You are here

Home » Content

Elektif sezaryen uygulanan olgularda genel ve spinal anestezinin maternal ve fetal etkilerinin karşılaştırılması

Comparison of the maternal and fetal effects of general and spinal anesthesia in elective cesarean section

Journal Name:

  • Gülhane Tıp Dergisi

Publication Year:

  • 2008

Key Words:

Keywords (Original Language):

Author Name
Abstract (2. Language): 
In our study we aimed to compare the maternal and fetal effects of two different anesthesia techniques (spinal and general) routinely performed in cases undergoing elective cesarean section. Fifty two cases undergoing elective cesarean section were divided into 2 groups. Spinal anesthesia was administered with 2-2.2 ml 0.5% bupivacaine at the L3-4 and L4-5 interspaces in the lateral position in cases in Group I (n=26). In cases in Group II (n=26), anesthesia induction was made with 2 mg/kg propofol and 0.6 mg/kg rocuronium. Fifty percent O2 + 50% N2O and sevoflurane were used for the maintenance of anesthesia. Maternal hemodynamic parameters (heart rate, mean arterial blood pressure) were recorded in both groups at every five minutes during 45 minutes after the initiation of anesthesia, and 6 ml of umbilical artery blood sample was taken from all the cases following delivery. Blood gases analysis, ALT, AST, creatin kinase and total cortisol levels were studied in the blood samples. Evaluation of the newborn was performed by a pediatrician, and APGAR scores at the first and 5th minutes were recorded. In our study, results of APGAR scores, fetal blood gases (pH, pO2 , pCO2 , HCO2 -, BE), creatin kinase and ALT levels, and maternal mean arterial blood pressure and heart rate values were similar in both groups. Although fetal AST and total cortisol levels were higher in Group II, these values were within normal ranges in both groups. We conclude that the two anesthesia techniques administered in elective cesarean sections are not superior to each other in terms of maternal hemodynamic parameters and fetal well-being. Choice of anesthetic technique which will be used should be made on the basis of advantages and disadvantages of both techniques, comorbidities present in the patient, urgency of the operation, experience of the anesthesiologist and patient's choice.
Bookmark/Search this post with
Abstract (Original Language): 
Çalışmamızda elektif sezaryen olgularında rutin uygulanan farklı iki anestezi tekniğinin (spinal-genel anestezi) maternal ve fetal etkilerini karşılaştırmayı amaçladık. Elektif sezaryen uygulanan 52 olgu iki gruba ayrıldı. Grup I olgulara (n=26) sol yan pozisyon verilip, L3-4 veya L4-5 aralığından 2-2.2 ml %0.5 hipertonik bupivakain ile spinal anestezi uygulandı. Grup II olgulara (n=26) anestezi indüksiyonunda 2 mg/kg propofol ve 0.6 mg/kg rokuronyum uygulandı. Anestezi idamesi %50 O2 + %50 N2O ve sevofluran ile sağlandı. Her iki grupta anestezi başlangıcından sonra 45 dk süreyle 5 dk'da bir maternal hemodinamik parametreler (kalp atım hızı, ortalama arteriyel kan basıncı) kaydedildi ve tüm olgulardan doğumu takiben umbilikal arterden 6 ml kan örneği alındı. Alınan örneklerden kan gazı analizi, ALT, AST, kreatin kinaz ve total kortizol düzeyleri ölçümleri yapıldı. Yenidoğanın değerlendirilmesi bir çocuk sağlığı ve hastalıkları uzmanı tarafından yapıldı ve 1. ile 5. dk APGAR skorları kaydedildi. Çalışmamızda her iki gruba ait APGAR skorları, fetal kan gazı değerleri (pH, PO2, PCO2, HCO3-, BE), kreatin kinaz, ALT değerleri ile maternal ortalama arteriyel kan basıncı değerleri ve kalp atım hızları benzer bulundu. Grup II'de fetal AST ve total kortizol değerleri daha yüksek saptanmasına karşın, her iki gruptaki değerler normal sınırlarda idi. Sonuç olarak, elektif sezaryen operasyonlarında uygulanan her iki anestezik yöntemin, maternal hemodinami ve fetal iyilik açısından birbirine belirgin üstünlükleri bulunmadığı kanısına varıldı. Hangi anestezi yönteminin uygulanacağına her iki yöntemin avantaj ve dezavantajları, hastada mevcut olan patolojiler, operasyonun aciliyeti gibi faktörler, anestezistin deneyimi ve hastanın tercihi göz önünde bulundurularak karar verilmelidir.
FULL TEXT (PDF): 
PDF icon arastirmax-elektif-sezaryen-uygulanan-olgularda-genel-spinal-anestezinin-maternal-fetal-etkilerinin-karsilastirilmasi.pdf
  • 2
91-97
  • Turkish

REFERENCES

References: 

1. Shnider SM, Levinson G. Anesthesia for obstetrics. In:
Miller RD (ed). Anesthesia. 4th ed. Vol 2. New York:
Churchill Livingstone, 1994: 2031-2076.
2. Beck WW. Kadýn Hastalýklarý ve Doðum. Asena U (Çeviri
ed). 2. baský. Ýzmir: Karýnca Matbaasý, 1993: 185-191.
3. Erdem MK, Özgen S, Coþkun F. Obstetrik anestezi ve
analjezi. Kiþniþçi H, Gökþin E (eds). Temel Kadýn
Hastalýklarý ve Doðum Bilgisi. Ankara: Melisa
Matbaacýlýk, 1996: 173-186.
4. Erdine S. Sinir Bloklarý. Ýstanbul: Emre Matbaacýlýk,
1993: 9-24.
5. Yegül Ý. Obstetride rejyonel analjezi ve anestezi. VI.
Uludað Kýþ Sempozyumu, 5-8 Aralýk 1996, Bursa. Kongre
Özet Kitabý, 80-85.
6. Dailey PA, Fisher DM, Shnider SM, et al.
Pharmacokinetics, placental transfer and neonatal effects
of vecuronium and pancuronium administered during
cesarean section. Anesthesiology 1984; 60: 569-574.
7. Robert RB, Shirley MA. Reducing the risk of acid aspiration during caesarean section. Anesth Analg 1974; 53:
859-868.
8. Samsoon GLT, Young JRB. Difficult tracheal intubation:
a retrospective study. Anaesthesia 1987; 42: 487-490.
9. Dahlgren G, Granath F, Pregner K, et al. Colloid vs. crystalloid preloading to prevent maternal hypotension during
spinal anesthesia for elective cesarean section. Acta
Anaesthesiol Scand 2005; 49: 1200-1206.
10. Ngan Kee WD, Lee A. Multivariate analysis of factors
associated with umbilical arterial pH and standard base
excess after caesarean section under spinal anaesthesia.
Anaesthesia 2003; 58: 125-130.
11. Chung CJ, Bae KY, Chae YJ. Spinal anaesthesia with
0.25% hyperbaric bupivacaine for caesarean section: effect
of volume. Br J Anaesth 1996; 77: 145-149.
12. Kang YG, Abouleish E, Caritis S. Prophylactic intravenous ephedrine infusion during spinal anesthesia for
cesarean section. Anesth Analg 1982; 61: 839-842.
13. Michie AR, Freeman RM, Dutton DA, Howie HB.
Subaracnoid anaesthesia for elective caserean section.
Anaesthesia 1988; 43: 96-99.
14. Mukkada TA, Bridenbaugh PO, Singh PM, Edstrom
HH. Spinal analgesia with glucose-free bupivacaine:
effect of volume and consentration. Acta Anaesth Scand
1984; 28: 583-586.
15. Marx GF, Luykx WM, Cohen S. Fetal-neonatal status following caesarean section for fetal distress. Br J Anaesth
1984; 56: 1009-1013.
16. Sener EB, Guldogus F, Karakaya D, et al. Comparison of
neonatal effects of epidural and general anesthesia for
cesarean section. Gynecol Obstet Invest 2003; 55: 41-45.
17. James FM 3rd, Crawford JS, Hopkinson R, et al. A comparison of general anesthesia and lumbar epidural analgesia for elective cesarean section. Anesth Analg 1977; 56:
228-235.
18. Datta S, Ostheimer GW, Weiss JB, et al. Neonatal effect
of prolonged anesthetic induction for cesarean section.
Obstet Gynecol 1981; 58: 331-335.
19. Hodgson CA, Wauchob TD. A comparison of spinal and
general anaesthesia for elective caesarean section: effect on
neonatal condition at birth. Int J Obstet Anesth 1994; 3:
25-30.
20. Gokpinar B, Sungurtekin H, Aksu H, Tuncay G. The
effect of general and spinal anesthesia on acid-base status
of newborn and APGAR scoring in elective caeserian section. TARC Mecmuasý 1995; 23: 297-301.
21. Kavak ZN, Baþgül A, Ceyhan N. Short-term outcome of
newborn infants: spinal versus general anesthesia for elective cesarean section. A prospective randomized study.
Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2001; 100: 50-54.Cilt 50 · Sayý 2 · Gülhane TD Anestezide maternal ve fetal etkiler · 97
22. Krishnan L, Gunasekaran N, Bhaskaranand N. Neonatal
effects of anesthesia for caesarean section. Indian J Pediatr
1995; 62: 109-113.
23. Mueller MD, Bruhwiler H. Higher rate of fetal acidemia
after regional anesthesia for elective cesarean delivery.
Obstet Gynecol 1997; 90: 131-134.
24. Roberts SW, Leveno KJ, Sidawi JE, et al. Fetal acidemia
associated with regional anesthesia for elective cesarean
delivery. Obstet Gynecol 1995; 85: 79-83.
25. Ratcliffe FM, Evans JM. Neonatal well being after elective
caesarean delivery with general, spinal, and epidural anesthesia. Eur J Anaesthesiol 1993; 10: 175-181.

Thank you for copying data from http://www.arastirmax.com