IMPACT OF DIFFERENT ANESTHETIC TECHNIQUES ON MATERNAL, FETAL, AND NEONATAL STATES AFTER ABDOMINAL DELIVERY


Cite item

Full Text

Open Access Open Access
Restricted Access Access granted
Restricted Access Subscription or Fee Access

Abstract

Objective. To comparatively analyze maternal central hemodynamic parameters, fetal gaseous homeostasis, acid-base state (ABS), and perinatal outcomes after abdominal delivery under different anesthetic modes. Subject and methods. The investigation enrolled 65 pregnant women undergoing cesarean delivery under general and spinal anesthesia (GA and SA). Noninvasive bioimpedance technology was used to measure central hemodynamic parameters at surgical stages. The neonatal infants were evaluated using Apgar scoring at 1 and 5 minutes after birth. Umbilical venous blood gaseous homeostasis and ABS were examined. Results. At all surgical stages, the SA group presented a more favorable hemodynamic profile than did the GA group. The application of GA was followed by lower Apgar scores at 1 minute; no differences were found at 5 minutes. The study groups showed no great differences in umbilical venous blood pH, standard base excess, and lactate levels. In the GA group, the oxygen saturation in umbilical blood was significantly higher than that in the SA group. All the neonates had no complications in the early neonatal period. Conclusion. This study demonstrates a greater hemodynamic stability after cesarean section under SA. The GA newborn babies had higher umbilical blood oxygen saturation levels; however, both anesthetic modes indicated that adequate uteroplacental perfusion was preserved and they were safe for the fetus.

Full Text

Restricted Access

About the authors

S. V KINZHALOVA

Ural Research Institute of Maternity and Infancy Care, Ministry of Health of Russia

Email: sveking@mail.ru
Yekaterinburg

R. A MAKAROV

Ural Research Institute of Maternity and Infancy Care, Ministry of Health of Russia

Yekaterinburg

N. S DAVYDOVA

Ural State Medical Academy, Ministry of Health of Russia

Yekaterinburg

References

  1. Серов В.Н., Маркин С.А. Критические состояния в акушерстве: Руководство для врачей. М.: Медиздат; 2003. 704с.
  2. Bloom S.L., Spong C.Y., Weiner S.J. Complications of anesthesia for cesarean delivery. Obstet. Gynecol. 2005; 106: 281-7.
  3. Bowring J., Fraser N., Vause S., Heazell A.E.P. Is regional anaesthesia better than general anaesthesia for caesarean section? J. Obstet. Gynaecol. 2006; 26: 433-4.
  4. Reynolds F., Seed P.T. Anaesthesia for caesarean section and neonatal acid-base status: a meta-analysis. Anaesthesia. 2005; 60: 636-53.
  5. Afolabi B.B., Lesi F.E. Regional versus general anaesthesia for caesarean section. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 2012; (10): CD004350.
  6. Algert O.S., Bowen J.R., Giles W.B., Knoblanche G.E., Lain S.J., Roberts C.L. Regional block versus general anaesthesia for caesarean section and neonatal outcomes: a population-based study. BMC Medicine. 2009; 29: 7-20.

Supplementary files

Supplementary Files
Action
1. JATS XML

This website uses cookies

You consent to our cookies if you continue to use our website.

About Cookies