Key result
Among pregnant women undergoing elective cesarean sections, 54% chose spinal anesthesia compared to 22% who chose general anesthesia.
Why the study?
The choice of anesthesia for elective cesarean section depends on benefit-risk assessment and patient preference, but preferences for general versus spinal anesthesia and factors influencing choices needed evaluation.
What are the preferences and factors affecting the choice between general and spinal anesthesia among pregnant women undergoing elective cesarean sections in Saudi Arabia?
Cross-Sectional (n=813)
What are the preferences and factors affecting the choice between general and spinal anesthesia among pregnant women undergoing elective cesarean sections in Saudi Arabia?
Absolute Event Rate: 54% vs 22%
Pregnant women in Saudi Arabia undergoing elective cesarean sections prefer spinal anesthesia over general anesthesia, with choices significantly influenced by prior experience, education, and non-medical advice.
Supports counseling on spinal anesthesia for elective cesareans; leaves open causal roles of experience and education in Saudi settings.
Background The choice of anesthesia for an elective cesarean section should be based on an individual benefit-risk assessment, considering the pregnant woman’s preferences, concerns, and the available medical expertise. This study aimed to determine the preferences for general and spinal anesthesia among women undergoing elective cesarean sections and the factors affecting their choice. Methods The study design is a cross-sectional study, and it was conducted on pregnant women to measure the acceptance of general anesthesia and spinal anesthesia in patients with elective cesarean sections in Saudi Arabia. Random pregnant women were invited to participate in this study across Saudi Arabia after fulfilling the inclusion criteria. A digital questionnaire was distributed across Saudi Arabia to be filled out by female residents. A Microsoft Excel (Microsoft Corporation, Redmond, Washington, USA) sheet was used for data entry, while IBM SPSS software version 27.0.1 (IBM Corp., Armonk, New York, USA) was used for statistical analysis. Results The study included 813 participants; most (28%) of them were 25-30 years old. Of the study participants, 54% had chosen spinal anesthesia before, 22% had chosen general anesthesia, and 24% had chosen neither. Reasons to choose general anesthesia were reported as follows: 21.6% feared pain during surgery, 24.2% feared watching the surgical procedures on their bodies, 16.6% feared back pain, 12.8% feared being paralyzed, and 15.1% feared needles used to administer anesthesia in the lower back. Reasons for choosing spinal anesthesia were reported as follows: 26.3% had back pain concerns; 13% feared prolonged unconsciousness; 9.6% feared having a headache after surgery; 17% had post-surgery pain concerns; 30.1% wanted to be alert at the time of the birth of the baby; 10.6% feared the chances of experiencing nausea and vomiting; and 7.4% feared not being able to breastfeed. Conclusion Spinal anesthesia was chosen by more participants than general anesthesia. There was a statistically significant association between choosing spinal anesthesia and the number of previous pregnancies, parity, history of preterm labor, and recommendation to undergo general or spinal anesthesia by non-medical staff. It was also significant with the older age and higher educational level of participants. This decision may be influenced by a number of variables, the most significant of which are prior experience with general anesthesia or spinal anesthesia, educational attainment, and non-medical advice.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Tawfeeq et al. (2023) conducted a cross-sectional in Elective cesarean section (n=813). Spinal anesthesia vs. General anesthesia was evaluated on Prevalence of acceptance/choice of anesthesia type. Among pregnant women undergoing elective cesarean sections, 54% chose spinal anesthesia compared to 22% who chose general anesthesia.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: