Belfrage P, Irestedt L, Raabe N, Arnér S
Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 1977;21(1):67-70. doi: 10.1111/j.1399-6576.1977.tb01196.x.
Caesarean section was performed in 10 patients under general anaesthesia and in 10 other patients under epidural block. The foetal heart rate was monitored continuously during anaesthesia and operation with a scalp electrode and a cardiotocograph. There was no major difference between the two anaesthetic techniques in their effect on the foetal heart rate. The most common finding was a reduction of the beat-to-beat variation. The operative time was longer in the epidural group than in the general anaesthesia group, due to a higher frequency of Pfannenstiel incisions and repeat caesarean sections in the epidural group. Clinically, all newborns seemed to be unaffected, with normal Apgar scores. Epidural block seems to be a good alternative to general anaesthesia for caesarean section, particularly when a long operative time is expected.
10例患者在全身麻醉下进行剖宫产，另外10例患者在硬膜外阻滞下进行剖宫产。麻醉和手术期间，用头皮电极和胎心监护仪持续监测胎儿心率。两种麻醉技术对胎儿心率的影响没有显著差异。最常见的发现是逐搏变化减少。由于硬膜外组耻骨联合上横切口和再次剖宫产的频率较高，硬膜外组的手术时间比全身麻醉组更长。临床上，所有新生儿似乎均未受影响，阿氏评分正常。硬膜外阻滞似乎是剖宫产全身麻醉的一个良好替代方案，尤其是在预计手术时间较长时。
