Learning from the Law. A review of 21 years of litigation for pain during caesarean section

Pain during caesarean delivery in a tertiary maternity hospital: a retrospective cohort study (2022-2023)

BACKGROUND

Intra-operative pain during Caesarean delivery (PDCD) is the leading cause of successful litigation against obstetric anaesthesiologists. PDCD may require conversion to general anaesthesia (GA). The aim of this analysis is to assess our incidence of PDCD and associated GA conversion.

METHODS

Data were collected from electronic patient records. Data included baseline demographics, incidence of PDCD and rates of GA conversion, proportion of PDCD cases attributable to failed epidural (EA) or spinal anaesthesia (SA), and level of sensory and motor blockade in cases of PDCD. Results were audited against current standards set by the Royal College of Anaesthetists 'rates of PDCD should be <5% for category 4, <15% for categories 2-3, and <20 % for category 1 CD ' and that 'rates of conversion to GA due to neuraxial complications should be <1% for category 4, <5% for categories 2-3 and <15% for category 1 patients'.

RESULTS

During the 12-month study period, 2,429 patients underwent CD, of whom 52 (2.1%) experienced PDCD. The incidence of PDCD was 3.1% (41/1,309) for category 1-3 patients, while 1% (11/1,120) of category 4 patients experienced PDS. Of the 52 patients with PDCD, 17 patients required GA (33%). SA was used in 24/52 (47%) cases and EA in 28/52 (53%) cases. The median level of sensory block in patients with PDCD was located at the T4 dermatome, the median level of motor block was Bromage level 2.

CONCLUSIONS

PDCD occurred in 2.1% of CD, one-third required conversion to GA. Most patients experiencing PDCD met current motor and sensory blockade criteria.

Maternal-Fetal Conflicts in Anesthesia Practice

Anesthesia clinicians often navigate a delicate balance between maternal and fetal safety. Interventions for at fetal well-being may introduce risks of harm to the mother and raise ethical dilemmas. Emergency procedures often focus on direct fetal safety, sidelining maternal physical and mental well-being. The clash between ethical principles, particularly nonmaleficence and beneficence, often arises, with maternal autonomy guiding decisions. Fetal surgery exemplifies risking maternal health for fetal benefit, whereas emergent cesarean deliveries pose physical and psychological challenges for both the mother and child.

Anaesthesia praCtice for Caesarean dElivery Snapshot Study (ACCESS): Protocol and baseline characteristics of registered centres

BACKGROUND

Specific guidelines to manage caesarean delivery anaesthesia are lacking. A European multicentre study, ACCESS investigates caesarean delivery anaesthesia management in European centres. In order to identify ACCESS participating centres, a registration survey was created.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of the current report is to describe the characteristics of ACCESS study participating centres, the rationale for the ACCESS study and the study methodology.

DESIGN AND SETTING

The ACCESS study is a European multicentre cross-sectional study to describe anaesthesia management for caesarean delivery (CD) using a snapshot (2-week) design. The ACCESS registration survey gathered: contact details for National Coordinators (NC); Lead Investigators (LI) per centre; centre annual CD volume; expected no. of CD during 2-week snapshot window; centre practice information; data collection language. The ACCESS registration survey was launched July 2022 (Google Forms, Google Inc., Mountain View, CA, USA) and distributed through personal connections, national and international societies, social media networks, during Euroanaesthesia 2023, through the European Society of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care newsletter.

RESULTS

The ACCESS registration survey identified Lead Investigators for 418 centres, in 32 countries, representing an anticipated number of 15,073 CD cases over the planned 12-month study period. A median (range) of 20 (2 to 400) CD cases are anticipated per centre during the 2-week snapshot window. Most 366/418 (87.6%) centres are small, ≤2000 annual CD cases, 42 are medium 2000-5000 cases and 10 are large, ≥5000 annual CD cases. Registered centres reported in 134 (32.0%) centres that anaesthesia for caesarean delivery is performed mostly by a specialist obstetric anaesthesiologist.

CONCLUSION

The ACCESS registration survey revealed variability in volume and CD practice as well as training-levels and staffing among European countries. The ACCESS study (https://www.access-study.org/) aims to generate practice data to guide CD anaesthetic management strategies.

Failed spinal anesthesia for cesarean delivery: prevention, identification and management

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

There is an increasing awareness of the significance of intraoperative pain during cesarean delivery. Failure of spinal anesthesia for cesarean delivery can occur preoperatively or intraoperatively. Testing of the neuraxial block can identify preoperative failure. Recognition of the risk of high neuraxial block in repeat spinal in case of preoperative failure is important.

RECENT FINDING

Knowledge of risk factors for block failure facilitates prevention by selecting the most appropriate neuraxial procedure, adequate intrathecal doses and choice of technique. Intraoperative pain is not uncommon, and neither obstetricians nor anesthesiologists can adequately identify intraoperative pain. Early intraoperative pain should be treated differently from pain towards the end of surgery.

SUMMARY

Block testing is crucial to identify preoperative failure of spinal anesthesia. Repeat neuraxial is possible but care must be taken with dosing. In this situation, switching to a combined spinal epidural or an epidural technique can be useful. Intraoperative pain must be acknowledged and adequately treated, including offering general anesthesia. Preoperative informed consent should include block failure and its management.

Incidence and clinical impact of aspiration during cesarean delivery: A multi-center retrospective study

BACKGROUND

The risk of aspiration during general anesthesia for cesarean delivery has long been thought to be increased due to factors such as increased intra-abdominal pressures and delayed gastric emptying in pregnant patients. However, recent studies have reported normal gastric emptying in pregnant patients, suggesting that the risk of aspiration may not be as high as previously believed.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective study of 48,609 cesarean deliveries, of which 22,690 (46.7%) were performed under general anesthesia at two large tertiary medical centers in Israel. The study aimed to examine the incidence of potentially severe aspiration during cesarean delivery, both under general and neuraxial anesthesia.

RESULTS

Among the patients included in the study, three were admitted to the intensive care unit due to suspected pulmonary aspiration. Two of these cases occurred during induction of general anesthesia for emergency cesarean delivery associated with difficult intubation and one under deep sedation during spinal anesthesia. The incidence of aspiration during cesarean delivery during general anesthesia in our study was 1 in 11,345 patients, and the incidence of aspiration during neuraxial anesthesia was 1 in 25,929 patients. No deaths due to aspiration were reported during the study period.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings provide another contemporary analysis of aspiration rates in obstetric patients, highlighting increased risks during the management of difficult airways during general anesthesia and deep sedation associated with neuraxial anesthesia.

Ultrasound-guided caudal anaesthesia combined with epidural anaesthesia for caesarean section: a randomized controlled clinical trial

BACKGROUND

Although epidural anaesthesia and spinal anaesthesia are currently the general choices for patients undergoing caesarean section, these two neuraxial anaesthesia methods still have drawbacks. Caudal anaesthesia has been considered to be more appropriate for gynaecological surgery. The purpose of this study was to compare epidural anaesthesia combined with caudal anaesthesia, spinal anaesthesia and single-space epidural anaesthesia for caesarean section with respect to postoperative comfort and intraoperative anaesthesia quality.

METHODS

In this clinical trial, 150 patients undergoing elective caesarean section were recruited and randomized into three groups according to a ratio of 1:1:1to receive epidural anaesthesia only, spinal anaesthesia only or epidural anaesthesia combined with caudal anaesthesia. The primary outcome was postoperative comfort in the three groups. Secondary outcomes included intraoperative anaesthesia quality and the incidences of nausea, vomiting, postdural puncture headache, maternal bradycardia, or hypotension.

RESULTS

More patients were satisfied with the intraoperative anaesthesia quality in the EAC group than in the EA group (P = 0.001). The obstetrician was more significantly satisfied with the intraoperative anaesthesia quality in the SA and EAC groups than in the EA group (P = 0.004 and 0.020, respectively). The parturients felt more comfortable after surgery in the EA and EAC groups (P = 0.007). The incidence of maternal hypotension during caesarean section was higher in the SA group than in the EA and EAC groups (P = 0.001 and 0.019, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

Epidural anaesthesia combined with caudal anaesthesia may be a better choice for elective caesarean section. Compared with epidural anaesthesia and spinal anaesthesia, it has a higher quality of postoperative comfort and intraoperative anaesthesia.

The Incidence and Predictors of Failed Spinal Anesthesia After Intrathecal Injection of Local Anesthetic for Cesarean Delivery: A Single-Center, 9-Year Retrospective Review

BACKGROUND

The incidence of failed spinal anesthesia varies widely in the obstetric literature. Although many risk factors have been suggested, their relative predictive value is unknown. The primary objective of this retrospective cohort study was to determine the incidence of failed spinal anesthesia for cesarean deliveries at a tertiary care obstetric hospital, and its secondary objectives were to identify predictors of failed spinal anesthesia in the obstetrics population and quantify their relative importance in a predictive model for failure.

METHODS

With local institutional ethics committee approval, a retrospective review of our hospital database identified the incidence of failed spinal anesthesia for 5361 cesarean deliveries between 2010 and 2019. We performed a multivariable analysis to assess the association of predictors with failure and a dominance analysis to assess the importance of each predictor.

RESULTS

The incidence of failed spinal anesthesia requiring an alternative anesthetic was 2.1%, with conversion to general anesthesia occurring in 0.7% of surgeries. Supplemental analgesia or sedation was provided to an additional 2.0% of women. The most important predictors of a failed spinal anesthetic were previous cesarean delivery (odds ratio [OR], 11.33; 95% confidence interval [CI], 7.09-18.20; P < .001), concomitant tubal ligation (OR, 8.23; 95% CI, 3.12-19.20; P < .001), lower body mass index (BMI) (kg·m -2 , OR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.90-0.98; P = .005), and longer surgery duration (minutes, OR, 1.02; 95% CI, 1.01-1.03; P = .006). Previous cesarean delivery was the most significant risk factor, contributing to 9.6% of the total 17% variance predicted by all predictors examined.

CONCLUSIONS

Spinal anesthesia failed to provide a pain-free surgery in 4.1% of our cesarean deliveries. Previous cesarean delivery was the most important predictor of spinal failure. Other important predictors included tubal ligation, lower BMI, and longer surgery duration.

Pain during cesarean delivery: A patient-related prospective observational study assessing the incidence and risk factors for intraoperative pain and intravenous medication administration

INTRODUCTION

The incidence of pain during cesarean delivery (PDCD) remains unclear. Most studies evaluated PDCD using interventions suggesting inadequate analgesia: neuraxial replacement, unplanned intravenous medication (IVM), or conversion to general anesthesia. Few assess self-reported pain. This study evaluates the incidence of and risk factors for self-reported PDCD and IVM administration.

METHODS

Between May and September 2022, English-speaking women undergoing cesarean delivery under neuraxial anesthesia were approached within the first 48 h. Participants answered a 16-question survey about intraoperative anesthesia care. Clinical characteristics were extracted from electronic medical records. The primary outcome was PDCD. Secondary outcomes were analgesic IVM (opioids alone or in combination with ketamine, midazolam, or dexmedetomidine) and conversion to general anesthesia. Risk factors for PDCD and analgesic IVM were identified using multivariable logistic regression models.

RESULTS

Pain was reported by 46/399 (11.5%; 95% CI: 8.6, 15.1) participants. Analgesic IVM was administered to 16 (34.8%) women with PDCD and 45 (12.6%) without. Conversion to general anesthesia occurred in 3 (6.5%) women with and 4 (1.1%) without PDCD. Risk factors associated with PDCD were substance use disorder and intrapartum epidural extension. Risk factors associated with analgesic IVM were PDCD, intrapartum epidural extension when ≥2 epidural top-ups were given for labor analgesia, and longer surgical duration.

DISCUSSION

In our cohort of scheduled and unplanned cesarean deliveries, the incidence of PDCD was 11.5%. A significant proportion of women (15.1%) received analgesic IVM, of which some but not all reported pain, which requires further evaluation to identify triggers for IVM administration and strategies optimizing shared decision-making.

Inadequate neuraxial anaesthesia during caesarean delivery: a survey of practitioners

BACKGROUND

We aimed to determine the knowledge, training, practices and attitudes of obstetric anaesthetic practitioners with regard to failed neuraxial anaesthesia for caesarean delivery.

METHOD

We performed a contemporaneous and representative survey in an innovative fashion. We conducted an international cross-sectional study of obstetric anaesthetic practitioners at the Annual Scientific Meeting of the Obstetric Anaesthetists' Association (OAA 2021). Validated survey questions were collected in real time using an audience response system.

RESULTS

Of the 426 participants who logged into the survey system, 356 provided responses (4173 responses to 13 questions, across all grades/seniority of practitioner). The number of responses to questions ranged from 81% to 61%. Survey responses suggest that it is routine for respondents to inform patients about the difference between pain and expected intra-operative sensations, (320/327, 97.9%) but less routine to inform patients of the risk of intra-operative pain (204/260, 78.5%), or the possibility of conversion to general anaesthesia. (290/309 93.8%). Only 30% of respondents reported the use of written guidelines for follow-up of patients who experience intra-operative pain under neuraxial anaesthesia, and only 23% reported formal training in management of intra-operative pain under neuraxial anaesthesia. Respondents felt that inadequate block duration, prolonged surgery, and patient anxiety were contributory factors to failed anaesthesia, and the contributory factors differed between grade/seniority of practitioner. Modalities used to test a block were cold, motor block and light touch, with approximately 65% of respondents routinely using three modalities.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study survey found that the consent process may not always be adequately comprehensive, and that standardised documentation and testing of the block and focused training may be beneficial to prevent patient dissatisfaction and the chance of litigation.

Inadequate neuraxial anaesthesia in patients undergoing elective caesarean section: a systematic review

Neuraxial anaesthesia is widely utilised for elective caesarean section, but the prevalence of inadequate intra-operative anaesthesia is unclear. We aimed to determine the prevalence of inadequate neuraxial anaesthesia for elective caesarean section; prevalence of conversion from neuraxial anaesthesia to general anaesthesia following inadequate neuraxial anaesthesia; and the effect of mode of anaesthesia. We searched studies reporting inadequate neuraxial anaesthesia that used ≥ ED95 doses (effective dose in 95% of the population) of neuraxial local anaesthetic agents. Our primary outcome was the prevalence of inadequate neuraxial anaesthesia, defined as the need to convert to general anaesthesia; the need to repeat or abandon a planned primary neuraxial technique following incision; unplanned administration of intra-operative analgesia (excluding sedatives); or unplanned epidural drug supplementation. Fifty-four randomised controlled trials were included (3497 patients). The overall prevalence of requirement for supplemental analgesia or anaesthesia was 14.6% (95%CI 13.3-15.9%); 510 out of 3497 patients. The prevalence of general anaesthesia conversion was 2 out of 3497 patients (0.06% (95%CI 0.0-0.2%)). Spinal/combined spinal-epidural anaesthesia was associated with a lower overall prevalence of inadequate neuraxial anaesthesia than epidural anaesthesia (10.2% (95%CI 9.0-11.4%), 278 out of 2732 patients vs. 30.3% (95%CI 26.5-34.5%), 232 out of 765 patients). Further studies are needed to identify risk factors, optimise detection and management strategies and to determine long-term effects of inadequate neuraxial anaesthesia.

Learning from the law: a review of 21 years of litigation for anaesthetic negligence resulting in peripartum hypoxic ischaemic encephalopathy

One of the most devastating complications that can result from medical mismanagement during labour and delivery is hypoxic ischaemic encephalopathy. Hypoxic ischaemic encephalopathy has profound implications for the newborn and its family, as well as for the healthcare team involved. Hypoxic ischaemic encephalopathy can take only minutes to develop, but the repercussions of this complication can last a lifetime. A proportion of these injuries arise from failure to deliver the baby within a sufficiently short time frame once fetal compromise has been recognised. Obstetric anaesthetists are often involved in such claims, usually in relation to a perception that provision of anaesthesia for caesarean section was unduly delayed. In the following article, using a database of over 360 cases spanning 21 years, we break down and examine the recurrent components of medicolegal claims concerning the anaesthetic involvement in hypoxic ischaemic encephalopathy, and consider how increased awareness of the anaesthetic contribution to this complication might reduce future harm, improve clinical standards and consequently decrease the need for litigation.

Prevention and management of intra-operative pain during caesarean section under neuraxial anaesthesia: a technical and interpersonal approach

A woman who experiences pain during caesarean section under neuraxial anaesthesia is at risk of adverse psychological sequelae. Litigation arising from pain during caesarean section under neuraxial anaesthesia has replaced accidental awareness under general anaesthesia as the most common successful medicolegal claim against obstetric anaesthetists. Generic guidelines on caesarean section exist, but they do not provide specific recommendations for this area of anaesthetic practice. This guidance aims to offer pragmatic advice to support anaesthetists in caring for women during caesarean section. It emphasises the importance of non-technical skills, offers advice on best practice and aims to encourage standardisation. The guidance results from a collaborative effort by anaesthetists, psychologists and patients and has been developed to support clinicians and promote standardisation of practice in this area.

Infrared thermographic assessment of spinal anaesthesia-related cutaneous temperature changes during caesarean section

INTRODUCTION

Assessment of adequacy of spinal anaesthesia prior to obstetric surgery is extremely important but can be problematic because currently available clinical assessment methods are indirect and subjective. As the sympathectomy associated with spinal anaesthesia is known to cause vasodilation and heat redistribution, we sought to assess whether spinal anaesthesia led to significant and consistent cutaneous temperature changes as measured by infrared thermography.

METHODS

Following ethics committee approval, this observational study was conducted in a tertiary level obstetric centre. Participants included women undergoing elective caesarean section under spinal anaesthesia. Following consent, a Flir T540 infrared camera captured thermographic images over the feet, patella, buttock, iliac crests, xiphisternum and axilla. Temperature was measured prior to spinal needle insertion (T0) and following clinical assessment when the block was deemed adequate.

RESULTS

Thirty patients were included. Baseline temperature varied considerable by site. Spinal anaesthesia altered skin temperature in all areas of interest: right and left hallux (mean of differences (MD) +4.0°C and 5.2°C respectively, P <0.0001), right and left plantar (MD +6.1°C and 6.8°C respectively, P <0.0001), patella (MD -0.33°C, P=0.0445), buttock (MD -0.5°C, P=0.009), iliac crest (MD -0.7°C, P=0.0004), xiphisternum (MD -0.95°C, P <0.0001) and axilla (MD -0.71°C, P=0.0002).

CONCLUSIONS

Following spinal anaesthesia thermographic imaging identified different patterns of skin temperature changes, with pronounced temperature increases measured in the feet and cooling of a lesser amplitude in the thoracic and lumbar dermatomes. Infrared thermography has the potential to provide objective measurement of sympathectomy.

Raising awareness to prevent, recognise and manage acute pain during caesarean delivery: The French Practice Bulletin

The incidence of acute pain during caesarean section varies between studies, with a reported rate ranging between 0.5%-17% for spinal anaesthesia and 1.7%-20% for epidural anaesthesia. Leaders from the French Club anesthésie-réanimation en obstétrique (CARO) convened to provide a clinical framework and practice bulletin to prevent, recognise and treat acute pain during caesarean section. First, a steering group agreed on 5 themes guiding quality of anaesthesia care for caesarean section: (1) appropriate neuraxial anaesthesia and testing of the surgical block prior to incision (PREVENTION); (2) appropriate organisation around decision to delivery time (COMMUNICATION); 3) appropriate management of pain before and/or after skin incision (RECOGNITION & RESPONSE); (4) appropriate prevention, identification and management of post-traumatic stress disorder (SCREENING, PREVENTION AND MANAGEMENT OF COMPLICATIONS); (5) management of medico-legal issues (MITIGATION). Then, an interdisciplinary multi-professional taskforce composed of obstetric anaesthesiologists, obstetricians, neonatologists, psychiatrists, midwifes, nurse anaesthetists, lawyers and patients, developed 23 statements that contribute to optimise care for caesarean section under neuraxial anaesthesia, of which 10 were deemed key recommendations. A decision-tree was built to optimise prevention, communication, recognition, response and management. The aim of this practice bulletin, which was endorsed by 6 societies, is to raise awareness on the risks associated with severe acute pain during caesarean section and to provide best clinical practices; pain during caesarean is not acceptable and should be prevented and managed by all stakeholders.

The Current Role of General Anesthesia for Cesarean Delivery

PURPOSE OF THE REVIEW

The use of general anesthesia for cesarean delivery has declined in the last decades due to the widespread utilization of neuraxial techniques and the understanding that neuraxial anesthesia can be provided even in urgent circumstances. In fact, the role of general anesthesia for cesarean delivery has been revisited, because despite recent devices facilitating endotracheal intubation and clinical algorithms, guiding anesthesiologists facing challenging scenarios, risks, and complications of general anesthesia at the time of delivery for both mother and neonate(s) remain significant. In this review, we will discuss clinical scenarios and risk factors associated with general anesthesia for cesarean delivery and address reasons why anesthesiologists should apply strategies to minimize its use.

RECENT FINDINGS

Unnecessary general anesthesia for cesarean delivery is associated with maternal complications, including serious anesthesia-related complications, surgical site infection, and venous thromboembolic events. Racial and socioeconomic disparities and low-resource settings are major contributing factors in the use of general anesthesia for cesarean delivery, with both maternal and perinatal mortality increasing when general anesthesia is provided. In addition, more significant maternal pain and higher rates of postpartum depression requiring hospitalization are associated with general anesthesia for cesarean delivery.

SUMMARY

Rates of general anesthesia for cesarean delivery have overall decreased, and while general anesthesia no longer is a contributing factor to anesthesia-related maternal deaths, further opportunities to reduce its use should be emphasized. Raising awareness in identifying situations and patients at risk to help avoid unnecessary general anesthesia remains crucial.

Regional anaesthesia: risk, consent and complications

The risks of regional anaesthesia relate primarily to the technical nature of the procedure, chief among them being neurological. While rare, the direct relationship between nerve damage and the procedure itself means that patients need to be aware of this complication when consent is sought. In order to give valid consent, a patient must be informed. The extent of the information required has been defined by a 2015 legal ruling which established that the standard is the expectation of a reasonable patient, rather than the information deemed consequential by a reasonable doctor. The implications of this for clinicians are profound, and mean that the process of consent must, for example, include alternatives to the proposed treatment. Additionally, patients must have capacity and give their consent without coercion. Effective communication of risk can be challenging. As well as the barriers to comprehension that can result from language, literacy and numeracy, clinicians need to be aware of their own biases, often in favour of a regional anaesthetic approach. Patients also have biases, and doctors must be aware of these in order to best target their provision of information. Careful use of language and employing adjuncts such as information leaflets and visual aids can help to maximise the individual's autonomy. Particular care must be taken in special situations such as where patients have capacity issues or time is limited by the emergency nature of the intervention.

What's new in obstetric anesthesia in 2018?

The Gerard W. Ostheimer Lecture presented at the annual meeting of the Society of Obstetric Anesthesia and Perinatology (SOAP) is a one-year summary of the literature published in domains of interest to anesthesiologists who manage and care for obstetric patients. One individual is asked to review the literature and present the lecture. This manuscript summarizes aspects of the Gerard W. Ostheimer Lecture presented at the 2019 SOAP meeting; the relevant literature from 2018 was summarized. The topics included in this review are maternal morbidity, antibiotic prophylaxis, anaphylaxis, the Lancet series on increasing cesarean delivery rates, the Robson Ten-Group Classification System, pelvic floor disorders, timing of delivery in nulliparous women, placenta accreta disorders, anesthesia for cesarean delivery, labor analgesia (including parturients with thrombocytopenia and tattoos, and epidural maintenance with the programmed intermittent epidural bolus technique), ultrasound use in obstetric anesthesia, and drugs in pregnancy.