on 06/12/2020.