EFFECT OF TYPE OF ANESTHESIA ON BLOOD-LOSS AT ELECTIVE REPEAT CESAREAN-SECTION

被引:25
作者
ANDREWS, WW
RAMIN, SM
MABERRY, MC
SHEARER, V
BLACK, S
WALLACE, DH
机构
[1] Departments of Obstetrics and Gynecology and Anesthesiology, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas
关键词
D O I
10.1055/s-2007-999320
中图分类号
R71 [妇产科学];
学科分类号
100211 ;
摘要
It has recently been reported that the use of halogenated agents during balanced general anesthesia may result in an increase in blood loss associated with cesarean section. This report has been criticized for failure to control for a variety of other factors that may have contributed to the increased blood loss, particularly the indication for and type of cesarean section. The present study was designed in an attempt to resolve this criticism. Blood loss was evaluated in uncomplicated patients undergoing elective repeat cesarean section under either general anesthesia using a halogenated agent (isoflurane) or regional anesthesia (spinal/epidural). All 117 singleton term, nonlaboring women underwent repeat low transverse cesarean section performed through a midline abdominal incision. Exclusion criteria included maternal medical complications, abnormal placentation, polyhydramnios, presence of uterine leiomyomas, and intraoperative complications. Seventy-five patients (64%) received regional and 42 (36%) received general anesthesia. A greater proportion of women undergoing general anesthesia experienced a postoperative decrease in hematocrit of 5 vol% or more compared with patients receiving regional anesthesia (10 of 42 versus 5 of 75, p = 0.01 8). Thus, we conclude that women undergoing uncomplicated elective repeat cesarean section under general anesthesia supplemented with a halogenated agent are at risk for increased blood loss compared with those women receiving regional anesthesia. However, the increased blood loss was not clinically significant in this study, since none of the patients required transfusion.
引用
收藏
页码:197 / 200
页数:4
相关论文
共 20 条
  • [1] Gilstrap LC I.I.I., Hauth J.C., Toussiant S., Cesarean section: Changing incidence and indications, Obstet Gynecol, 63, pp. 205-208, (1984)
  • [2] National Hospital Discharge Survey, No longer optional, VBAC now urged as routine procedure. ACOG Newslett, 33, 1, (1989)
  • [3] Danforth D.N., Cesarean section, JAMA, 253, pp. 811-818, (1985)
  • [4] Statement on cesarean section, Am J Obstet Gynecol, 139, pp. 902-909, (1981)
  • [5] Gleicher N., Cesarean section rates in the United States: The short-term failure of the National Consensus Development Conference in 1980, JAMA, 252, pp. 3273-3276, (1984)
  • [6] Taffel S.M., Placet P.J., Liss T., Trends in the United States cesarean section rate and reasons for the 1980–1985 rise, Am J Public Health, 77, pp. 955-959, (1987)
  • [7] Hicks J.S., Levinson G., Shnider S.M., Obstetric anesthesia training centers in the U.S.A.—1975, Anesth Analg, 55, pp. 839-845, (1976)
  • [8] Datta S., Alper M.H., Anesthesia for cesarean section, Anesthesiology, 53, pp. 142-160, (1980)
  • [9] Gilstrap L.C., Hankins G.D.V., Anesthesia for cesarean delivery: The uncomplicated patient, En Phelan JP, Clark SL (eds): Cesarean Delivery. New York: Elsevier Science Publishers, pp. 139-154, (1988)
  • [10] Munson E.S., Maier W.R., Caton D., Effects of halothane cyclopropane and nitrous oxide on isolated human uterine muscle, J Obstet Gynaecol Br Commonw, 76, pp. 27-33, (1969)