Anaesthesia for caesarean section — a German survey

Background: Anaesthetic practice for caesarean section has changed during the last decades. There is a world-wide shift in obstetric anaesthetic practice in favour of regional anaesthesia. Current data concerning anaesthetic practice in patients under-going caesarean section from Germany are not available. A comparison with figures from the UK, USA, Norway and other European countries might be of general interest.
Methods: Questionnaires on the practice of anaesthesia for caesarean section and anaesthetic coverage of the obstetric units were sent to 1178 university, tertiary care, district, community and private hospitals in Germany.
Results: The 532 completed replies of this survey represent 46.9% of the German obstetric units. Most hospitals (42.3%) have delivery rates between 500 and 1000 per year. General anaesthesia is the most common anaesthetic technique for elective (61%), urgent (83%) and emergency caesarean section (98%). Epidural anaesthesia is performed in 23% of scheduled and 5% of non-scheduled caesarean sections, and spinal anaesthesia in 14% and 10%, respectively. Acid aspiration prophylaxis before elective caesarean section is used in 68.7% of the departments. The majority of the departments provide a 24-hour anaesthetic coverage; however, in only 6.2% of the units, this service is assigned to obstetric anaesthesia, exclusively.
Conclusion: Compared to data from 1978, anaesthetic practice for caesarean section has changed with an increase in regional anaesthesia. However, German anaesthetists prefer general anaesthesia for caesarean section. In contrast, anaesthetists in other countries predominantly use regional techniques, and the difference to German practice is striking. International consensus discussion and recommendations as well as comparable European instruments of quality control in obstetric anaesthesia are desirable.     

A survey in the West Midlands of the United Kingdom of current practice in managing hypotension in lower segment caesarean section under spinal anaesthesia

BackgroundSpinal anaesthesia, the most common form of anaesthesia for caesarean section, leads to sympathetic blockade and profound maternal hypotension resulting in adverse maternal and neonatal outcomes. Hypotension, nausea and vomiting remain common but until the publication of the National Institute of Health and Care Excellence (NICE) 2021 guidance, no national guideline existed on how best to manage maternal hypotension following spinal anaesthesia for caesarean section. A 2017 international consensus statement recommended prophylactic vasopressor administration to maintain a systolic blood pressure of >90% of an accurate pre-spinal value, and to avoid a drop to <80% of this value.This survey aimed to assess regional adherence to these recommendations, the presence of local guidelines for management of hypotension during caesarean section under spinal anaesthesia, and the individual clinician’s treatment thresholds for maternal hypotension and tachycardia.MethodsThe West Midlands Trainee-led Research in Anaesthesia and Intensive Care Network co-ordinated surveys of obstetric anaesthetic departments and consultant obstetric anaesthetists across 11 National Health Service Trusts in the Midlands, England.ResultsOne-hundred-and-two consultant obstetric anaesthetists returned the survey and 73% of sites had a policy for vasopressor use; 91% used phenylephrine as the first-line drug but a wide range of recommended delivery methods was noted and target blood pressure was only listed in 50% of policies. Significant variation existed in both vasopressor delivery methods and target blood pressures.ConclusionsAlthough NICE has since recommended prophylactic phenylephrine infusion and a target blood pressure, the previous international consensus statement was not adhered to routinely.     

Analgesie und Anästhesie zur Geburtshilfe in der Schweiz 1999

QUESTION: This survey investigated the common practice of obstetric analgesia and anaesthesia in Swiss hospitals and evaluated the influence of the Swiss interest group for obstetric anaesthesia. METHODS: In March 1999 we submitted 145 questionnaires to all Swiss hospitals providing an obstetric service. RESULTS: The rate of epidural analgesia (EA) was higher in large hospitals (> 1,000 births/year) than in small services. EA was maintained by continuous infusion techniques in 53% of the responding hospitals. For elective caesarean section, spinal anaesthesia (SA) and EA were performed in 77% and 16% of the patients, respectively. General anaesthesia (5%) was only used in small hospitals (< 500 births/year). Emergency caesarean section was performed under SA in 75% of all hospitals and only in 25% was a general anaesthesia used. An already existing EA for labour analgesia was continued for anaesthesia for caesarean section in 63% of Swiss hospitals. CONCLUSIONS: Regional anaesthesia was most commonly used for obstetric anaesthesia in Swiss hospitals. Epidemiological studies, recommendations of the Swiss interest group for obstetric anaesthesia, as well as the expectations of pregnant women, increased the numbers of regional anaesthesia compared with the first survey in 1992.     

The delivery of obstetric anaesthetic care in UK maternity units: a survey of practice in 2021

BackgroundAnaesthetists are crucial members of the maternity unit team, providing peri-operative analgesia and anaesthesia, and supporting the delivery of medical care to high-risk women. The effective contribution from obstetric anaesthetists to safety in maternity units depends on how anaesthesia services are organised and resourced. There is a lack of information on how obstetric anaesthetic care is resourced in the UK.MethodsThe Obstetric Anaesthetists’ Association surveyed UK clinical leads for their hospital’s obstetric anaesthetic service and examined compliance with national recommendations.ResultsThere were 153 responses by lead obstetric anaesthetists from 184 maternity units in the UK (83%). The number of consultants per 1000 deliveries was 2.2 [1.6–2.7] (median [IQR]). In 20% of units, there was a dedicated on-call rota (on-call only for obstetric anaesthesia), whilst the remainder had a ‘combined’ on-call rota (on-call for other clinical areas in addition to obstetrics). Multidisciplinary ward rounds were held in 83% of units. Twenty-five (16%) units reported having no regular multidisciplinary ward rounds, of which nine (6%) did not have any multidisciplinary ward rounds. Planned operating lists for elective caesarean sections were provided in 77% of units.ConclusionsIn the largest survey of obstetric anaesthesia workload to be reported for any health system, we found significant disparities between obstetric anaesthesia service provision and current national recommendations for areas including consultant staffing, support for elective caesarean section lists, antenatal anaesthetic clinics, and consultant support for service development. Wide national variation in service provision was identified.     

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.     

Aktuelle Praxis der Analgesie in der Geburtshilfe an den deutschen Universitätsklinika Ergebnisse einer Umfrage 1996. Teil 2

Obviously there is a world-wide trend towards regional analgesia for pain relief during delivery. Data on the current practice in Germany are lacking. Methods: In 1996 questionnaires on obstetric anaesthesia and analgesia were mailed to all university departments of anaesthesia. Results: All 38 university hospitals with obstetric units replied (100%). Mean annual delivery rate was 1156. Epidural analgesia (EA) (n=22), intramuscular injection of opioids (n=18), and non-opioids as a suppository (n=17) were often used for pain relief during labour. Intravenous injections (n=12) or pudendus anaesthesia (n=7) were practised as well. Entonox (N₂O/O₂), paracervical blocks or transcutaneous electrical stimulation (TENS) was rarely used. EA for relief of labour pain was offered in all university hospitals. Twelve of them had an epidural rate of less than 10%, in nine the rate was 10–19%, in eight hospitals 20–29% and 30% or more in nine. Indication for EA was a demand by the parturient (n=34), by the obstetrician (n=26) or the midwife (n=18), predominantly because of prolonged labour (n=32) or significant pain (n=21). Half of the university departments used an epidural combination of local anaesthetics (bupivacaine) and opioids (sufentanil (n=12) and/or fentanyl (n=9)). In all but one department the application of an epidural catheter was performed by anaesthesiologists exclusively. In some hospitals obstetricians (n=10) or midwives (n=4) were allowed to give epidural top-up injections. Of the 38 university departments 11 had an anaesthesiologists on duty 24 h a day responsible for the obstetric unit exclusively. Conclusion: In 1977, 14 of 18 university departments of anaesthesiology offered epidural analgesia for parturients. This option was available in all university departments in 1996. A mean rate of 10–20% epidurals for vaginal delivery is well within the limits reported from other countries, whereas the rate of regional anaesthesia for scheduled caesarean section (40%) still is rather low in Germany, as reported in part 1 of this survey (Anaesthesist 1998; 47:59–63).     

Anästhesieverfahren zur Sectio caesarea in Deutschland Eine Umfrage

Aim of study: Goal of this survey is to give an overview of anaesthesia for caesarean section in Germany. Method: In 1994 and 1995, we sent a questionnaire to the chief-anaesthetists of all German hospitals with departments of gynaecology/obstetrics to find out the routine anaesthetic procedures for caesarean section. Results: We obtained data from 409 hospitals (response rate 46.4%) with 321,816 births – 50,123 of which were sections (mean caesarean section rate 16.6%). The mean general anaesthesia rate for elective caesarean sections was 66,5%, for non-elective sections 90,8%. The mean epidural anaesthesia rate for caesarean section was 22,6% and the mean spinal anaesthesia rate was 9,8%. For general anaesthesia most hospitals used antacids and/or histamine₂-receptor antagonists (64,6% of responding hospitals). Anaesthesia was induced with intravenous barbiturates (82%), succinylcholine for intubation (98,2%) and no opioids before clamping of the cord (94,8%). For regional anaesthesia bupivacaine was the most common local anaesthetic (spinal 84,0%, epidural 96,8%). Opioids were added to local anaesthetics for epidural anaesthesia at 21,4% of the hospitals. Conclusions: General anaesthesia is the commonest practice for caesarean sections at German hospitals. Nowadays regional anaesthesia gains more importance compared to previous German surveys and in agreement with foreign data.     

Use of anaesthetic rooms in obstetric anaesthesia; a postal survey of obstetric anaesthetists and departments in the United Kingdom

BACKGROUND: Use of anaesthetic rooms has been much discussed in the UK in recent years, but attitudes and practices of obstetric anaesthetists regarding their use for caesarean section have never been sought. METHOD: A postal survey was conducted to discover the extent of use of anaesthetic rooms versus operating theatre for induction of anaesthesia and reasons for using or not using them. Questionnaires regarding individual practices were sent to 400 randomly selected members of the Obstetric Anaesthetists' Association ( approximately 25% of UK membership). Questionnaires regarding departmental policies were sent to 100 "clinicians responsible for surveys" (approximately 38% of departments providing obstetric anaesthesia in the UK). RESULTS: For elective caesarean section, 70% of individual clinicians never used an anaesthetic room, 9% rarely, 5% usually, 9% for all regional anaesthetics and 6% always. For emergency caesarean section the corresponding figures were 83%, 5%, 5%, 3% and 2% respectively. Use of the anaesthetic room was independent of the seniority of anaesthetists. In 68% of departments it was standard practice or policy to induce all anaesthetics for caesarean section in the operating room. Conversely, only 1% of departments had a policy to induce all anaesthetics in the anaesthetic room. Patient safety was the usual reason given for anaesthetising in the operating room. CONCLUSION: The majority of obstetric anaesthetists have abandoned the use of anaesthetic induction rooms, the main reason being patient safety. For the same reason, two-thirds of departments providing obstetric anaesthesia consider induction of anaesthesia in the operating room their standard practice.     

Aktuelle Praxis der Anästhesie zur Sectio caesarea an den deutschen Universitätsklinika Ergebnisse einer Erhebung im Jahr 1996

Obviously there is a world-wide trend towards regional anaesthesia for caesarean section (CS). Data on the current practice in Germany are lacking. Methods: In 1996 questionnaires on obstetric anaesthesia were mailed to all University departments of anaesthesia. Results: All 38 University Hospitals with obstetric units replied (100%). Mean annual delivery rate was 1156 with a mean CS-rate of 24%. For scheduled CS the University departments used general anaesthesia in most cases (60%), followed by epidural (31%) and spinal anaesthesia (9%). General anaesthesia was predominantly used for more urgent (87%) or emergency deliveries (99%). Spinal anaesthesia was offered to patients as an option of anaesthesia for CS in 16 of 38 departments, epidural anaesthesia in 36 of 38. The majority of university hospitals (22 of 38) performed more than 25% of their CS in epidural anaesthesia; 14 departments had a ratio of at least 50% of regional anaesthesia. 28 of 32 centres administered some kind of acid aspiration chemoprophylaxis as a routine management. Special devices for the management of a difficult airway were provided in 61% of the hospitals within the delivery unit. In 70% the anaesthesiologist was responsible for the postoperative pain management following CS. Conclusion: A significant trend towards regional anaesthesia for CS has taken place in German university hospitals: According to a former survey regional anaesthesia was used in less than 10% of CS in 1977, whereas in the current evaluation from 1996 this figure was significantly higher (40%). Nevertheless, compared to other countries the rate of general anaesthesia still is rather high.     

L'anesthésie comme cause de souffrance fœtale ?

ObjectiveTo describe the effects of anaesthetic techniques and agents on the risk of foetal distress during labour pain relief and anaesthesia for caesarean section.Study designData on obstetric anaesthesia- and analgesia-induced fœtal distress were searched in Medline database using Mesh terms: foetal distress, anaesthesia, analgesia, labour, caesarean section, and umbilical artery pH. Trials published in English or French language were selected.ResultsBecause of their haemodynamic effects, regional anaesthesia and analgesia, especially spinal anaesthesia for Caesarean section, could induce a decrease in umbilical artery pH (UApH). Moreover, intravenous ephedrine, especially when used in large doses can worsen the acidosis. Labour epidural analgesia is associated with a better acid-base balance than systemic analgesia. Experimental studies have demonstrated harmful effects of systemic opioids and hypnotic drugs on UApH and the foetal brain respectively. Clinical implications of these potentially detrimental effects remain to be determined.ConclusionAll obstetric anaesthesia and analgesia techniques are associated with a theoretical risk of fetal distress, but given the fact that regional anaesthesia techniques are also associated with well-demonstrated benefits for the mother and the newborn, the latter remain the preferred choice in obstetric practice.     

Anesthesia-related maternal mortality during labor. Results of a survey in the Federal Republic of Germany 1971-1980

In order to obtain figures on the anaesthesia related maternal mortality in the Federal Republic of Germany, 707 hospitals have been addressed via questionnaire. Hospitals where obstetric departments and anaesthetic departments as well were available, were investigated for maternal mortality, anaesthetic requirements, and the complications which led to the maternal deaths during the period of 1971-1980. 38% (259 general hospitals and 10 university hospitals) responded; the geographical distribution seemed to be representative. The average maternal mortality rate was at 0.21%, which ranged from 0.21% for general hospitals to 0.16% for university hospitals. The overall anaesthesia related maternal mortality was around 6.4%. 20 of the reported 21 maternal deaths occurred under general anaesthesia and 1 under local anaesthesia; 17 patients died during caesarean section and 4 during vaginal delivery. The main complications which led to the maternal deaths were cardiac arrest and aspiration of gastric content with 38,1% each and convulsions with 4.8%. In 19% of the total maternal deaths the causes could not be determined. The importance of obstetric centres and of controlled anaesthetic methods delivery will be discussed on the basis of these and other figures which have been reported in the literature.     

Challenges that opioid-dependent women present to the obstetric anaesthetist

A retrospective casenote review was performed to identify anaesthetic challenges relevant to the opioid-dependent obstetric population. Medical records showed that of the 7,449 deliveries during a 24 month period, 85 women (1.1%) were taking regular opioids such as methadone and/or heroin. Of these 67 (79%) received anaesthetic services, ten of whom (11.7%) were referred antenatally. Forty opioid-dependent women (47%) received epidural analgesia in labour compared with the overall hospital rate of 38%. Twenty-three women (27%) delivered by caesarean section: five received general anaesthesia, five combined spinal anaesthesia, five spinal anaesthesia and eight epidural anaesthesia. Twenty opioid-dependent women (23.5%) had documented problems related to labour analgesia and 17 (74%) had problems with analgesia after caesarean section. A variety of postoperative analgesia methods were administered in addition to maintenance methadone. Fourteen patients (16.5%) had difficult intravenous access and seven "arrest" calls were documented. One anaesthetist was exposed to hepatitis C. This review demonstrates the demands placed on obstetric anaesthetic services by opioid-dependent women. Early antenatal referral for anaesthetic review is recommended.     

A survey of Australasian obstetric anaesthesia audit.

In order to develop a minimal obstetric anaesthesia dataset based on current Australasian clinical audit best practice, we carried out a postal survey of 69 Australasian anaesthetic departments covering an obstetric service. We asked about data being collected, specifically concerning the high risk obstetric patient, epidural analgesia and postoperative anaesthetic review. Examples of any data collection forms were requested. Of the 66 responses, 35 departments (53%) were not collecting any audit data. Twenty-six of the 31 departments (84%) performing obstetric anaesthesia audit responded to our follow-up telephone survey. Eighteen departments believed that there had been an improvement in patient care as a result of their audit and 13 felt that the benefits outweighed the costs involved. However, only six departments (9%) had performed an audit cycle. The importance of feedback to patients or hospital staff and the incidence of post dural puncture headache (PDPH) were cited by some as priorities for obstetric anaesthesia audit. There was however no consistency as to what data should be collected. Many responses suggested a perceived need to collect clinical data without knowing what to do with it. Our survey has highlighted confusion between three distinct objectives; a dataset for obstetric anaesthesia record keeping, data required for continuing patient management in hospital and, a specific minimal dataset for clinical audit purposes. We conclude that current Australasian obstetric anaesthesia audit strategies are inadequate to develop a minimal dataset for cost-effective clinical audit.     

The use of anaesthetic rooms for induction of anaesthesia: a postal survey of current practice and attitudes in Great Britain and Northern Ireland

A postal survey was sent to all anaesthetic departments in the UK to identify current practice and gain insight into anaesthetists' attitudes regarding the use of anaesthetic rooms for induction of general anaesthesia. Replies were received from 247 (88%) departments. Of these, 10 (4%) departments routinely anaesthetise all patients in theatre. The main reason for change was patient safety. Of those who routinely use the anaesthetic room for induction of anaesthesia, only 5% have made provision to change to in-theatre induction. An estimated pound 30 million has been spent on equipping anaesthetic rooms since 1994; with the result that 91% of departments where anaesthetic room induction occurs, now have monitoring that complies with the current Association of Anaesthetists of Great Britain and Ireland guidelines. The majority of the respondents who use anaesthetic rooms perceived induction in theatre to result in reduced efficiency, increased patient anxiety, a worse teaching environment and no improvement in patient safety. This was in contrast to the attitudes of respondents from hospitals where in-theatre induction occurs. Only 9.7% of all respondents believed that clinical governance would necessitate a change to anaesthetizing all patients in theatre compared to 25% who believed that the increasing costs of monitoring equipment would lead to a change. Overall 79% of respondents prefer to use the anaesthetic room, 16% prefer in-theatre induction and 5% expressed no preference. However, of those who routinely anaesthetise in theatre, 70% thought it to be preferable.     

A randomised study of magnesium sulphate as an adjuvant to intrathecal bupivacaine in patients with mild preeclampsia undergoing caesarean section

BackgroundAdequate analgesia following caesarean section decreases morbidity, hastens ambulation, improves patient outcome and facilitates care of the newborn. Intrathecal magnesium, an NMDA antagonist, has been shown to prolong analgesia without significant side effects in healthy parturients. We therefore studied the effect of adding intrathecal magnesium sulphate to bupivacaine-fentanyl spinal anaesthesia in patients with mild preeclampsia undergoing caesarean section.MethodsSixty women with mild preeclampsia undergoing caesarean section were included in a prospective, double blind, placebo-controlled trial. Patients were randomly assigned to receive spinal anaesthesia with 2 mL 0.5% hyperbaric bupivacaine and 25 μg fentanyl with either 0.1 mL of 0.9% sodium chloride (control group) or 0.1 mL of 50% magnesium sulphate (50 mg) (magnesium group). Onset, duration and recovery of sensory and motor block, time to maximum sensory block, duration of spinal anaesthesia and postoperative analgesia requirements were studied.ResultsThe onset of both sensory and motor block was slower in the magnesium group. The duration of spinal anaesthesia (229.3 vs. 187.7 min) and motor block (200 vs. 175.3 min) were significantly longer in the magnesium group. Diclofenac requirement for 24 h following surgery was significantly lower in the magnesium group (147.5 vs.182.5 mg, P=0.02). Haemodynamic parameters and side effect profile were similar in the two groups.ConclusionsIn parturients with mild preeclampsia undergoing caesarean delivery, the addition of magnesium sulphate 50 mg to the intrathecal combination of bupivacaine and fentanyl prolongs the duration of analgesia and reduces postoperative analgesic requirements without additional side effects.     

Practice of epidural analgesia for labour pain: a German survey.

Epidural analgesia is one of the preferred methods of analgesia for labour. The aim of the present survey was to evaluate current practice in obstetric analgesia in departments of anaesthesia and to make a comparison with former surveys from Germany and other countries. Questionnaires on the practice of pain relief, especially epidural analgesia, during labour and delivery were sent to 1178 anaesthetic departments in Germany in the second half of 1996. Five hundred and thirty-two completed replies were received, which represent 46.9% of all German obstetric units. The majority of the departments of anaesthesia practising epidural analgesia have an epidural rate of less than 10% and 10.2% of the departments do not offer this method to their parturients. In 86.8% of all units performing epidural analgesia, the epidural catheter is placed by an anaesthetist. Only 6.5% of the units provide a 24-h epidural service which is exclusively assigned to labour and delivery. In 77.8% of the units, this service is not exclusively assigned to obstetrics, but also to other duties. Of the obstetric units offering epidural analgesia, 14.7% have no epidural service at night. Plain local anaesthetics for epidural analgesia are used by 55.9% of the departments, a combination of local anaesthetics with epidural opioids by 28.7%. Epidural analgesia is predominantly (82.2%) maintained by intermittent bolus administration. Although the rate of epidural analgesia increased during recent decades, this method is not offered to all parturients. Further improvements in the use of epidural analgesia for labour seem to be necessary.     

Umfrage zur aktuellen Situation der Regionalanästhesie im deutschsprachigen Raum

The practice of regional anaesthesia in German speaking countries was investigated by a survey. The last part of the trilogy contains the presentation and evaluation of the data about the methods in obstetric anaesthesia. In 2002 questionnaires were mailed to 750 randomly selected departments of anaesthesia, 384 hospitals (51.2%) responded of which 278 had an obstetric unit. Caesarean section rate was 22.5+/-8.2% and for elective caesarean section spinal anaesthesia was mostly used. General anaesthesia was never used in 58.3% of Swiss, 10.2% of German, and 21.1% of Austrian hospitals. For non-elective caesarean section 42.1% of the hospitals often used a spinal anaesthesia, and 44.8% sometimes, in Switzerland these were 92.9% and 7.1%, respectively. Pain relief for labour was usually achieved with epidural anaesthesia or drugs. The trend from general to regional anaesthesia for caesarean section is continued, as is the trend from local infiltrative techniques to epidural anaesthesia for vaginal delivery. Switzerland was in the forefront for these developments.     

Change in anaesthetic practice for Caesarean section in Germany

BACKGROUND: Initial data from 1996 revealed that in contrast to several other countries general anaesthesia was the preferred anaesthetic technique for Caesarean section in Germany. However, anaesthetic practice for Caesarean section has changed during the last decades world-wide. This investigation was performed to obtain more actual data on anaesthetic procedures in obstetric patients in German hospitals. METHODS: Questionnaires on the practice of anaesthesia for Caesarean section were mailed to 918 German departments of anaesthesiology. Furthermore, the survey evaluated severe perioperative complications in obstetric patients. RESULTS: The 397 completed replies in this survey represent 41.3% of all German deliveries in 2002. Spinal anaesthesia is now the most common technique (50.5%) for elective Caesarean section. In case of urgent and emergency Caesarean, delivery figures decrease to 34.6% and 4.8%, respectively. Epidural anaesthesia is performed in 21.6% of scheduled and 13.2% and 1.0% of non-scheduled urgent or emergency Caesarean sections, respectively. Four maternal deaths and several non-fatal episodes of gastric content aspiration were reported by the respondents. CONCLUSIONS: Compared to data obtained 6 years ago a significant increase in regional anaesthesia for Caesarean section has developed, with spinal anaesthesia being the preferred technique. Surveys can help to initiate discussion and improve current practice of anaesthetic care.     

Survey of Emergency and Essential Surgical,Obstetric and Anaesthetic Services Available in Bangladeshi Government Health Facilities

Objective

Evaluate the capacity of government-run hospitals in Bangladesh to provide emergency and essential surgical, obstetric and anaesthetic services.

Methods

Cross-sectional survey of 240 Bangladeshi Government healthcare facilities using the World Health Organisation Situational Analysis Tool to Assess Emergency and Essential Surgical Care (SAT). This tool evaluates the ability of a healthcare facility to provide basic surgical, obstetric and anaesthetic care based on 108 queries that detail the infrastructure and population demographics, human resources, surgical interventions and reason for referral, and available surgical equipment and supplies. For this survey, the Bangladeshi Ministry of Health sent the SAT to sub-district, district/general and teaching hospitals throughout the country in April 2013.

Results

Responses were received from 240 healthcare facilities (49.5% response rate): 218 sub-district and 22 district/general hospitals. At the sub-district level, caesarean section was offered by 55% of facilities, laparotomy by 7% and open fracture repair by 8%. At the district/general hospital level, 95% offered caesarean section, 86% offered laparotomy and 77% offered open fracture treatment. Availability of anaesthesia services, general equipment and supplies reflected this trend, where district/general hospitals were better equipped than sub-district hospitals, though equipment and infrastructure shortages persist.

Conclusion

There has been overall impressive progress by the Bangladeshi Government in providing essential surgical services. Areas for improvement remain across all key areas, including infrastructure, human resources, surgical interventions offered and available equipment. Investment in surgical services offers a cost-effective opportunity to continue to improve the health of the Bangladeshi population and move the country towards universal healthcare coverage.

     

A survey of obstetric an aesthesia practice in Flanders

The use of locoregional anaesthesia in obstetrics in Flanders was assessed by a postal questionnaire sent to the directors of the anaesthesia departments of the 72 hospitals with an obstetric unit. 59 (82%) answers were returned. In the group of parturients who had a vaginal delivery a neuraxial technique was requested by 65% of the patients and consisted of epidural analgesia in 84%, and combined spinal epidural analgesia in 16%. Test doses are used in labour in 67%. To perform the block--spinal as well as epidural--the sitting position is somewhat preferred over the left lateral (55 versus 45%). For caesarean section general anaesthesia was used in only 5% of the deliveries, whereas spinal, single or as a part of a CSE technique, was preferred in 80%; the epidural technique was applied in 15%. There is no clear preference in technique for postoperative analgesia after caesarean delivery as both parenteral and epidural analgesia are used in 50% of the cases.