首页> 外文期刊>Revista Brasileira de Anestesiologia >Combined spinal-epidural block for labor analgesia. Comparative study with continuous epidural block
【24h】

Combined spinal-epidural block for labor analgesia. Comparative study with continuous epidural block

机译:脊柱-硬膜外联合阻滞用于分娩镇痛。连续硬膜外阻滞的比较研究

获取原文
           

摘要

Introduction: Lumbar epidural block is an effective and routinely used technique for labor pain relief, and the combined spinal-epidural block has the benefit of using lower doses of local anesthetics and rapid onset of analgesia. The objective of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of two anesthetic techniques: combined spinal-epidural block and continuous epidural block in pregnant women for labor analgesia. Methods: Eighty patients, ASA II and III, with cephalic presentation and cervical dilation between 5 and 6 cm, undergoing labor analgesia, allocated in two groups according to the anesthetic technique: combined spinal-epidural (GI) and continuous epidural (GII). Pain severity before the blockade, time to complete analgesia, degree of motor blockade, time to full cervical dilation, duration of the second stage of labor, pain severity during the 1st and 2nd stage of labor, type of delivery, use of oxytocin during labor, maternal cardiocirculatory and respiratory parameters and adverse events, and neonatal repercussions were recorded. Results: At the time of anesthesia, pain severity was similar in both groups. Pain relief was faster in GI (4.5 ± 1.5 min) when compared to GII (11.6 ± 4.6 min) p = 0.01; pain scores in the first and second stages of delivery were lower in GI (0.9 ± 0.3 and 1.8 ± 0.7, respectively) when compared to GII (1.9 ± 0.6 and 2.2 ± 0.5, respectively), with p = 0.01 only in the first stage of labor; there was need for local anesthetics supplementation in GII; there were more frequent spontaneous deliveries in GI (80% of patients) than in GII (50%) ( p = 0.045) and more frequent use of instrumental ( p = 0.03) in GII (12 patients) compared to GI (4 patients); the frequency of cesarean deliveries was significantly higher ( p = 0.02) in Group II than in Group I, with 4 cases in GI and 8 cases in GII; absence of maternal cardiocirculatory and respiratory changes and neonatal repercussions; more frequent pruritus in GI (10 patients) and (0 patients in GII) ( p = 0.02). Conclusion: The combined blockade proved to be effective with better quality of analgesia and greater comfort for pregnant women, constituting a good option for the practice of obstetric analgesia.
机译:简介:腰椎硬膜外阻滞是一种有效且常规使用的缓解产程疼痛的技术,而脊柱-硬膜外联合阻滞具有使用较低剂量的局部麻醉药和快速起痛的好处。这项研究的目的是评估两种麻醉技术的有效性和安全性:硬膜外硬膜外阻滞和硬膜外连续硬膜外阻滞联合麻醉对孕妇的分娩镇痛作用。方法:80例ASA II和III型患者,头位表现且颈扩张在5至6 cm之间,接受分娩镇痛,并根据麻醉技术分为两组:脊髓-硬膜外(GI)和连续硬膜外(GII)。阻滞前的疼痛程度,完成镇痛的时间,运动阻滞的程度,完全宫颈扩张的时间,第二产程的持续时间,第一和第二产程的疼痛严重程度,分娩类型,在产程中使用催产素,孕产妇心脏循环和呼吸参数以及不良事件和新生儿反应。结果:麻醉时,两组的疼痛严重程度相似。与GII(11.6±4.6分钟)相比,GI(4.5±1.5分钟)时疼痛缓解更快(p = 0.01)。与GII(分别为1.9±0.6和2.2±0.5)相比,GI的第一和第二阶段疼痛评分较低(分别为0.9±0.3和1.8±0.7),p = 0.01仅在第一阶段劳动GII中需要补充局部麻醉剂;与胃肠道疾病(4例)相比,胃肠道(80%的患者)自发分娩的频率高于胃肠道疾病(50%)(p = 0.045),而在胃肠道疾病(12例患者)中更频繁地使用器械(p = 0.03)。 ;第二组剖宫产的频率显着高于第一组(p = 0.02),其中GI 4例,GII 8例;没有母亲的心脏循环和呼吸变化以及新生儿的影响;胃肠道瘙痒的发生率更高(10例)和(GII为0例)(p = 0.02)。结论:联合阻断被证明是有效的,具有更好的镇痛效果和对孕妇的更大舒适感,为产科镇痛实践提供了很好的选择。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号