Fyneface-Ogan S, Mato C N, Anya S E
Department of Anaesthesiology, Faculty of Clinical Sciences, College of Health Sciences, University of Port Harcourt, Choba-Port Harcourt, Nigeria.
Ann Afr Med. 2009 Oct-Dec;8(4):250-6. doi: 10.4103/1596-3519.59580.
Pain during childbirth is a well known cause of dissatisfaction amongst women in labor. The use of epidural analgesia in labor is becoming widespread due to its benefit in terms of pain relief.
After approval of the local Ethics Committee on Research and obtaining informed written consent, 50 American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) class I-II consecutive multiparous women in labor requesting pain relief were enrolled in this prospective study. After providing description of the two options of pain relief available to them, they were allocated into two groups according to their request-to receive either parenteral opioid/sedative or epidural labor analgesia. Both groups received analgesia of choice at 4-cm cervical os dilatation. The epidural group received 0.125% plain bupivacaine, while the other group received pentazocine/promethazine intravenously. The time taken to locate the epidural space, catheter-related complications encountered and the amount of intravenous fluid used were documented.
The two groups were comparable in terms of socio-demographic data. The mean duration of the first and second stages of labor, respectively, were significantly shorter in the epidural group when compared with those in the non-epidural group ([P < 0.01] and [P < 0.02]). There was no difference in the rate of cesarean delivery between them - epidural analgesia (32% [8/25]) versus parenteral opioid/sedative (44% [11/25]), (OR, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.19-1.90). The maternal blood loss from delivery was minimal, with no statistical difference between the two groups (P = 0.27). The neonatal outcome was the same in both groups. Closed questionnaire showed that the overall experience of labor was much better (it was also better than expected) in the epidural group when compared with that in the non-epidural group (80% versus 4%). Eighteen (72%) women had inadequate pain relief in the non-epidural group as compared to 2 (8%) women in the epidural group.
The study shows that epidural labor analgesia is acceptable to women in our setting. More women in the epidural analgesia group were satisfied with the experience of labor than those who did not receive this form of analgesia than among those who received parenteral opioid/sedative.
分娩时的疼痛是产妇不满的一个众所周知的原因。由于硬膜外镇痛在缓解疼痛方面的益处,其在分娩中的应用越来越广泛。
在获得当地研究伦理委员会批准并取得知情书面同意后,本前瞻性研究纳入了50例美国麻醉医师协会(ASA)分级为I-II级、连续分娩且要求缓解疼痛的经产妇。在向她们介绍了两种可用的疼痛缓解方法后,根据她们的要求将其分为两组,分别接受胃肠外阿片类药物/镇静剂或硬膜外分娩镇痛。两组均在宫颈口扩张4厘米时接受所选的镇痛方法。硬膜外组接受0.125%的单纯布比卡因,而另一组静脉注射喷他佐辛/异丙嗪。记录硬膜外腔定位所需时间、遇到的与导管相关的并发症以及静脉输液量。
两组在社会人口统计学数据方面具有可比性。与非硬膜外组相比,硬膜外组第一产程和第二产程的平均持续时间显著缩短([P < 0.01]和[P < 0.02])。两组之间剖宫产率无差异——硬膜外镇痛(32%[8/25])与胃肠外阿片类药物/镇静剂(44%[11/25]),(比值比,0.60;95%置信区间,0.19 - 1.90)。分娩时产妇失血量极少,两组之间无统计学差异(P = 0.27)。两组新生儿结局相同。封闭式问卷调查显示,与非硬膜外组相比,硬膜外组分娩的总体体验要好得多(也比预期好)(80%对4%)。非硬膜外组中有18名(72%)女性疼痛缓解不足,而硬膜外组中只有2名(8%)女性疼痛缓解不足。
该研究表明,在我们的研究环境中,硬膜外分娩镇痛为产妇所接受。与未接受这种镇痛形式的女性相比,硬膜外镇痛组中更多女性对分娩体验感到满意,也高于接受胃肠外阿片类药物/镇静剂的女性。