Epidural Analgesia for Labour in a Patient with a Neural Tube Defect

[Pregnancy and delivery for women with congenital spinal cord defects and neurogenic bladder]

INTRODUCTION

Data are scarce regarding pregnancy and delivery among women with a neurogenic bladder due to congenital spinal cord defects.

OBJECTIVE

To report the obstetrical and urological outcomes of women with congenital spinal cord defects and vesico-sphincteric disorders.

METHODS

A retrospective multicentric study included all consecutive women with a neurogenic bladder due to congenital spinal defects, who delivered between January 2005 and December 2014. The following data were collected: demographics, neuro-urological disease characteristics, urological and obstetrical history, complications during pregnancy, neonatal outcomes, and changes in urological symptoms.

RESULTS

Overall, sixteen women, median age 29,4 years old (IQR 22-36), had a total of 20 pregnancies and 21 births (15 caesareans, 5 vaginal deliveries). Prior to the beginning of their first pregnancy, 12 patients were under intermittent self-catheterization. Symptomatic urinary tract infections during pregnancy occurred in 11 pregnancies, including 4 pyelonephritis. In 4 women, stress urinary incontinence had worsened but recovered post-partum. In 3 women, de novo clean intermittent catheterization became necessary and had to be continued post-partum. During 3 pregnancies, anticholinergic treatment had been started or increased because of urge urinary incontinence worsened. These changes were maintained after delivery. The median gestational age at birth was 39.0 weeks (IQR 37.8-39.5). There were 15 caesarean sections, of which 9 were indicated to prevent a potential aggravation of vesico-sphincteric disorders. Among the 5 pregnancies with vaginal delivery, there was no post-partum alteration of the sphincter function.

CONCLUSION

Successful pregnancy outcome is possible in women with congenital spinal cord defects and vesico-sphincteric disorders but it requires managing an increased risk of urinary tract infections, caesarean section, and occasionally worsened urinary incontinence.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

5.

Experiences and unmet needs of women with physical disabilities for pain relief during labor and delivery

BACKGROUND

Childbirth is widely acknowledged as one of the most painful experiences most women will undergo in their lifetimes. Alleviating labor and delivery pain for women with physical disabilities can involve an additional level of complexity beyond that experienced by most women, but little research has explored their experiences.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to explore the experiences of women with physical disabilities with respect to pain relief during labor and delivery with the goal of informing their care.

METHODS

Data were collected using semi-structured interviews with twenty-five women with physical disabilities from across the United States.

RESULTS

Women expressed specific preferences for the method of pain relief. Some confronted systemic barriers in exploring their options for pain relief, while others were given a choice. At times, anesthesiologists lacked knowledge and experience in caring for women with disabilities. Conversely, some women described how the administration of anesthesia was meticulously planned and attributed their positive labor and delivery experiences to this careful planning.

CONCLUSIONS

Advanced, individualized planning and evaluation of their options for pain relief was most satisfying to women and enabled them to make an informed choice. This approach is consistent with the recommendations of clinicians who have successfully provided pain relief during labor to women with complex physical disabilities. Clinicians who have successfully delivered babies of women with these and similar disabilities emphasize the importance of a team approach where the anesthesiologist and other specialists are involved early on in a woman's care.

Neuraxial techniques in patients with pre-existing back impairment or prior spine interventions: a topical review with special reference to obstetrics

Many anaesthetists consider neurological disorders of all kinds as a contraindication for regional anaesthesia particularly for neuraxial techniques. This hesitation is partly rooted in fears of medicolegal problems but also in the heterogeneous literature. Therefore, the present topical review is an attempt to describe the feasibility and the risks of neuraxial techniques in patients with spinal injury, anatomical compromise, chronic back pain or previous spinal interventions, ranging from 'minor' types like epidural blood patches to major surgery such as Harrington fusions. Most reviews and case reports were describing experiences in obstetrics as these patients are more likely to insist on neuraxial blocks. In the acute phase of new neurologic injury, general anaesthesia may be the technique of choice to prevent further haemodynamic and respiratory deterioration. After the acute phase, current evidence is mostly reassuring with respect to the risks of neuraxial blocks as they may even be recommendable in some conditions. Ultrasound technology may be of additional help to increase the success rate. A careful pre-operative examination remains mandatory, while patients should be sufficiently informed about technical aspects and possible relapses or progression of their disease. When necessary, patients should have additional technical and clinical examinations as close as possible to surgery to establish the actual pre-operative status. Most patients may benefit more from spinal techniques rather than from less reliable epidural ones. High concentrations and volumes of local anaesthetics should be avoided at all times, especially in patients with nerve compression, large disc herniation or spinal stenosis.