• C J Howell, C Kidd, W Roberts, P Upton, L Lucking, P W Jones, and R B Johanson.
• Academic Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, North Staffordshire Hospital (NHS) Trust, Stoke on Trent, UK.
• BJOG. 2001 Jan 1;108(1):27-33.

ObjectivesTo investigate possible short and long term side effects of epidural analgesia, compared with non-epidural analgesia for pain relief in labour.DesignRandomised controlled study, with long term follow up by questionnaire. Analysis by intention-to-treat.SettingBusy maternity unit within a district general hospital in England.ParticipantsThree hundred and sixty nine primigravid women in labour were included (randomised allocation: epidural n = 184, non-epidural n = 185).Main Outcome MeasuresBackache at three and twelve months after delivery, instrumental delivery rates and maternal opinion of pain relief in labour.ResultsNo significant differences were found in the reported incidence of backache between the groups at three months: middle backache [22% vs 20%, chi2 = 0.057, P = 0.81; odds ratio (95% CI) 1.4(0.9-2.3)]; low backache [35% vs 34%, chi2 = 0.009, P = 0.92; odds ratio (95% CI) 1.0(0.6-1.6)]. Nor were there significant differences at 12 months: [middle backache 16% vs 16%, chi2 = 0.013, P = 0.91; odds ratio (95% CI) 1.0(0.5-1.8)]; or low backache [35% vs 27%, chi2 = 1.91, P = 0.17; odds ratio (95% CI) 1.4(0.9-2.3)]. The incidence of instrumental delivery was somewhat higher in the epidural group [30% vs 19%, odds ratio (95% CI) 1.77(1.09-2.86)]. Maternal satisfaction was not significantly different between the groups.ConclusionsThis study provided no evidence to support the suggestion of a direct association between the use of epidural anaesthesia in labour and the incidence of long term backache. Despite a significant proportion of women in each group not receiving their allocated analgesia, a significant difference in terms of instrumental delivery rates remained. Satisfaction in both groups of women was high.

23 keywords...

hide…