• Fadıl Havas, Mukadder Orhan Sungur, Yılmaz Yenigün, Meltem Karadeniz, Miray Kılıç, and Tülay Özkan Seyhan.
• Department of Anesthesiology, İstanbul University İstanbul Faculty of Medicine, İstanbul, Turkey.
• Agri. 2013 Jan 1;25(2):55-63.

ObjectivesThis prospective study aims to compare maternal and neonatal effects of spinal and general anesthesia for elective cesarean section.MethodsTerm parturients receiving routine spinal (Group SA, n=95) or general (Group GA, n=93) anesthesia and standard postoperative analgesia for elective cesarean section were included in this study. Operation time, incision-hysterotomy (TS-H) and hysterotomy-umbilical cord clamping (TH-U) intervals, oxytocine requirement, intraoperative fluids, ephedrine requirement, incidence of hypotension, time to first analgesic requirement (Tanalg), pethidine consumption, adverse events, time to first breastfeeding, oral food intake (TOI), flatulence (TF), defecation (TD), mobilization, and postoperative hospital stay were compared between the groups. Newborn Apgar scores, umbilical venous blood gas analysis, incidence of hypoglycemia, nutritional support, phototherapy and ventilatory support were also analyzed.ResultsSpinal anesthesia was associated with longer TS-H and TH-U durations, lower oxytocine requirements, higher incidence of hypotension, increased ephedrine and fluid consumption, and delayed Tanalg. Furthermore, TOI, TF, TD and postoperative hospital stay was shorter in patients given spinal anesthesia when compared with patients given general anesthesia (48h vs. 52 h, respectively; p<0.01). No difference in postoperative analgesic consumption and neonatal outcomes, except 1st min Apgar scores and umbilical blood gas analysis, was detected.ConclusionSpinal anesthesia, when compared to general anesthesia shortens postoperative hospital stay with early return of gastrointestinal functions in elective cesarean section.

17 keywords...

hide…