Neuraxial techniques for labor analgesia should be placed in the lateral position

Influence of the prone position on a stretcher for pregnant women on maternal and fetal hemodynamic parameters and comfort in pregnancy

OBJECTIVES:

To analyze the influence of lying in prone position on a specially designed stretcher on the maternal-fetal hemodynamic parameters and comfort of pregnant women.

METHODS:

A randomized, controlled trial with 33 pregnant women divided into 2 groups: pregnant group sequence 1 and pregnant group sequence 2. The order of positions used in sequence 1 was Fowler's position, prone position, supine position, left lateral, Fowler's position 2, supine position 2, prone position 2 and left lateral 2. The order of positions used in sequence 2 was Fowler's position, prone position, left lateral, supine position, Fowler's position 2, left lateral 2, prone position 2 and supine position 2. Each woman remained in each position for 6 minutes. For the statistical analyses, we used Wilcoxon's test for 2 paired samples when comparing the prone position with the other positions. The variables are presented in graphs showing the means and 95% confidence intervals. Trial Registration: Clinical Trial No. ISRCTN41359519.

RESULTS:

All the parameters were within the standards of normality. There were no differences between positions in terms of maternal heart rate, diastolic blood pressure, oxygen saturation and fetal heart rate. However, there were significant decreases in respiratory rate and systolic blood pressure in prone position 2 compared with left lateral 2. There was an increase in oxygen saturation in prone position compared with Fowler's position and supine position 2 in both sequences. All the women reported feeling comfortable in the prone position.

CONCLUSIONS:

The prone position was considered safe and comfortable and could be advantageous for improving oxygen saturation and reducing the systolic blood pressure and respiratory rate.

Effects of sitting up for five minutes versus immediately lying down after spinal anesthesia for Cesarean delivery on fluid and ephedrine requirement; a randomized trial

BACKGROUND

Patient position after spinal anesthesia has had variable effects on blood pressure and ephedrine requirements. The aim of this study was to determine the effects that sitting the patient up for five minutes after spinal anesthesia would have on intraoperative fluid and ephedrine requirements.

METHODS

The study included 120 women at term gestation who were scheduled for Cesarean delivery under spinal anesthesia. After anesthetic administration, the women were randomized either to sit up for five minutes then lie down (Group S) or to lie down immediately (Group L) to a tilted supine position. A blinded observer recorded sensory block level, systolic blood pressure, heart rate, ephedrine and fluid requirements, adverse events, and time to motor recovery (modified Bromage score of 2).

RESULTS

Group S had a lower intraoperative sensory block height than Group L [T4 (1) vs T2 (1), respectively; P < 0.001]; Group S also required less ephedrine (8% vs 47%, respectively; P < 0.001), received less fluid [709 (59) mL vs 789 (90) mL, respectively; P < 0.001], and experienced less nausea and vomiting (5% vs 22%, respectively; P = 0.014) and shortness of breath (3% vs 28%, respectively; P < 0.001) intraoperatively. In Group S, the odds of requiring ephedrine were 0.09 compared with 0.89 in Group L (odds ratio 0.10). There were no differences in systolic blood pressure (P = 0.127) or heart rate (P = 0.831) over time between groups. Time to a modified Bromage score of 2 was longer in Group S than in Group L [101 (15) min vs 88 (14) min, respectively; P < 0.001].

CONCLUSIONS

Sitting the patient up for five minutes rather than laying the patient down immediately after spinal anesthesia for Cesarean delivery decreased intraoperative sensory block height, ephedrine and fluid requirements, and intraoperative nausea, vomiting, and shortness of breath without affecting systolic blood pressure or the success of the anesthetic. However, the method resulted in delayed postoperative motor recovery.

Current world literature

This bibliography is compiled by clinicians from the journals listed at the end of this publication. It is based on literature entered into our database between 1 February 2008 and 31 January 2009 (articles are generally added to the database about two and a half months after publication). In addition, the bibliography contains every paper annotated by reviewers; these references were obtained from a variety of bibliographic databases and published between the beginning of the review period and the time of going to press. The bibliography has been grouped into topics that relate to the reviews in this issue.