Samina Ismail

An observational study of anaesthesia and surgical time in elective caesarean section: spinal compared with general anaesthesia

BACKGROUND Neuraxial techniques are increasingly used in obstetric anaesthesia. In our hospital, time constraints are the main problem when planning anaesthesia for elective caesarean section. Neuraxial anaesthesia is believed to take longer than general anaesthesia. The objective of this prospective, observational study was to compare time to surgical readiness and total operating room time with spinal with general anaesthesia for elective caesarean section at a Pakistani university hospital for a period of six months. METHODS Two hundred and forty-five patients receiving either general or spinal anaesthesia were studied. The times of arrival and leaving the operating room, the start and completion of anaesthetic induction, surgical readiness, incision and completion of surgery, were noted. RESULTS The times for surgical readiness (general: 16.8+/-5.4 vs. spinal: 21.1+/-8.2 min), anaesthesia (general: 4.5+/-1.4 vs. spinal: 8.1+/-3.8 min) and surgery (general 50.8+/-12.3 vs. spinal 54.8+/-14.0 min) were longer in the spinal group, but emergence time (general: 12.2+/-4.3 vs. spinal: 7.3+/-2.7) was longer for general anaesthesia. No significant difference was found in the total operating room presence between the two groups (general 76.6+/-14.4 vs. spinal 76.3+/-16.3 min). CONCLUSION In our hospital, the use of spinal anaesthesia was not associated with decreased intra-operative time efficiency compared to general anaesthesia for elective caesarean section.

Observational study to assess the effectiveness of postoperative pain management of patients undergoing elective cesarean section

Background: The study was designed to assess the strategy, effectiveness, and safety of postoperative pain management in patients undergoing elective cesarean section in the obstetric unit of our hospital. Materials and Methods: Patients having elective cesarean section from December 2008 to May 2009 were included in this observational study. We recorded patients demographics, postoperative pain orders, and analgesia regime on the day of surgery. Anesthesia team, which included one of the investigators, assessed the overall pain since the time of surgery by visual analogue scale (VAS) and also recorded any complications since the time of surgery and patients’ satisfaction with the pain management. Results: A total of 263 patients were reviewed during the study period. Postoperative analgesia regime was started by the obstetric team in 81% of patients and in rest by the anesthesia team. The common modality of pain management was intravenous opioid infusion (94%) and coanalgesia was used in 99% of patients. The analysis of pain at rest by VAS was between 1 and 3 in 89.7%, 4 and 6 in 9.5%, and 7 and 10 in 0.8% of patients. The VAS on movement was 1–3 in 60.1%, 4–6 in 33.1%, and 7–10 in 6.8% of patients. Patients’ opinion regarding postoperative pain management was satisfactory in 91.6% of patients and unsatisfactory in 8.4% of patients. Overall, 9% of patients had minor complications, which responded well to treatment. Conclusion: The regime for postoperative pain management was mostly started and followed by the obstetric team at the hospital. Although the postoperative pain management was adequate in terms of patients’ safety, it was not effective according to the goal set by Joint Commission on Accreditation of uniformly low pain score of not more than 3 out of 10 both at rest and with movement.

Preoperative anxiety in patients selecting either general or regional anesthesia for elective cesarean section.

Background and Aims: We aimed to measure the frequency of preoperative anxiety in patients undergoing elective cesarean section (CS) and its impact on patients decision regarding the choice of anesthesia. Material and Methods: This cross-sectional study included 154 consecutive patients, who were scheduled for elective CS. Visual analog scale (VAS) for anxiety was the study tool, and VAS ≥50 was considered as significant anxiety. Enrolled patients were interviewed by the primary investigator the day before the surgery and their VAS score and choice of anesthesia technique either general anesthesia (GA) or regional anesthesia (RA) were recorded. Additional data included demographics, parity, educational status, previous anesthesia experience and source of information. Results: Preoperative anxiety (VAS ≥ 50) was seen in 72.7% of patients, which was significantly higher (P < 0.005) in patients selecting GA (97.18%, n = 71/154) as compared to those selecting RA (51.81%, n = 83/154) for elective CS. Statistically significant association of anxiety (P < 0.005) was seen with age <25 years, nulli and primiparous, higher education status, previous anesthesia experience and source of information from nonanesthetist. Conclusion: Patients scheduled for elective CS were found to have high frequency of anxiety (72.7%), and GA was observed to be the choice of anesthesia technique in anxious patients.

Incidence of cesarean section and analysis of risk factors for failed conversion of labor epidural to surgical anesthesia: A prospective, observational study in a tertiary care center.

Background and Aims: This study aimed to analyze the effect of labor epidural (LE) on the incidence of cesarean section (CS) and assess the risk factors involved in failed conversion of LE to surgical anesthesia for CS. Material and Methods: A prospective observational study of 18 months from January 2012 to June 2013 was conducted on all patients who had delivered in the labor room suit of our hospital. The data collected for all 4694 patients included their demographics, parity and mode of delivery. In addition a predesigned proforma, with additional information was used for 629 parturient with LE. Results: During the study period, total numbers of deliveries performed in our hospital were 4694, with an epidural rate of 13.4% (629/4694). No significant difference (P = 0.06) was observed in the rate of CS among women with or without LE (28 % [n = 176/629] vs. 31.7 % [n = 1289/4065]), however, a statistically significant difference (P < 0.01) was observed in the rate of assisted delivery in patients receiving LE as compared to those delivering without it (8.7% [n = 55/629] vs. n = 3.7% [154/4065]). For 176 patients requiring CS, LE utilization for surgical anesthesia was 52.8% (93/176) and factors identified for not utilizing LE in 47% (83/176) were; failure to achieve surgical anesthesia in 6.8% (12/176), emergency CS in 28.4% (50/176), patient preference in 6.8% (12/176) and inadequate labor pain relief with LE in 5.1% (9/176) patients. Non-obstetric anesthesiologists were involved in 59% (49/83) of cases where LE was not used for CS. Conclusion: LE had no effect on the rate of CS; however it significantly increased (P < 0.01) the rate of assisted delivery. Factors like inadequate LE, emergency situations and non-obstetric anesthesiologists can all be responsible for failed conversion of LE to surgical anesthesia for CS.

Does labour epidural slow the progress of labour and lead to complications? Obstetricians′ perception working in private and public sector teaching hospitals in a developing country

Background and Aims: Obstetricians play a major role in the decision making for provision of analgesia for the woman in labour. As epidural analgesia (EA) is the most preferred technique, it is important to know obstetricians′ perception regarding its effect on progress of labour and associated complications. Methods: The 6 months cross-sectional study included 114 obstetricians from teaching hospitals. After informed consent, obstetricians were asked to fill a predesigned questionnaire containing 13 close ended questions regarding their perception on the effect of EA on progress of labour, EA complications and whether they would recommend EA to their patients or not. Other variables included age, gender, training in EA, practice type and hospital settings (private or public sector). Results: Majority of the obstetricians had the perception of EA prolonging the first stage (89.5%) and second stage (98.2%) of labour, increasing the rate of caesarean section (87.7%), instrumental delivery (58.8%) and increasing the incidence of backache (85.5%). None of the obstetricians received any formal training in EA. Majority (84.2%) were not sure if they would recommend EA to their patients. When these responses were compared between public and private sector, a statistically higher percentage (P < 0.001) of public sector obstetricians had negative perception of EA. Conclusion: Perception of obstetrician regarding EA is contrary to the current evidence. There is a need to introduce formal curriculum on EA in obstetric training program and conduct regular refresher courses.

Blood transfusion in patients having caesarean section: a prospective multicentre observational study of practice in three Pakistan hospitals

BACKGROUND Increasing awareness of the risks of blood transfusion has prompted examination of red cell transfusion practice in obstetrics. A six-month prospective observational study was performed to examine blood transfusion practices in patients undergoing caesarean delivery at three hospitals in Pakistan. METHODS In the three hospitals (two private, one public) 3438 caesarean deliveries were performed in the study period. Data were collected on patient demographics, indications for transfusion, ordering physicians, consent, associations with obstetric factors, estimated allowable blood loss, calculated blood loss, pre- and post-transfusion haemoglobin and discharge haemoglobin. RESULTS A total number of 397 (11.5%) patients who underwent caesarean section received a blood transfusion. The highest transfusion rate of 16% was recorded in the public tertiary care hospital compared to 5% in the two private hospitals. Emergency caesarean delivery and multiparity were associated with blood transfusion (P<0.05). More emergency caesarean sections were performed in the public compared to the private hospitals (85.4% vs. 41.6%). More multiparous patients underwent caesarean section in the public hospital (57.8% vs. 40.4%). Attending physicians took the decision for transfusion in 98% of cases. In 343 (86%) patients, blood transfusion was given even when the haemoglobin was >7g/dL. The method for documenting the indication or consent for transfusion was not found in any of the three hospitals. CONCLUSION Blood transfusion was prescribed more readily in the public hospital. Identification of a transfusion trigger and the development of institutional guidelines to reduce unnecessary transfusion are required.

Labor analgesia: An update on the effect of epidural analgesia on labor outcome

Following the introduction of epidural for labor analgesia, debate has centered on the issue of its effect on outcome of labor; in terms of length of labor and increase in the rate of instrumental vaginal delivery and cesarean section (CS). There is no ideal study on the effect of epidural analgesia (EA) on the outcome of labor due to logistic problems in randomization, blinding and getting a control group; as a result these queries are partly answered. Despite these problems, it has been established that labor epidural has minimal effect on progress of established labor and maternal request should be a sufficient indication to start an epidural. Although instrumental vaginal delivery is probably increased with epidural but obstetrician practice, pain free patient and teaching opportunity are likely factors increasing the incidence. Maternal-fetal factors and obstetric management and not the use of EA are the most important determinants of the CS rate. The purpose of this review is to summarize data from controlled trials addressing the question of whether neuraxial labor analgesia causes an increased risk of CS or rate of instrumental delivery. In addition, the review discusses whether the timing of initiation of analgesia infl uences the mode of delivery.

Response to the letter for the article: Use of transversus abdominis plane block as an anesthetic technique in a high-risk patient for abdominal wall surgery

132 Journal of Anaesthesiology Clinical Pharmacology | Volume 33 | Issue 1 | January-March 2017 of paravertebral and interpleural block in patients undergoing modified radical mastectomy. J Anaesthesiol Clin Pharmacol 2013;29:459‐64. 2. Sultan SS. Paravertebral block can attenuate cytokine response when it replaces general anesthesia for cancer breast surgeries. Saudi J Anaesth 2013;7:373‐7. 3. Exadaktylos AK, Buggy DJ, Moriarty DC, Mascha E, Sessler DI. Can anesthetic technique for primary breast cancer surgery affect recurrence or metastasis? Anesthesiology 2006;105:660‐4. 4. Lönnqvist PA, MacKenzie J, Soni AK, Conacher ID. Paravertebral blockade. Failure rate and complications. Anaesthesia 1995;50:813‐ 5. 5. Sudhakar S, Kundra P, Madhurima S, Ravishankar M. Unilateral bronchospasm following interpleural analgesia with bupivacaine. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand 2005;49:104‐5. 6. Schnabel A, Reichl SU, Kranke P, Pogatzki‐Zahn EM, Zahn PK. Efficacy Access this article online