Airway management for cesarean delivery performed under general anesthesia

2017 ◽  
Vol 29 ◽  
pp. 64-69 ◽  
Author(s):  
S. Rajagopalan ◽  
M. Suresh ◽  
S.L. Clark ◽  
B. Serratos ◽  
S. Chandrasekhar
2021 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Junnosuke Kimura ◽  
Kento Kawamura ◽  
Manami Minoura ◽  
Ayako Hiramoto ◽  
Yoshifumi Suga ◽  
...  

Abstract Background We report a case in which a list of high-risk pregnant women on cloud-based business communication tools was useful in formulating an anesthetic plan for unscheduled cesarean section. Case presentation A 37-year-old woman, who had been prescribed icosapentate for hypertriglyceridemia, received an antenatal anesthetic evaluation for possible cesarean delivery, and it was agreed that the anesthetic method for emergency cesarean section was general anesthesia if the surgery would take place within 7 days after the discontinuation of the drug, and regional anesthesia if it would take place any time later. Then this agreement was uploaded on the cloud-based business communication tools, and updated until she delivered her baby via unscheduled cesarean section. Conclusions A cloud-based business communication tools was useful in formulating an anesthesia plan for a patient undergoing a cesarean delivery. However, more discussion would be needed to utilize it in security.


2021 ◽  
Vol 9 ◽  
pp. 2050313X2110145
Author(s):  
Chaerim Oh ◽  
Hyun Joo Kim

In patients with intratracheal tumors, airway management while maintaining oxygenation and providing surgical access to the airway can be challenging. Here, we present a case of a two-stage operation to remove an intratracheal tumor causing partial obstruction near the carina. In the otorhinolaryngology department, a biopsy was performed during apnea under high-flow nasal oxygenation support. A few days later, a thoracic surgeon performed tracheal resection after sternotomy under general anesthesia. Mechanical ventilation was performed by inserting a sterile endotracheal tube in the resected distal part of the trachea in the surgical field for tracheal end-to-end anastomosis. Airway was successfully secured through close communication between teams of anesthesiologists and surgeons.


2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Dazhi Fan ◽  
Jiaming Rao ◽  
Dongxin Lin ◽  
Huishan Zhang ◽  
Zixing Zhou ◽  
...  

Abstract Background The incidence of placenta preiva is rising. Cesarean delivery is identified as the only safe and appropriate mode of delivery for pregnancies with placenta previa. Anesthesia is important during the cesarean delivery. The aim of this study is to assess maternal and neonatal outcomes of patients with placenta previa managed with neuraxial anesthesia as compared to those who underwent general anesthesia during cesarean delivery. Methods A retrospective cohort study was performed of all patients with placenta preiva at our large academic institution from January 1, 2014 to June 30, 2019. Patients were managed neuraxial anesthesia and general anesthesia during cesarean delivery. Results We identified 1234 patients with placenta previa who underwent cesarean delivery at our institution. Neuraxial anesthesia was performed in 737 (59.7%), and general anesthesia was completed in 497 (40.3%) patients. The mean estimated blood loss at neuraxial anesthesia of 558.96 ± 42.77 ml were significantly lower than the estimated blood loss at general anesthesia of 1952.51 ± 180 ml (p < 0.001). One hundred and forty-six of 737 (19.8%) patients required blood transfusion at neuraxial anesthesia, whereas 381 out of 497 (76.7%) patients required blood transfusion at general anesthesia. The rate neonatal asphyxia and admission to NICU at neuraxial anesthesia was significantly lower than general anesthesia (2.7% vs. 19.5 and 18.2% vs. 44.1%, respectively). After adjusting confounding factors, blood loss was less, Apgar score at 1- and 5-min were higher, and the rate of blood transfusion, neonatal asphyxia, and admission to NICU were lower in the neuraxial group. Conclusions Our data demonstrated that neuraxial anesthesia is associated with better maternal and neonatal outcomes during cesarean delivery in women with placenta previa.


2019 ◽  
Vol 130 (2) ◽  
pp. 237-246 ◽  
Author(s):  
Benjamin T. Cobb ◽  
Meghan B. Lane-Fall ◽  
Richard C. Month ◽  
Onyi C. Onuoha ◽  
Sindhu K. Srinivas ◽  
...  

AbstractEditor’s PerspectiveWhat We Already Know about This TopicWhat This Manuscript Tells Us That Is NewBackgroundGuidelines for obstetric anesthesia recommend neuraxial anesthesia (i.e., spinal or epidural block) for cesarean delivery in most patients. Little is known about the association of anesthesiologist specialization in obstetric anesthesia with a patient’s likelihood of receiving general anesthesia. The authors conducted a retrospective cohort study to compare utilization of general anesthesia for cesarean delivery among patients treated by generalist versus obstetric-specialized anesthesiologists.MethodsThe authors studied patients undergoing cesarean delivery for live singleton pregnancies from 2013 through 2017 at one academic medical center. Data were extracted from the electronic medical record. The authors estimated the association of anesthesiologist specialization in obstetric anesthesia with the odds of receiving general anesthesia for cesarean delivery.ResultsOf the cesarean deliveries in our sample, 2,649 of 4,052 (65.4%) were performed by obstetric-specialized anesthesiologists, and 1,403 of 4,052 (34.6%) by generalists. Use of general anesthesia differed for patients treated by specialists and generalists (7.3% vs. 12.1%; P &lt; 0.001). After adjustment, the odds of receiving general anesthesia were lower among patients treated by obstetric-specialized anesthesiologists among all patients (adjusted odds ratio, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.55 to 0.92; P = 0.011), and in a subgroup analysis restricted to urgent or emergent cesarean deliveries (adjusted odds ratio, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.56 to 0.99; P = 0.049). There was no association between provider specialization and the odds of receiving general anesthesia in a subgroup analysis restricted to evening or weekend deliveries (adjusted odds ratio, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.56 to 1.03; P = 0.085).ConclusionsTreatment by an obstetric anesthesiologist was associated with lower odds of receiving general anesthesia for cesarean delivery; however, this finding did not persist in a subgroup analysis restricted to evening and weekend deliveries.


2019 ◽  
Vol 130 (6) ◽  
pp. 864-866 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jill M. Mhyre ◽  
Pervez Sultan

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document