Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30788204›Full record

ArticleCureus2018

The Effect of Spinal versus General Anesthesia on Quality of Life in Women Undergoing Cesarean Delivery on Maternal Request.

Sina Ghaffari, Laleh Dehghanpisheh, Fahimeh Tavakkoli, Hilda Mahmoudi

Registry-linked trialOpen access · diamondAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cureus, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT07363109 (Prevention of Hypotension During Elective Cesarean Section Under Spinal Anaesthesia With Fixed-rate Metaraminol Infusion Versus Fixed-rate Norepinephrine Infusion), which is not on this map. Cited by 27 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
27citing papers in PubMed
6.2field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

NCT07363109 nanot yet recruitingnot on this mapstarted 2026, after this paper: background citation

Prevention of Hypotension During Elective Cesarean Section Under Spinal Anaesthesia With Fixed-rate Metaraminol Infusion Versus Fixed-rate Norepinephrine Infusion: A Double-blind Randomised Controlled Clinical Trial.

TypeinterventionalSponsorAretaieion University HospitalRan2026 to 2029Enrolled80ConditionsHypotension After Spinal Anesthesia, Hypotension During Cesarean DeliveryArmsMetaraminol infusion, Norepinephrine infusion
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

27 citing papers in PubMed, 79 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Observational
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Letter to the article by Juri et al.Journal of anesthesia · 2024
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Sina GhaffariAnesthesiology, University of Miami, Miami, USA.
Laleh DehghanpishehAnesthesiology, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, IRN.
Fahimeh TavakkoliAnesthesiology, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, IRN.
Hilda MahmoudiEpidemiology and Public Health, Nova Southeastern University School of Osteopathic Medicine, Miami, USA.
Shiraz University of Medical Sciences · IRUniversity of Miami · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction The proportion of women electing for cesarean delivery has increased in both developed and developing countries. Cesarean delivery on maternal request (CDMR) refers to a primary cesarean delivery performed because the mother requests this method of delivery in the absence of standard medical/obstetrical indications. Several studies compared anesthesia modalities in cesarean section regarding clinical outcomes such as maternal mortality, post-operative pain and bleeding, but only a few compared health-related quality of life (HRQoL) of women undergoing general anesthesia versus spinal anesthesia. The aim of this study was to determine whether pregnant women who undergo general anesthesia (GA) for cesarean delivery compared with spinal anesthesia (SA) differ regarding their perceived HRQoL. Methodology We enrolled 160 pregnant women with American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) class II, scheduled for CDMR with GA or SA. Anesthesia modality was based on patient's preference. Participants assessed their state of health with the EuroQoL-5 Dimensions-3 Levels (EQ-5D-3L) self-administered questionnaire at four time points: six hours before cesarean delivery, 24 hours after cesarean delivery, one week and one month after cesarean delivery. Patients also rated their health on the EQ visual analog scale (EQ-VAS) from 100 mm "best imaginable health state" to 0 mm "worst imaginable health state". Results More women who underwent spinal anesthesia reported "no problem" with regards to "mobility' (64% vs. 30%, p = 0.00), "usual activities" (90% vs. 38%, p = 0.00), and "pain/discomfort" (20% vs. 5%, p = 0.007). Repeated measurement analysis showed that the two groups started off with the same EQ-VAS score, however, both decreased over time with different slope resulting in different scores at 24 hours after CS. Then the scores increased in both groups over time and ended up being rather close at one month after CS. Discussion Unless there is a contraindication, neuraxial anesthesia is the anesthetic technique of choice for cesarean delivery in all parturient in general. This concept is based on more mortality and morbidity that have been seen with general anesthesia in this particular population. Our study demonstrated significant advantages of spinal anesthesia compared to general anesthesia in cesarean section regarding postoperatively perceived HRQoL. We showed that more pregnant women who chose spinal anesthesia as their anesthesia modality reported "no problem" with respect to "mobility" and "Self-care" 24 hours after cesarean section. On the top of that, more women in this group had "no problem" in their "usual activities" at one week and one month after cesarean delivery time points. Moreover, EQ-5D general health score was higher 24 hours after cesarean delivery with regional anesthesia comparing to general anesthesia. Conclusion We determined that compared to general anesthesia, spinal anesthesia is the technique of choice for cesarean section because not only it avoids a general anesthetic and the risk of failed intubation, but also because it provides effective pain control, mobility and fast return back to daily activities for new mothers and increase their quality of life.

Indexed as

cesarean delivery on maternal requestgeneral anesthesiahealth related quality of lifespinal anesthesia

Identifiers

PMID30788204
PMCPMC6373886
OpenAlexW2904594700

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.