ObjectiveTo compare postoperative patient-controlled epidural analgesia (PCEA) and intravenous patient-controlled analgesia (PCIA) on maternal low back pain after caesarean section. MethodsSixty cases of American Society of Anesthesiology gradeⅠ-Ⅱ single-birth full-term elective caesarean delivery primiparae chosen between July to September 2012 were divided into 3 groups randomly, 20 in each group. Group A accepted sufentanil 1 μg/mL and ropivacaine 1 mg/mL PCEA; group B had sufentanil 1.5 μg/mL PCEA; group C was given sufentanil 1.5 μg/mL and ondansetron 0.16 mg/mL PCIA. Background dose was 2 mL/h, patient-controlled analgesia dose was 2 mL, and locking time was 20 min. Visual analogue pain score was used to assess the effect of postoperative analgesia, and we recorded analgesia pump usage, adverse reactions, and at the same time investigated the onset of maternal low back pain. ResultsNo obvious postoperative pain was found, and the analgesic effect was good in all the three groups, and the differences were not statistically significant (P>0.05). All three groups of women had a certain proportion of low back pain, and the differences were not statistically significant (P>0.05). After operation, group A had 5 cases of leg numbness, group B had 1, and group C had none. Leg numbness occurred significantly more in group A than in group B and C (P<0.05). Group B had one case of nausea and vomiting, while none occurred in group A and C (P>0.05). ConclusionWith the same effect of postoperative analgesia, compared with PCIA, PCEA does not increase postoperative low back pain incidence after caesarean section.
ObjectiveTo systematically review the effectiveness and safety of combined spinal-epidural anesthesia for cesarean section. MethodsWe searched The Cochrane Library (Issue 10, 2013), PubMed, MEDLINE, EMbase, CBM, CNKI, VIP and WanFang Data for randomized controlled trials on combined spinal-epidural anesthesia for cesarean section up to October 2013. Two reviewers independently screened literature according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria, extracted data, and assessed the methodological quality of included studies. Then meta-analysis was conducted using RevMan 5.2.9 software. ResultsA total of 9 studies containing 616 delivery women were included. The results of meta-analysis showed that:compared with epidural anesthesia, combined spinal-epidural anesthesia was superior in the time of sensory blockade to T4 (MD=-7.38, 95%CI-9.54 to-5.23, P < 0.000 01), muscle relaxation (OR=6.09, 95%CI 2.65 to 13.97, P < 0.000 1), and recovery of motor block (MD=-41.57, 95%CI-58.98 to-24.17, P < 0.000 01). Compare with spinal anesthesia, combined spinal-epidural anesthesia was superior in lowering the incidence of low blood pressure (OR=0.49, 95%CI 0.29 to 0.81, P=0.006). ConclusionCurrent evidence shows that combined spinal-epidural anesthesia could increase the effectiveness and safety of combined spinal-epidural anesthesia for cesarean section.
Objective To systematically review the efficacy of maternal body temperature preservation during caesarean section. Methods Databases including PubMed, EMbase, The Cochrane Library (Issue 2, 2015), WanFang Data, CBM and CNKI were searched from inception to July 2015 to collect randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of body temperature preservation in patients with caesarean delivery. Two reviewers independently screened literature, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of included studies. Then, meta-analysis was performed using RevMan5.3 software. Results A total of 15 RCTs involving 1 331 patients were included. The results of meta-analysis showed that patients in the temperature preservation group had a smaller body temperature variation (MD= –0.22, 95%CI –0.32 to –0.13, P < 0.000 01) and a lower incidence of shivering (RR=0.53, 95%CI 0.42 to 0.67, P < 0.000 01) than patients in the control group. There were no statistical differences between the two groups in blood loss (MD= –13.77, 95%CI –33.95 to 6.42, P=0.18) and newborn Apgar score (MD=0.12, 95%CI –0.37 to 0.6, P=0.64). Conclusions Current evidence shows that body temperature preservation measures can better protect patients with caesarean delivery. Specifically, body temperature preservation measures could reduce patients’ body temperature variation and incidence of shivering but had no effect on blood loss and newborn Apgar score. Due to limited quality and quantity of the included studies, more high quality studies are needed to verify the above conclusion.
ObjectivesTo systematically review the efficacy and safety of hydromorphone and morphine in post-cesarean section analgesia.MethodsThe Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), PubMed, EMbase, CNKI, WanFang Data, VIP and SinoMed databases were electronically searched to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of hydromorphone vs. morphine in the treatment of postoperative analgesia after cesarean section from the inception of the database to December 2017. Two reviewers independently screened literatures, extracted data and assessed risk of bias of the included trials. The meta-analysis was conducted with RevMan 5.3 software.ResultsSeven trials with 586 post-cesarean section patients were included. The results of the meta-analysis showed that, compared with the morphine group, the hydromorphone group had lower 6 h (MD=–0.23, 95%CI –0.38 to –0.08, P=0.003), 12 h (MD=–0.56, 95%CI –1.10 to –0.02, P=0.04), 24 h (MD=–0.37, 95%CI –0.65 to –0.09, P=0.01) and 48 h (MD=–0.41, 95%CI –0.74 to –0.08, P=0.01) postoperative VAS scores the with epidural anesthesia pump (PECA). There was no statistically significant difference of the postoperative Ramsay scores between the two groups. In terms of side effects, the incidence of skin pruritus (RR=0.27, 95%CI 0.09 to 0.81. P=0.02) and vomit (RR=0.15, 95%CI 0.03 to 0.65, P=0.01) of the hydromorphone group were lower than those of the morphine group.ConclusionsThe current evidence demonstrate that, compared with morphine, hydromorphone has better postoperative analgesia performance and less risk of exhibiting skin pruritus and vomit after cesarean section. Considering of the overall quality of evidence and the relatively small pooled sample size, more well-conducted randomized controlled trials are required to verify the above conclusion.
ObjectivesTo systematically review the efficacy and safety of sufentanil versus fentanyl used in patient-controlled intravenous analgesia (PCIA) after cesarean section.MethodsAn online search of computerized searches of the database of MEDLINE (OVID), Web of Science, The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, PubMed, EMbase, CNKI, WanFang Data, VIP and SinoMed were conducted. Randomized controlled trials published since the inceptions of these databases until April 1st 2018, involving the comparison of sufentanil versus fentanyl for PCIA after cesarean section were included. Two reviewers independently screened literature, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of included studies. Then, meta-analysis was conducted using the RevMan 5.1 software.ResultsA total of 19 studies were included. The results of meta-analysis showed that, compared with the fentanyl group, the sufentanil group had statistically significant lower VAS scores at 4-hour (MD=–0.99, 95%CI –1.03 to –0.95, P<0.001), 8-hour (MD=–0.30, 95%CI –0.40 to –0.21, P<0.001), 12-hour (MD=–0.54, 95%CI –0.62 to –0.46, P<0.001) and 24-hour (MD=–0.35, 95%CI –0.41 to –0.28, P<0.001); statistically significant higher Ramsay scores at 4-hour (MD=0.72, 95%CI 0.66 to 0.78, P<0.001), 8-hour (MD=0.93, 95%CI 0.86 to 1.00, P<0.001), 12-hour (MD=0.98, 95%CI 0.91 to 1.05, P<0.001), 24-hour (MD=0.07, 95%CI 0.03 to 0.11, P=0.000 5), 48-hour (MD=0.05, 95%CI 0.03 to 0.08, P<0.000 1). As for the adverse reactions, sufentanil group had lower risks of having nausea and vomiting (RR=0.25, 95%CI 0.19 to 0.31, P<0.001), pruritus (RR=0.41, 95%CI 0.30 to 0.57, P<0.001), dizziness (RR=0.27, 95%CI 0.17 to 0.44, P<0.001) and urinary retention (RR=0.35, 95%CI (0.15, 0.82), P=0.02).ConclusionsThe current evidence shows that, sufentanil has better analgesia and sedative effects, and less risks of adverse reactions for safer clinical use.