Publication: Comparison of general and regional anesthesia for cesarean section: Success rate, blood loss and satisfaction from a randomized trial
Submitted Date
Received Date
Accepted Date
Issued Date
1999-07-01
Copyright Date
Announcement No.
Application No.
Patent No.
Valid Date
Resource Type
Edition
Resource Version
Language
File Type
No. of Pages/File Size
ISBN
ISSN
01252208
eISSN
DOI
Scopus ID
WOS ID
Pubmed ID
arXiv ID
Call No.
Other identifier(s)
2-s2.0-0032722902
Journal Title
Volume
Issue
item.page.oaire.edition
Start Page
End Page
Access Rights
Access Status
Rights
Mahidol University
Rights Holder(s)
SCOPUS
Physical Location
Bibliographic Citation
Journal of the Medical Association of Thailand. Vol.82, No.7 (1999), 672-679
Citation
Jariya Lertakyamanee, Thitima Chinachoti, Thara Tritrakarn, Jarinya Muangkasem, Achra Somboonnanonda, Thrathip Kolatat (1999). Comparison of general and regional anesthesia for cesarean section: Success rate, blood loss and satisfaction from a randomized trial. Retrieved from: https://repository.li.mahidol.ac.th/handle/20.500.14594/25617.
Research Projects
Organizational Units
Authors
Journal Issue
Thesis
Title
Comparison of general and regional anesthesia for cesarean section: Success rate, blood loss and satisfaction from a randomized trial
Alternative Title(s)
Author's Affiliation
Author's E-mail
Editor(s)
Editor's Affiliation
Corresponding Author(s)
Creator(s)
Compiler
Advisor(s)
Illustrator(s)
Applicant(s)
Inventor(s)
Issuer
Assignee
Other Contributor(s)
Series
Has Part
Abstract
Objective: A prospective randomized trial was organized to compare the effectiveness of general and regional anesthesia for cesarean section (C/S). Method: Three hundred and forty-one patients were randomized into the general anesthesia group (GA), epidural anesthesia group (EA) and spinal anesthesia group (SA). The effectiveness of interest was success rate, blood loss and patient satisfaction. Result: We found that the success rates of EA and SA were lower than GA. Success in EA should be improved by using an epidural catheter to add more local anesthetic drug instead of a single shot; and the surgeon should allow more time for the block to work adequately. Success is SA should be improved by using bupivacaine instead of lidocaine. GA resulted in significantly more blood loss, lower postoperative hematocrit, and higher proportion of patients who had postoperative hematocrit <30 per cent than EA and SA. The patients' satisfaction scores were not different among the 3 techniques. This meant that, given adequate explanation and perioperative care, Thai women were satisfied with regional anesthesia. Conclusion: Regional anesthesia is a better choice of anesthesia for C/S than general anesthesia. However, the availability of different techniques and ability to change the technique when needed were very useful and important. If GA is chosen, all safety procedures must be followed. Oxygen supplement and endotracheal intubation facilities must be available in all techniques. Guidelines of anesthesia for C/S at a national level should be agreed upon, including the type of personnel, monitoring equipment and postoperative care.