Réhabilitation précoce après césarienne programmée : enquête de pratique auprès des maternités des régions Provence - Alpes - Côte d’Azur et Île-de-France

Better late than never: why obstetricians must implement enhanced recovery after cesarean

Despite persistent concerns about high cesarean delivery rates internationally, there has been less attention on improving perioperative outcomes for the millions of women who will experience a cesarean delivery each year. Enhanced recovery after surgery, a standardized, evidence-based, interdisciplinary protocol, has been successfully used in other surgical specialties including gynecology to improve quality of care and patient satisfaction while reducing overall health care costs through reduced length of stay. Enhanced recovery after surgery society guidelines for cesarean delivery were just released in August 2018. Obstetric patients, who face the dual challenge of being postpartum and postoperative, could benefit greatly from protocols that optimize their return to physiological function and reduce surgical morbidity. Although enhanced recovery after surgery has been widespread in other surgical specialties, uptake of this protocol in obstetrics has lagged behind. We believe enhanced recovery after surgery for cesarean delivery can effectively address 3 challenges faced by obstetrician/gynecologists. These are: (1) improving care for the high number of women undergoing cesarean deliveries; (2) using evidence-based care bundles to prevent maternal morbidity and mortality, address disparities, and reduce costs; and (3) limiting postoperative opioid prescribing in response to the opioid crisis. Enhanced recovery after surgery for cesarean delivery and other standardized care protocols have the potential to reduce the disproportionately high rates of maternal morbidity and mortality in the United States, and ensure all patients, regardless of demographics or location, receive the same level of high-quality peripartum care.

Subarachnoid morphine versus TAP blocks for enhanced recovery after caesarean section delivery: A randomized controlled trial

INTRODUCTION

Subarachnoid morphine is widely used for pain relief in enhanced recovery program after cesarean section in spite of its side effects. However, the role of TAP block is still controversial. The aim of our study was to compare the impact of these analgesic techniques (subarachnoid morphine and TAP block) on enhanced recovery after cesarean section.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In this randomized controlled trial, we included patients scheduled for cesarean delivery under spinal anesthesia. Patients were randomized in two groups. Group I: received spinal anesthesia with 100μg of subarachnoid morphine. Group II: received spinal anesthesia without subarachnoid morphine followed by an ultrasound-guided TAP block. We assessed the time required for mobilization, for re-establishment of gastrointestinal transit and for breast-feeding.

RESULTS

TAP block allowed earlier postoperative mobilization. Time required for getting up was significantly lower in group II (9.4h versus 6.9h; P=0.024) as well as time required for walking (12.4h versus 7.4h; P=0.001). TAP block allowed earlier re-establishment of gastrointestinal transit (11.2h in group I versus 8.1h in group II; P<0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

TAP block seems to be suitable with enhanced recovery programs.

Patient-controlled oral analgesia versus nurse-controlled parenteral analgesia after caesarean section: a randomised controlled trial

We assessed the effectiveness of early patient-controlled oral analgesia compared with parenteral analgesia in a randomised controlled non-inferiority trial of women undergoing elective caesarean section under regional anaesthesia. Seventy-seven women received multimodal paracetamol, ketoprofen and morphine analgesia. The woman having patient-controlled oral analgesia were administered four pillboxes on the postnatal ward containing tablets and instructions for self-medication, the first at 7 h after the spinal injection and then three more at 12-hourly intervals. Pain at rest and on movement was evaluated using an 11-point verbal rating scale at 2 h and then at 6-hourly intervals for 48 h. The pre-defined non-inferiority limit for the difference in mean pain scores (patient-controlled oral analgesia minus parenteral) was one. The one-sided 95% CI of the difference in mean pain scores was significantly lower than one at all time-points at rest and on movement, demonstrating non-inferiority of patient-controlled oral analgesia. More women used morphine in the patient-controlled oral analgesia group (22 (58%)) than in the parenteral group (9 (23%); p = 0.002). The median (IQR [range]) number of morphine doses in the patient-controlled oral analgesia group was 2 (1-3 [1-7]) compared with 1 (1-1 [1-2]); p = 0.006) in the parenteral group. Minor drug errors or omissions were identified in five (13%) women receiving patient-controlled oral analgesia. Pruritus was more frequent in the patient-controlled oral analgesia group (14 (37%) vs 6 (15%) respectively; p = 0.03), but no differences were noted for other adverse events and maternal satisfaction. After elective caesarean section, early patient-controlled oral analgesia is non-inferior to standard parenteral analgesia for pain management, and can be one of the steps of an enhanced recovery process.