Observational studyPloS one2018
Effect of anaesthetic technique on neonatal morbidity in emergency caesarean section for foetal distress.
Observational study in PloS one, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed, 29 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Perinatal outcome of emergency cesarean section under neuraxial anesthesia versus general anesthesia: a seven-year retrospective analysis.BMC anesthesiology · 2024Article
- A Retrospective Review of Decision to Delivery Time Interval for Foetal Distress at a Central Hospital.International journal of women's health · 2022Article
- Quantitative cardiac autonomic outcomes of hydrotherapy in women during the first stage of labor.Frontiers in medicine · 2022Article
- General versus regional anaesthesia for caesarean section indicated for acute foetal distress: a retrospective cohort study.BMC anesthesiology · 2021Article
- Moderate rate of implementation of spinal anesthesia for cesarean section: does it improve neonatal well-being? A case-control study.Scientific reports · 2021Article
- Anesthesia for Cesarean Section: Retrospective Comparative Study.International journal of women's health · 2021Article
- The Effect of Intrathecal Meperidine on Maternal and Newborn Outcomes After Cesarean Section: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Study.Anesthesiology and pain medicine · 2020Article
- Review of evidences for management of rapid sequence spinal anesthesia for category one cesarean section, in resource limiting setting.International journal of surgery open · 2020Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWhile 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.
methodsThis 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.
results61 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.
conclusionsWhile 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 registrationhttp://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN15181117.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.