Key result
Regional anesthesia for caesarean section linked to fewer serious adverse incidents than general anesthesia.
Why the study?
There is little published data on the failure rate of regional anesthesia for caesarean section with high use of spinal or combined spinal-epidural anesthesia and spinal and epidural opioids.
What are the failure rates and associated risk factors for regional anesthesia in caesarean sections?
Population
5080 caesarean deliveries at a large UK teaching hospital from 1999 to 2004
Comparison
Regional anesthesia (spinals, top-up epidurals, combined spinal-epidurals) vs primary general anesthesia
Design
Prospective audit observational study
Authors
Loading...
Regional anesthesia failure exceeds RCoA targets in emergencies; leaves open targeted quality-improvement strategies pending confirmatory prospective studies.
Observational (n=5,080)
No
What are the failure rates and associated risk factors for regional anesthesia in caesarean sections?
Regional anesthesia for caesarean section has a low conversion rate to general anesthesia for elective cases, but higher failure rates are observed in emergency cases and with epidural top-ups.
S. M. Kinsella (2008) conducted an observational in Caesarean section (n=5,080). Regional anesthesia vs. General anesthesia was evaluated on Failure of regional anesthesia (conversion to general anesthesia or failure to achieve a pain-free operation). Regional anesthesia for caesarean section had a conversion rate to general anesthesia of 0.8% for elective and 4.9% for emergency cases, with fewer serious adverse incidents than general anesthesia.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: