两种椎管内阻滞方法用于分娩镇痛的临床比较

目的探讨采用蛛网膜下腔与硬膜外腔分段阻滞联合用药及单纯硬膜外腔用药法的镇痛效果及其对母婴的影响。方法以蛛网膜下腔与硬膜外腔分段阻滞联合用药分娩镇痛者为研究组（１００例）,单纯硬膜外麻醉分娩镇痛者为对照组（４０例）,分别观察疼痛程度、副作用、产程时间、分娩方式、产后出血、胎儿窘迫及新生儿窒息情况。结果两组镇痛效果比较,差异有极显著性（Ｐ＜００１）,两组产程时间均值比较,差异无显著性（Ｐ＞００５）;两组产妇分娩方式、产后出血率、胎儿宫内窘迫及新生儿窒息发生率比较,差异无显著性（Ｐ＞００５）。结论蛛网膜下腔与硬膜外腔分段阻滞联合用药法,用于分娩镇痛安全有效。对产程及母婴均无影响,较单纯硬膜外麻醉镇痛效果更为肯定、满意,可在有一定条件的医疗单位应用。     

罗哌卡因芬太尼蛛网膜下腔-硬膜外联合阻滞麻醉用于分娩镇痛的临床研究

目的：研究分娩镇痛的效果及对产程、母婴的影响。方法：采用罗哌卡因、芬太尼蛛网膜下腔－硬膜外联合阻滞麻醉对90例产妇行分娩镇痛，作为观察组；对未使用分娩镇痛药物进入产程的92例产妇作为对照组，比较两组的产程时间、分娩方式、产后出血、胎儿窘迫、新生儿窒息情况。结果：两组第二产程时间比较有显著性差异，总产程时间比较无显著性差异。两组分娩方式、产后出血、胎儿窘迫、新生儿窒息发生率比较，无显著性差异。结论：罗哌卡因、芬太尼蛛网膜下腔－硬膜外联合阻滞麻醉用于分娩镇痛，效果可靠，对母婴无良影响，但有第二产程延长趋势。     

蛛网膜下腔阻滞加硬膜外阻滞与单纯硬膜外阻滞对产程进展影响的分析

目的探讨蛛网膜下腔阻滞(腰麻)加硬膜外阻滞与单纯硬膜外阻滞对产妇产程进展的影响。方法回顾性分析722例阴道分娩健康初产妇的临床资料,根据是否行分娩镇痛及分娩镇痛方法的不同分为3组:(1)腰麻加硬膜外阻滞(联合麻醉组),共259例;(2)单纯硬膜外阻滞(硬膜外组),共215例;(3)未采用任何镇痛方法的对照组,共248例。比较3组产妇产程时间及Friedman产程图进展变化特点。结果(1)第一产程活跃期、第二产程及第三产程时间比较:联合麻醉组分别为(272±127)min、(57±36)min及(9±6)min;硬膜外组分别为(305±133)min、(59±39)min及(8±6)min;对照组分别为(188±110)min、(45±32)min及(9±6)min。联合麻醉组及硬膜外组的第一产程活跃期及第二产程时间均长于对照组(P<0.01);3组间第三产程时间相互比较,差异均无统计学意义(P>0.05)。(2)产程图特点比较:联合麻醉组及硬膜外组产妇第一产程活跃期宫缩曲线位于产程图Friedman曲线右侧,对照组则位于其左侧;联合麻醉组和硬膜外组产程图宫口曲线较Friedman曲线倾斜角度小,即第一产程活跃期进展缓慢;对照组第一产程活跃期进展较快。联合麻醉组产妇平均每小时宫口开大1.5cm,硬膜外组产妇为1.4cm,对照组产妇为1.8cm。联合麻醉组及硬膜外组产妇平均每小时宫口开大程度较对照组缩小,两者比较,差异有统计学意义(P<0.01)。结论腰麻加硬膜外阻滞联合麻醉及单纯硬膜外阻滞镇痛后,产妇第一产程活跃期进展减慢,总产程时间延长;镇痛后的产程处理不应单纯按照Friedman产程图进行。     

蛛网膜下腔—硬膜外联合阻滞麻醉用于分娩镇痛206例 …

目的 探讨分娩镇痛的效果及对产程,母婴状况的影响。方法 采用蛛网膜下腔－硬膜外联合阻滞（ＣＳＥＡ）用于分娩镇痛的产妇２０６例作为观察组,将未采用任何分娩镇痛药物而进入产程的产妇２０６例作为对照分别观察产程时间,分娩方式,产后出血,胎儿窘迫及新生儿窒息情况。结果 两组产程活跃期比较,有极显著性差异;两组分娩方式比较有显著性差异;两组胎儿窘迫,新生儿窒息及产后出血发生率比较,无显著性差异。     

间苯三酚联合硬膜外麻醉分娩镇痛的临床研究

目的探讨间苯三酚联合硬膜外麻醉在分娩过程中,促进产程进展、减轻分娩疼痛等的效果。方法将180例初产妇随机分为3组各60例,在孕妇宫口开大约3cm以上,实验组采用间苯三酚80mg静脉推注联合硬膜外麻醉行无痛分娩,对照1组单纯采用间苯三酚80mg静脉推注;对照2组单纯采用硬膜外腔阻滞麻醉。比较在用药后1h的镇痛效果及产妇运动能力,第一产程活跃期时间、剖宫产率、产后出血量、血氧饱和度和新生儿评分等母儿结局。结果对照1组第一产程活跃期时间、剖宫产率与实验组相比,差异无统计学意义（P〉0.05）,但镇痛效果差。对照2组镇痛效果良好,但第一产程活跃期较对照1组和实验组时间明显延长,剖宫产率相对增加,差异有统计学意义（P〈0.05）。结论间苯三酚联合硬膜外麻醉缩短产程效果明显,镇痛效果良好,对母婴无不良反应,减少了剖宫产。     

2100例椎管内阻滞分娩镇痛临床分析

目的:对2100例分娩镇痛临床资料进行回顾和分析,探讨椎管内阻滞分娩镇痛的临床应用价值。方法:596例硬膜外阻滞分娩镇痛,1540例腰—硬联合阻滞分娩镇痛。观察孕妇无创血压、心率、呼吸、脉搏血氧饱和度、宫腔压力、胎儿心率、视觉模拟评分(VAS)、改良Bromage评分、产程时间、出血量、新生儿评分、分娩方式、不良反应等。结果:腰—硬联合阻滞分娩镇痛组潜伏期缩短;0.125%布比卡因+2μg/ml芬太尼硬膜外阻滞分娩镇痛组缩宫素使用率和剖宫产率比较高;蛛网膜下腔注射5μg～6μg,硬膜外维持用0.143%甲磺酸罗哌卡因+0.3μg/ml舒芬太尼的腰—硬联合阻滞分娩镇痛组皮肤瘙痒率比较高。结论:椎管内阻滞分娩镇痛镇痛效果满意,不良反应少,对产妇和新生儿无不良影响。     

硬膜外阻滞用于分娩镇痛疗效分析

目的　探讨硬膜外阻滞麻醉用于分娩镇痛的效果及其对产程的影响。方法　在全程胎心监护下 ,对4 9例产妇用硬膜外持续微泵给药进行分娩镇痛 (观察组 ) ,与同期 5 7例未干预产妇 (对照组 )比较镇痛效果、产程进展、分娩方式、产后出血量及Apgar评分。 结果　观察组分娩镇痛效果非常显著 (P <0 0 0 1) ,而产程进展、分娩方式、产后出血量及新生儿Apgar评分两组比较均无显著差异 (P >0 0 5 )。结论　硬膜外持续微泵给药有良好的分娩镇痛效果。     

静脉输注右美托咪定联合规律性间断硬膜外注射分娩镇痛疗效分析

目的:探讨静脉输注右美托咪定联合规律性间断硬膜外注射用于分娩镇痛的安全性及可行性。方法:选择2014年7～12月在我院产科接受硬膜外分娩镇痛的初产妇100例,随机分为两组:规律性间断硬膜外注射组(对照组)和右美托咪定联合规律性间断硬膜外注射组(右美托咪定组),每组50例。比较两组分娩镇痛期间生命体征的变化、分娩镇痛时间(T0～T4时)、第二产程时间、硬膜外药物消耗量、分娩方式、新生儿Apgar评分、镇痛前及镇痛后血浆儿茶酚胺的变化。结果:1两组产妇分娩镇痛期间平均动脉压(MBP)、视觉模拟评分(VAS)组间比较,差异无统计学意义(P0.05);虽然右美托咪定组在T2和T4时的心率低于对照组(P0.05),但在正常范围内。两组产妇分娩镇痛时间、分娩方式及新生儿Apgar评分比较,差异均无统计学意义(P0.05)。2右美托咪定组较对照组第二产程时间更短、硬膜外药物消耗量更少(P0.05)。3两组产妇实施分娩镇痛后血浆肾上腺素及去甲肾上腺素均明显下降,右美托咪定组下降幅度明显高于对照组(P0.05)。结论:静脉输注右美托咪定联合规律性间断硬膜外注射可安全及有效地应用于分娩镇痛,并能增强镇痛效能及利于阴道分娩。     

静脉输注右美托咪定联合规律性问断硬膜外注射分娩镇痛疗效分析

目的:探讨静脉输注右关托咪定联合规律性间断硬膜外注射用于分娩镇痛的安全性及可行性.方法:选择2014年7～12月在我院产科接受硬膜外分娩镇痛的初产妇100例,随机分为两组:规律性间断硬膜外注射组(对照组)和右美托咪定联合规律性间断硬膜外注射组(右美托咪定组),每组50例.比较两组分娩镇痛期间生命体征的变化、分娩镇痛时间(T0～T4时)、第二产程时间、硬膜外药物消耗量、分娩方式、新生儿Apgar评分、镇痛前及镇痛后血浆儿茶酚胺的变化.结果:①两组产妇分娩镇痛期间平均动脉压(MBP)、视觉模拟评分(VAS)组间比较,差异无统计学意义(P＞0.05);虽然右美托咪定组在T2和T4时的心率低于对照组(P＜0.05),但在正常范围内.两组产妇分娩镇痛时间、分娩方式及新生儿Apgar评分比较,差异均无统计学意义(P＞0.05).②右美托咪定组较对照组第二产程时间更短、硬膜外药物消耗量更少(P＜0.05).③两组产妇实施分娩镇痛后血浆肾上腺素及去甲肾上腺素均明显下降,右美托咪定组下降幅度明显高于对照组(P＜0.05).结论:静脉输注右美托咪定联合规律性间断硬膜外注射可安全及有效地应用于分娩镇痛,并能增强镇痛效能及利于阴道分娩.     

蛛网膜下腔-硬膜外联合阻滞麻醉用于分娩镇痛206例分析

目的　探讨分娩镇痛的效果及对产程、母婴状况的影响。方法　采用蛛网膜下腔 -硬膜外联合阻滞(CSEA)用于分娩镇痛的产妇 2 0 6例作为观察组 ,将未采用任何分娩镇痛药物而进入产程的产妇 2 0 6例作为对照组 ,分别观察产程时间、分娩方式、产后出血、胎儿窘迫及新生儿窒息情况。结果　两组产程活跃期比较 ,有极显著性差异 (P <0 0 1) ;两组分娩方式比较有显著性差异 (P <0 0 5 ) ;两组胎儿窘迫、新生儿窒息及产后出血发生率比较 ,无显著性差异 (P >0 0 5 )。结论　CSEA用于分娩镇痛 ,疼痛阻滞完善 ,加速了产程活跃期及第二产程的进展 ,降低了剖宫产及阴道难产率 ,对母婴均无不良影响     

Comparison of patient-controlled analgesia and epidural morphine for postcesarean pain and recovery

A greater awareness of the advantages and limitations of new methods of administering postcesarean analgesia would help the obstetrician care for the recovering patient. Patient-controlled analgesia and epidural morphine are two new modalities for postoperative pain relief. The purpose of this prospective investigation was to compare their effectiveness, safety, side effects, patient satisfaction and cost. During an eight-month period, 161 women undergoing cesarean delivery were assigned to receive narcotics by either epidural morphine (76 patients) or patient-controlled analgesia (85 patients) using a combined continuous infusion and demand dosing of meperidine. The demographic characteristics of the two groups were similar. Mild or no pain was reported with similar frequencies in both groups. No reduced respiration or undesired sedation was seen in either group. The postoperative times before sitting at the bedside, ambulating, tolerating clear liquids and leaving the hospital were also comparable. No complications were encountered with patient-controlled analgesia, but pruritus and alarms from apnea monitors occurred commonly in the epidural morphine group. The costs to the patient were similar for the two groups. Patient-controlled analgesia using a combined continuous infusion and demand dosing is an acceptable alternative to epidural morphine after cesarean delivery.     

Analgesic efficacy of intramuscular opioids versus epidural analgesia in labor.

OBJECTIVES: To compare analgesic efficacy of intramuscular opioids: meperidine and tramadol with epidural analgesia. METHODS: One hundred and twenty-eight term nulliparous women with singleton pregnancy and vertex presentation were randomized to receive either epidural (n=43), meperidine (n=39) or tramadol (n=44). A visual analog scale (VAS) was used to assess the severity of pain. The parameters analyzed were analgesic efficacy, effect on labor, other maternal side effects, perinatal outcome and maternal satisfaction. RESULTS: Median VAS scores following first dose were 0 (0-5), 5 (3-8) and 5 (3-8) in epidural, meperidine and tramadol groups, respectively. Ninety percent of women rated analgesia as good to excellent in the epidural group as compared with 72% of women in the meperidine group and 65% in tramadol group. However, epidural caused a significant prolongation of first (P<0.05) and second (P<0.01) stage of labor with an increased number of operative deliveries (27% in the epidural, 7.6% in the meperidine, and 11.4% in the tramadol groups, P<0.05). In the epidural group 40% women had urinary retention and 16% had motor weakness, whereas sedation was the only side effect seen in the meperidine (41%) and tramadol groups (9%). Respiratory depression was noted among three neonates in the meperidine group, two in the tramadol group and none in the epidural group. CONCLUSIONS: The analgesic efficacy and maternal satisfaction is better with epidural analgesia than with opioids. Analgesia provided by meperidine and tramadol is comparable and approximately 50% of women rated the analgesia as good. Meperidine is better in the second stage than tramadol. Hence in developing nations where availability of facilities is the main limiting factor, intramuscular opioids can be considered suitable alternatives.     

Epidural analgesia vs. general anesthesia for cesarean section

A prospective study based upon interviews included 92 women who had undergone cesarean section, 38% with epidural analgesia and 62% under general anesthesia. The two groups were compared with respect to anesthesiological complications, postoperative morbidity and birth experience. The puerperal period was less complicated after epidural analgesia than after general anesthesia. There was a quicker re-establishment of the gastrointestinal function after epidural analgesia and the patients were more quickly mobilized and less tired. The overall morbidity after cesarean section, 16%, was lower than in other studies. Nearly half of the patients in the epidural experienced slight peroperative pain. In the case of repeated cesarean section, 86% of women who had epidural analgesia wanted the same anesthesia again. On the basis of this study, epidural analgesia is recommended for cesarean section.     

Long‐term Effects of Epidural Analgesia in Labor: A Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing High Dose with Two Mobile Techniques

Background: Epidural analgesia provides the most effective pain relief in labor, but it is not known if it causes adverse long‐term effects. The objective of this study was to assess the long‐term effects of two mobile epidural techniques relative to high‐dose epidural analgesia in a randomized controlled trial. Methods: A total of 1,054 nulliparous women were randomized to traditional high‐dose epidural, combined spinal epidural, or low‐dose infusion. Women in all groups were followed‐up at 12 months postpartum by postal questionnaire to assess long‐term symptoms. The primary long‐term outcome was backache occurring within 3 months of the birth persisting for longer than 6 weeks. Secondary outcomes were frequent headaches and fecal and urinary stress incontinence. Results: No significant differences were found in long‐term backache after combined spinal epidural or low‐dose infusion relative to high‐dose epidural. Significantly less headache occurred in combined spinal epidural analgesia than high‐dose epidural (OR: 0.57, 95% CI: 0.36–0.92), but no difference was found for low‐dose infusion. Significantly less fecal incontinence (OR: 0.51, 95% CI: 0.30–0.87) and stress incontinence (OR: 0.65, 95% CI: 0.42–1.00) occurred with low‐dose infusion. Conclusion: Trial evidence showed no long‐term disadvantages and possible benefits of low‐dose mobile relative to high‐dose epidural analgesia. (BIRTH 38:2 June 2011)     

Trends in labour and birth interventions among low-risk women in New South Wales

OBJECTIVE: To examine recent trends in obstetric intervention rates among women at low-risk of poor pregnancy outcome. DESIGN: Cross-sectional analytic study SETTING AND POPULATION: A population of 336,189 women categorised as low-risk of a poor pregnancy outcome who gave birth to a live singleton in NSW from 1 January 1990 to 31 December 1997. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Obstetric intervention rates including oxytocin induction and augmentation of labour, epidural analgesia, instrumental births, caesarean section and episiotomy METHODS: Trends over time were assessed by fitting trend-lines to numbers of births or by trends in proportions. Unconditional logistic regression was used to assess the impact of epidural analgesia on instrumental birth over time. RESULTS: Rates of operative births did not rise despite increases in maternal age and use of epidural analgesia. Instrumental births declined over time from 26% to 22% among primiparas and 5% to 4% among multiparas. There was also a shift to vacuum extraction rather than forceps. Although instrumental birth was strongly associated with epidural analgesia, the strength of the association declined over the study period, for primiparas from an adjusted odds ratio of 7.2 to 5.2 and for multiparas from 13.2 to 10.3. CONCLUSIONS: Increased use of epidural analgesia for labour has been a feature of the management of birth at term during the 1990s. The decline in the strength of association between epidural analgesia and instrumental birth may reflect improved epidural techniques and management of epidural labour, and recognition of the adverse maternal outcomes associated with forceps and vacuum births.     

Labor under peridural anesthesia. Experience at the Maternity Center of the Amiens CHRU

The study has been carried out on 476 epidural deliveries. 69 per cent of the patients were satisfied. Amongst the 31 per cent of unsatisfied, most claimed that the analgesia was not sufficient, mainly due to delayed re-injections. Instead of a continuous administration, the authors prefer the use of a bolus which is better adapted to the different times of labour. 80 per cent of the patients who had a caesarian delivery under epidural anaesthetic were very satisfied. The efficacy of the re-injection for post-operative analgesia is also to be noted (92 per cent success). Finally, whatever the stage of perfection of the epidural technique, it is always better to associate the latter with a good psychoprophylaxis.     

Epidural anesthesia for cesarean section. The effect of morphine-bupivacaine administered epidurally for intra and postoperative pain relief

Two groups of mothers who underwent elective cesarean section under epidural analgesia, were studied with the aim of comparing the analgesic potency and side effects of two solutions: morphine-bupivacaine and morphine-saline. Each group comprised 100 patients. The intraoperative anesthesia was established with bupivacaine plain, 5 mg/ml, in amount 85-125 mg. Immediately after the infant was delivered, the mothers received a single epidural dose of 3 mg of preservative-free morphine chloride mixed with either 5 ml of 0.25% bupivacaine (Group I) or 0.9% saline (Group II). The intraoperative observations showed "good effect" without need for supplementation of analgesia in 82 mothers in Group I, compared with 61 mothers in Group II (p less than 0.001). The postoperative observations showed that 82 mothers in Group I were satisfied with a single dose of morphine for more than 24 hours, while in Group II the corresponding number was 63 (p less than 0.01). A significant difference in the incidence of nausea and vomiting was found between the groups; 7 of the mothers experienced nausea and 4 vomited in Group I and 17 experienced nausea and 13 vomited in Group II (p less than 0.05, for both variables). Respiratory depression was seen in one mother during surgery immediately after supplementation of morphine-bupivacaine analgesia with ketamine. Other side effects, such as itching, bradycardia and Horner's triad were rare. It may be concluded that a single epidural dose of morphine in bupivacaine will augment intraoperative analgesia and prolong postoperative analgesia. Less favorable results were obtained when morphine in saline was used. Synergism between bupivacaine and morphine is suggested.     

Epidural catheter analgesia for the management of postoperative pain

Since its introduction to North America in 1942, the use of epidural catheter analgesia has increased dramatically. Improved equipment, methods and medications have broadened its application to include among others, surgical anesthesia, chronic pain relief and the management of postoperative pain. Numerous techniques for epidural puncture and insertion of the catheter have been described. Although complications have been associated with placement of an epidural catheter, these are rare when performed by an experienced anesthesiologist. Epidural analgesia was first accomplished by blockade with local anesthetics. Bupivacaine has been called the local anesthetic of choice for epidural infusion. Bolus administration of epidural local anesthetics gives effective analgesia; however, its use is limited by brief duration and occasionally severe hypotension. Epidural local anesthetics have been administered by continuous infusion in an attempt to minimize side effects. Nevertheless, hypotension, as well as motor block, numbness, nausea and urinary retention have occurred. Epidural analgesia with local anesthetics is effective in relieving postoperative pain, but its safety and feasibility have been questioned because of the frequent, potentially serious side effects. These problems led to trials of epidural narcotics for postoperative pain management. The exact site of action of epidural narcotic analgesics is debatable; however, the bulk of evidence supports a direct spinal action. Epidural narcotics appear to specifically inhibit nociceptive stimuli. The prolonged and profound analgesia that occurs with epidural narcotics relative to parenteral administration is due to a higher concentration of drug reaching the CSF through the epidural route. Since nervous transmission is not completely blocked this technique cannot provide anesthesia during operation. Morphine has been the most frequently used narcotic for epidural analgesia. Results of several recent, randomized double-blind studies have shown that epidural narcotics give adequate analgesia comparable with that observed with epidural bupivacaine. Epidural morphine provides a greater duration of analgesia and may cause fewer side effects. Improved analgesia has been reported when epidural narcotics are used in combination with local anesthetics. Continuous administration of low dosage epidural narcotics has been shown to have less frequent side effects than bolus administration. Nevertheless, pruritus, urinary retention, hypotension and severe respiratory depression have been reported with both methods.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 400 WORDS)     

Patient -controlled epidural ropivacaine as a post-Cesarean analgesia: a comparison with epidural morphine

ObjectiveConventional, intermittent, epidural morphine is widely applied as a post-Cesarean delivery analgesia. We compared the analgesic efficacy, motor weakness, and side effects of administering a patient-controlled epidural analgesia (PCEA) of pure ropivacaine versus the intermittent administration of epidural morphine after Cesarean delivery.Materials and MethodsThis randomized, double-blind study included 120 full-term parturients who underwent elective Cesarean delivery and received either PCEA with pure ropivacaine or an intermittent bolus epidural of 2 mg/10 mL morphine in normal saline twice per day. The efficacy of pain relief, post-Cesarean side effects, motor blockades, time to first ambulation, and global satisfaction scores were evaluated.ResultsPain scores were recorded at the four evaluation times (2, 12, 24, and 48 hours post-Cesarean delivery), and the time to first ambulation did not statistically differ between the two groups. Patients in the ropivacaine group experienced more motor weakness at 2 and 12 hours, fewer side effects, and higher global satisfaction scores than those in the morphine group (p < 0.05).ConclusionThe analgesic efficacy after cesarean delivery was almost equivalent between two groups. PCEA with pure ropivacaine induced significant motor blockade during the first 12 hours, but without delaying the time to first ambulation. Patients in the ropivacaine group reported higher patient satisfaction scores due to the significant reduction of annoying side effects, such as pruritus, nausea, vomiting, and urinary retention.