Maternal expectations and experiences of labour pain and analgesia: a multicentre study of nulliparous women

Six hospitals with large maternity units in five different European countries were involved in this multicentre study. At least 100 primiparae for each country were examined. All mothers received two standardized interviews, one during the last month of pregnancy, and one 24 h after delivery. Maternal expectations and experiences of pain, pain relief, and satisfaction with analgesia and childbirth were assessed by a 100 mm visual analogue scale (VAS). Almost all mothers were seen regularly by an obstetrician or a midwife during pregnancy, had prepared childbirth classes and received antenatal information on labor analgesia techniques. Differences between the five groups were noted in the level of education and socio-economic status. Maternal expectations of labor pain and the answers to the pre-delivery interview varied significantly between the centers, as did maternal knowledge, expectation and ultimate choice of analgesic technique. Generally speaking the level of maternal satisfaction with analgesia and childbirth experience was high; however, epidural analgesia was more effective than other methods of pain relief (P<0.0001). The most satisfied mothers were those who expected more pain, were satisfied with the analgesia received and had good pain relief after analgesia (P<0.001).     

The introduction of a paediatric anaesthesia information leaflet: an audit of its impact on parental anxiety and satisfaction

BACKGROUND: A paediatric anaesthesia information leaflet was produced to address preoperative parental anxiety and to facilitate informed parental consent. METHODS: An audit was undertaken to assess the impact of introducing the leaflet. This addressed the information needs and expectations of parents of children undergoing anaesthesia, parental satisfaction with information provision and parental preoperative anxiety. RESULTS: The audit revealed that parents expect to be provided with information, although not necessarily in written form. However, the majority who received the information leaflet concluded that verbal information alone would not have been sufficient. The information leaflet was found to be accessible, informative and useful and those who received it reported greater satisfaction with information provision than a control group. Many parents perceived that it resulted in lower levels of preoperative anxiety CONCLUSIONS: A decision was therefore undertaken that routine use of the leaflet would continue on all of the paediatric surgical wards. However, the study also indicated that leaflets should not replace verbal communication with nursing and medical staff, who remain important sources of information.     

Giving parents written information about children's anesthesia: Are setting and timing important?

BACKGROUND: Research indicates that parents wish to receive more information and are anxious about anesthesia prior to their child's surgery. METHODS: A pilot randomized controlled trial was conducted to ascertain if parents who received a general anesthesia information leaflet by post 1 week following their presurgical assessment clinic visit (n = 19) had greater knowledge, reduced anxiety, or greater satisfaction with anesthetic information on the day of surgery than parents who received the leaflet at the clinic visit (n = 21). RESULTS: Parents had important knowledge deficits on the day of surgery, despite receiving the leaflet in addition to standard verbal communication. Parents who were given the leaflet at the presurgical assessment clinic had a modest 10% increase in knowledge compared with parents who received the leaflet by post. However, parents who received the leaflet within 2 weeks for their child's surgery also had 10% greater knowledge, regardless of the method of delivery. There were no differences in parental anxiety or satisfaction with the information related to method or timing of delivery. Parents appreciated receiving written information and a slight majority of parents (56%) preferred to receive the information at the presurgical assessment clinic visit. CONCLUSIONS: Parents have unmet information needs related to children's anesthetic care. Written information may improve parent knowledge and enhance satisfaction, but the setting and timing of information delivery are also important to consider.     

Beneficial effects of information leaflets before spinal steroid injection

How beneficial is the provision of information leaflets to low back pain patients before steroid injection under fluoroscopy? OBJECTIVES: To compare the value of information leaflets with verbal information on steroid injection under fluoroscopy. METHODS: Alternate month design. One hundred and twenty-three low back pain patients hospitalized for steroid injection under fluoroscopy were enrolled in the trial. Fifty-two patients received both written standardized information and non-standardized verbal information (intervention group), seventy one patients received only non-standardized verbal information (control group). Anxiety assessed at baseline evaluation and just before the injection; satisfaction related to the information received assessed on discharge day; knowledge about steroid injection assessed 4 hours and 1 month after the injection. RESULTS: Patients had a high anxiety level at baseline evaluation. Written standardized information did not decrease significantly anxiety (P = 0.068) before the injection, had no effect on pain during the injection, but increased patients' knowledge about the adverse effects on the day of injection and 1 month later (P = 0.040 and P = 0.084 respectively), and improve satisfaction with information received about potential complications of the steroid injections (P = 0.018). CONCLUSIONS: Providing an information leaflet to low back pain patents undergoing steroid injection under fluoroscopy tends to reduce state anxiety, and increases patients' knowledge and satisfaction with information about the risks of the injection.     

A comparison of bupivacaine-fentanyl-morphine with bupivacaine-fentanyl-diamorphine for caesarean section under spinal anaesthesia

In a randomised double-blind trial, postoperative analgesia and side effects of intrathecal morphine 0.1 mg and intrathecal diamorphine 0.25 mg were compared. Sixty women were randomised to receive intrathecal injection of 12.5 mg hyperbaric bupivacaine and 12.5 microg fentanyl with either morphine 0.1 mg (group M), or diamorphine 0.25 mg (group D). All women received 100 mg diclofenac rectally at the end of surgery and were given intravenous morphine via a patient controlled analgesia (PCA) system. Pain, PCA morphine usage and side effects were assessed at 2, 4, 8 and 24 h after spinal anaesthesia. The two groups were comparable for quality of intraoperative analgesia. There were no significant differences between the groups in time to first PCA demand, morphine consumption or oral analgesic use in each time period. Significantly more patients in group M were nauseated at 4 h whilst at 24 h nausea was significantly worse in group D. There was no significant difference between the groups in the number of women vomiting in the 24-h period. The two groups were comparable for pruritus and drowsiness. We conclude that 0.25 mg subarachnoid diamorphine is a suitable alternative to 0.1 mg morphine for post caesarean section analgesia.     

Postoperative intraspinal opioid analgesia after caesarean section; a randomised comparison of subarachnoid morphine and epidural pethidine

A randomised, blinded clinical trial was performed to evaluate intraspinal opioid analgesic techniques after caesarean section. Healthy term parturients having elective caesarean section under combined spinal-epidural anaesthesia were allocated to one of three groups. Postoperative analgesia, including non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, was provided using either pethidine patient-controlled epidural analgesia (group PCEA) or subarachnoid morphine 200 microg, the latter supplemented as required with patient-controlled intravenous pethidine (group SMPCIA) or oral paracetamol and codeine (group SMO). Maternal analgesia, side effects, recovery and satisfaction were assessed for 48 h. Of 144 parturients enrolled, 137 completed the study (PCEA n = 44, SMPCIA n = 45, SMO n = 48). The groups were demographically similar. All participants experienced good pain relief, including median visual analogue pain scores (0-100) with movement <40 between 0-24 h. However, pain scores were significantly lower at 8 and 12 h in those receiving subarachnoid morphine (P< 0.05). Women in groups receiving subarachnoid morphine experienced more severe pruritus (P<0.001), nausea (P< 0.001) and drowsiness (P< 0.05). Postoperative recovery of bowel function and ambulation occurred earlier in those using PCEA, although this did not appear to be of clinical significance. Patient satisfaction was similar, although women in group SMO were least likely to choose this approach again (P<0.05). We concluded that all three techniques provided effective analgesia for a prolonged period postoperatively. Better pain relief, but more opioid-related side effects, resulted from subarachnoid morphine 200 microg, and re-evaluation of reduced doses of subarachnoid morphine may be warranted.     

Postoperative analgesia for oesophageal surgery: a comparison of three analgesic regimens.

Sixty-four patients undergoing oesophageal surgery were randomly allocated to receive either a continuous lumbar epidural infusion of morphine or fentanyl, or, intramuscular morphine for postoperative analgesia. There was no statistical difference in analgesic requirements between the patients who underwent a thoracotomy for their procedure (n = 50) and those who did not (n = 14), as assessed by the total dose of opioid administered, visual analogue scale (VAS) and pain score (PS) comparison. However, by these criteria, epidural morphine infusion provided the most satisfactory analgesia (P less than 0.05). Despite the variable quality of analgesia achieved with the three regimens, the postoperative lung function tests were similar for all groups, and we conclude that routine lung function tests are not an appropriate method of comparing analgesic efficacy. Prophylactic administration of loratadine to 15% of our patients was not shown to be effective in diminishing the incidence of pruritus.     

Use of an information leaflet to improve general practitioners' knowledge of post dural puncture headache

BACKGROUND: The number of women receiving neuraxial anaesthesia for labour and delivery is increasing. Women are also being discharged into the community sooner after delivery. Thus, complications arising from neuraxial anaesthesia may present to general practitioners, so it is of vital importance that they are familiar with and can manage potential problems associated with these anaesthetic techniques. METHODS: A questionnaire was sent to 126 local general practitioners to discover their knowledge of the symptoms, diagnosis and treatment of post dural puncture headache in the parturient. An information leaflet was then circulated to all general practitioners in the region, detailing headaches and other potential problems following epidural analgesia for childbirth, and the questionnaire was reissued. RESULTS: The first questionnaire demonstrated that they had poor knowledge of the symptoms, diagnosis and treatment of post dural puncture headache in the parturient. Following the dissemination of the information leaflet, responses to the second questionnaire showed a significant improvement. CONCLUSION: By comparing the two sets of answers, we demonstrated that the leaflet has successfully improved knowledge of post dural puncture headache and other potential sequelae of obstetric epidural analgesia among general practitioners.     

Complications of epidural and combined spinal-epidural analgesia in labour

AIM: The practice of relieving pain during childbirth with epidural or combined spinal-epidural analgesia is very widespread in the major Western countries, and is increasing in Italy. There are, however, numerous complications of this practice for both the woman and the mechanism of the labour. The aim of our study was to evaluate the short and long term complications of these techniques in a randomised sample of women. METHODS: A randomised, longitudinal, retrospective study was carried out in a sample of caucasian nulliparous women who gave birth in the second half of 2001. The subjects were divided into 3 groups: Group 1, women who gave birth with the aid of epidural analgesia; Group 2, women who received combined spinal-epidural analgesia during labour; Group 3, women who delivered without any analgesia. The short and long term complications of the 2 analgesic techniques were compared with those occurring in the control group, using Fisher's exact test. RESULTS: The frequency of at least one unwanted effect was higher in the 2 groups of women who received analgesia than in the control group. Hypotension and pruritus were statistically significantly more frequent in the group receiving spinal-epidural analgesia than in the other 2 groups. There were no statistically significant differences between the 3 groups in the rates of late complications or incidence of deliveries completed by cesarean section. CONCLUSIONS: The short-term complications of the analgesic techniques used during labour were not very relevant with respect to the subjects' satisfaction (excellent in 66% of the women in the group managed with epidural analgesia and 73% among those treated with the combined spinal-epidural technique). There was not a statistically significant difference in the percentage of cesarean deliveries in the 3 groups. Epidural and spinal-epidural analgesia to relieve pain during labour can, therefore, be considered safe and reliable.     

Complications of obstetric regional analgesia: how much information is enough?

Two hundred parturients who had received epidural analgesia during labour (100 in Melbourne, Australia and 100 in London, UK) were asked on the first postnatal day about their sources of antenatal information on pain relief in labour, their awareness of potential complications of epidural analgesia and the level of risk at which they would wish to be informed before consenting to a procedure. Sources of antenatal information were similar in the two countries although more women in Australia received information from an anaesthetist or obstetrician than in the UK, whilst more women in the UK received information from the media than in Australia. Knowledge of risks was also similar although the Australian subjects were more aware of infective complications while those in the UK were more aware of intravascular injection of local anaesthetic; these differences may reflect recent high-profile cases in the two countries. The preferred level of risk at which women wanted to be informed about a complication varied from 1:1 to 1:1,000,000,000 in all three centres. The majority of women considered that the benefits of epidural analgesia outweighed each of the potential complications. Women differ in their requirements for antenatal information about regional analgesia and its complications, with some wanting to know every complication, however rare. Anaesthetists should be flexible in their disclosure of information when obtaining consent for regional analgesia and consider the particular wishes of each patient rather than follow rigid centralised guidelines.     

A survey of antenatal and peripartum provision of information on analgesia and anaesthesia

Pregnant women should receive information about what they might expect to experience during their delivery. Despite this, research shows many women are inadequately prepared for anaesthetic interventions during labour. We surveyed 903 postnatal women across 28 Greater London hospitals about: the analgesic and anaesthetic information that they recalled receiving during pregnancy and delivery; their confidence to make decisions on analgesia; and their satisfaction with the analgesia used. Wide variation was observed between hospitals. Overall, 67 of 749 (9.0%) women recalled receiving antenatal information covering all aspects of labour analgesia, and 108 of 889 (12.1%) covering anaesthesia for caesarean section. Regarding intrapartum information, 256 of 415 (61.7%) respondents recalled receiving thorough information before epidural insertion for labour analgesia, and 102 of 370 (27.6%) before anaesthesia for caesarean section. We found that 620 of 903 (68.7%) women felt well enough informed to be confident in their analgesic choices, and 675 of 903 (74.8%) stated that their analgesia was as expected or better. Receiving information verbally, regardless of provider, was the factor most strongly associated with respondents recalling receiving full information: odds ratio (95%CI) for labour analgesia 20.66 (8.98–47.53; p < 0.0001); epidural top-up for caesarean section 5.93 (1.57–22.35; p = 0.01); and general anaesthesia for caesarean section 12.39 (2.18–70.42; p = 0.01). A large proportion of respondents did not recall being fully informed before an anaesthetic intervention. Collaboration with current antenatal service providers, both in promoting information delivery and providing resources to assist with delivery, could improve the quality of information offered and women's retention of that information.     

Randomized controlled trial comparing traditional with two "mobile" epidural techniques: anesthetic and analgesic efficacy

BACKGROUND: The authors recently showed that "mobile" epidural analgesia, using low-dose local anesthetic-opioid mixtures, reduces the impact of epidural analgesia on instrumental vaginal delivery, relative to a traditional technique. The main prespecified assessment of pain relief efficacy, women's postpartum estimates of labor pain after epidural insertion, did not differ. The detailed analgesic efficacy and the anesthetic characteristics of the techniques are reported here. METHODS: A total of 1,054 nulliparous women were randomized, in labor, to receive boluses of 10 ml 0.25% bupivacaine (traditional), combined spinal-epidural (CSE) analgesia, or low-dose infusion (LDI), the latter groups utilizing 0.1% bupivacaine with 2 microg/ml fentanyl. Visual analog scale pain assessments were collected throughout labor and delivery and 24 h later. Details of the conduct of epidural analgesia, drug utilization, and requirement for anesthesiologist reattendance were recorded. RESULTS: A total of 353 women were randomized to receive traditional epidural analgesia, 351 received CSE, and 350 received LDI. CSE was associated with a more rapid onset of analgesia, lower median visual analog scale pain scores than traditional in the first hour after epidural insertion, and a significant reduction in bupivacaine dose given during labor. Pain scores reported by women receiving LDI were similar to those in the traditional group throughout labor and delivery. Anesthesiologist reattendance was low but greater with each mobile technique. CONCLUSIONS: Relative to traditional epidural analgesia, LDI is at least as effective and CSE provided better pain relief in the early stages after insertion. The proven efficacy of mobile epidurals and their beneficial impact on delivery mode make them the preferred techniques for epidural pain relief in labor.     

Dose-dependency of intra-articular morphine analgesia

We have examined if the analgesic effects of intra-articular morphine are dose-dependent in patients undergoing elective arthroscopic knee surgery. At the end of surgery, patients were allocated randomly to one of four groups to receive intra-articular saline (n = 22), or morphine 1 mg (n = 24), 2 mg (n = 21) or 4 mg (n = 19). After operation, patients remained in hospital overnight and pain intensity was assessed using a visual analogue scale at 1, 2, 3, 6, 9, 12, 18 and 24 h after intra-articular injection. Patients requesting additional analgesia received a loading dose of piritramide 0.1 mg kg-1 i.v. and were connected to a PCA device using the same drug. Increasing doses of intra-articular morphine were associated with greater analgesic effects and less supplementary analgesic requirements.      

A Randomized Sequential Allocation Study to Determine the Minimum Effective Analgesic Concentration of Levobupivacaine and Ropivacaine in Patients Receiving Epidural Analgesia for Labor

Background: This study was designed to determine and compare the minimum local analgesic concentrations of levobupivacaine and ropivacaine when used in epidural obstetric analgesia.

Methods: In a double-blind study, healthy women requiring epidural analgesia for labor pain were randomized to receive either ropivacaine or levobupivacaine. Drugs were administered as a 20-ml epidural bolus. The concentration of each started at 0.11% and increased or decreased at intervals of 0.01%, depending on the response of the previous patient, using the technique of up-down sequential allocation. Minimum local analgesic concentrations were calculated using the formula of Dixon and Massey. Efficacy was assessed using visual analog pain scores and motor and sensory block assessments, and safety was assessed by recording maternal and fetal/neonate vital signs and adverse events.

Results: Forty-seven patients received levobupivacaine, and 47 received ropivacaine. Minimum local analgesic concentrations for levobupivacaine (0.077%; 95% CI, 0.058-0.096%) were lower than those for ropivacaine (0.092%; 95% CI, 0.082-0.102%). The 0.015% difference was not statistically significant. There was no notable difference between treatment groups in the proportion of patients reporting drug-related adverse events.     

Prospective randomised controlled trial on the role of patient information leaflets in obtaining informed consent

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to determine whether patient information leaflets help to improve patient recall during the process of informed consent. METHODS: A prospective randomized controlled trial that compared a group of patients who were posted a patient information leaflet with those given verbal consent only was carried out. The study was conducted at the orthopaedic unit of a district general hospital. A total of 110 patients were selected, of whom 57 were randomly allocated to receive patient information leaflets by post and 53 were given verbal consent only. The outcome measure was the recall of information given to the patient. This was tested on admission by using a questionnaire. Each patient was allocated a score out of 10. RESULTS: There was a significant difference between the patients in the group that received patient information leaflets and those in the group that did not (P < 0.0001; confidence interval, 2.0-3.1). CONCLUSION: Patient information leaflets are a useful tool for the surgeon to improve the recall of the information given to the patient, in order to facilitate informed consent.     

Intercostal nerve blockade versus thoracic epidural analgesia for post thoracotomy pain relief

Background Post thoractomy pain is a major source of concern in the postoperative period. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of intraoperative temporary intercostal nerve blockade versus thoracic epidural analgesia for control of post thoracotomy pain. Methods 40 patients undergoing elective pulmonary resection through a postero lateral thoractomy were randomly allocated to receive epidural analgesia using 0.25% bupivicaine (Group A, n=20) or temporary intercostal nerve blockade using 0.25% bupivicaine (Group B, n=20). Adequacy of analgesia was assessed over a period of 24 hours using a visual analogue score and an observer verbal ranking scale. Results Pain scores were similar in both the groups for the first 4 hours after surgery. Thereafter, the pain scores were significantly higher (p<0.05) in Group B as compared to Group A for the remainder of the observation period. There was significantly higher (p<0.01) usage, of nonsteroidal analgesic consumption in Group B. No neurological complications were encountered, in both the study groups. Conclusion We conclude that in the early postoperative period there is no significant difference in pain relief in both the techniques but there after, epidural analgesia significantly reduces post thoracotomy pain.     

Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing Traditional with Two Mobile Epidural Techniques: Anesthetic and Analgesic Efficacy

Background: The authors recently showed that "mobile" epidural analgesia, using low-dose local anesthetic-opioid mixtures, reduces the impact of epidural analgesia on instrumental vaginal delivery, relative to a traditional technique. The main prespecified assessment of pain relief efficacy, women's postpartum estimates of labor pain after epidural insertion, did not differ. The detailed analgesic efficacy and the anesthetic characteristics of the techniques are reported here.

Methods: A total of 1,054 nulliparous women were randomized, in labor, to receive boluses of 10 ml 0.25% bupivacaine (traditional), combined spinal-epidural (CSE) analgesia, or low-dose infusion (LDI), the latter groups utilizing 0.1% bupivacaine with 2 [mu]g/ml fentanyl. Visual analog scale pain assessments were collected throughout labor and delivery and 24 h later. Details of the conduct of epidural analgesia, drug utilization, and requirement for anesthesiologist reattendance were recorded.

Results: A total of 353 women were randomized to receive traditional epidural analgesia, 351 received CSE, and 350 received LDI. CSE was associated with a more rapid onset of analgesia, lower median visual analog scale pain scores than traditional in the first hour after epidural insertion, and a significant reduction in bupivacaine dose given during labor. Pain scores reported by women receiving LDI were similar to those in the traditional group throughout labor and delivery. Anesthesiologist reattendance was low but greater with each mobile technique.     

A randomized sequential allocation study to determine the minimum effective analgesic concentration of levobupivacaine and ropivacaine in patients receiving epidural analgesia for labor

BACKGROUND: This study was designed to determine and compare the minimum local analgesic concentrations of levobupivacaine and ropivacaine when used in epidural obstetric analgesia. METHODS: In a double-blind study, healthy women requiring epidural analgesia for labor pain were randomized to receive either ropivacaine or levobupivacaine. Drugs were administered as a 20-ml epidural bolus. The concentration of each started at 0.11% and increased or decreased at intervals of 0.01%, depending on the response of the previous patient, using the technique of up-down sequential allocation. Minimum local analgesic concentrations were calculated using the formula of Dixon and Massey. Efficacy was assessed using visual analog pain scores and motor and sensory block assessments, and safety was assessed by recording maternal and fetal/neonate vital signs and adverse events. RESULTS: Forty-seven patients received levobupivacaine, and 47 received ropivacaine. Minimum local analgesic concentrations for levobupivacaine (0.077%; 95% CI, 0.058-0.096%) were lower than those for ropivacaine (0.092%; 95% CI, 0.082-0.102%). The 0.015% difference was not statistically significant. There was no notable difference between treatment groups in the proportion of patients reporting drug-related adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: Levobupivacaine was 19% more potent than ropivacaine and provided similar safety results.     

Ultrasound-guided bilateral transversus abdominis plane blocks in conjunction with intrathecal morphine for postcesarean analgesia

Study ObjectiveTo determine whether transversus abdominis plane (TAP) blocks administered in conjunction with intrathecal morphine provided superior analgesia to intrathecal morphine alone.DesignRandomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study.SettingOperating room of a university hospital.Patients51 women undergoing elective Cesarean delivery with a combined spinal-epidural technique that included intrathecal morphine.InterventionsSubjects were randomized to receive a bilateral TAP block with 0.5% ropivacaine or 0.9% saline. Postoperative analgesics were administered on request and selected based on pain severity.MeasurementsPatients were evaluated at 2, 24, and 48 hours after the TAP blocks were performed. Verbal rating scale (VRS) pain scores at rest, with movement, and for colicky pain were recorded, as was analgesic consumption. Patients rated the severity of opioid side effects and their satisfaction with the procedure and analgesia.Main Results51 subjects received TAP blocks with ropivacaine (n = 26) or saline (n = 25). At two hours, the ropivacaine group reported less pain at rest and with movement (0.5 and 1.9 vs 2.8 and 4.9 in the saline group [VRS scale 0 – 10]; P < 0.001) and had no requests for analgesics; there were several requests for analgesia in the saline group. At 24 hours, there was no difference in pain scores or analgesic consumption. At 48 hours, the ropivacaine group received more analgesics for moderate pain (P = 0.04) and the saline group received more analgesics for severe pain (P = 0.01).ConclusionsTransversus abdominis plane blocks in conjunction with intrathecal morphine provided superior early postcesarean analgesia to intrathecal morphine alone. By 24 hours there was no difference in pain scores or analgesic consumption.     

Need for additional anesthesia after single injection spinal analgesia for labor: a retrospective cohort study

BackgroundThere is little information about the use and efficacy of single injection spinal blocks for labor analgesia; specifically, how frequently subsequent analgesia or anesthesia is needed. This study determined how frequently an additional anesthetic intervention was needed in women who received single injection spinal analgesia.MethodsThis retrospective study examined electronic medical records to find all single injection spinal analgesic blocks for labor analgesia over a 14-year (2003–2016) period. Patient and block characteristics and patient outcomes were recorded. The primary outcome was need for an additional anesthetic intervention following single injection spinal for labor analgesia.ResultsFour-hundred-and-twenty-eight patients received single injection spinal blocks for labor and 60 (14.0%) needed an additional anesthetic either for labor analgesia (n=49) or an unexpected procedure (n=11). Two of these (0.5%) required general anesthesia. Parity of zero (nulliparous), a low cervical dilation at the time of the spinal injection, and induction of labor status, were associated with an increased risk of needing an additional anesthetic intervention.ConclusionsThis retrospective review provides evidence that single injection spinal anesthesia may be used for multiparous women with spontaneous labor and more advanced cervical dilation.