General versus spinal anesthesia during elective cesarean section in term low-risk pregnancy as regards maternal and neonatal outcomes: a prospective, controlled clinical trial

2019 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
pp. 119
Author(s):  
NadiaM Madkour ◽  
SafaaA Ibrahim ◽  
GehanF Ezz
Medicina ◽  
2013 ◽  
Vol 48 (12) ◽  
pp. 95
Author(s):  
Justina Kačerauskienė ◽  
Eglė Barčaitė ◽  
Arnoldas Bartusevičius ◽  
Dalia Railaitė ◽  
Rūta Nadišauskienė

Background and Objective. The aim of this study was to establish whether Lithuanian women would request an elective cesarean section in a low-risk pregnancy and to compare how the women’s opinion changed during the 5-year period. Material and Methods. A study was conducted at the Hospital of Lithuanian University of Health Sciences from November 1 to December 31, 2006, and from January 1 to February 28, 2011. A total of 204 and 239 women were enrolled in 2006 and 2011, respectively. Self-administered anonymous questionnaires collected information on women’s knowledge about the advantages of the different modes of delivery and their preferred type of birth in a low-risk pregnancy. Results. Overall, 82.4% of the participants in 2006 and 74.5% in 2011 thought that women should be able to choose the mode of delivery in a low-risk pregnancy. If they had had such an opportunity, 15.2% of women in 2006 and 14.9% in 2011 would have chosen cesarean section without any medical indication. The most frequently mentioned advantage of vaginal delivery was that it is natural, while safety for the newborn and the possibility of avoiding delivery pain were the mentioned advantages of cesarean section. Conclusions. Approximately 15% of Lithuanian women would request an elective cesarean section, and this percentage did not change during the 5-year period. While the national cesarean section rate is increasing with every year, it seems that “maternal request” cannot be blamed for this phenomenon. Despite all the available information about the different modes of delivery, women still lack professional and reliable knowledge about it.


Author(s):  
Wesla Packer Pfeifer Ferrarezi ◽  
Angélica de Fátima de Assunção Braga ◽  
Valdir Batista Ferreira ◽  
Sara Quinta Mendes ◽  
Maria José Nascimento Brandão ◽  
...  

2016 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 13-18
Author(s):  
Pouran Hajian ◽  
Bita Malekianzadeh ◽  
Maryam Davoudi

Background: Several methods are used for the prevention or decreasing the incidence of spinal anesthesia hemodynamic complications. Ondansetron is a 5HT3 receptor antagonist with known efficacy on preventing nausea and vomiting and probably on intrathecal opioid-induced pruritus. The present study aims to evaluate the effects of intravenous Ondansetron on the attenuation of blood pressure and heart rate, by 5HT3 blocking in vagal nerve endings and effect on Bezold Jarish reflex. Material and Methods: One hundred and two candidates for elective cesarean section were randomized into 2 groups of 51 cases, the Ondansetron group received 4mg Ondansetron intravenously before performing spinal anesthesia, and placebo group received 2cc sterile water. Hypotension was defined: Systolic blood pressure less than 100 MmHg or fall more than 20% from primary BP which was treated by administration of Ephedrine in case of any. In both groups, Ondansetron effect was studied on hypotension occurrence, bradycardia, consumed Ephedrine amount, pruritus, nausea and vomiting. Results: There were no statistically significant differences in systolic/diastolic blood pressure, Mean Arterial Pressure, heart rate and pruritus in both groups (P=0.081).Nausea and vomiting in the first 10 minutes after spinal anesthesia were lesser in Ondansetron group (P= 0.001). Mean consumed Ephedrine was significantly lesser in Ondansetron group (5.8 mg in Ondansetron and 10.7 mg in placebo group, P=0.009). Conclusion: Ondansetron  given  intravenously  with  antiemetic  dose  (4  mg)  decreases  mean consumed Ephedrine and nausea and vomiting after spinal anesthesia, but does not have an influence on blood pressure, heart rate and pruritus.[GMJ. 2016;5(1):13-18]


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document