Effect of anaesthetic technique on neonatal morbidity in emergency caesarean section for foetal distress.

BACKGROUND:While foetal distress is typically associated with ischaemic injury, few studies have assessed neonatal morbidity for emergency caesarean section. Moreover, the decision of the anaesthetic technique may be of paramount importance in emergency caesareans, because of the limited time and increased risk. We aimed to evaluate the effect of the anaesthetic technique on neonatal morbidity in emergency caesarean indicated for foetal distress. METHODS:This was a single-centre, prospective observational study, conducted between July-2015 and December-2015. The study enrolled parturient with indication for emergency caesarean section after diagnosis of foetal distress, who received either regional or general anaesthesia. The outcome measures were: 1, 5-minute Apgar scores; umbilical blood pH; length of hospitalization; and morbidity, defined as a 5-minute Apgar score <7, need for mechanical ventilation, admittance to a neonatal intensive care unit, or respiratory insufficiency symptoms. RESULTS:61 patients were included in the study, of whom 31 received regional anaesthesia. Neonatal morbidity was noted in 5 and 9 cases with regional and general anaesthesia, respectively. The 1-minute Apgar score was significantly lower(p = 0,045) for cases with general anaesthesia, which was not true for the 5-minute Apgar score. Regional anaesthesia was non-significantly associated with shorter length of hospitalization, lower incidence of morbidity, and higher umbilical blood pH. When we take regional anaesthesia cases as a reference point, we detected that general anaesthesia cases are showing 2,2 times more morbidity risk. But these results did not reach any statistically significant levels. CONCLUSIONS:While we did find some improved results for regional anaesthesia group, we found no statistical evidence that neither anaesthesia technique is superior regarding neonatal morbidity. We think that regional anaesthesia should be preferred whenever possible because of our improved results of length of hospital stay, APGAR and morbidity and we think that general anaesthesia is indicated for very urgent cases or regional anaesthesia contraindicated patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION:http://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN15181117

THE COMPARISON OF LIDOCAINE WITH LIDOCAINE AND MAGNESIUM COMBINATION FOR REGIONAL INTRAVENOUS ANESTHESIA

Objectives: RIVA (Regional Intravenous Anesthesia) is frequently preferred during distal upper extremity operations (hand, wrist and forearm) compared to general anesthesia because of the following reasons: lower operational cost, simplicity, surgical operation environment stability, quick implementation and faster recovery time. Deeper anesthesia, prolonged effective time, hemodynamic stabilization, reduced intraoperative complications and longer postoperative analgesia are aimed by using adjunct drugs. Main objective of our study is to investigate the effectiveness of magnesium as an adjunct in RIVA