Key result
Spinal anesthesia for nonemergent cesarean section was associated with significantly shorter total operating room times compared to epidural anesthesia (83 vs 101 minutes, P<0.001).
Why the study?
Does spinal anesthesia improve time management, costs, and complication rates compared to epidural anesthesia in patients undergoing nonemergent cesarean section?
Population
94 patients undergoing nonemergent cesarean section
Comparison
Spinal anesthesia vs Epidural anesthesia
Design
Cohort
Authors
Loading...
Spinal anesthesia may shorten OR time in nonemergent cesarean; leaves open effects on costs or complications versus epidural.
Cohort (n=94)
No
Does spinal anesthesia improve time management, costs, and complication rates compared to epidural anesthesia in patients undergoing nonemergent cesarean section?
Absolute Event Rate: 83% vs 101%
p-value: p=<0.001
Spinal anesthesia is more time-efficient, cost-effective, and associated with fewer complications than epidural anesthesia for elective cesarean sections.
Riley et al. (1995) conducted a cohort in Nonemergent cesarean section (n=94). Spinal anesthesia vs. Epidural anesthesia was evaluated on Total operating room (OR) time in minutes (p=<0.001). Spinal anesthesia for nonemergent cesarean section was associated with significantly shorter total operating room times compared to epidural anesthesia (83 vs 101 minutes, P<0.001).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: