Surveys on the use of regional anaesthesia in obstetrics

[Incidence of accidental dura mater punctures in a university hospital: a prospective observational study]

OBJECTIVE

Accidental dura mater puncture is a potential complication during epidural block, and may be associated with multiple factors. Our objective was to determine the prevalence and risk factors of accidental dural puncture in a university hospital, evaluating the differences in the number of complications during different working hours.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A prospective observational study was conducted on all women who requested regional anaesthesia in the Epidural Analgesia Unit between 1 January 2009 and 1 January 2011, and who fulfilled the inclusion criteria. The technique employed to control labour pains was epidural analgesia.

RESULTS

A total of 12,480 pregnant women were included. The prevalence of accidental dura mater puncture was 0.4% (50 patients). Of these, 28% were due to medical residents. More accidental dura mater punctures were observed during September and in the afternoon shift.

CONCLUSIONS

The prevalence of accidental dura mater puncture is similar to other patient series. In ours, tiredness or lack of sleep did not influence the incidence of complications in analgesia for labour pains in a 24 hour care unit. This may be due to the distribution of on-call shifts not exceeding more than 6 hours.

Contraindications to regional anaesthesia in obstetrics: a survey of German practice

BACKGROUND

We assessed current practice regarding indications and contraindications to regional analgesia and anaesthesia for labour and delivery in Germany.

METHODS

Questionnaires were mailed to the directors of 918 German departments of anaesthesiology.

RESULTS

A total of 397 completed replies were received representing 41.3% of all deliveries in Germany. More than half of the respondents never perform spinal or epidural anaesthesia when the platelet count falls below 65x10(9)/L. Preeclampsia, which was not graded for severity, was considered an absolute contraindication to regional block by 15% and placenta praevia by 30% of respondents. If a woman had taken aspirin three days before, the numbers of respondents considering epidural anaesthesia contraindicated (40.2%) were nearly double those considering spinal anaesthesia contraindicated (21.7%) (P<0.001). For a platelet count of 79x10(9)/L, epidural anaesthesia was thought to be contraindicated by 37% and spinal anaesthesia by 22.2% (P=0.001). In departments with <500 deliveries/year, reluctance to use regional blockade was more pronounced than in departments with >1000 deliveries/year.

CONCLUSION

Clinical practice varies considerably in Germany. Concerns regarding the use of regional blockade were more prevalent in hospitals with small delivery units. Indications and contraindications are not consistent in Germany and some recommendations or guidelines are needed.

Change in anaesthetic practice for Caesarean section in Germany

BACKGROUND

Initial data from 1996 revealed that in contrast to several other countries general anaesthesia was the preferred anaesthetic technique for Caesarean section in Germany. However, anaesthetic practice for Caesarean section has changed during the last decades world-wide. This investigation was performed to obtain more actual data on anaesthetic procedures in obstetric patients in German hospitals.

METHODS

Questionnaires on the practice of anaesthesia for Caesarean section were mailed to 918 German departments of anaesthesiology. Furthermore, the survey evaluated severe perioperative complications in obstetric patients.

RESULTS

The 397 completed replies in this survey represent 41.3% of all German deliveries in 2002. Spinal anaesthesia is now the most common technique (50.5%) for elective Caesarean section. In case of urgent and emergency Caesarean, delivery figures decrease to 34.6% and 4.8%, respectively. Epidural anaesthesia is performed in 21.6% of scheduled and 13.2% and 1.0% of non-scheduled urgent or emergency Caesarean sections, respectively. Four maternal deaths and several non-fatal episodes of gastric content aspiration were reported by the respondents.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared to data obtained 6 years ago a significant increase in regional anaesthesia for Caesarean section has developed, with spinal anaesthesia being the preferred technique. Surveys can help to initiate discussion and improve current practice of anaesthetic care.

Spinal versus epidural anaesthesia for caesarean section

BACKGROUND

Regional anaesthesia (spinal or epidural anaesthesia) for caesarean section is the preferred option when balancing risks and benefits to the mother and her fetus. Spinal anaesthesia for caesarean section is thought to be advantageous due to simplicity of technique, rapid administration and onset of anaesthesia, reduced risk of systemic toxicity and increased density of spinal anaesthetic block.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the relative efficacy and side-effects of spinal versus epidural anaesthesia in women having caesarean section.

SEARCH STRATEGY

The Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group Trials Register (February 2003) and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library, Issue 1, 2003).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Types of studies considered for review include all published randomised controlled trials involving a comparison of spinal with epidural anaesthesia for caesarean section.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two reviewers independently assessed trials for inclusion. Review Manager software was used for calculation of the treatment effect represented by relative risk (RR) and weighted mean difference (WMD) using a random effects model with 95% confidence intervals (CI).

MAIN RESULTS

Ten trials (751 women) met our inclusion criteria. No difference was found between spinal and epidural techniques with regards to failure rate (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.23 to 4.24; four studies), need for additional intraoperative analgesia (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.59 to 1.32; five studies), need for conversion to general anaesthesia intraoperatively, maternal satisfaction, need for postoperative pain relief and neonatal intervention. Women receiving spinal anaesthesia for caesarean section showed reduced time from start of the anaesthetic to start of the operation (WMD 7.91 minutes less (95% CI -11.59 to -4.23; four studies), but increased need for treatment of hypotension RR 1.23 (95% CI 1.00 to 1.51; six studies).

REVIEWERS' CONCLUSIONS

Both spinal and epidural techniques are shown to provide effective anaesthesia for caesarean section. Both techniques are associated with moderate degrees of maternal satisfaction. Spinal anaesthesia has a shorter onset time, but treatment for hypotension is more likely if spinal anaesthesia is used. No conclusions can be drawn about intraoperative side-effects and postoperative complications because they were of low incidence and/or not reported.

Anaesthesia for non-scheduled caesarean delivery

In many countries there has been an increase in the number of women who deliver by caesarean section. This article reviews anaesthetic management of non-scheduled caesarean section. The choice of anaesthetic technique (regional anaesthesia versus general anaesthesia) is discussed and highlighted particularly from the viewpoint of urgency of operative delivery. A multidisciplinary approach is mandatory especially in emergency cases to prevent morbidity and mortality in mothers and neonates.