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     

腰麻-硬膜外联合阻滞麻醉用于分娩镇痛的临床分析

目的探讨蛛网膜下腔-硬膜外联合阻滞麻醉（CSEA）进行分娩镇痛对母儿的影响。方法将200例（试验组）无产科并发症和麻醉禁忌证的初产妇分为自然临产组120例，缩宫素引产组80例；随机抽取同期条件相当，未实施分娩镇痛者200例也分别与镇痛组配为对照组，试验组在活跃初期使用小剂量低浓度麻醉药经蛛网膜下腔-硬膜外联合给药，观察用药后不良反应和镇痛效果以及对产程时间、分娩方式、产后出血、新生儿窒息、羊水性状的影响，并与200例对照组产妇相比较。结果试验组镇痛效果良好，未见明显不良反应，活跃期和第二产程缩短，此镇痛方式快速有效，不良反应少，能使活跃期明显加速，第二产程缩短；两组在产后出血、新生儿窒息、胎儿窘迫等方面差异无显著性。结论此镇痛方式快速有效，不良反应少，能使活跃期明显加速，缩短第二产程，降低剖宫产率，对母婴无不良影响，值得推广。     

硬膜外镇痛联合超声引导下阴部神经阻滞在产妇分娩中的应用效果

目的 探讨产妇分娩期间应用硬膜外镇痛联合超声引导下阴部神经阻滞对手术效果的影响。方法 选取70例产妇,根据随机数字表法分为两组,每组35例。对照组应用硬膜外麻醉,试验组应用硬膜外镇痛联合超声引导下阴部神经阻滞麻醉。比较两组产妇不同时间疼痛评分、手术相关指标。结果 试验组产妇在阴部神经阻滞后15 min (T₄)、胎头着冠(T₅)、会阴缝合(T₆)时的疼痛评分明显低于对照组(P<0.05)。试验组第二、三产程短于对照组,硬膜外罗哌卡因用量、自控镇痛泵按压次数均明显少于对照组(P<0.05)。结论 硬膜外镇痛联合超声引导下阴部神经阻滞在产妇分娩中的应用效果确切,值得临床推广。     

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。     

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。     

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。     

蛛网膜下腔-硬膜外联合阻滞麻醉用于分娩镇痛效果观察

目的 探讨两种分娩镇痛方法的效果．方法 采用蛛网膜下腔及硬膜外腔联合给予低质量浓度麻醉药及镇痛药和单纯硬膜外腔阻滞的方法分别对３０例实产妇进行分娩镇痛,比较组的镇痛效果,不良反应及对产程,分娩方式,产后出血量,胎儿及新生儿等的影响,并与５０例正常未干预组产妇比较。结果 联合组效果较好,单纯组镇痛作用欠佳且增加阴道分娩的助产率。     

罗哌卡因腰麻复合硬膜外阻滞麻醉用于分娩镇痛对初产妇产程的影响

腰麻复合硬膜外阻滞麻醉用于分娩镇痛因其起效快 ,镇痛效果明显及安全性好而越来越多用于临床。特别是新的酰胺类局部麻醉药物罗哌卡因具有使感觉神经和运动神经分别阻滞的特性 ,使产妇处于可行走状态下的分娩镇痛成为可能。本研究通过对罗哌卡因腰麻复合硬膜外阻滞麻醉分娩镇痛的观察 ,探讨其对产妇产程进展的影响 ,现将结果报道如下。一、资料和方法1.对象选择及方法 :选择我院 2 0 0 0年 1月至 2 0 0 0年 6月拟行自然分娩的单胎、足月初产妇 6 6例。随机分为罗哌卡因腰麻复合硬膜外阻滞麻醉组 (研究组 )和肌内注射度冷丁镇痛组 (对照组 )…     

椎管内阻滞麻醉与笑气吸入用于分娩镇痛的效果比较

目的　比较椎管内阻滞麻醉和笑气吸入两种方法的分娩镇痛效果和对产妇及新生儿的影响。方法　随机选取 30 0例产妇分为笑气组、椎管内阻滞组和对照组 ,每组各 10 0例。在分娩过程中 ,笑气组给予吸入含 5 0 %笑气与 5 0 %氧气的混合气体 ;椎管内阻滞组给予蛛网膜下腔 +硬膜外腔联合注入芬太尼和布比卡因 ;对照组未给予镇痛药物。并分别观察 3组产妇的镇痛效果、产程时间、分娩方式、产后出血量、产妇桡动脉血及新生儿脐血的血气分析以及新生儿窒息情况。结果　 (1)镇痛效果比较 :椎管内阻滞组镇痛分级 0级为 88例 ,笑气组为 12例 ,对照组为 0例。 3组之间比较 ,差异有极显著性 (P <0 0 1)。 (2 )产程时间比较 :第一产程和总产程时间 ,椎管内阻滞组短于对照组和笑气组 (P <0 0 5 ) ,笑气组与对照组比较 ,差异无显著性 (P >0 0 5 ) ;第二产程时间椎管内阻滞组长于对照组和笑气组 ,但差异无显著性 (P >0 0 5 )。 (3)剖宫产术后出血量比较 :笑气组为 (373± 77)ml,椎管内阻滞组为 (2 5 9± 78)ml,对照组为 (2 39± 89)ml,笑气组与其他两组比较 ,差异有极显著性 (P<0 0 1)。(4)血气分析结果比较 :3组产妇桡动脉血及新生儿脐血血气分析结果各组之间比较 ,差异均无显著性 (P >0 0 5 )。 (5 )分娩方式比较     

Effect of epidural analgesia on the primary cesarean section and forceps delivery rates

OBJECTIVE: To determine the impact of introducing epidural analgesia for labor pain relief on the primary cesarean and forceps delivery rates. STUDY DESIGN: The control group consisted of 1,720 women who delivered on a charity hospital service between September 1, 1992, and August 31, 1993; epidural analgesia was not available for this cohort of patients. The study group consisted of 1,442 patients who delivered on the same service between September 1, 1993, and August 31, 1994; elective epidural analgesia for labor pain relief was available for this cohort of patients. A computerized obstetric database was analyzed to compare the two groups regarding demographics, parity, pregnancy complications, labor characteristics, type of delivery, low birth weight incidence and five-minute Apgar scores. RESULTS: The two groups were similar with respect to demographics and pregnancy complications. No control group patient received epidural analgesia for labor pain relief; 734 of 1,285 (57%) laboring patients in the study group elected epidural analgesia for pain relief. The primary cesarean delivery rate for the control group was 9.6% and for the study group 11.0% (not statistically significant). The control group had 34 (2.0%) forceps deliveries and the study group, 88 (6.1%), for a statistically significant difference. There were significantly more vaginal births after cesarean in the study group (42 vs. 26). CONCLUSION: Epidural analgesia was not associated with an increase in the primary cesarean delivery rate but was associated with an increase in the operative vaginal delivery rate.     

腰麻及硬膜外麻醉联合应用于产科分娩镇痛的临床观察

目的探讨联合应用腰麻及硬膜外麻醉（ＣＳＥＡ）减轻或消除产痛以及对产程、胎儿、分娩方式的影响。方法选择８０例无产科、麻醉禁忌证的初产妇（观察组）,在宫口开大２～３ｃｍ时,给予联合腰麻及硬膜外麻醉,并与同期条件相似、未给予任何镇痛方法的８０例初产妇进行对照（对照组）。比较两组产痛程度、产程进展速度、分娩方式及对胎儿的影响。结果观察组镇痛有效率较对照组明显升高（Ｐ＜０．０１）。观察组活跃期较对照组缩短,宫颈扩张速度加快、剖宫产率下降,经阴道助产分娩率增高（Ｐ＜０．０５）。胎儿窘迫及新生儿窒息、产后出血发生率两组比较,差异均无显著性（Ｐ＞０．０５）。结论ＣＳＥＡ应用于产科,可达到分娩镇痛、加速产程、降低剖宫产率的作用,且对胎儿无不良影响,值得推广应用     

Adverse effects of combined spinal-epidural versus traditional epidural analgesia during labor

Objective

To compare two neuraxial block techniques during labor for maternal and fetal effects.

Methods

Women in labor at term with cephalic singleton fetuses were randomized (nonblinded) to receive either labor epidural (EPI) or combined spinal-epidural (CSE) analgesia. Primary outcome was prolonged deceleration (PD) of fetal heart rate. Outcomes also included hypotension, mode of delivery, and efficacy of analgesia by visual analog pain scale (VAPS) before and after block placement.

Results

Randomization occurred in 127 patients: 63 received EPI, 64 received CSE. There was no difference in the rate of PD in the EPI group compared with the CSE group (3.2% vs 6.2% respectively; P = 0.43, RR 2.0; 95% CI 0.4-9.3), rate of cesarean delivery, or mean epidural duration. VAPS ratings were significantly lower in the CSE group.

Conclusions

There were no differences in the rate of PD or other adverse outcomes. Hypotension occurred more frequently with CSE during labor at term. The study supports both EPI and CSE during labor as safe and effective techniques for neuraxial analgesia.     

罗哌卡因用于分娩镇痛对产程和分娩方式的影响

目的探讨罗哌卡因用于分娩镇痛对产妇产程和分娩方式的影响。方法采用回顾性分析的方法,选择行0.1%罗哌卡因+芬太尼(1μg/ml)硬膜外阻滞的190例健康、单胎、足月临产初产妇为镇痛组。另选择同期222例条件相似、未行任何镇痛措施的自然临产产妇为对照组。记录两组产妇产程时间、分娩方式、新生儿1分钟和5分钟Apgar评分。结果(1)产程时间比较:镇痛组第一产程、第二产程和总产程时间分别为(426±161)min、(54±27)min、(489±166)min;对照组分别为(364±167)min、(37±22)min、(409±170)min,两组比较,差异均有统计学意义(P<0.01)。(2)分娩方式比较:镇痛组阴道器械助产率为20.0%(38/190),明显高于对照组的6.3%(14/222),两组比较,差异均有统计学意义(P<0.01);镇痛组剖宫产率及阴道顺产率分别为20.0%(38/190)、60.5%(115/190),对照组分别为28.4%(63/222)、65.8%(146/222),两组比较,差异均无统计学意义(P>0.05)。(3)Apgar评分比较:镇痛组新生儿1分钟及5分钟Apgar评分<7分者分别为7.9%(15/190)、2.6%(5/190),对照组分别为4.5%(10/222)、0.5%(1/222),两组比较,差异均无统计学意义(P>0.05)。结论罗哌卡因用于分娩镇痛对产妇产程有延长作用及增加阴道器械助产率,但对新生儿出生结局无明显影响。     

Analgesia and anesthesia during labor and birth: implications for mother and fetus

Labor and birth, although viewed as a normal physiological process, can produce significant pain, requiring appropriate pain management. Systemic analgesia and regional analgesia/anesthesia have become less common, whereas the use of newer neuraxial techniques, with minimal motor blockade, have become more popular. Low- and ultra-low-dose epidural analgesia, spinal analgesia, and combination spinal-epidural analgesia have replaced the once traditional epidural for labor. The shift from regional anesthesia during labor, in which the woman became a passive participant during the labor and birth, to a collaborative approach for pain management, in which the woman becomes an active participant, has resulted in a new philosophy of labor analgesia. This article provides a review of the current systemic analgesics and regional and neuraxial analgesia/anesthesia techniques for pain management in labor and birth. Also addressed are implications for perinatal nurses who participate in pain management choices during labor and birth.     

Pain management during labor and vaginal birth

Neuraxial analgesia provides excellent pain relief in labor. Optimizing initiation and maintenance of neuraxial labor analgesia requires different strategies. Combined spinal-epidurals or dural puncture epidurals may offer advantages over traditional epidurals. Ultrasound is useful in certain patients. Maintenance of analgesia is best achieved with a background regimen (either programmed intermittent boluses or a continuous epidural infusion) supplemented with patient-controlled epidural analgesia and using dilute local anesthetics combined with opioids such as fentanyl. Nitrous oxide and systemic opioids are also used for pain relief. Nitrous oxide may improve satisfaction despite variable effects on pain. Systemic opioids can be administered by healthcare providers or using patient-controlled analgesia. Appropriate choice of drug should take into account the stage and progression of labor, local safety protocols, and maternal and fetal/neonatal side effects. Pain in labor is complex, and women should fully participate in the decision-making process before any one modality is selected.