-
Journal of Anesthesia Jun 2022Dural puncture epidural (DPE) technique is a modification of the conventional epidural (EP) technique in that the dura is intentionally punctured with a spinal needle... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Dural puncture epidural (DPE) technique is a modification of the conventional epidural (EP) technique in that the dura is intentionally punctured with a spinal needle but without any spinal injection. This meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the benefits and risks associated with the DPE technique for labor analgesia. Randomized trials comparing DPE analgesia with EP analgesia for labor pain relief were systematically searched in the database of Medline, Embase, Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, Web of Science, and China Biology Medicine till 1 August 2021. The primary outcome was the percentage of patients with satisfactory pain relief following DPE or EP analgesia, which was defined as visual analog scale (VAS) pain scores ≤ 3/10 (or 30/100) measured 10 min and 20 min after initiation of labor analgesia. Totally ten trials with 1099 patients were included in this review. DPE technique increased the percentage of patients with VAS pain score ≤ 3/10 (or 30/100) both at 10 min (RR 1.43; 95% CI 1.17, 1.74; p < 0.001; I = 0%) and 20 min (RR 1.13; 95% CI 1.04, 1.22; p = 0.005; I = 0%) after labor analgesia. No adverse event was found with DPE analgesia. We conclude that compared with EP analgesia, DPE analgesia is beneficial for labor pain relief by shortening the time to achieve satisfactory pain control. Meanwhile, DPE analgesia is not associated with increased adverse maternal/fetal events.
Topics: Analgesia, Epidural; Analgesia, Obstetrical; Analgesics; Female; Humans; Labor Pain; Labor, Obstetric; Pregnancy; Punctures
PubMed: 35445869
DOI: 10.1007/s00540-022-03061-8 -
Journal of Global Health Jul 2022Breech presentation delivery approach is a controversial issue in obstetrics. How to cope with breech delivery (vaginal or C-section) has been discussed to find the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Breech presentation delivery approach is a controversial issue in obstetrics. How to cope with breech delivery (vaginal or C-section) has been discussed to find the safest in terms of morbidity. The aim of this study was to assess the risks of foetal and maternal mortality and perinatal morbidity associated with vaginal delivery against elective caesarean in breech presentations, as reported in observational studies.
METHODS
Studies assessing perinatal morbidity and mortality associated with breech presentations births. Cochrane, Medline, Scopus, Embase, Web of Science, and Cuiden databases were consulted. This protocol was registered in PROSPERO CRD42020197598. Selection criteria were: years between 2010 and 2020, in English language, and full-term gestation (37-42 weeks). The methodological quality of the eligible articles was assessed according to the Newcastle-Ottawa scale. Meta-analyses were performed to study each parameter related to neonatal mortality and maternal morbidity.
RESULTS
The meta-analysis included 94 285 births with breech presentation. The relative risk of perinatal mortality was 5.48 (95% confidence interval (CI) = 2.61-11.51) times higher in the vaginal delivery group, 4.12 (95% CI = 2.46-6.89) for birth trauma and 3.33 (95% CI = 1.95-5.67) for Apgar results. Maternal morbidity showed a relative risk 0.30 (95% CI = 0.13-0.67) times higher in the planned caesarean group.
CONCLUSIONS
An increment in the risk of perinatal mortality, birth trauma, and Apgar lower than 7 was identified in planned vaginal delivery. However, the risk of severe maternal morbidity because of complications of a planned caesarean was slightly higher.
Topics: Breech Presentation; Cesarean Section; Delivery, Obstetric; Elective Surgical Procedures; Female; Humans; Infant, Newborn; Observational Studies as Topic; Perinatal Death; Perinatal Mortality; Pregnancy
PubMed: 35976004
DOI: 10.7189/jogh.12.04055 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... May 2018Epidural analgesia is a central nerve block technique achieved by injection of a local anaesthetic close to the nerves that transmit pain, and is widely used as a form... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Epidural analgesia is a central nerve block technique achieved by injection of a local anaesthetic close to the nerves that transmit pain, and is widely used as a form of pain relief in labour. However, there are concerns about unintended adverse effects on the mother and infant. This is an update of an existing Cochrane Review (Epidural versus non-epidural or no analgesia in labour), last published in 2011.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effectiveness and safety of all types of epidural analgesia, including combined-spinal-epidural (CSE) on the mother and the baby, when compared with non-epidural or no pain relief during labour.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register (ClinicalTrials.gov), the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (30 April 2017), and reference lists of retrieved studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials comparing all types of epidural with any form of pain relief not involving regional blockade, or no pain relief in labour. We have not included cluster-randomised or quasi-randomised trials in this update.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and risks of bias, extracted data and checked them for accuracy. We assessed selected outcomes using the GRADE approach.
MAIN RESULTS
Fifty-two trials met the inclusion criteria and we have included data from 40 trials, involving over 11,000 women. Four trials included more than two arms. Thirty-four trials compared epidural with opioids, seven compared epidural with no analgesia, one trial compared epidural with acu-stimulation, one trial compared epidural with inhaled analgesia, and one trial compared epidural with continuous midwifery support and other analgesia. Risks of bias varied throughout the included studies; six out of 40 studies were at high or unclear risk of bias for every bias domain, while most studies were at high or unclear risk of detection bias. Quality of the evidence assessed using GRADE ranged from moderate to low quality.Pain intensity as measured using pain scores was lower in women with epidural analgesia when compared to women who received opioids (standardised mean difference -2.64, 95% confidence interval (CI) -4.56 to -0.73; 1133 women; studies = 5; I = 98%; low-quality evidence) and a higher proportion were satisfied with their pain relief, reporting it to be "excellent or very good" (average risk ratio (RR) 1.47, 95% CI 1.03 to 2.08; 1911 women; studies = 7; I = 97%; low-quality evidence). There was substantial statistical heterogeneity in both these outcomes. There was a substantial decrease in the need for additional pain relief in women receiving epidural analgesia compared with opioid analgesia (average RR 0.10, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.25; 5099 women; studies = 16; I = 73%; Tau = 1.89; Chi = 52.07 (P < 0.00001)). More women in the epidural group experienced assisted vaginal birth (RR 1.44, 95% CI 1.29 to 1.60; 9948 women; studies = 30; low-quality evidence). A post hoc subgroup analysis of trials conducted after 2005 showed that this effect is negated when trials before 2005 are excluded from this analysis (RR 1.19, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.46). There was no difference between caesarean section rates (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.18; 10,350 women; studies = 33; moderate-quality evidence), and maternal long-term backache (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.12; 814 women; studies = 2; moderate-quality evidence). There were also no clear differences between groups for the neonatal outcomes, admission to neonatal intensive care unit (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.12; 4488 babies; studies = 8; moderate-quality evidence) and Apgar score less than seven at five minutes (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.02; 8752 babies; studies = 22; low-quality evidence). We downgraded the evidence for study design limitations, inconsistency, imprecision in effect estimates, and possible publication bias.Side effects were reported in both epidural and opioid groups. Women with epidural experienced more hypotension, motor blockade, fever, and urinary retention. They also had longer first and second stages of labour, and were more likely to have oxytocin augmentation than the women in the opioid group. Women receiving epidurals had less risk of respiratory depression requiring oxygen, and were less likely to experience nausea and vomiting than women receiving opioids. Babies born to women in the epidural group were less likely to have received naloxone. There was no clear difference between groups for postnatal depression, headache, itching, shivering, or drowsiness. Maternal morbidity and long-term neonatal outcomes were not reported.Epidural analgesia resulted in less reported pain when compared with placebo or no treatment, and with acu-stimulation. Pain intensity was not reported in the trials that compared epidural with inhaled analgesia, or continuous support. Few trials reported on serious maternal side effects.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Low-quality evidence shows that epidural analgesia may be more effective in reducing pain during labour and increasing maternal satisfaction with pain relief than non-epidural methods. Although overall there appears to be an increase in assisted vaginal birth when women have epidural analgesia, a post hoc subgroup analysis showed this effect is not seen in recent studies (after 2005), suggesting that modern approaches to epidural analgesia in labour do not affect this outcome. Epidural analgesia had no impact on the risk of caesarean section or long-term backache, and did not appear to have an immediate effect on neonatal status as determined by Apgar scores or in admissions to neonatal intensive care. Further research may be helpful to evaluate rare but potentially severe adverse effects of epidural analgesia and non-epidural analgesia on women in labour and long-term neonatal outcomes.
Topics: Analgesia, Epidural; Analgesia, Obstetrical; Cesarean Section; Delivery, Obstetric; Female; Humans; Infant, Newborn; Intensive Care Units, Neonatal; Labor Pain; Labor, Obstetric; Patient Satisfaction; Pregnancy; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Risk
PubMed: 29781504
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD000331.pub4 -
Fertility and Sterility Oct 2017To evaluate the effect of endometriosis on pregnancy outcomes. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVE
To evaluate the effect of endometriosis on pregnancy outcomes.
DESIGN
Systematic review and meta-analysis.
SETTING
Not applicable.
PATIENT(S)
Women with or without endometriosis.
INTERVENTION(S)
Electronic databases searched from their inception until February 2017 with no limit for language and with all cohort studies reporting the incidence of obstetric complications in women with a diagnosis of endometriosis compared with a control group (women without a diagnosis of endometriosis) included.
MEAN OUTCOME MEASURE(S)
Primary outcome of incidence of preterm birth at <37 weeks with meta-analysis performed using the random effects model of DerSimonian and Laird to produce an odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence interval (CI).
RESULT(S)
Twenty-four studies were analyzed comprising 1,924,114 women. In most of them, the diagnosis of endometriosis was made histologically after surgery. Women with endometriosis had a statistically significantly higher risk of preterm birth (OR 1.63; 95% CI, 1.32-2.01), miscarriage (OR 1.75; 95% CI, 1.29-2.37), placenta previa (OR 3.03; 95% CI, 1.50-6.13), small for gestational age (OR 1.27; 95% CI, 1.03-1.57), and cesarean delivery (OR 1.57; 95% CI, 1.39-1.78) compared with the healthy controls. No differences were found in the incidence of gestational hypertension and preeclampsia.
CONCLUSION(S)
Women with endometriosis have a statistically significantly higher risk of preterm birth, miscarriage, placenta previa, small for gestational age infants, and cesarean delivery.
Topics: Endometriosis; Female; Humans; Incidence; Infant, Newborn; Obstetric Labor Complications; Pregnancy; Pregnancy Complications; Pregnancy Outcome; Reproductive Techniques, Assisted
PubMed: 28874260
DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2017.07.019 -
Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology :... Jul 2022This meta-analysis aimed to evaluate, using the best level of evidence, the possible benefits and advantages of using peanut ball (PB) in women with an epidural during... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
This meta-analysis aimed to evaluate, using the best level of evidence, the possible benefits and advantages of using peanut ball (PB) in women with an epidural during labour on the maternal and neonatal outcomes. This research was conducted using MEDLINE/PubMed, Embase, LILACS, CINAHL, CENTRAL, PEDro, Web of Science and SCOPUS databases, with no period or language restrictions. The terms 'labor' and 'peanut ball' were used. Clinical trials (randomised and non-randomised) were included when comparing a group of parturients using PB with a control group under usual care. Randomised clinical trials (RCTs) or quasi-randomised were eligible for this systematic review. Two reviewers independently screened studies, extracted data and assessed the quality of evidence which was evaluated by the GRADE system. Quantitative analysis through meta-analysis was also applied whenever possible. In this updated review, we included four studies with a total of 818 women in labour after the use of pharmacological analgesia. Our GRADE ratings of evidence ranged from high to low quality. Overall, the included studies varied in their risk of bias, in which most were considered with some concerns. There is high evidence that the use of PB after epidural analgesia reduces the duration of the first period of labour by 87 minutes and moderate evidence that it increases the chance of vaginal delivery 11%. However, there is no evidence about other maternal and neonatal outcomes.Impact Statement The peanut ball (PB) is used after the use of pharmacological analgesia, as it favours the opening of the pelvic canal and helps women to adopt more comfortable postures, but its real effects are not clear. Our results suggest that using the PB reduces the duration of the first period of labour after an epidural and increases the chance of a vaginal birth. These findings recommend the use of a PB after an epidural and further research with women without the use of pharmacological analgesia.
Topics: Analgesia, Epidural; Analgesia, Obstetrical; Arachis; Cesarean Section; Female; Humans; Infant, Newborn; Labor, Obstetric; Pregnancy
PubMed: 34996318
DOI: 10.1080/01443615.2021.1997959 -
Iranian Journal of Public Health Oct 2020Considering that the obstetricians and pediatricians need to comprehensive information about the obstetric and neonatal effect of COVID-19, this review study was... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Considering that the obstetricians and pediatricians need to comprehensive information about the obstetric and neonatal effect of COVID-19, this review study was conducted to investigate the impact of COVID-19 on obstetrics and neonatal outcomes.
METHODS
In this systematic review the international search databases following PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, ProQuest and Embase and Google scholar were searched. All articles were reviewed by two independent researchers until 10 April 2020. After quality assessment of included studies the finding reported in 2 sections obstetrics and neonatal outcomes.
RESULTS
The sixteen studies with a sample size of 123 pregnant women with a definitive diagnosis of COVID-19 and their neonates were evaluated. The range of gestational age was 25-40 weeks. There was no death associated with COVID-19 in pregnant women. The obstetric outcomes in pregnant women with COVID-19 include decreased fetal movement, intrauterine fetal distress, anemia, PROM, preterm labor, Multiple Organ Dysfunction Syndrome (MODS) and etc. The most common delivery mode in women affect with COVID-19 was cesarean section. Expect for one case with MODS, in the majority of the studies reviewed, no severe morbidity or mortality occurred. The neonatal outcomes were stillbirth, prematurity, asphyxia, fetal distress, low birth weight, small for gestational age, large for gestational age, multiple organ dysfunction syndrome, disseminated intravascular coagulation and neonatal death. In addition, five neonates born to mothers with COVID-19 were positive for SARS-CoV-2. However, the studies report these outcomes but the exact causes of theme are not known.
CONCLUSION
In this systematic review, we summarize the diverse results of studies about the obstetrics and neonatal outcomes following COVID-19. This infection may cause negative outcomes in both mothers and neonates. However, there were evidence about neonate infected with COVID-19, but there is controversial information about the vertical transmission of COVID-19.
PubMed: 34268204
DOI: 10.18502/ijph.v49iS1.3668 -
European Journal of Obstetrics,... May 2022The demand for outpatient hospital appointments has risen steadily over recent years, almost doubling since 2008; now standing at 120 million appointments per year.... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
The demand for outpatient hospital appointments has risen steadily over recent years, almost doubling since 2008; now standing at 120 million appointments per year. Initiatives to reduce unnecessary appointments are a key area of interest, as they can be an effective way of both improving patient care and satisfaction, as well as reducing NHS costs. Patient Initiated Follow-Up (PIFU) provides an alternative to traditional hospital instigated follow-up, by which patients have autonomy in their future care, allowing them to make appointments based on their own perception of need. PIFU has proved successful when implemented in Rheumatology, Inflammatory Bowel Disease and Oncology, with trends towards reduced burden on outpatient appointments, improved patient satisfaction and lower costs. To-date, the use of PIFU in women's health has been limited to gynaecological oncology, where observations include high patient satisfaction and fewer appointments than traditional follow-up. This study aims to undertake a systematic review of the literature relating to PIFU in Obstetrics and Gynaecology in order to identify evidence-based indications for PIFU in the specialty, as well as form a foundation for a subsequent service evaluation.
METHODS
The project was registered with Prospero, University of York. Using the OVID platform, a literature search was conducted using the terms "patient initiated follow up", "gynaecology", "women's health", and "follow up care". Papers were then screened in accordance with the PRISMA protocol, and relevant articles identified based on our inclusion criteria. The quality of the studies was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale, and data from the studies were extracted and compared.
RESULTS
Eight papers were identified as relevant, two were randomised controlled trials, three were retrospective cohort studies, and the remaining three were prospective cohort studies. The majority of these studies (5/8) were of good quality, scoring 6 or more points on the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Four of the eight studies examined cost-effectives; all reported cost-savings relating to PIFU. Seven of the eight studies also reported an association between PIFU and greater patient satisfaction, fewer overall appointments and reduced non-attendance. One study reported no effect on patient satisfaction. Five studies related to gynaecological oncology, two were obstetric and one urogynaecology. The studies which investigated PIFU use in selected gynaecological oncology patients reported that PIFU did not have a negative impact on detection of cancer recurrence, but evidence regarding the psychological impact of PIFU on cancer survivors was conflicting.
CONCLUSION
PIFU was received largely positively and was well accepted by women across these studies. It was also shown to be cost-effective, without a negative impact on health outcomes. PIFU also has the potential to offer additional benefits including reducing diagnostic delay and increasing patient engagement with their own health status. This review found a paucity of data for PIFU in Obstetrics and Gynaecology, with the exception of gynaecological oncology, and further evaluation is required before more widespread implementation.
Topics: Delayed Diagnosis; Female; Follow-Up Studies; Genital Neoplasms, Female; Gynecology; Humans; Neoplasm Recurrence, Local; Obstetrics; Pregnancy; Prospective Studies; Retrospective Studies
PubMed: 35303674
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2022.02.181 -
JAMA Jan 2020The tort liability system is intended to serve 3 functions: compensate patients who sustain injury from negligence, provide corrective justice, and deter negligence....
IMPORTANCE
The tort liability system is intended to serve 3 functions: compensate patients who sustain injury from negligence, provide corrective justice, and deter negligence. Deterrence, in theory, occurs because clinicians know that they may experience adverse consequences if they negligently injure patients.
OBJECTIVE
To review empirical findings regarding the association between malpractice liability risk (ie, the extent to which clinicians face the threat of being sued and having to pay damages) and health care quality and safety.
DATA SOURCES AND STUDY SELECTION
Systematic search of multiple databases for studies published between January 1, 1990, and November 25, 2019, examining the relationship between malpractice liability risk measures and health outcomes or structural and process indicators of health care quality.
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS
Information on the exposure and outcome measures, results, and acknowledged limitations was extracted by 2 reviewers. Meta-analytic pooling was not possible due to variations in study designs; therefore, studies were summarized descriptively and assessed qualitatively.
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES
Associations between malpractice risk measures and health care quality and safety outcomes. Exposure measures included physicians' malpractice insurance premiums, state tort reforms, frequency of paid claims, average claim payment, physicians' claims history, total malpractice payments, jury awards, the presence of an immunity from malpractice liability, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services' Medicare malpractice geographic practice cost index, and composite measures combining these measures. Outcome measures included patient mortality; hospital readmissions, avoidable admissions, and prolonged length of stay; receipt of cancer screening; Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality patient safety indicators and other measures of adverse events; measures of hospital and nursing home quality; and patient satisfaction.
RESULTS
Thirty-seven studies were included; 28 examined hospital care only and 16 focused on obstetrical care. Among obstetrical care studies, 9 found no significant association between liability risk and outcomes (such as Apgar score and birth injuries) and 7 found limited evidence for an association. Among 20 studies of patient mortality in nonobstetrical care settings, 15 found no evidence of an association with liability risk and 5 found limited evidence. Among 7 studies that examined hospital readmissions and avoidable initial hospitalizations, none found evidence of an association between liability risk and outcomes. Among 12 studies of other measures (eg, patient safety indicators, process-of-care quality measures, patient satisfaction), 7 found no association between liability risk and these outcomes and 5 identified significant associations in some analyses.
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
In this systematic review, most studies found no association between measures of malpractice liability risk and health care quality and outcomes. Although gaps in the evidence remain, the available findings suggested that greater tort liability, at least in its current form, was not associated with improved quality of care.
Topics: Humans; Insurance, Liability; Liability, Legal; Malpractice; Obstetrics; Outcome Assessment, Health Care; Postoperative Complications; Quality of Health Care
PubMed: 31990319
DOI: 10.1001/jama.2019.21411 -
Complementary Therapies in Medicine Jun 2016The aim of the review was to evaluate the effects of the osteopathic manipulative treatment (OMT) on women with gynaecological and obstetric disorders. (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
The aim of the review was to evaluate the effects of the osteopathic manipulative treatment (OMT) on women with gynaecological and obstetric disorders.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
An extensive search from inception to April 2014 was conducted on MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane library using MeSH and free terms. Clinical studies investigating the effect of OMT in gynaecologic and obstetric conditions were included as well as unpublished works. Reviews and personal contributions were excluded. Studies were screened for population, outcome, results and adverse effects by two independent reviewers using an ad-hoc data extraction form. The high heterogeneity of the studies led to a narrative review.
RESULTS
24 studies were included (total sample=1840), addressing back pain and low back functioning in pregnancy, pain and drug use during labor and delivery, infertility and subfertility, dysmenorrhea, symptoms of (peri)menopause and pelvic pain. Overall, OMT can be considered effective on pregnancy related back pain but uncertain in all other gynaecological and obstetrical conditions. Only three studies (12.5%) mentioned adverse events after OMT.
CONCLUSIONS
Although positive effects were found, the heterogeneity of study designs, the low number of studies and the high risk of bias of included trials prevented any indication on the effect of osteopathic care. Further investigation with more pragmatic methodology, better and detailed description of interventions and systematic reporting of adverse events are recommended in order to obtain solid and generalizable results.
Topics: Female; Humans; Infertility, Female; Manipulation, Osteopathic; Menopause; Pelvic Pain; Pregnancy; Pregnancy Complications
PubMed: 27261985
DOI: 10.1016/j.ctim.2016.03.005 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Oct 2012Traditional epidural techniques have been associated with prolonged labour, use of oxytocin augmentation and increased incidence of instrumental vaginal delivery. The... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Traditional epidural techniques have been associated with prolonged labour, use of oxytocin augmentation and increased incidence of instrumental vaginal delivery. The combined spinal-epidural (CSE) technique has been introduced in an attempt to reduce these adverse effects. CSE is believed to improve maternal mobility during labour and provide more rapid onset of analgesia than epidural analgesia, which could contribute to increased maternal satisfaction.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the relative effects of CSE versus epidural analgesia during labour.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (28 September 2011) and reference lists of retrieved studies. We updated the search on 30 June 2012 and added the results to the awaiting classification section.
SELECTION CRITERIA
All published randomised controlled trials (RCTs) involving a comparison of CSE with epidural analgesia initiated for women in the first stage of labour. Cluster-randomised trials were considered for inclusion. Quasi RCTs and cross-over trials were not considered for inclusion in this review.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Three review authors independently assessed the trials identified from the searches for inclusion, assessed trial quality and extracted the data. Data were checked for accuracy.
MAIN RESULTS
Twenty-seven trials involving 3274 women met our inclusion criteria. Twenty-six outcomes in two sets of comparisons involving CSE versus traditional epidurals and CSE versus low-dose epidural techniques were analysed.Of the CSE versus traditional epidural analyses five outcomes showed a significant difference. CSE was more favourable in relation to speed of onset of analgesia from time of injection (mean difference (MD) -2.87 minutes; 95% confidence interval (CI) -5.07 to -0.67; two trials, 129 women); the need for rescue analgesia (risk ratio (RR) 0.31; 95% CI 0.14 to 0.70; one trial, 42 women); urinary retention (RR 0.86; 95% CI 0.79 to 0.95; one trial, 704 women); and rate of instrumental delivery (RR 0.81; 95% CI 0.67 to 0.97; six trials, 1015 women). Traditional epidural was more favourable in relation to umbilical venous pH (MD -0.03; 95% CI -0.06 to -0.00; one trial, 55 women). There were no data on maternal satisfaction, blood patch for post dural puncture headache, respiratory depression, umbilical cord pH, rare neurological complications, analgesia for caesarean section after analgesic intervention or any economic/use of resources outcomes for this comparison. No differences between CSE and traditional epidural were identified for mobilisation in labour, the need for labour augmentation, the rate of caesarean birth, incidence of post dural puncture headache, maternal hypotension, neonatal Apgar scores or umbilical arterial pH.For CSE versus low-dose epidurals, three outcomes were statistically significant. Two of these reflected a faster onset of effective analgesia from time of injection with CSE and the third was of more pruritus with CSE compared to low-dose epidural (average RR 1.80; 95% CI 1.22 to 2.65; 11 trials, 959 women; random-effects, T² = 0.26, I² = 84%). There was no significant difference in maternal satisfaction (average RR 1.01; 95% CI 0.98 to 1.05; seven trials, 520 women; random-effects, T² = 0.00, I² = 45%). There were no data on respiratory depression, maternal sedation or the need for labour augmentation. No differences between CSE and low-dose epidural were identified for need for rescue analgesia, mobilisation in labour, incidence of post dural puncture headache, known dural tap, blood patch for post dural headache, urinary retention, nausea/vomiting, hypotension, headache, the need for labour augmentation, mode of delivery, umbilical pH, Apgar score or admissions to the neonatal unit.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There appears to be little basis for offering CSE over epidurals in labour, with no difference in overall maternal satisfaction despite a slightly faster onset with CSE and conversely less pruritus with low-dose epidurals. There was no difference in ability to mobilise, maternal hypotension, rate of caesarean birth or neonatal outcome. However, the significantly higher incidence of urinary retention, rescue interventions and instrumental deliveries with traditional techniques would favour the use of low-dose epidurals. It is not possible to draw any meaningful conclusions regarding rare complications such as nerve injury and meningitis.
Topics: Analgesia, Epidural; Analgesia, Obstetrical; Anesthesia, Epidural; Anesthesia, Spinal; Female; Humans; Labor, Obstetric; Pregnancy; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 23076897
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003401.pub3